2006-10-24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 36-2006 Robert Clark 1.
Tax Map No. 308.15-1-22, 20
Subdivision No. 14-2006 William & Deborah O’Reilly 5.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.-1-73
Site Plan No. 39-2006 Laconia Realty 8.
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-22, 23
Site Plan No. 4-2004 Great Escape Theme Park 10.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5, 4
Site Plan No. 41-2006 New Hope Community Church 19.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-7
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 10/24/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
TANYA BRUNO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT CLARK AGENT(S)
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL CI-1A LOCATION 46 VAN DUSEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
OFFICE USES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-95, SP 28-91 WARREN CO. PLANNING
8/9/06 LOT SIZE 0.57, 4.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-22, 20 SECTION 179-4-
020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BOB CLARK, PRESENT
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett and with me tonight is Bob Clark, the owner
of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, Mr. Jarrett.
MR. JARRETT-Last month we were tabled for basically three issues as I understand it,
actually four issues. Signoff from C.T. Male, signoff from the Fire Marshal’s office, and
additional information on lighting to document downcast fixtures, and a note that the
office, or the building would be office and storage only.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s on your drawing now.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and I believe we’ve complied with all of those conditions. I’ll defer
to Staff to weigh in here.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right, and I think that you have in your packet the C.T. Male
thnd
signoff, dated October 18, the Fire Marshal’s signoff dated October 2 are in your
packet as well, and the changes to the plans have all been included.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There will be a public hearing tonight, and we will be doing a
SEQRA this evening on this, the Short Form. Before we get started, I wish you would
just walk me through the section on the plan that talks with the parking. I had a little
difficult time with that, the six spaces.
MR. JARRETT-Do you have particular concerns, or just not understand what we’re trying
to do?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have particular concerns. I tried to go through it myself, and I
don’t seem to come out with, it’s four and two, six spaces, right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and we’re providing parking for the office only, and actually there’s
only going to be two people in that building. So we really only physically need two
spaces, and both sites are available for parking to serve the building. In other words, the
site to the north is owned by Mr. Clark, and this property that he purchased for this office
and storage. We’ve designated the new spaces to better serve both properties, but
especially this new office.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just interested in the calculation. I see the drawing itself, on
A-2, the building floor plan. This is your small drawing A-2.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. JARRETT-On A-2?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-That one.
MRS. BARDEN-The building plans.
MR. VOLLARO-I found the wording difficult, that’s all, Mr. Jarrett, trying to understand
what you were doing.
MR. JARRETT-On our Drawing C-1?
MRS. BARDEN-A-2.
MR. VOLLARO-A-2. It’s a small drawing. It’s got the office, the mechanical room, the
bathroom, the counter.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I’ll have to dig that out because I don’t have it in this packet. The
original parking calculations are actually on C-1, but A-2.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see them on C-1.
MR. JARRETT-A-2 is provided for the interior layout.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Why don’t you just go through the wording on C-1 for me, starting
with the existing off street parking for automotive sales and service northern lot. Just go
through that.
MR. JARRETT-One space per 200 foot of floor area, one space per 600 square foot of
service area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We don’t really have any service area. We have storage area only.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I was looking for the service area. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we don’t have service area. That was the conditions of this project
that it be storage only.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So we’re providing space for the.
MR. VOLLARO-So that term “service area” ought to be struck out of there, I would think
for the.
MR. JARRETT-For clarity now, it could be, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now it’s beginning to make more sense. Okay. Now that I know
that there’s no service area, I can understand where, how we get the six, okay. Good
enough. Thank you. When you come in with the finalized drawing, just make sure that
that says, instead of service area, storage area.
MR. JARRETT-This must have been your comment to me before, and I didn’t
understand your question. I guess that’s where that came from.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, just that you hadn’t re-submitted the building floor plans, Drawing
A-2. This is what verifies the parking calculation, and it can either be re-submitted, or
you can, and put that, or you could put it right on the site plan, C-1, whichever way.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll definitely do it on C-1, and I’ll look at A-2 and see if that needs to be
changed.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. No, A-2 is strictly a schematic.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. FORD-Could we have some clarification, please, on the amount of chain link
fencing with the green privacy slats? C-1. I’m just interested in how much of the area
will be covered by that.
MR. JARRETT-We intended that the fencing along the front would have that privacy
insert. In other words, the fence that faces Van Dusen Road would have that privacy
insert. None of the fencing along the side that borders the existing property.
MR. FORD-None of it will?
MR. JARRETT-Don’t need it. I mean, it’s his property. There’s no need for it facing his
property to the north. There was no intention to isolate those two properties. It was only
an intention to shield Van Dusen Road from the interior of this new property, the new
site.
MR. FORD-My only concern was the view of the side of this coming down Van Dusen.
Will there be sufficient vegetation so that will not occur?
MR. CLARK-On the north side is all trees, or the south side.
MR. JARRETT-The south side I don’t think is a problem. Are you referring to the north?
If you’re coming down Van Dusen from the north?
MR. FORD-Van Dusen from the south.
MR. JARRETT-From the south. I think there’s quite a bit of tree, vegetation there that
blocks that. If you feel it’s, if you feel it would be smart to show the privacy all the way to
that property line, privacy insert. It sounds like Bob’s willing to insert that privacy, the
green privacy insert along that south property line, bordering the next property.
MR. FORD-Thank you. Other Board members feel similarly?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s acceptable to me. I didn’t pick it up, but.
MR. FORD-It’s green privacy slats in the chain link fence.
MR. JARRETT-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else have any comments? Because I just have one more
and then we can get going on this.
MRS. STEFFAN-We talked about the green fence. What color is this building?
MR. CLARK-It’s going to be brown with green trim.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is that okay with everybody?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not a color person.
MRS. STEFFAN-If you would have said blue, we would have had a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One more thing. On Drawing C-1, the old Drawing C-1, you have
your wastewater system located properly. If you go to your new Drawing on C-1, it
doesn’t point to the wastewater system. Your arrowhead is off. Do you see it?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, I do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We can re-locate that later.
MR. VOLLARO-Just re-locate that. I just wanted to make sure when he runs his CAD,
he just moves it over, that’s all. It’s not like designing years ago, you know, you’ve just
got to press a button now.
MR. JARRETT-It’s too easy in some cases. Our designers won’t agree with you.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I just want to call to the attention of all applicants. On
the new record of resolution sheets that we have there is a new item that’s been placed
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
on there, Item Number Seven, and I’ll read it. It says “Whereas the applicant will provide
as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a
letter of credit.” That’s just hanging on here. We don’t intend that, but we’re going to
start making sure that the as built plans reflect the plans that were approved.
MR. JARRETT-I’m glad you pointed that out.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that I would call for a motion from. We have a public hearing.
Anybody want to speak to this application? No? Okay. Then I’ll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll have to do a Short Form SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ROBERT CLARK, 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 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2006 ROBERT CLARK, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. building and
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
associated site work. Office Uses in the CI zone require Site Plan Review by the
Planning Board; and
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 8/22/06, 9/19/06 and
10/24/06; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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.
7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2006 ROBERT CLARK, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, negative. Paragraph Seven should read, whereas the applicant will provide as built
plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. There are two conditions for this approval.
1.On Drawing C-1, on the parking space calculation, there should be a note to
change the service area to storage area.
2.On the south property line, to add green privacy slats to the chain link fence.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project.
MR. CLARK-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 SEQR TYPE N/A WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY
AGENT(S) MULLER & MULLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL
THREE ACRE LOCATION UPPER BAY ROAD, EAST SIDE ACROSS FROM
ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 60 +/- PARCEL
INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.001 AND 54.824 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 60 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.1-73 SECTION
A-183
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. MULLER-I am Michael Muller, and to my left is William O’Reilly and to his left is
Deborah O’Reilly. May I proceed to just tell you how simple it is?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. MULLER-It’s a very large piece of property that presently would be 60.824 acres.
It’s on the Upper Bay Road. It would be on the easterly side of Upper Bay Road. This is
about as simple as a subdivision can get because we’re taking the larger parcel and
taking off on its most northwesterly corner six acres, which would leave the remaining or
the residual portion still at 54.824 acres, as depicted on the map that we’ve supplied that
Mr. Martin prepared for us. This would not ordinarily be here except that there’s an
administrative subdivision provision that’s available throughout Queensbury except in the
Adirondack Park. So we are in the Adirondack Park and that’s why we are before your
Board. I guess I would like to point out that Staff has asked us on several occasions,
and it’s odd that they even remind us again tonight in their Staff notes that they’d like to
know what the APA has to say about wetlands. We’ve been all over it. The original
letter that I got from the Adirondack Park Agency, January 30, 2006, a copy was sent to
Craig Brown. I personally delivered a copy to Craig Brown in February and I also
submitted a copy of this same letter with this application. The APA has determined that
they have no jurisdiction. The APA would not have jurisdiction, and I agree with their
determination that there is no jurisdiction, so long as we do not subdivide any wetland.
We are not subdividing any wetland. There are wetlands on this property, and actually
and oddly enough, they are not APA designated wetlands on the APA map, but we
certainly have found wetlands. They’ve been determined to have wetlands, and none of
it involves the six acre subdivided lot. In fact, we’re quite far from it. The zone requires a
minimum lot size of three acres. We’ve doubled it. I’m the buyer. They’re the sellers.
The deal is I pay an arm and a leg for it, and they sell it to me, and then they use that
money to build their home on the big lot, and that was the other question that the Staff
notes asked. What’s the plan for the other lot. Build a home.
MR. VOLLARO-Are there two homes proposed? One is in the six acre and the other
home is down in the 54?
MR. MULLER-Yes, and I would honestly say those locations are not controlling.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re arbitrary. Yes, I can understand that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s only a proposal for two homes on the?
WILLIAM O’REILLY
MR. O’REILLY-We keep throwing people off when we say that.
MR. MULLER-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks pretty straightforward to me. You said you had a letter of non-
jurisdictional interest from the Adirondack Park? It wasn’t included in our packet. It
probably should have been.
MRS. BARDEN-I have it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you? Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s January 30, 2006.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just so I know. I didn’t see it in the packet. Did anybody else get
it?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve answered the other question I had, what is your future intent
of the remaining 54 acres. I understand what you’re going to do with that. I have no
further comments. It’s a Sketch Plan. There is no public hearing, and no SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of questions, actually one. There’s, on the map, two
dirt roadways shown. Are either of those proposed for a new driveway? And if not,
would those then be abandoned?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. O’REILLY-To the best of my knowledge, they were kind of there when we
purchased the land. I think some people have been trespassing on it and using it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, old farm roads or something maybe.
MR. O’REILLY-I don’t know if there’s any old farm roads there or whatever. It’s kind of a
rut and people have been driving down in.
MR. MULLER-Some time ago, I was involved with the Estate that sold it to them in the
first place. Before that sale, the area had been logged. So maybe that was logging
access.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s all I have.
MRS. STEFFAN-That makes sense. Yes, I certainly think that it’s a good use of the
land. With the map that was provided with the Town, there is a lot of unusable land just
because of the slopes and the hydric soils. So I think the plan that you’re proposing is
the most sound, together.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks good to me. I don’t see any changes coming in the Preliminary.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just have two comments. One is you’re located in the Lake George
CEA, and that should be noted on the maps, and Number Two, you’re also located in the
Lake George Park basin, Lake George basin, according to my review of the maps. So
that should be noted on your maps. It may impact development of the property. It may
kick off some new requirements.
MR. MULLER-Do the second one, in the Lake George Park?
MR. SEGULJIC-Lake George.
MRS. STEFFAN-You said Park basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-Lake George basin.
MR. MULLER-You’d like the map to say that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. You actually should have the, because I think it bisects your
property somewhat. You should look at the maps, and I think the CEA goes through a
portion of the property, whereas you’re entirely in the Lake George basin. That
information should be on the maps.
MR. MULLER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Will that kick off anything in 147 on the subdivision?
MR. SEGULJIC-That depends on what they plan on doing. If you’re going to disturb
more than 5,000 square feet, then you’re going to be subject to 147.
