2006-11-21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 52-2005 Entertronics 1.
Tax Map No. 304.17-1-29
Special Use Permit No. 35-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 2.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1
PUD Site Plan No. 44-2000 Michaels Group 3.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.8-1-8.2, 26.1
Site Plan No. 27-2006 John Miles
Tax Map No. 308.16-1-60, 59, 58 4.
Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holding 10.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28
Subdivision No. 4-2005 Amedore Homes 17.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15
Site Plan No. 44-2006 Great Escape Theme Park 21.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20
Site Plan No. 46-2006 Community Work and Independence 30.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55, 59
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 11/21/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER
TANYA BRUNO
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-We have a couple of administrative items that I have to complete, and
then we’ll start off. There’s going to be a little change in plans tonight. The Michaels
Group Waverly Place modification will come up first, and then we’ll continue on with the
agenda as it’s written. I have a draft resolution here for the approval of minutes of 9/19
and 9/26. I’ll read that off.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 19
& SEPTEMBER 26 , 2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. VOLLARO-The next one is for Entertronics. This was temporarily approved for one
year in 2005, and I’ll read off the motion.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY APPROVAL PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TO
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2006 ENTERTRONICS BY RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER
27, 2005. THAT RESOLUTION REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO APPEAR BEFORE
THIS BOARD, ONE YEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ON OR ABOUT
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006., Introduced by Robert Vollaro 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: Application temporarily approved with the stipulation that the
applicant appear before the board after the 12 month period [approved 9/27/05].
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. 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.
5. 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY APPROVAL PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TO
SITE PLAN NO. 52-2005 ENTERTRONICS BY RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER
27, 2005. THAT RESOLUTION REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO APPEAR BEFORE
THIS BOARD, ONE YEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ON OR ABOUT
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
The applicant submitted a letter dated October 5, 2006 requesting an appearance. Due
to the fact the mono-pole antenna was erroneously constructed in the MU zone, would
require either a variance or a petition for zone change. The Town Board will not
entertain petition for zone change until a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning
Code have been updated and completed. Therefore, I move to require the applicant to
submit an as built survey for the mono-pole installation within 90 days of today to the
Planning Department and to extend the temporary approval for an additional six months
from today.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Can I just have a clarification?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the mono-pole was constructed?
MR. VOLLARO-In an MU area.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the adjacent parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what we’re going to do is wait for the PORC Committee to address
the Zoning Regulations.
MR. VOLLARO-Both CLUP and Zoning.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then hopefully within that six months then they’ll come back.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s why I’m asking for him to have an as built survey of
where he is so we know exactly where.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the meantime.
MR. VOLLARO-In the meantime. Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. VOLLARO-A tabling resolution requested for Ferraro Entertainment.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Gretchen Steffan:
Whereas, on September 19, 2006 this application was tabled to 11/21/06, and
Whereas, a letter was received from Mr. Jonathan Lapper indicating the applicant’s
consultants were unable to complete the changes to address the Planning Board’s
comments and are requesting to be tabled to a December meeting date, and
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved:
th
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 TO THE DECEMBER 26
MEETING.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
PUD SP 44-2000 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S): VAN
DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): WAVERLY PLACE HOA/DESANTIS FAMILY TRUST
ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MEADOWBROOK RD.,
WAVERLY PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION TO ADJUST THE LOT LINE BETWEEN THE H.O.A. PROPERTY AND
LOT 56 SO THE SOUTHERLY END OF THE ASPHALT WALK WILL BE LOCATED
TOTALLY WITHIN THE H.O.A. BOUNDS. MODIFICATIONS TO PUD APPROVALS
REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE N/A
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 34.73 AC., 0.17 ACRE TAX MAP NO.
296.8-1-8.2, 26.1 SECTION 179-12
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves of Van Dusen and Steves, representing the
applicant, which would be the Waverly Place Homeowners Association, and the
DeSantis Family Trust. This is property, Lot 56 Waverly Place. It’s for the adjustment of
the easterly lot line, as you can see on the map. The asphalt drive, the walk that is the
Homeowners Association footpath throughout Waverly Place, was about 2.2 feet in the
east west direction about nine feet long, and a small pie shaped onto the DeSantis
Family Trust parcel, and they just want to adjust that. As you can see where the utility
boxes and such are. They’ve placed the asphalt drive, when they did that for the
Homeowners Association, thinking that’s where it belonged. The corner was off a few
feet from the actual power boxes. So it would just clean up a little problem.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems pretty straightforward to me. I have no comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-No comment.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody? Does somebody want to make a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t have to revisit SEQRA or anything like that?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just a modification.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to have an as built drawing for this?