MR. MULLER-Yes, we’re familiar with the stormwater regs.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just so that, because we’re shifting around, when we get into
Lake George and the CEA, the Lake George basin, we shift over to the 147 stormwater
regs.
MR. MULLER-At this point all we want to do is subdivide it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MULLER-We’ll comply with all the other requirements before we stick a shovel in.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Sure. Gotcha.
MRS. STEFFAN-Anybody else?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s it, folks. It looks like a good plan.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. MULLER-It’s a great plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LACONIA REALTY AGENT(S)
JARRETT-MARTIN ENG. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MIXED USE – MU LOCATION
16-18 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO (2) ADDITIONAL 4-UNIT, 730
SQ. FT. MULTI-FAMILY UNITS WITH CORRESPONDING SITE WORK ON LUZERNE
ROAD. RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 26-05, SP 4-88, SP 10-88 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE 0.57, 1.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-22,
23 SECTION 179-4-020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett representing Laconia Realty. With me tonight is Cliff
Liptonburger, a member of Laconia Realty. When we last met it was June 2005, I
believe, and we received approval from this Board for two, four-plex buildings, two
additional two, four-plex buildings on the site, and we finally got signoff in September
from the Fire Marshal’s office, and unfortunately there was a mix up on timing and the
year site plan approval expired before the broke ground. So we’re back for an extension.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no questions. I looked through it. Everything’s here, as far as I
th
can see. We’ve got a signoff letter from C.T. Male dated October 18. They’ve re-done
it again for you in 2006.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, they did.
MR. VOLLARO-Fire Marshal’s letter of 9/28, the drawing package is the same drawing
package submitted on 8/15/05.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. C-1 through C-3, D-1 to D-2. I see no, the SEQRA was already
done, and on a modification like this there is no public hearing. That’s it. I don’t see
anything. I have no questions. If the Board has questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you sure there’s no public hearing? The agenda says that there
is.
MR. VOLLARO-But we’ve already done it, though. You don’t need it on a mod.
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think it is. The approval expired. So you’d have to hold the public
hearing, a new SEQRA and a new approval.
MR. VOLLARO-The SEQRA was already done. We’ve already done a SEQRA on this.
MRS. BARDEN-But everything expired. This is a new site plan, 39-2006.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do a SEQRA Short Form?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine.
MRS. BARDEN-A public hearing, though, first.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was asking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody here want to speak to this application, Laconia Realty?
Seeing none, we’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do a Short Form SEQRA on this.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 39-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LACONIA REALTY, 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 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2006 LACONIA REALTY, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes two (2) additional 4-unit, 730 sq. ft. multi-
family units with corresponding site work on Luzerne Road. Residential uses in the MU
zone require review by the Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 10/24/06, and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. 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
5. 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
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,
and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6. 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.
7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2006 LACONIA REALTY, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, unlisted, negative. Paragraph Seven, whereas the applicant will provide as built
plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-We’re all set.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 MODIFICATION PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME
PARK AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1213 & 1227 ST. RT. 9
APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF AS-BUILT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PREVIOUS
APPROVED HOTEL/WATER PARK SITE PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-04
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 SECTION
179-9-030, 179-9-050
JOHN LEMERY & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRSENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. BARDEN-I do have some information that was submitted that the Board has not
th
received. This is a response to Chazen’s October 16 comment letter for Great Escape,
this is from Lemery & Greisler, and a set of maps, itemized comment letter and maps
th
that you do not have, and again, dated October 20, and in response to that, Chazen has
th
submitted a comment letter dated October 27 that.
thth
MR. VOLLARO-27? Tonight’s the 24.
th
MRS. BARDEN-24, I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
thth
MRS. BARDEN-It was drafted on the 20, received at our office on the 24. Would you
like me to read it?
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. Is Stuart Mesinger going to be here tonight?
MRS. BARDEN-He is not.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s not. Okay. Yes, you may go ahead and read it.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. The Chazen Companies (TCC) has received a copy of the
response documents to our review comment letter, which was submitted to you on
October 16, 2006. The response letter was addressed to Mr. Craig Brown, Zoning
Administrator and Code Compliance Officer, and was prepared by Mr. John C. Lemery,
Esq. on behalf of the Six Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark. The response
documents consisted of a letter report, prepared by Mr. Lemery, four (4) 24” x 36” as-
built plan sheets, and two – 8 1/2” x 11” sketch drawings for revised handicap accessible
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
parking stalls. TCC finds that our review comments have been adequately addressed in
this submission, and recommends that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board accept
the as-built submission. Please feel free to call me if we can answer any additional
questions or provide any further information. Sincerely, Stuart Mesinger, AICP Vice
President, Planning Services.”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-The floor is yours, sir.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is John Lemery, Counsel
to HWP, LLC development company, and the operator and owner of the Hotel and
Waterpark. With us is Russ Pittenger who is from the LA Group who worked on the site
plan drawings for us and of course Scott Mauphin who is the General Manager and Vice
President, operates both the Hotel and The Great Escape Theme Park. What we’ve
submitted over the past several weeks to the Town represents, in effect, what are the as-
built drawings of what turned out to be the development of the Hotel Waterpark and the
associated infrastructure that went along with it. There were some changes as we went
through the process. We did not come back to the Planning Board for what we deemed
to be every single minor change, although I will say that we did consult with the Planning
Staff at every turn, and so the Planning Staff was aware of all the changes. What you
have in front of you is a set of as-builts which describes every single issue that you
pointed out to us needed to be deal with, stormwater management plan, the issue
relating to the number of parking spaces available, the questions that you raised about
the lighting, the questions that you raised about adequate parking for handicapped
persons. We hope you liked how it turned out. It’s been a massive amount of work, a lot
of money. We think The Great Escape and the Hotel Waterpark has been a good
citizen. We hope you like the way the bridge turned out, the lighting on the bridge.
We’ve gotten a lot of great comments about the traffic movement through that area this
summer. The Route 9/Glen Lake intersection seems to be working very well, and the
Hotel seems to be doing well. I think there’ll be a significant amount of revenue
generated, sales tax revenue generated, and bed tax revenue generated for the Town
and for the County. We’ll have completed a first year at the end of January of ’07. We
think that you’ll be pleased with that. There are over 200 employees employed there at
the Hotel Waterpark. Steady, good jobs. People seem to like it, seem to want to come
back. So we hope you’ll accept the drawings. Mr. Chairman, any questions you have
about these drawings I’m going to defer to both Scott and.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I’d just like to say that I think that all of us, your side of the fence,
our side of the fence, have put in several years on this project, probably from all the way
back to 2001, and we should be all proud of what we see there. I think it’s a great
project. We’ve had our disagreements, obviously, at times, which is pretty natural for
this kind of, the size of this operation anyway, but I think it turned out to be great, and I
do have a couple of minor comments that I can make, but before I do, I would like the
Board to comment on whatever they have. If anybody has comments on the Board.
MR. SIPP-I would like to second Mr. Lemery’s comments. As much as I have, over the
years, been a critic of The Great Escape, I think they’ve done a very good job,
particularly along Route 9, with the pedestrian bridge. The safety now that you feel on
Route 9 when you drive through there and you know there’s not going to be a kid jump
off the curb and run out in front of you. The intersection at Glen Lake Road and Route 9
works wonderful. I’ve had a lot of comments from Courthouse residents on how, 10
years ago this would have been nice, but at least we’ve gotten it. The fence that you put
up, to me, is a marvel of, whether it’s perception that you get with the fence or the color it
is or whatever it is, but it gives a sense of screening the parking lot, and yet not
screening it. So I think you deserve a very good round of appreciation from the citizens
of Queensbury for what you’ve done. That doesn’t take away the fact that I do have
some questions tonight.
MR. LEMERY-Sure. Thanks very much. That’s very kind.
MR. VOLLARO-If you have questions, just put them up.
MR. SIPP-Well, I don’t know if we’re going in any particular order at to your comments.
One comment I have is on the 23-B, the aerial photograph showing the, what goes down
to the gravel pit. On the, down in the pit on Area Eight, Area Six, Area Six, sand pit
surface improved with millings. Now, what are we talking about when we say millings?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. PITTENGER-This drawing was prepared in response to comments made by the
Town Staff regarding the use of this area for parking, which historically has been used
for parking, but a lot of the, there were materials that were placed there during the
construction process temporarily, and that area was then graded back off, and they got
some millings that they used when they re-did the Northway, the grindings of asphalt,
and they call it millings, if that’s the right term for it. That’s what I meant when I put that
note on there.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Now, the parking alongside the road, Area Five, I guess it’s called on
the map.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you still on 23-B?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Is there any provision to prevent oil, antifreeze, so forth, from getting
into the Fen from these parking positions, parking places that you have?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s a very good question. What I tried to indicate in doing this survey,
basically I went back and got an air photo from a couple of years ago and then went out
there, inspected it in the field, and in some areas there were changes, but generally
speaking, that area has not been really changed or affected. It’s a grass parking area,
and with the sand there and the grass treatment, and the character of that ridge as it kind
of rises up in that Area Five and then dips down, certainly to the north there are
stormwater controls there, but it’s an informal parking area. The grass is still growing.
So I don’t really believe it gets that intensive use.
MR. SIPP-It’s difficult to see. In fact I didn’t know until recently that you were even
parking down there, because it’s pretty well screened from Route 9.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-What’s the triggering mechanism that makes you use that area. If
there’s 1800 parking spaces across the street, when does that lot become utilized?
MR. MAUPHIN-Historically, that’s, this side of the road down this far, down in Area Five,
and even in Six, has been used on our heaviest Saturdays in the middle of summer, so
call it July and August Saturdays as needed.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So usually it’s when the other lots across the way are?
MR. MAUPHIN-That’s, yes, when we are looking for any nook and cranny to put a car,
that’s where we go, but we don’t like parking back there anymore than we absolutely
have to. It’s not, it’s difficult for us to even park cars back in both of those areas. So it’s
kind of a last resort, if, you know, as needed.
MR. SIPP-Coming back to that, has the old parking lot in Animal Land been, I think it was
used, as I saw, once during the summer.
MR. MAUPHIN-Yes, you’re talking about just south or, or up above on the hill?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. We did use it some this year, when the weather permitted, that we
needed it, but we haven’t really done anything to it. We haven’t changed it, you know.
Again, it’s another area that is difficult for us to manage. Once we get into some of those
outer areas, you know, it’s a bit challenging for us ourselves. So just to use it as kind of
as needed.
MR. SIPP-Are there plans for, in the hopper, for extending to the south your parking area
behind Martha’s?
MR. MAUPHIN-Well, it’s in kind of Phase II of that master parking plan. We don’t have
plans immediately to expand into those areas and formalize that parking.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. SIPP-And the other question was about the handicap parking. I was going to drive
in there today and I forgot to look, but where is the handicap parking now in relation to
the ramp that you built?
MR. MAUPHIN-It would be easier to show you on a map.
MR. FORD-And how many spots are there there, please.
MR. SIPP-Now this is for the restaurant I’m talking about, not the general parking area.
MR. FORD-Yes, Trappers.
MR. PITTENGER-The size of, the restaurant parking requires three handicap spaces,
we’ve provided four, and it’s right directly opposite the main entrance into the Hotel, or
into the restaurant, rather.
MR. SIPP-Okay, and the ramp is to the west of that, isn’t it, or are you still using the old
entrance that you did use before?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. This is still the entrance here.
MR. FORD-Are there other parking spots closer to the ramp than where it’s designated
for handicap parking?
MR. PITTENGER-There are, and one of the comments that Chazen made, which I really
did want to address with the Board, to clarify, is that they asked if there would be a
provision, or if there was a way to move those parking spaces closer, and there is a
walkway that runs from the pedestrian bridge to the restaurant and it crosses through the
island. Right through here, and the analysis that I put together, and that Mr. Lemery
discussed in the response to Chazen’s comments was that while we could move those
handicap spaces there, there’s no way for the people to safely get onto that pedestrian
crosswalk and get up there. You could reduce the distance by 18% by moving, by
relocating those spaces. So you could technically get a little bit closer, but the traffic
movements out at that island where people are coming in from the highway, turning, and
then turning to go out, we thought, we suggested to leave it where it is. It seems like it’s
a little bit farther than it might physically be, but I think it’s a safer and it’s a better
solution.
MR. LEMERY-We felt it was a safety issue, which is why we left it where it was.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Now, on the hillside, beneath the west side of your new yellow parking lot, the
one that was put in for the employees, you still haven’t conquered the erosion problem
there, and the lack of anything but weeds growing there. Are there any further plans for
that area?
MR. LEMERY-Are you speaking of the bank that goes down to the parking lot, Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-The one that goes down to your Six Flags Drive.
MR. SEGULJIC-Along the Northway that goes down to that ring road.
MR. SIPP-The one you can see right from the Northway, to the north of the Hotel, that
steep slope.
MR. LEMERY-I’m lost.
MR. SIPP-Just down from the Samoset cabins, just south of the cabins.
MR. PITTENGER-I think you’re talking about right in here, Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-Yes. Now you did well on the Route 9 side. You only had one tree die that I
see.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. The vegetation did pretty well. We planted new trees in there.
We’ve had some issues with establishing grass cover on that slope, but there’s been a
very, I haven’t seen any indication of erosion there. There’s been a little washout to the
road.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. SIPP-Now I’m talking on the west side, now, the one that faces the Northway.
MR. PITTENGER-The west side of the drive.
MR. LEMERY-Do you mean the hill coming down to the drive?
MR. SIPP-Yes. Now, it’s stabilized, I think, to a point, but it isn’t the best looking. Have
you ever thought of using something like Crown Vetch, or some kind of ground cover?
That stuff will grow almost any place, and it doesn’t really need mowing because that
slope is so bad you couldn’t mow it anyway.
MR. MAUPHIN-We actually did have to mow it once this year.
MR. SIPP-You did?
MR. MAUPHIN-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Up and down?
MR. MAUPHIN-Well, we had to hire a company to come in with special equipment to
mow, sort of like they do the highways I guess you could say. Yes. That vegetation did
get tall enough to definitely have to take it down, but I hadn’t noticed, recently, I hadn’t
noticed any new, even with some of the heavy rains we’ve had.
MR. SIPP-There’s a strip closest to the cabins and not on the steepest part or the
longest part of the slope that looks like from the Northway that it’s starting to gully out,
but I didn’t, as I say, I didn’t get down there today. I was going to go take a look at it, but.
MR. PITTENGER-I hadn’t noticed that in my site inspection, but we’ll certainly take a
look at it and get that stabilized. I wasn’t aware of it. So I appreciate your bringing it up.
MR. VOLLARO-With all the rain we’ve had, though, it’s held pretty well, I think.
MR. SIPP-Well, the Route 9 side, I didn’t give that much of a chance, and yet you’ve just
got to catch it at the right time, and only losing one pine tree out of the nine I guess you
put in there, twelve I guess you, yes, that was a pretty good, especially planting them in
the middle of the summer.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. It worked out very well. I think the advantage to some of the
stability that we realized from that slope was that there wasn’t any drainage area above
it. I mean, if we had water coming down to that slope, that would be difficult, but that
being the top of the watershed, it really only (lost words) rain that falls on it.
MR. SIPP-That’s all pretty fine sand in there anyway, so it’s going to soak up a lot of
water before you get. I think that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else? I’ll start with the other
end. Tanya, have you got any comments?
MRS. BRUNO-I have one quick question. It may have been addressed earlier, not
tonight but at one of the previous meetings. I’m just curious about the coaster that you’re
storing. Are there plans for that?
MR. MAUPHIN-There are plans. You’ve got to give me just a little more time. Actually,
what we’re doing, just to give you a little bit of perspective, we have to upgrade,
essentially, all of the power that is fed into the Theme Park. It’s a very antiquated system
with 13 different feeds that come into the Theme Park. We’re consolidating that this
year. So that it’s going to take us about a year to do it, with National Grid’s help, to bring
the power into one central area on the side of the Park, so that we can then re-distribute
through the Park. So I can’t do much, you know, growth wise until that really gets taken
care of. So if you can give me just a little bit longer, I promise it’s not going to sit there
forever.
MRS. BRUNO-Was this decision about the upgrade with the electrical relatively recent
compared to the purchase of the roller coaster?
MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. That was actually a ride that was re-located from a park that we
sold. We sold the Houston property, took all the rides out of it, shipped them to various
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
parks throughout the country. That’s one of the attractions we got, with the intent of, you
know, some time using it, but I’m just, the Park’s not in the condition to be able to accept
it at this time.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-Over the years, this was not always an easy ride, obviously, but I want to
compliment you on your responsiveness, because all parties took their responsibilities
very seriously, at the Board, at the Staff, and those of you who are representing the
companies. I think that the product can be pointed to with a lot of pride. It is a facility
that will provide, and is providing social, service, and financial assistance to this area,
and as I said, I believe that it is a facility that everyone concerned can point to with pride,
and I thank you again for your responsiveness over the years.
MR. MAUPHIN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we kind of built it together. I almost feel that way.
MR. MAUPHIN-Absolutely. A labor of love.
MR. VOLLARO-It was a labor. Let’s leave it at that. I do have a couple of comments.
What I did is I pasted these little guys together so I could get a good look at the Park that
way, but is there a reason why L2-01 is not part of that? It doesn’t make any difference,
because my comments have nothing to do with it. This is all we needed I guess really.
This is the key map that you call it?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and it’s supposed to emulate the big map L2-01, 02, 03.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And L2-01 was missing.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, I think that they just, I think we’ve just reformatted the window so
that it got it in two pieces instead of three pieces. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, there’s only one comment that I have. There’s about an
11% increase in the number of lights in the Hotel parking lot, in the trade off of that 160
square feet of impervious area. I’m talking right at the Hotel itself now, and I noticed that
the current uniformity ratio in there is 14:1, if you look at your L-5, it would be on L5-02.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Up in the upper right hand corner of L5-02 is a section in there that
shows where the uniformity in this lot, as opposed to 4:1 is 14:1, pretty high. The other
block down below is 4:1, 4:0, which is good, but I think that the uniformity ratio up at,
right underneath the Hotel.
MR. PITTENGER-The drop off.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, is pretty high. The only reason you want a good uniformity ratio,
people coming out of there, who’s eyes are used to a lot of light, and then getting into a
lower uniformity, in other parking lots, have a difficult time driving and seeing obstacles,
and I’m just concerned that that 14:1 is as high as it is, and I realize why it’s there,
because of the change in the portico and the design of it and you had to do some up
lighting and a few things like that, but now looking at the ratio of 14:1 seems kind of high
to me. Now, I drove up there the other night and it didn’t seem that way. It seemed okay
to me, but the drawings are talking 14:1, and I’m not sure why that is.
MR. PITTENGER-The only thing I can say is that what we did is we got the photometrics
from the fixtures that were actually put in there for the as-built, and that’s the numbers we
got. We didn’t really re-engineer it. We just entered those in there.
MR. VOLLARO-You weren’t changing the wattage that much, but you were changing the
deflection of light. That’s what happens when you fool around with the lights, you get a
lot of reflection off the top. Now, in the drop off area, when you look at your drop off area
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
in L5-02, the photometrics right around the Hotel itself, the entranceway are missing and
no place to, they cut off and it’s a blank on L5-02. There isn’t anything there. You know
which one I’m talking about?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-If you just pull L5-02 up and then look out where the portico is and it’s
blank. If you would have seen me today in my basement, these drawings of yours
covered the entire basement.
MR. PITTENGER-You’re talking for under here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There isn’t much. I’m looking for the lighting right in, let me relate
that to this drawing. We’re here, right?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I don’t see any lighting information in here, in terms of foot
candles at all, and I’m just wondering what that is. It’s probably.
MR. PITTENGER-It’s not shown on the plan, and I’m not sure why, I wouldn’t speculate
as to what it was. I know that we’re.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a large photometric drawing that’s got foot candles on the
ground. It’s not that one. It’s L5-, I think it’s still L5-02.
MR. PITTENGER-I don’t understand why it’s not labeled. I know that this was a retrofit.
We wouldn’t have had the architectural lights in there, that are underneath the portico.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, what’s the issue?
MR. VOLLARO-Nothing, I’m just wondering, well, if that’s where the 14:1 is, the
uniformity ratio, if there’s anything that could be done to bring that closer to the 4:1, now
the 4:1, you never get the 4:1, but 14:1 is quite high.
MR. LEMERY-I don’t think there’s any issue with respect to spill or lighting spill or
anything.
MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t got anything to do with lighting spill at all.
MR. LEMERY-What does it have to do with it?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to do with the two things sitting in your head, your eyes. When
you’re in a very light area, your eyes closed down quite a bit. As soon as you drive out of
that, your eyes are closed down that much, and you’re in a darker area, you don’t see as
well. That’s the reason we have Uniformity Ratio. That’s what that’s all about, and to me
it’s fine. I went up there the other night and I didn’t see a problem. I drove into it, and I
drove around it and to other parking lots.
MR. LEMERY-Nobody’s ever complained about anything with those lights.
MR. VOLLARO-Uniformity Ratio is in the Code. It’s in our Code at 4:1, and I try to get as
close to that most of the time as I can, and what I was just anxious to see, what was it on
the drawing, and it’s missing from that. Other than that, gentlemen, good luck.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Just as a point of information, what’s the big deal with tulip trees? Who
decided to substitute that?
MR. PITTENGER-Tulip trees were actually designed on the plan, and they were
commercially unavailable, so they all didn’t get put in that way. That was my bright idea.
I’ve got one over on Glen Lake. I said I’m just going to plant what I’ve got over on Glen
Lake. I figure it’ll grow here.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a no public hearing and no SEQRA on this, because of our
position on it, right? So I don’t have anything else. Anybody else have any comments?
MR. FORD-No.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-All set.
MRS. STEFFAN-I drive down that road several times a day, and the improvements are
very nice. It’s aesthetically pleasing, and I think that it’s a source of pride in the
community.
MR. LEMERY-Well, we hope that I’ll be a model for the rest of the Town. There’s some
areas in the Town that could use substantial cleaning up and straightening out, and we
hope that that’s kinds of issues will be addressed with other projects as we were put
through this scrutiny, because the ultimate end is that you have a nice product. So there
are other things you’re looking at here, for other projects, and there are some
improvements that could be made, and developers should be making some of those
improvements, and we’re appreciative of the fact that the Town and the County took
some responsibility and participated in some of the funding for the Route 9 intersection
and the turn lane, recognized that these were County/Town issues that weren’t just
unique to this property, and hopefully from this example, you’ll see these kinds of things
happen in the Town with developers and where the Town thinks Town intervention is
appropriate and the County also, to mitigate some of these traffic and other issues,
which we all see around here.
MRS. STEFFAN-Chris and I are on the Planning Ordinance and Review Committee
together and we were actually talking about some of the safety issues, and obviously the
pedestrian bridge was, you know, a matter of public safety, but there are some other new
businesses that have started up parking businesses in your area, and we actually talked
about how we could increase safety in the area. So it’s something that we’re talking
about on our Committee.
MR. LEMERY-Well, we wish you could do something about the two places across the
street that are selling spaces, but we don’t have, we can’t control that one. That’s up to
the Town Board, I guess.
MR. SIPP-That’s free enterprise.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, just make sure they have their sales tax numbers, that’s what I would
do.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments from my colleagues
up here, you know, about the final product, which, you know, I think is better than, really,
you know, it’s one thing to see something on paper, and it’s another thing to see it in real
life and to see how it really works, and I think we all got bloodied pretty good in the
process, you know, the public didn’t believe that the engineering improvements the road
improvements, the loop road, the changing of the traffic light and all those other
improvements would do what they were designed to do, and I can tell you, you know,
until this summer, you know, as a local person, you would never drive by The Great
Escape, because you knew you would get hung up in traffic and I tell you, the
improvements are wonderful. You don’t hesitate, now, to go down that section of Route
9, even in the peak of the summer, because the traffic light in the ring road, is doing
exactly what everyone said it would do, and I just wish, you know, we had the 400, 500
people that we had at the public hearing at the high school auditorium here tonight, you
know, to see the final product and, you know, to get up and say that it was what people
said it would be, even when the public said it doesn’t make sense, it won’t work. I just
would be remiss if I didn’t speak my mind on that specific issue, because, like I said, we
all got bloodied pretty good through that process, and it does work.