MR. VOLLARO-No. He’s just going to make a correction to an existing drawing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Just going to file that as a mylar to show that the County has record of the
modification to that lot of Waverly Place.
MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MODIFICATION MICHAELS
GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision to
adjust the lot line between the H.O.A. property and Lot 56 so the southerly end of the
asphalt walk will be located totally within the H. O. A. bounds. Modifications to PUD
approvals require review by the Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
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, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MODIFICATION MICHAELS
GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four, complies. Paragraph
Five does not apply, and extract Paragraph Seven.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. STEVES-I thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN MILES AGENT(S): ROB
PRATT OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE LOCATION:
312 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NINE (9) SELF-
STORAGE BUILDINGS (TOTALING 37,800 SQ. FT.) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO THE JULY 18, 2006 TABLING.
CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2005-955 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/06 LOT SIZE:
5.51, 1.35, 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-60, 59, 58 SECTION: 179-4-020
ROBERT PRATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PRATT-Good evening. I’m Robert Pratt. I’m representing John. I think we had
answered all of the questions from the last meeting. I hope you’ve got copies of
everything.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we don’t have copies of, and I know that we do, because I
checked with Staff, is the latest drawing of 11/15/06. We’re dealing with a drawing prior
to that. C.T. Male commented on your application and they mentioned in there the
drawing dated 11/15/06, and I think that we have one on file with Staff.
MRS. BARDEN-We do.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it greatly different from what we’re looking at? Because ours is not the
latest drawing.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. I do have, I think the last correspondence you have is from
thth
November 14, and this is C.T. Male comments, and then we have November 15
comment, response from Jarrett-Martin to those C.T. Male comments, and Sheets C-1
and C-2, site plan and stormwater and grading plan have been re-submitted, and
th
following that, we have a November 16 signoff letter from C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the one that came in on e-mail?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-We got it by e-mail. I know we didn’t get it hard copied.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MRS. BARDEN-Everything appears to be addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple of things I wanted to talk about. Before I do, does
anybody else have any comments on this application?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-I did want to make a comment on the colors on the building, before
we’re done.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Why don’t you do it now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Pratt, when you were here the last time, the representation that you
gave of the colors was inaccurate. Remember there was a blue that was picked or
something like that, the colors were not right. We’ve visited, I took a photograph, and
this is a color scheme that’s very effective for self-storage buildings, and helps them
disappear into the landscape. It’s green and red.
MR. PRATT-I think he’s using a gray and red, not a blue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The palette was wrong. I remember from our conversations the
last time, but we’ve since visited a self-storage unit that we identified this green red color
scheme, and I’d like to suggest that’s the color scheme we’d like to go with. We’d like
you to go with.
MR. PRATT-I don’t know if I can speak for him in that to say that he will go with, I know
that the doors are red. I believe the building is gray.
MRS. STEFFAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not good when it comes to colors. I’m not trying to cop out.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that we’re trying to do with self-storage units in the
Town is that we’re trying to make them disappear into the landscape, and this green/red
color scheme helps them to disappear.
MR. PRATT-These are not out by the road, like the rest of these, like the ones on Corinth
Road. I know the ones that you’re talking about that have, but these particular ones are
in the back. They’re not really, there’s a house in the front. There’s only a driveway that
goes back to these. They’re not going to be seen from the road, and there’s trees all the
way around them.
MR. SEGULJIC-In lieu of that, how tough would it be to make them green, then?
MR. PRATT-It wouldn’t be that tough, but it’s not my call. I don’t know if he’d go with the
green or not. He has expressed to me that he was going to go with a gray and a
maroon.
MR. FORD-Is this material already baked on, in other words, the coloration, or?
MR. PRATT-Yes, it’s a colored like metal siding.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you haven’t purchased all this material though, have you?
MR. PRATT-It’s ordered, but it’s not being delivered until this gets through.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the order can be changed, then, easily. I mean, this stuff is baked
on aluminum, I’m sure. That’s what they are, and I’ve seen them before. I think the color
that Mrs. Steffan has looked at, do you want to take a look at it?
MR. PRATT-No, I’ve seen that. I’ve seen those units. I’ve seen the particular units that
she has. I just cannot say, I cannot tell you that he will go with green. I can’t tell you that
he’ll do that.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what, we can condition it on that.
MR. FORD-We can.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we can.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll condition the application on him going along with a color scheme of
blank, blank, red and green. That’ll be a condition of approval if we approve this, and I
think we will. I don’t see any reason why we’re not going to approve this this evening,
but we could always make this a condition. If that’s what the will of the Board is, that’s
what we’ll do, and then he can deal with it. That’s just how it is. You should be able to
speak for the applicant, though, if you’re representing him.