MR. SIPP-We kept your nose to the grindstone. Mr. Lemery can attest to that. That
open hearing, the first hearing at the high school, we kept your nose to the grindstone.
So this is what we ended up with.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, I mean we were, what, several months at those hearings, but it
turned out to be a good product, and it’s provided for the growth for the future, and
hopefully, I can speak to this, my client might not, but Six Flags has lots of options these
days as to what parks to keep, what parks to not keep, what investments to make, what
investments to not make. They’ve publicly stated that there are a number of these parks
for sale. The Great Escape is not a branded park yet. It’s not a branded Six Flags park.
The issue of the electricity that was mentioned, that’s a two million dollar or more
investment, in getting the electrical needs of the Park met. Charlie would get a three way
plug and plug it in and hope that it turned the Ferris Wheel. Those days are gone, and it
requires a 34-5 KV system that has to be brought down Round Pond Road into the Park
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
a large, and we went all through this with the SEQRA, and so that’s a big investment
that’s being made. There is an application before the Town for a new water ride that is
coming in in the next several weeks. That’s a very large investment by this Company,
which is a tribute to Scott and the people there, that they’re willing to make these
investments in this property, and that’s important in terms of, you know, where this all
goes, because you have to keep turning and creating new attractions to get people there
and to hopefully build your population base. So, so far, so good, so thank you for
everything you’ve done to help this process along.
MR. VOLLARO-By those comments, I assume that this Park is in pretty good shape in
terms of corporate view.
MR. MAUPHIN-This actually, this Park happens to be one of our new CEO’s truly
favorite Parks. He really likes the type of clientele and the charm that the Park has, and
the fact that it’s very family oriented. Some of the Parks we’re getting rid of are the ones
that are very teen oriented or don’t have that family focus. So this is a model that he
really appreciates this Park and wishes he could bottle it up and send it all over the
country.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now, if we could only guarantee good weather every weekend in the
summer.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, now, there’s a price that comes with that, you know.
MR. MAUPHIN-There is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’re done.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to do a motion on this?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GREAT ESCAPE
THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant seeks approval of As-Built improvements to the
previously approved Hotel / Water Park site plan
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. 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
5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered by the Planning Board, and the proposed modification[s] described in
the as built drawings do not result in any new or significantly different environmental
impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6. 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.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GREAT ESCAPE
THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered by the Planning Board, and the proposed modification described in the
as built drawings do not result in any significantly different environmental impacts and
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. We can strike Paragraph Seven
because these are as built drawings.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Good luck.
MR. STEFFAN-Thank you all.
MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much.
MR. MAUPHIN-Thank you, guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NEW HOPE COMMUNITY
CHURCH AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) NEIL FITZGERALD
ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL – THREE ACRE LOCATION WEST SIDE OXBOW
HILL ROAD BETWEEN GLEN LAKE RD. & NYS RT.149 APPLICANT PROPOSES
COSNTRUCTION OF 14,470 SQ. FT. CHURCH FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK. PLACES OF WORSHIP IN A RR-3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 14-2001 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE 19.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-7 SECTION
179-4-
MARK DEL SIGNORE & JIM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-Good evening, folks.
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
MR. DEL SIGNORE-I am Mark DelSignore. I’m an attorney that’s helping the applicant
and their agent, Tom Hutchins. We’re here tonight, obviously, at the outset of what we’re
trying to accomplish here on the site. We saw the Town Staff notes, and we know there
are a lot of issues that are still to be addressed. The New Hope Community Church has
been in the community now for six years, give or take a little bit. I think you know they’re
your neighbors across the street, and they enjoy being in Queensbury. They wanted to
remain in Queensbury, and after a long search for a parcel of land that could work for
them, this was a site that they found that potentially fit, cost wise, potentially for their
future hopes and plans. I know there are going to be some questions about the various
phases that are depicted on the drawings. Some of those things are possibilities even
more than probabilities at this point, things that could happen 15, 20 years from now, and
in preparing the application I know that the Church really wanted to be forthright with the
Board, let you know what may happen in the future, not try to pull the wool over your
eyes and say, no, this is all we’re going to do and be back in here in five years saying,
no, now we want to put another building or something of that nature.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, the reason we do that is not because it’s way out in
the future. When we do the SEQRA, we can’t segment that portion.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-Absolutely. I understand that as well.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve really got to consider the entire master plan, which is one of the
drawings.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-I understand that as well. From a proper standpoint, they wanted to
cooperate in the sense that, especially with something like Phase III which could be 15
or 20 years down the road. Probably occurred to them after the fact, even, to some
level, maybe at some point we’ll want to build a bigger building back there. It’s not
anything that they’re immediately planning, but it’s, given the location of the property and
the obvious concerns around there, and that’s the purpose of SEQRA as well, as you
know, is to make sure that we’re forthright on that. Tom, I think, is going to take you
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
through some of the phases and Pastor Langford is here as well. I think I neglected to
identify you, I apologize.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Principally what I was looking at to start off with is just taking a
look at some of the answers that were provided to Part I of SEQRA, the Long Form of the
Environmental Assessment Form. Part I is the part that you folks prepare, and one of
the things I was looking at on there, because that’s something, we’re not going to go to
SEQRA tonight, by the way, for absolutely sure. What I was looking at in there is, it’s in
the area of the trip generation, where we’re talking about, where did you say it was?
MR. HUTCHINS-I said Part B, Item One, it’s on Page Five of Twenty-one. Is that what
you’re looking for?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m looking for the trip generation. I thought I had it marked on here,
and I’m not sure why I didn’t. I have a couple of questions. I’ll get back to that. On
Project Description, again, B, it’s on Page Five of Twenty-one. We talk about 23 tons per
cubic yard. Is that 23 tons or 23 cubic yards, 23,000 cubic yards?
MR. HUTCHINS-23,000 cubic yards.
MR. VOLLARO-23,000 cubic yards. Okay. Just so you know, real quick like, 23,000
cubic yards is pretty much grilled into my head as to roughly the number of 15 cubic yard
trucks you’re going to need to get that soil out. You definitely are going to remove this
from the site?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes. There’s going to be a considerable amount of material that
will have to be removed from the site.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now 23,000 cubic yards, if you do that mathematically, and then
you look to start to scoop it and put it in trucks, believe me, it grows to more trucks than,
in other words, if you were to just divide the average truck, which is 15 cubic yards,
we’ve been all through this routine on another project, if you divide that into 23,000,
you’re going to find that you’re coming up to something like 1700 trucks, and then you
apply a growth factor to that material of about 20%, so you find that you’re going to get
more than 1700 trucks out of that. They have to go and then they have to come back.
MR. FORD-So you have to double that number.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have to double that number.
MR. HUTCHINS-No question there’s going to be a significant amount of construction
traffic in order to be able to do what they’d like to do on this site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So we’re going to have to, we’ll have to consider that as we move
along on this thing.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, sure, but it is construction only.
MR. VOLLARO-Once it comes out. We have another project, very, very similar, piece of
virgin ground, a lot of excavation required, etc. So it’s sort of grilled in my mind as to
that, we’ve got to be careful with that. Now under B-G is where you have maximum
vehicular trips generated per hour. In our Code, it states that that’s got to come out of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers. It states in our Code.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, that’s out of the ASHTO Guidelines.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s out of the Guidelines?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For this kind of a facility?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I’ll verify it.
MR. VOLLARO-Because we have 396 at full peak build out.
MR. HUTCHINS-Parking spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. HUTCHINS-We struggled a little bit, and if I could, we struggled a little bit in both
preparing the entire application and the SEQRA with whether we’re looking at Phase I or
whether we’re looking at build out, because in meeting with Staff, we showed them all we
had, and we were advised to prepare the application for Phase I, but submit the master
plan for build out. Now some of these questions, they can be ambiguous, there can be
different interpretations for what they’re asking for.
MR. VOLLARO-The SEQRA is not a simple form.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not, and the way some of the questions are phrased, I mean, let’s
talk about them, because sometimes we struggle in trying to come up with an accurate
answer.
MR. VOLLARO-I struggle here to try to look at the answers.
MR. HUTCHINS-The 150 came from an ASHTO Guideline and that would be for a
sanctuary of about this size space.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that came out of the ITE.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I will, again, verify that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s upon completion of the project, obviously. Okay. So
that would be looking at your full build out.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, that would be looking at Phase I. We tried to answer Phase I
where it was Phase I applicable, and when it asked for ultimately we addressed the
Phase III.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering if your second phase goes out about as far as you
indicated, I think it’s about 25 years that your other phases go out. Maybe just to clarify
this, should we look at just Phase I on this, or because the applicant has been
forthcoming in saying there’s going to be a Phase II and possibly a Phase III, that we are
now faced with the segmentation problem with SEQRA? It would be a lot easier if we
were to just look at this Phase I without, because it does complicate the issue as we go
down stream. Has anybody got any feel for that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we have to look at the eventual build out for SEQRA
purposes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think we do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because as you point out, you can’t segment it out, but for the site
plan, you know, we could just look at Phase I as they present it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we do SEQRA on a full blown master plan and then just treat
this site plan as a Phase I treatment. Okay. I think that’s as sane a position as we can
take on this. So what we’d have to do on this site plan, for example, we’d have to take
that 23,000 cubic yards of material and bring it down to Phase I only, unless you’re going
to do the entire site, you know, you’re going to excavate the entire site, flatten it, do what
you’re going to do to it, and then only build the Phase I.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, we’re going to do the site work for Phase I when we do Phase I,
and then we go to Phase II and Phase III, we’ll do the associated site work at that time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, but that means we’ve got to take a look at the 23,000 cubic
yards going out and say that it’s something other than 23. It may be half of that.
MR. HUTCHINS-I will re-look at that. Yes, I hear what you’re saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I can tell you the traffic, the truck traffic impact is going to play
pretty high here in this.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there’s just no way around it. It’s going to take a lot of material to
do what we want to do.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. HUTCHINS-So am I hearing that we want to address SEQRA items which is,
Environmental Assessment Form based on Phase I or on?
MR. VOLLARO-No, the Environmental Assessment Form, as Mr. Hunsinger said, has
got to be on your master plan. It’s got to be on the master plan so that we don’t segment
SEQRA, and then we will look at the site plan in terms of Phase I.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We can provide some revised materials, numbers.
MR. VOLLARO-And I recognize SEQRA is.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s just difficult to predict what we’re going to want and need in 20
years.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The other thing you’ve got to look at is I think C.T. Male has got a
ton of questions on this, 38 of them I guess, and so this has to be answered as well.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and there are some that will require some design adjustments and
some that are just clarifications of points.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that the County’s got it approved, but they’ve got an approval
with several conditions on it as well. The review of the intersections at Oxbow Road and
Route 149 and Oxbow Road at Glen Lake, including an independent traffic study,
including DOT review and approval, but what they’re really looking for there is the, I
guess is a traffic study that would be done by people who do those kind of things. One of
the big guys around here is Sear Brown, but they’re looking for a formal traffic study.
MR. HUTCHINS-They’ve recommended that, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Then they get down into the visual assessment of cut and fill on the site,
which is something I’d be interested in, to see how you’re going to arrive at what your cut
is and what your fill is, or maybe just your cut. You may be able to not take as much out.
MR. FORD-Bob, I just want to raise a question, and that is, before we go into more
questions and observations and so forth, do the applicant and his agents have a formal
presentation that they had prepared for tonight that we should be listening to at this
point?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think they might have. I just wanted to get some stuff that’s
glaring right up front out on the table first. If they want to go through a formal
presentation, that’s fine.
MR. HUTCHINS-I would walk through the project, if that’s what you want. I don’t feel
that I have to, but, I think, Robbie would like to have some comments to make as well.
ROBBIE LANGFORD
PASTOR LANGFORD-I just wanted to say hello. Thank you for having us here tonight,
and we, my name is Robbie Langford, and I’m the Pastor of New Hope, and I actually
was before you about six years ago in regards to the building that we’re in across the
street, and we’ve been there six years and the Lord has really blessed in the work that
we’re doing in the community, and I just want you to know that we’re here to serve the
community. We’re not here to be served but to serve and to give back and to try to
provide a service, just to be a blessing to this area, and we tried to, as Mark shared, we
tried to just find a location that would give us a place that we could settle in and really be
a fixture in the community, make a positive impact, and we could do that for a lot of
years. It wouldn’t be very smart for a church to build on a piece of property because you
can’t sell church buildings very often, and so for us to do a one phase and then have to
look for something else, so it was advantageous for us as well to look at that. So we’re
glad we did that. That’s our heart, and we’re here to answer any questions you have.
We want to do whatever we need to do that’s right. We want to be a positive impact on
the community, and so, you know, that’s our heart tonight.
MRS. BRUNO-How big is your congregation now?
PASTOR LANGFORD-Currently, 250 people.
MRS. BRUNO-And did it start out approximately at that? Were you a new church in the
area?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
PASTOR LANGFORD-Brand new.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I thought.
PASTOR LANGFORD-It started out with my wife and I, who’s here tonight.
MRS. BRUNO-So it started out as two, and you’re up to 250.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Yes.
MR. FORD-In six years?
PASTOR LANGFORD-Yes.
MR. FORD-Congratulations.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, especially when you see numbers at the churches declining
frequently lately.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, if you’d like to walk us through some of this.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. As you’re aware, the site is bounded by Oxbow Hill Road, Route
149 and Glen Lake Road. It’s nominally a 20 acre site, 19.7 acres. We propose access
entirely from Oxbow Hill Road. To give you a landmark, this is, along 149 this is the site
where the DOT had re-worked over the last few years. There’s a significant cut slope to
the westerly bounds of this. That’s this site. The Phase I proposal is for a nominally 500
seat sanctuary and associated office and support area. Parking with Phase I, which will
probably in reality be like a Phase I-A, but it’ll be done at the same time, are the athletic
fields. As far as, this is really the only really feasible access point for vehicle access. It’s
rather steep to the north. It’s rather steep to the south. It’s not as steep to the west,
however, this is really the only workable access.
MR. FORD-It’s also the safe one.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I mean, the County pointed out, this intersection isn’t perfect, nor
is this intersection, but that’s the logical place to access this site for this use, and we
have shown, in a grayed out square, Phase II would be an education and school support,
not school, but religious education support building that would be built really adjacent to
Phase I and that is visioned to be in the more near future than Phase III, okay. The
vision was five to ten years, and that could change, but that’s what their vision is at this
time. In order for the site to work, we need to move a fair amount of material. We’d be
reducing the height of the site by seven to ten feet off the top to create a level area to be
able to accomplish what we want to accomplish. Much of this material would be re-
located on site.
MR. VOLLARO-That was my question, because the SEQRA form says move off site. If
you’re going to re-locate most of it on site, that helps a lot.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, much of it will be re-located on site.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why we need a cut and fill.
MR. HUTCHINS-There will still be a significant amount of material that I believe where
I’m at at this point, there will be a significant amount there that we’ll have to exit. Parking
right now, we’re showing parking for, and I believe it’s 198 cars, and that’s based on
sanctuary use, some office use, and some athletic field use. Beyond that, in your
package, there is a grading plan for Phase I. There’s a master plan. There is a
stormwater plan, wastewater systems. Unfortunately, we’re not in an area where there’s
public water available. So we’d be relying on on site water supply and wastewater
systems. We have met with the Zoning Administrator on several occasions. We’ve met
with the Fire Marshal and the local fire chief and they have reviewed our plans and feel
that it’s a, from that standpoint, it’s a workable site layout. They did have a few
comments that we did incorporate, and with that I guess I’d leave it to you folks for
specifics. If you guys want to add anything.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
PASTOR LANGFORD-No, I think you covered it well. In terms of the Phases, I think
there was some question about that. I think we would call these educated guesses.
We’re just trying to do the best in terms of the development of a growing church family,
what would be the infrastructure that would be needed to support that. The next phase
would be an educational kind of facility, and we’re not thinking of a Christian school or
anything like that, but something more for bible studies, a nice children’s play area. We
have winters here that last for a while, and we’d like to have some indoor facilities. This
first Phase is actually a multi-purpose facility, because we want to be good stewards of
the resources we have. We really don’t want to have a sanctuary that sits all week, you
know, it’s only used once a week, but we want to be able to have children in there and
play basketball and indoor soccer and things like that, but the Phase II, Phase III, they’re
just, as best we can tell, good guesses for now, that we think over some course of time
we would like to see happen, but we really have no way of really predicting what that
timeframe would be.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly looking at the plan, I mean, this is, there’s dreams here,
and so there are lots of possibilities that can happen here. I mean, you could have lots
of things going on here, but I certainly think that the site, it’s very interesting. It does
have a lot of possibilities. When we walked it, all of a sudden when you get up on the flat
spot you start to realize the potential of the site. So, there are lots of options here.
PASTOR LANGFORD-We were really excited about it.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have on site septic, Tom?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see any test pits. I notice that a lot of it looks like it drains pretty
deep.
MR. HUTCHINS-I haven’t done test pits at this point. It’s granular material. That’s
evident from driving down Route 149, and I will get to that. It’s, to get to really where
we’re going to do the system is going to be a very deep test hole, and there are some
issues. We’ll have to coordinate with the Town on test holes.
MR. VOLLARO-You only need one up near where your field is going to be, pretty much, I
would guess.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned earlier that the western edge of the site slopes down.
There was actually a gravel bank, and material was used, taken from there when 149
was re-built, because you may remember the mining permit. So how much of that does
your site encompass, I mean, compared to that house that’s there at the base of the hill
to the west of you?
MR. HUTCHINS-We are, we’re essentially at the top of the slope.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That helps.
MR. HUTCHINS-This is cut, I don’t know when this photo was done.
MRS. BARDEN-2004.
MR. HUTCHINS-Because the cut slope now runs from about here down through here.
There are concrete monuments that are visible, roughly halfway up that slope, which is
our parcel line. We’re staying back, which is why we’re staying back quite a ways here,
we don’t want to be down working within that slope, because it would be difficult working,
but the top of slope is about the clearing line.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other question I have, and I didn’t have the advantage of walking
this site, like some other members, but was any thought given to moving the Church
itself closer to Oxbow Hill Road?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we tried that, and for one reason or another we weren’t able to
make it work as well we felt this one worked. Now that’s not to say we couldn’t re-look
at, but what we did, we started with their vision of Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, athletic
fields and tried to lay it out as best we could on this site to try and make it all work.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
PASTOR LANGFORD-Could I speak to that? Just briefly, we’d certainly be open to
other options if that’s what we need to think about, but we really want to focus on our
focus, which is reaching out and serving and not so much buildings. I mean, buildings
are a necessity, but for us, the athletic fields and serving the community was more of a
focus. When you come into our facility, we wanted that to be the focus, rather than just a
big building.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I think that’s why I raised the question, because I think, you
know, you want to put your best presentation to the public, and that’s the front of the
Church. It’s not a big parking lot and a long driveway, and, you know, and that’s exactly
why I thought of it. I understand your point.
PASTOR LANGFORD-We thought it would be a pretty nice view, coming down 149, you
know, you’d have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was wondering, if that was in your thinking.
MRS. STEFFAN-See, I have to admit when I was looking at the plan I thought about
driving on 149 and seeing that. It reminded me of Ronald Regan’s shining city on a hill
kind of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I just could sort of a final comment, just to reiterate some of the
County Planning Board comments, I use that road maybe five or ten times a week
anyway, and I remember after they finished the 149 project thinking I can’t believe they
didn’t make the sight distances better when you’re coming out Oxbow Hill Road onto
149. Because that’s really pretty tricky. It’s not so bad at night because you can see the
lights from cars coming from a distance, but, you know, cars driving west, you know,
when you’re taking that left hand turn out onto 149, they’re on top of you pretty quick.
PASTOR LANGFORD-We’ve tried to look at that, too, and we kind of tracked, of course,
you know, we can’t project all the way out, but about 70% of our Church population goes
to the east and to the south and so we feel like there’ll be a minimal amount,
comparatively, taking that turn, but it certainly is an issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I know that the location you’re in now you lease, and it’s
kind of ironic, before I knew that this was coming before the Board, I was thinking, gee, it
would be nice if you could somehow convert that existing building into something that
was.
PASTOR LANGFORD-We actually had that opportunity, but it’s the difference between
one acre and twenty acres. There really was no, we had the opportunity a couple of
years ago to purchase the building for a pretty decent price, but it just didn’t make sense
to us to kind of be confined to one acre and then have to turn around and try to it
ourselves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-We have initiated an inquiry with DOT and they’re going to take a look
at our plans, and he had indicated technically if we don’t propose an entrance to 149,
they’re not going to have jurisdiction, but they would take a look at it and get us their
comments on what they felt were issues we should be concerned with.
MR. FORD-And in none of the three phases are you anticipating that however, correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Anticipating an access to 149? No. We may institute a right of way
work permit in order to do some grading within their right of way. When they re-worked
that, they did a taking, and they took quite a chunk of what was this parcel. So we may,
we will likely request a work permit in order to grade some of that, cut their slope down a
little bit.
MR. FORD-Right. Good.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-One of the concerns of the Church also, I’m sorry, one of the
concerns that they have is, you know, obviously we’re not talking about Six Flags here.
So one of the concerns obviously is the impact, the financial impact of all the studies and
tests that are going to be involved with this. So that was one of the reasons that they
tried to figure out where some of the vehicles would be going, things of that nature, what
the real impact of that would be. The County, they were saying the same things that Mr.
Hunsinger was just saying in terms of, you know, turning left off of Oxbow Hill Road and
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
looking the other way and they made it sound, I was thinking they were thinking that it
was Giants stadium letting out or something, there was going to be this line of cars, or
Field of Dreams with just the headlights coming out onto the road. I don’t necessarily
think that that’s the way that this is going to turn out. There’s certainly not that many
cars, but that’s one concern that we wanted to raise was the impact of, or at least the
balancing of the burden on the Church to the benefit and the protection of the
community, which obviously they’re, is the utmost concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and I can appreciate what you’re going through, because the
church that I belong to we went through that about three or four years ago, and we spent
a lot of time, there was, you know, I can’t tell you how many hours spent in site selection
alone, and there was a site that we looked at, and then it turned out it wasn’t going to
work, and then we got fortunate that adjacent property suddenly became available, after
we had pretty much exhausted any other potential site. So I can appreciate what you’re
going through. I realize how difficult it is.
PASTOR LANGFORD-It’s been a two year process, really, of just trying to balance out
our needs as well, and we have tried to consider the community, and still that’s our
concern here, and so we want to try to balance all of that, but it’s been a two year kind of
a touring process of finding the right place, the right location, the balance of impact on
community, and so that’s why we’re pretty excited about this piece.
MRS. STEFFAN-I do think that if you’re going to excavate as much as you are, you
would, from a Town point of view, you’d have to have a pretty heavy landscaping plan to
reforest the lost vegetation, because, you know, there are a lot of trees there, and there
should still be a lot of trees there when you’re all done with the project.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-We’re anticipating some concern from the south on that also.
PASTOR LANGFORD-And because of the fact that there’s several areas that just aren’t
usable for building, that’s going to kind of give a natural buffer in a lot of ways. We
certainly want to consider that. We’d be open to whatever we have to do.
MR. VOLLARO-On the drawing there is a line of, no disturbance line set up on there. So
it looks to me pretty good. My one concern I guess is coming out on Oxbow as an exit is
fine, I don’t see a problem with that. I understand the problem concerning a left hand
turn on 149, but that’s consistent with what we do in this area. What I am, and Mr.
Hunsinger and I always get into this little discussion about trucks on the road, and I have
no problem putting trucks on the road. It’s the question of the interjection of those trucks
onto 149, particularly if they’re going left for their deposit as opposed to right. That’s
something you should at least think about, when you’re going onto this. If you’ve got a
whole bunch of trucks on the road, and majestically you can just set down another 1700
trucks in that traffic flow, you probably don’t even see them, but when they’re coming in
at right angles to that, and, you know he’s geared down, stopped, he’s got to gear up
with a load and he’s got to get on the road. That presents a problem, a safety problem,
because 149 runs pretty quick.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it does.
MR. FORD-Keeping that in mind, that are alternatives to truck traffic increase on 149, by
using the other routes, Glen Lake Road.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-To a degree I think that that would happen, but also we want be
good neighbors, and we recognize that that’s a residential area. So, I agree that we’ve,
and we had discussed that also, you know, using alternative routes, but the Church
plans on being there a long time, and it doesn’t benefit them to start off on a bad foot with
their neighbors.
MR. FORD-I appreciate that.
MR. VOLLARO-149 is probably recognized as pretty heavy truck traffic route today, right
now the way it stands. Glen Lake Road might have an erosion problem into the lake
itself.
MR. FORD-It could.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to look at that. A lot of things these folks have to look at. It’s
a beautiful piece of property. Gretchen and I walked it all over, took a really good look at
it. It’s a pretty piece.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-Very nice. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could jump in here, I have a few issues, concerns. One of them is
Farm to Market Road. One of the things on the Comprehensive Plan it discusses is
protecting the relatively natural setting of the area. One of the things to me along 149,
Farm to Market Road, is the natural setting of it. So to me, personally, I wouldn’t want to
be driving along and all of a sudden have this big massive area to be seen. I’d rather
have it all buffered out. The other thing is, the other big concern is you are in the Glen
Lake watershed. You’re going to have a lot of water runoff. You’re going to have athletic
fields, so I would assume you’re going to be using a lot of fertilizers. So I’d want to see
some enhanced stormwater controls to mitigate that as much as possible. The third
thing is traffic from Oxbow Road. The third question is, you’ll notice, you talk about the
third phase. What would that be in theory?
PASTOR LANGFORD-We think it would probably be a larger version of Phase I. Going
along with the same philosophy of being good stewards of our resources, we want to use
it as much as possible. What I mean by that is not using it just once a week and letting it
sit all week, and so it would probably be, Phase I is actually a full size gym with a stage
that would be made to look very nice inside, but that we could use for athletic kinds of
outreaches and ministries. The Phase III we think would probably be much like that, just
a larger version.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question, does anybody here want to talk to this
application, in terms of a public hearing? Okay. There are people here that want to
speak to this. So we’re going to let the public come up and speak to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAN ELLSWORTH
MR. ELLSWORTH-First of all, I’d like to let everybody know, my name is Dan Ellsworth,
and I live on Oxbow Hill, 374 Route 149 is my legal address, but I actually own the entire
opposite side of Oxbow Hill opposite side of Oxbow Hill. My property borders from Glen
Lake Road all the way up Oxbow to 149. I’ve got a little over three and a quarter acres
there. Until five o’clock this afternoon, I hadn’t heard one thing about this project. A
neighbor of mine actually knocked on the door of my house and he said, do you know
there’s a proposed 20 acre operation going on here with soccer fields and churches and
all this and supposedly there was mailers sent out and people were informed but I’d
never heard a thing about any of this until this afternoon. So I rushed home from work. I
own a few businesses here locally, a motel, I have a campground and a construction
company. I actually do road construction. So I have a little input on what goes on with
this stuff, and to me, forgive me for sounding frank, but it just sounds a little bit ridiculous
to me. I mean, as it is now, for me to pull out of my driveway and get on Oxbow Hill
Road, from the months of, I would say April to September, the traffic is lined from Route
9, past my house on 149, sometimes it reaches Bay Road, and you talk about doing a
study now, at this time of the year, for traffic control, there’s no way an accurate study
could be done at this time of the year because the traffic amounts that are today versus
the months in the summertime is totally offset. There’s no way you could get an accurate
study.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’d like to be looking for a study to be done in May, June, July?
MR. ELLSWORTH-Absolutely. I mean, and clearly this road project that was done on
149 by the State was supposed to help stuff, but all it actually does is increase the speed
that people traffic, that people drive. They go to a red light. There’s no farther they can
go. They just drive faster from Bay Road to the red light on 149, and, you know, I have
kids that get on the school bus there. I have to wait myself at seven in the morning with
my kids to go to school because I’m scared to let them stand in my driveway which is on
Oxbow Hill because people fly around the corners, they do this, they do that, and I just
feel more comfortable I put them on the bus myself, and then, you know, I know the
Church has good intentions, and it’s not to say, you know, that it may be a great thing,
but they talk about, you know, they care about their neighbors and this and that, I know
me, when I do a job for somebody, the first thing I do is before I set up for my equipment
anything, I go to the neighbors that are around the job site that I’m around and I say, how
are you. My name’s Dan Ellsworth. We’re going to be working next door for the Smiths.
I’m going to have trucks parked over here. This is my plan. We’re going to be doing
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
such and such work. If there’s anything I can do for you or any questions you have, if
something’s in the way, this is how it is, and like I said, nobody even approached us. I
heard this at five o’clock, you know, and I came here and I don’t know what else to say
but I’ve got a half a million dollar house there, and when this place is built, my property
value is going one way, and that’s down, okay, and I pay taxes, almost $10,000 a year,
for an organization across the street that’s going to be tax free, and they talk about a
benefit to the community. I’d rather see a housing development there, to be honest with
you. At least it puts more tax paying dollars into the community and it creates revenue,
you know, basically this is a free ride, and I’m just not, under no circumstances, I can’t be
anymore frank will I accept this, and I really don’t have anymore to say.
MR. VOLLARO-Would you just point out on the drawing where is your piece?
MR. ELLSWORTH-This square right here, that’s all mine. I own the whole road on that
side.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
VIRGINIA ETU
MS. ETU-My name is Virginia Etu and I’m on Nacy Road, and I think I agree a little bit
with some of Dan’s comments, and, Tom, I agree a lot with your comments. I think that
building a church is one thing, but we’re looking at a complex here. We’re really looking
at more than just a sanctuary. I mean, we’re looking to develop 20 acres of land, and if
you look at that parcel, and you look at our parcels down below that, that’s
overwhelmingly larger than our whole community of residences, and I don’t want you to
feel that because there’s not a lot of people here tonight to speak on this, I contacted a
number of my neighbors as well, a couple who told me also that they didn’t know about
the hearing tonight. So I don’t know whether they were on the mailing or whatever, but, I
mean, you only have to look at that map to see the impact that that size parcel, 20 acres,
is going to have on the 20 parcels below it.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you on Glen Lake Road?
MS. ETU-I am. Actually, I’m on Nacy Road. Do you want me to show you where I am?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Sure.
MS. ETU-Right here. Actually, I’m here, and again, I think, Bob, you hit a lot of concerns.
I mean, this construction phase is going to be an absolute nightmare. I mean, 1700
truckloads coming in and out. I mean, just to get to Phase I is going to be such a
disruption and interruption of, you know, 20 families who live below that area. Again, I
think my concerns are the traffic, and I agree very much with Dan. I think you have to do
the traffic study in the proper timeframe. I also travel that road 15, 20 times easily a
week, and sometimes it’s very difficult getting out of Oxbow Hill Road and taking a left on
149. You’re talking about seven a.m. in the morning to go to school, or whatever, so I
think traffic’s going to be a major concern about that, and one of the comments that I
heard that concerned me, I think, when I was listening, was that the New Hope
Community Church wants to not have this property just be used on Sunday for services.
I mean, they want to use this property as much as possible, you know, which to me might
mean as much as seven days a week. We’re not talking just about a place of worship.
We’re talking about athletic fields. We’re talking about bringing in, I mean, if we’re
talking about 250 people in a congregation right now, we’re talking about building 400
parking spaces, that doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. I’m very much
concerned about it being in the Glen Lake watershed. I was one of the original people
who helped draft, write and develop the Glen Lake watershed management plan. While
this may not be considered a CEA, I mean, it certainly will have a huge impact, I think, on
the Fen which sits lower down there which, just the runoff alone on 149 is really taxing
that particular fence that feeds into St. Mary’s Bay, into Glen Lake. So I think that, you
know, the piece of property itself I think really has an environmental impact on that entire
area. I agree very much with Gretchen’s comments regarding the vegetation. I think that
there are so few parcels of land left in the Town of Queensbury that offer that kind of
beauty at 20 acres. I mean, it’s heavily forested. It’s a wonderful piece of land as you’re
coming from either the east or the west, and I think that, given the amount of construction
and 23,000 cubic yards of gravel and excavation going on there is really going to destroy
an absolutely primo piece of property that we have left. I’m really concerned about that.
I know we’re in the very beginning stages, but I can assure you that as this project
moves forward that there will be much more public input on this, and I can tell you that
many of my neighbors who were unable to make it tonight, or who were uninformed
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
about tonight, are very concerned about this. It’s a huge project. It’s not just a
sanctuary. We’re talking about building a complex here, and it’s much more than I think
that we have to look at on it. So, my concerns are the same, I think, as many of the
Board members who have talked tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to ask the Staff a question. The first person who spoke,
Mr. Dan Ellsworth, his property looks like to be as close as 500 feet. Are we doing 500
foot notifications?
th
MRS. BARDEN-We did do 500 foot notifications that were sent out October 17. Daniel
Ellsworth is listed at 374 State Route 149.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they went out. You didn’t get to see them?
MR. ELLSWORTH-I have no reason to lie that I didn’t receive the statement.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I wasn’t saying that. I notice that we’ve got your name on the list.
MR. ELLSWORTH-My neighbor’s sitting right over here. He can tell you he knocked on
my door at five o’clock this afternoon and that’s where I found this out.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. ETU-Yes, and my direct neighbor next door to me was not aware of it, either, and,
you know, so, I mean, I don’t know. I did get a notice, but again, I can tell you right now
that almost all of Nacy Road all the way over to probably the Sicard area, the cabin area,
all of those neighbors are going to be I’m sure either writing or voicing opinions. It’s a
beautiful piece of property. It requires a great amount of change and unfortunately I think
it’s negative change for a project of this size. This is a complex they’re looking to build,
and it’s a shame.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? This gentleman.
MARK DURANTE
MR. DURANTE-I’m Mark Durante, and I’ll just point out where I live on the map. This is
my house right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. DURANTE-My first thought is regards to the comment regards to consideration for
the community. When I reviewed the print today, the site layout, I was surprised that
there was that much white space and there wasn’t any references made to the homes
that are in the area, right close by. Mine’s obviously one of them. I was also amazed at
the size of the project. When I got the notice in the mail, it said, you know, 14,000
square foot church, and then when I came up and looked at the prints, I saw parking for
300 and some odd cars, ball fields, multiple buildings. I was shocked to consideration of
putting a complex like that in a residential neighborhood. I mean, I bought my house
eight years ago, and I considered that, and I never would have guessed, I assumed other
houses would get built around me, but not a complex. I won’t talk anymore on traffic. It’s
on my list. Everybody’s already talked about it. I think that’s been considered. Another
concern I have, the front of my house looks out at this property. There’s going to be
lighting, outdoor lighting in the parking lots. That’s going to be presumed glaring in.
That’s going to change my skyline.
MR. VOLLARO-We have a foot candle level. We talk about two foot candles. So it may
not be as bright as you think, but I know what your point is.
MR. DURANTE-It’s still lighting that’s not there now, and I certainly wouldn’t expect
commercial lighting when I moved in there. Looking through the documents, and we
touched on that a little bit earlier, I don’t think the intentions are real clear of what the use
of the facility are. I think there needs to be a better description presented as far as hours
of operation, throughout an entire week, anticipated occupant load, you know, what are
the activities? Daycare was mentioned. So is this property going to be leased out,
rented for a commercial use? I would like to know all that, and I think the Board needs to
have a clear understanding of the use, of the intended uses of the property. In regards
to the removal of the gravel, I scoped the property. I’ve looked at it, and I guess it’s not
clear to me why the gravel would have to be removed, and I’ll be direct. My concern is
it’s an opportunity for funds. It’s premium gravel. It’s an opportunity to scrape it off and
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
sell it. I don’t see why, it’s flat on top, and I’m not sure why, as far as a site plan, that
gravel would even need to be removed, and I think it should be questioned what the real
intent is of removing the gravel. Is the sale of that gravel part of funding the project?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll get that answered for you.
MR. DURANTE-It was mentioned that people have looked at the property. I was here
when it was proposed to remove gravel to do the re-work on 149. I was very concerned
with that property being allowed to be excavated, because it’s in front of my house. I
was afraid some day, if they could allow it now, they’re going to come through and totally
take out that whole hill, and then I’ve got 149 directly in front of me. I didn’t get anywhere
stopping that. It still happened, but I was assured that the re-planting, the trees would be
put up, grass would be planted, and it would look good after it was done, and was it three
years later, anybody can drive by and look what was done. There were a few trees stuck
in up there, and grass doesn’t grow on gravel, and there was, I think, poor effort put in to
trying to make the property look natural again. It looks like hell, from 149, and I’m just
not sure how the Planning Board can hold a contractor’s feet to the fire when it comes to
following through on doing a decent job, once they’ve stripped, in making it look right.
The other concern I’d have would be the noise from the soccer and ball field, just the
whistles, the crowd coming into the neighborhood, and again, I stress that the
neighborhoods were not shown on that site plan, and I think as a point of reference they
should be shown, of the homes right in the close vicinity. I also, my last comment would
be I feel, because of what I’m hearing tonight about it’s not clear and it doesn’t appear
that anybody was notified, there should be another public notice put out. I’m just asking
that. Obviously, I can only ask that, and it should extend beyond people just within 500
feet of the property, because when you look at the site plan, and Virginia mentioned the
size of that lot compared to the quantity of homes down by the lake, I don’t know if that’s
within 500 feet, but I think that should be re-considered, for this case, just because of the
size of the property and the scope of the work.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m kind of surprised that people within 500 feet didn’t get it. We’ll
look at this public notice thing, extended.
MR. DURANTE-Okay. That’s it. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Anybody else?
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-I’m Paul Derby. I live on Ash Drive, President of the Glen Lake Protective
Association, and the Association is obviously concerned with a project this large going
within the Glen Lake watershed, and I have a request, and then just some items. I have
a request that the Association be put on that mailing, if there are public hearings for this
project. Our address is Glen Lake Protective Association, P.O. Box 4135, Queensbury,
NY 12804. This is a rather large project, and again, I urge the Board to look at the Glen
Lake watershed management plan which was adopted by the Town of Queensbury in
1999. It is pretty extensive about development within the watershed and the projections
of different types of development in that, and that’s a resource that I can certainly get
you, if you don’t have. Water quality being our Number One issue, the issues related to
this are similar to the things we talked about with The Great Escape, ideas of stormwater
runoff. Obviously it’s a pretty severe slope there. So we’d want to take a close look at
the stormwater runoff. Mr. Seguljic made good points about these fields and fertilizers
on these fields and the runoff, potential runoff into our watershed, into the lake. We’d be
concerned about erosion, particularly after 149 was reconstructed a few years ago, we
had a rather large storm event and the erosion from that storm event into the St. Mary’s
Bay into the Lake was pretty tremendous, in some cases almost taking away foundations
around homes. So we’d want you to take a close look at that. Obviously septics. Tree
line buffers, visual impacts, lighting impacts that may effect lakefronts.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a big project, I agree.
MR. DERBY-Yes. So I guess I’m just asking if we can sort of be in the loop here, that
would help us.
MR. VOLLARO-Did Staff get the address for that?
MRS. BARDEN-I did.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, and that would be to the Glen Lake Association.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. DERBY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And then you will distribute that to the rest of your members?
MR. DERBY-Yes. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I just have a couple of comments, and
they’re administrative. In the past, it was always the applicant’s responsibility to notify
the neighbors within 500 feet, and it worked. We had to turn in the return receipts from a
certified mail. They were kept on file at the Town, and I don’t know why we changed
that. Now the Town is in the middle of this obligation to notify the neighbors, and as I
say, it used to be the responsibility of the applicant, but we get changes of administration
and they just changed the rules, if you will. So you could preclude this discussion of
notification and non-notification by dump it back onto the applicant. It should be their
responsibility. The second thing I’d like to address is the discussion you had with regard
to SEQRA review. There should be absolutely no need to do a SEQRA review on
speculation, what these people think they might be doing in the future. You folks that are
on the PORC Committee may remember my comments with regard to a Supplemental
EIS. That’s the way this should be done. You do an EIS on the project that’s before you,
and if some day in the future they come back with an expansion of that project, and
addition to that project, you simply do a Supplemental EIS, and there’s a procedure for
that. Things can change in the future. A by-pass could be built and 149 is no longer an
issue. These work to the advantage of the applicant. Environmental conditions can
change and put a greater burden on the applicant. So I think it’s foolhardy to try to sit
here and speculate as to what this project’s going to look like at some time in the future
when you don’t know what the externalities are going to be around this project.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things we don’t know when we go into SEQRA to begin with
is whether we’re going to actually ask for an Environmental Impact Statement, or an EIS,
as a result of the questions. Most of the time when you do the questions the answer is
small to moderate. When you get to the small to moderate column, that doesn’t trigger
an EIS. The only thing that triggers an EIS is when you get over into the right hand side
where it says major. Now you’re getting into the EIS domain. So, we don’t know yet. I
understand the supplemental, but we don’t even know, on this project, whether we’ll get
to an Environmental Impact Statement or not.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the way to ensure that is to do a full blown EIS on this part, okay,
and then that triggers, automatically, a supplemental on the expansion.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that. What I’m saying, John, is we’re not sure, I’m not sure, I
don’t even know if any Board members are sure, that we’ll get to the level where we’re
demanding an EIS. A lot of times we go through SEQRA, Part II, which is our part, and
gravitate to the first, small to moderate column, in terms of mitigation. Small to moderate
we never get to the right hand column that starts to trigger an EIS. Do you follow what
I’m saying? We don’t know yet, but if we do, then the supplemental plays. If we don’t, it
never does.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t agree with that. I think if you address SEQRA, read it, read
SEQRA carefully, there is provision for doing a supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, okay. Excuse me, a supplemental environmental review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s different. I’ve got you.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-That I understand. Okay. Anybody else here who’d like to speak to this
application? I’m going to leave the public hearing open, obviously, because this is going
to be coming back to us in the future. We’re going to have to probably table this
application.
MR. SEGULJIC-What about the request of a traffic study?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s in C.T. Male’s letter.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing would be I’d like to get a copy of the Glen Lake
watershed management plan, I believe it’s called.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what we need. That’s not what they need.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. FORD-Yes, we need that. Susan, you can see that that’s provided to us?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I will. We have it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably good to get a copy. Is it extensive, 40, 50 pages, or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it on-line, Susan? Well, it can be scanned into a PDF file.
MRS. BARDEN-I’ll provide the Board with copies.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Could we, just at some point, since the residents are here, maybe
answer some of their questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That’s the object of you coming back up and listening to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
PASTOR LANGFORD-I don’t know if we can answer all of them, but, just if I could say to
Mr. Ellsworth and everybody else, I just got your first names, so please forgive me for
using that, but first of all, I apologize on our behalf and please forgive us for not
contacting you. We did visit with one of the neighbors. Our understanding was primarily
that that was something the Town did, and so we just kind of let that process go. This is
the first time we’re going through a process like this, and so we didn’t in any way mean to
slight you in doing that. In terms of traffic, we are looking primarily at Sunday morning is
easily when our highest traffic flow would be. There are other things, as was mentioned,
that are going to happen here during the week. We want to be an active church, but
we’re certainly intending to be a complex. This is a project that could be 50 years in the
making. We don’t know, so primarily Sunday mornings is going to be our primary traffic.
In terms of developing it, we really looked at only developing I think somewhere around
11 or 12 acres, not the whole 20 acres. We’re not able to. It’s not going to be able to be
built out, and in terms of fields, we’re not intending to have multiple fields, I think
Elizabeth had mentioned that, multiple fields. We really intend on having one major field
that we use for different activities, and the question was asked by Mr. Durante. We do
not intend to have a daycare or for this to be a rental property. It’s just, we don’t consider
ourselves, even now, our Church building, a banquet hall or we’re not trying to make any
money off of our facility. We certainly, from time to time if people ask us to use it for
special things, primarily weddings, funerals, things like that, we allow people to, but
we’re not intending to rent this property out for other purposes. We, in terms of the
gravel, actually we’d be as excited as doing as little as we had to because there’s going
to be some cost involved. There may be some, I guess some resources that would
come back if we were able to sell some things, but that’s not really a big deal to us. It
may or may not. It would help the project, but we actually are kind of hoping to have as
few trucks as possible going off of the property. So that’s not a big deal to us.
MR. VOLLARO-We would like to see, as a part of that, is to have your engineer, Mr.
Hutchins, do a cut and fill analysis so we can take a look at that. I mean, I think you have
to do it for yourself anyway, and that’s something you ought to put forward to us so we
know what we’re talking about, in terms of cut and fill.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and the logic behind, there’s been no discussions of mining this
site before our project. The logic of the cut that I’ve described tonight is to get an area
that’s suitable in size to fit the needs of the project.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-But you had mentioned, I guess, a cut of maybe six feet, am I right,
something in that area, six feet over X amount of acreage.
MR. HUTCHINS-Over a large area, yes.
PASTOR LANGFORD-The 1700 trucks, that would be if we did the whole build out, if we
cleared the whole build out, but it wouldn’t be if we just did Phase I.
MR. HUTCHINS-I didn’t present the 1700 trucks.
MR. VOLLARO-No, 1700 trucks is me.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Okay. Someone brought it up in the public hearing. So I just
want to make that clear. We would be very open to not clearing the whole property. I
mean, I’m not an engineer, but in terms of philosophically for us, Phase I is okay. That
would cut down on the traffic for this Phase, and then later we can deal with other the
other trucks, and they would obviously be a lot less because we’ve done Phase I.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only reason we got 1700 is because of your 23,000 and to your
Part I SEQRA, a simple thing of dividing 15 cubic yards per truck into 23,000 cubic yards
happens to come out to 1700.
PASTOR LANGFORD-And that would be for all three Phases. Correct?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I mean, Mr. Hutchins has got to tell us.
MR. HUTCHINS-No. It’s not. That’s Phase I.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-Also, just for purposes of clarification, that was assuming that every
grain of sand and every piece of gravel that got removed got loaded on a truck and
moved off and we’d also note that a lot of that is, or a lot of it will be stay on site or will be
moved on site and not trucked.
MR. HUTCHINS-Why don’t we leave it that I present a detailed analysis by Phase of cut,
fill and removal.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also, could you give us, as the County referred to it as a visual cut
and fill analysis.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Let us see what the site is going to look like after you’re finished with it,
you know, simple cross sections.
MR. HUTCHINS-You want to see it in sections?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Several cross sections across the site.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We can do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-That will give us a good visual representation, and also what I’d find
very beneficial is if you’d take the aerial photographs and you show us on there what
you’re going to be impacting.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So when I look at that and I look at your cross sections, I’ll get a very
good picture of what it’s going to look like.
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s a good idea. We can do that.
MR. VOLLARO-And he needs to do that anyway to determine volume.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then I have one last question. On your, on the wastewater
plan, there’s a reference to the grease traps, I believe.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s for the kitchens.
MR. SEGULJIC-For the kitchens. Is this going to be a small kitchen?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not a commercial style kitchen.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you going to have a banquet facility there?
MR. HUTCHINS-No.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Phase I will be, obviously you can’t have fake seats in a place
you intend to have for a gym, and so we would also use that for church banquets and
things like that, set up tables and chairs and be able to serve a meal. A fellowship hall.
Basically, we’re going to use one, we’re calling it a multi-purpose facility. We use that for
worship, for some sports things, for fellowship, would be what we would call it.
MR. SIPP-So you could be feeding 100 to 200 people in this facility?
PASTOR LANGFORD-The people that were a part of that banquet or part of worship that
day, whoever’s there we would be feeding.
MR. VOLLARO-If they’ve got a kitchen, they’ve got to have a grease trap.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-One goes with the other without question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I’m just trying to understand exactly what the project is.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MRS. BRUNO-I think that brings up a very good point, and I believe a couple of people in
the public had mentioned that, too, and I had the same questions as the project was first
being presented to us. I’m not quite sure if you work with a Board of Trustees or how the
decisions are made through your Church, but I think that a description of the intended
project may be even broken down into levels, really is clarifying. I could see something
as simple as some of our local developing soccer clubs asking can we use your field,
how will you handle that type of thing, whether you’ve thought of something like that.
You already apparently thought about the daycare possibility, or you’ve thought of the
fact that it wouldn’t be a possibility.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-The daycare possibility was brought up by the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I brought the daycare up, they didn’t.
MRS. BRUNO-Right. You’ve already had in your own minds that you weren’t
considering that as one of the?
PASTOR LANGFORD-We’re not.
MRS. BRUNO-Right, but see you knew that and I think we need to have that spelled out
and I think the neighbors, you know, everyone, I think we should put that in part of our
tabling motion that, a project description.
PASTOR LANGFORD-And I could just share with you briefly, as I said, like with a
banquet facility or like the fields, our intention is not to make any money off this or to be a
recreational complex for the whole area. Certainly in the spirit of being a good
community member, if somebody came along and said, hey, we’ve got kind of pushed for
fields and we can’t have it on our fields, can we use yours, I mean, we certainly want to
be able to do that kind of thing for others, but our intention would not be to use it for other
groups. It would be Church related events.
MRS. BRUNO-So your cross section of your Church is primarily families, younger
families, or is it quite vast?
PASTOR LANGFORD-It’s pretty vast, pretty good cross section.
MRS. BRUNO-Just out of curiosity, what denomination is it considered?
PASTOR LANGFORD-We’re just Christians.
MRS. BRUNO-Open door policy.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
PASTOR LANGFORD-We’re a community church. We’re here for anybody to come and
be a part of. We’re a Protestant church.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m just trying to get my head around in terms of what some of the
extracurricular activities if you would would be, you know, if you would end up with
Saturday church camps for the kids and, you know, I can think of all different kinds of
things, and I just really think it’s important if you just, you know.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I have to admit, you know, as a community member who drives by
this intersection all the time, for a few years I’ve watched how well maintained the
property is, how you have groups of folks who get together on the weekends and do yard
work and things like that, and that you’ve had activities for the kids outside. I’ve seen
bouncy bounces and things like that.
PASTOR LANGFORD-And we do all that for free. We really are just trying to serve, I
mean, Hurricane Katrina came along and we just said, hey, we tried to contact a few
groups and say, is there anything going on and we couldn’t find anybody that was taking
a truck, and so we just talked to Stewarts and said, we’ll pay for the truck. Can we just
park it in your parking lot and they allowed us to, and the community just rallied together
and we, our people drove it down, and it was a joy just to be able to kind of rally the
community together and kids are special to us. I mean, I’ll say that we really love kids
and we really love to see them having fun, enjoy themselves and we try to minister them
and their families, but we do have a cross section across the ages. People tell us that a
lot, you know, I come to your Church because we do things like that. I was expecting to
see a lot of kids and families, but I really saw a good amount of more mature adults and
singles as well.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s actually another good argument for maintaining as much buffer
between your property and 149, besides just the views from 149 into the property and
maintaining our natural resources and all of that, just safety.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-And that was a concern that I noticed from the public was I got the
impression that they’re envisioning that maybe because everything’s white on this
picture also, they’re just envisioning clear cutting the whole lot and having this open
space, and that’s certainly, from my understanding, isn’t the intent at all. There’s clearly
going to be a large tree buffer, you know, the intent here is to have as little intrusion onto
the neighbors as possible. That said, Mr. Ellsworth being across the street from it
obviously, there’s no two ways about it, there is an impact there. The driveway’s going to
come out right in front of his house, should it get approved, and I’m certain, I don’t want
to speak for Pastor Langford, but I’m sure he would talk to Mr. Ellsworth about it.
PASTOR LANGFORD-We’ll do everything we can to make something that everybody
can be happy with, but that was part of us looking for a large piece of acreage was
something that we could have some buffers. I don’t know exactly how all those, you
know, the engineers and everybody would have to work that out, but we certainly want to
do that.
MRS. BRUNO-The piece of property that’s to the left, to the west, where they had mined
out some of the soils, that’s a private residence now, from what I’ve seen? I mean, I
can’t really tell.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-It is a private residence there, on, I believe, the eastern half. I think
the western half of that actually might be part of, I would almost have to defer to the
people on Glen Lake. Is that part of the Fen on the eastern half of that? I think that it is.
It comes into the eastern half of that parcel. The owner of that parcel is related to the
present owner of the parcel that we’re discussing tonight. We have a contract that’s
contingent upon this approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think this is going to be tabled, obviously. There’s going to be a
tabling motion, and I’d like to take about five minutes to do this tabling motion, if we
could. I’ll call about a five minute recess.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-We do have what amounts to a laundry list. We’ve got a couple of things
that we’re going to be putting in to the tabling motion, and one of them is to answer the
th
C.T. Male comments in their letter of October 18 which is fairly extensive. Address the
issues that are raised in the Staff notes. They are also somewhat extensive. We want a
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
cut and fill and removal analysis, and a cross section of that, so we can take a look at
that. That would be a cut and fill removal analysis, and then a cross section analysis, a
drawing much like we had up on the Board, and then a project, now one of the things we
want is a project description by phase. We need something written which is your idea of
where you’re going. Sort of a narrative, so we get a feeling of Phase I, Phase II, Phase
III, recognizing that Phase II and Phase III are off the board.
PASTOR LANGFORD-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just request also, and the activities that those phases will
generate. Not as in like we’re going to construct with this building, but the activities that
are going to occur.
MR. VOLLARO-No, the project description ought to include the uses for what you plan to
do with it, and that’s all we’ve got in our tabling motion. We don’t know what to table this
to.
MR. SEGULJIC-What about the traffic study?
MR. VOLLARO-The traffic study, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s both in the Staff notes and C.T. Male’s letter.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the C.T. Male letter. C.T. Male, he covered quite a bit in the 38
comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, all right. With regards to the Glen Lake watershed management
study, that’s something we’ll just request from Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ll get that from Staff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-Mr. Chairman, with respect to the traffic study, when the County
recommended it, they wanted an independent traffic study. So I think that that was
anticipating that we would not be the ones ordering that.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely. Yes.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-I just want to be clear on that. If these are items that you’re asking
us to take care of, in the interim the traffic study would be ordered by the Town or by C.T.
Male. Is that what would happen?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not how I interpret that. I interpret that as.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Warren County Planning Board said an independent traffic study
including DOT review and approval. So they were looking at you doing a traffic study.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’d engage a professional.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-We had this discussion there and they seemed to be hedging the
other way on it, which was unusual to me, but I wanted to point that out, because I didn’t
want to do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the things that you might want to do is to check
with the, I always forget the proper name, the Glens Falls Transportation Council.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, that’s close enough, Scott Sopczk’s outfit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, because they may very well have a traffic study of 149.
They could give you much of the background information that you need, just as a starting
off point.
MR. HUTCHINS-But if you’re looking for a study to address the cumulative impact on all
the roads of what we’re. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s really just those two intersections.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-It would be the intersection, I guess, of Oxbow and 149.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then Oxbow and Glen Lake.
MR. FORD-And Glen Lake.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so I would think once you had your project description, then you’d
have the information so that when you went to have your traffic study, then it would be
the appropriate scope.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure before DOT did all the improvements to 149 they did some
sort of master plan traffic study, I’m not sure what they would have called it, but there has
to be some document that would be useful.
MRS. BRUNO-The outlet area, isn’t there strictly just for that area, too?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry?
MRS. BRUNO-Wasn’t there a traffic study done strictly just for Route 9 by the outlets,
too?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-I think that’s important to note, again, that the traffic study be done during
the appropriate months, which is tough since you’re looking at it right now.
MR. FORD-Some of that may have been done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. I mean, certainly DOT has traffic counts on 149, and
they know what the peak hours are and the peak months and everything else.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve just got to develop as many sources as you can for this kind of
information, without having to pay a professional company like Sear Brown or one of
those people to do this study. Maybe you can get it done without a big impact on cost. I
don’t know.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, as long as the information is current.
MR. HUTCHINS-So I expect you want it done by some form of qualified?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There are folks that do traffic studies.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we can get the information as available, but we need a traffic
consultant, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, where you get the data, I mean, you know.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about this, but we’re
asking for a project description, and I know that everybody has limited resources, and so
you wouldn’t want to have your traffic plan done too far in advance. Once we flesh out
the plan a little bit better, so you know. We have to do SEQRA, State Environmental
Quality Review, and so the information has to be timely and relevant, and sometimes as
we go through site plan review more information is developed through each meeting, and
so I wouldn’t want you to do your traffic study today and then as you develop the plan,
the plan’s different and then your traffic study is no longer relevant.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think they have to do a traffic study now, and then if there’s
changes, the traffic study just gets tweaked, because that’s relevant information we need
sooner than later.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the problem is that the traffic today may not be what the traffic is
in June and July.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s what we’re asking for is June and July.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You might be able to say, put a 20% increase on it or whatever.
Somebody who does the traffic study, a professional who does it, will do that. They’ll
say, okay, for the months of, you know, September, October, November and December
it’s A, from April, May, June and July it’s B, and that increase might be 20% or something
like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or 100%.
MR. VOLLARO-Or 100%. I’m trying to be nice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know how I said locals know to avoid The Great Escape in
the summer. Well now locals know to avoid 149 near the outlets in the summer.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and there was construction going on near the outlets, because I
did witness that, and that was bad, the back up.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s like that frequently in the summer. I mean, that’s just the way
it is.
PASTOR LANGFORD-And we have locals coming out of church, they’re going to avoid
it, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-But Sunday morning isn’t, you know, it’s Friday night and Saturday.
Sunday evening when the skiers are going home.
MRS. BRUNO-Do you have two services on Sundays?
PASTOR LANGFORD-We do currently, just because of our building size.
MRS. BRUNO-So you’re thinking of going down to one until you build up again?
PASTOR LANGFORD-We would like to, yes. That’s for sure, for a while.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m just thinking when we were just talking about, you know, Sunday
morning and the traffic wouldn’t be through 149 and I was thinking of when the outlets
opened and when your services might be and that kind of thing, how that would work out.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2006 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
To an unspecified date. With the following conditions:
1.That the applicant answer the C.T. Male comment letter of October 18, 2006.
2.That the applicant address the issues raised in Staff notes.
3.That the applicant provide cross section drawings with a cut fill and removal
analysis.
4.That the applicant provide a project description by phase.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-We’re tabling it to an unspecified date, Staff, probably that far out that I
wouldn’t know what kind of a date to put on it.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine, and it sounds like you want to re-notice the public hearing as
well, so that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got your work cut out for you.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/24/06)
PASTOR LANGFORD-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, folks.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re done.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a request of Staff, before we adjourn, Susan. A couple of
months ago we were given a list of all of the active projects. How hard would it be to do
that again?
MRS. BARDEN-Active?
MR. HUNSINGER-The reason why I’m asking is because my pile of paperwork at home
has grown exponentially, and I want to know what I can throw away.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. When was that done, do you recall?
MR. HUNSINGER-I might have it with me.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we could all use that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was it August?
MRS. BARDEN-Do you recall who did it, Chris?
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought you did it, Susan.
MRS. BARDEN-It might have been a compilation of all of us.
MR. HUNSINGER-It kind of looked like a spreadsheet.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it just listed all the projects that were, you know, active, if you
will.
MR. VOLLARO-You might be able to get it right off the blackboard. I mean, the
blackboard’s pretty current.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that’s where it came from.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I’ll be in tomorrow morning for debriefing. We’ll look at that.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I’m also interested in, because I have a tremendous.
MR. FORD-Well, basically, wouldn’t it be what’s on the board?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I just said.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, it looks like you can dump all your Great Escape stuff.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
39