MR. PRATT-I can speak for him, but I can’t go to the degree that he’s going to change
color schemes and everything. I can change the grading. I can change the size of the
buildings. I’ve gone through great lengths on this project and made a lot of different
changes, and have done everything that’s been asked. I just don’t know where, I mean,
there’s gray and blue ones on Corinth Road. Why didn’t they have to go with green and
red?
MR. VOLLARO-What’s been done before doesn’t.
MR. PRATT-That’s not that old. They’re only two years old, if that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. That doesn’t dictate to what the Board does, though. We
don’t look at the past. We’re looking at what we think is correct for this particular site.
We can just make it a condition of approval and he’ll have to deal with it. That’s how I
see it. It’s just a color of what you’re going to use.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Bob, why don’t you talk about your issues.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one thing I’d like to ask. On the drawing, on the short drawing, C-
1, right up on Corinth Road, it’s well covered up by the words, connect to the water main,
but there’s a 75 foot setback, by the way, on Corinth Road, and what is that structure
there?
MR. PRATT-That’s a house.
MR. VOLLARO-Right in front of the existing auto repair building?
MR. PRATT-That’s a house. That’s where the gentleman lives.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That house has probably been put there before the 75 foot
setback, I would guess, so it’s a pre-existing structure.
MRS. BARDEN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t something that you were going to
put in now. If it’s pre-existing, it’s pre-existing.
MR. PRATT-No, but you see how the buildings are here? You’re not even going to be
able to see these buildings in the back. You’re not even going to see them behind the,
you’re not going to be able see them through the buildings that are there. That’s a story
and a half building.
MR. VOLLARO-What color are you using now? What’s he going to be putting in?
MR. PRATT-He’s going to go with the maroon on the doors, the red on the doors, but I
think he was looking at a gray.
MR. VOLLARO-This is what we were given. That doesn’t look like.
MR. PRATT-That’s a gray.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it doesn’t really tell us.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a good representation of what.
MR. PRATT-That’s what came out. The engineer put that in there, and that’s what he,
but it’s a gray and maroon. If you want to put a stipulation in there for green, then I’ll
have to see, you know, I don’t know what else he can do. I mean.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-He can order green and red when he puts his order in. I mean, it doesn’t
sound like a big deal to me. I’ve changed orders on stuff before, colors.
MR. PRATT-But it may be because he wants to keep, he has a gray and red scheme on
his existing auto repair building, so that’s why I think he was going with a gray and red
scheme on the buildings in the back.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but what he didn’t do when he supplied this is give us a good
representation of what it was going to look like. So it’s not going to look like this.
MRS. STEFFAN-That looks brown.
MR. VOLLARO-This is what we were given in the application. So that’s not what it’s
going to look like.
MR. PRATT-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. PRATT-It’s a light gray. The building is a light gray.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how does the Board feel about that? Do you want to stay with
what you’ve got there?
MRS. STEFFAN-I want dark colors. I want them to disappear. It’s aesthetic and we do
have a lot of self-storage buildings in the community, and too many of the stick out.
MR. PRATT-But they’re tight to the road. I understand what you’re saying and I agree
with you, but they’re tight onto the road. These are set back. These are back, you know,
300 feet from the road, and there’s buildings in front of them. There’s just a roadway
back to them and they’re actually staggered behind the existing auto repair which is gray
and maroon.
MRS. STEFFAN-But when the leaves are off the trees, you know, you can see.
MR. PRATT-There’s not leafy trees back there. That’s all pines that are back there, and
you can’t see through there. The gentleman on the one side has 130 feet that he can’t
do anything with, and the other side is a junk yard.
MRS. STEFFAN-I understand the case you’re making, but in my experience with visiting
sites, after any of the trees come down around a construction area, there’s always
visibility of the buildings between, from the trees to the road, and so I’m feeling pretty
strongly about the color combinations.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, why don’t we condition it that they have to be green, and if he’s
already ordered them and he can’t do anything, he can come back next month.
MR. VOLLARO-He hasn’t paid for them yet. He can change the order. I don’t know why
we’re, you know, look we’re going to make it a condition of approval.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sipp, how do you feel?
MR. SIPP-Make it a condition.
MRS. STEFFAN-We haven’t done SEQRA on this, have we?
MR. VOLLARO-We have a public hearing and we have a Short Form SEQRA to go
through, but I have a couple of questions. The waiver for the Type C buffer to the east of
the property, now the reason, there’s a note on the drawing that says 50 foot buffer zone,
but there isn’t any room on this side of the property for a 50 foot buffer, that I see.
MR. PRATT-We’re not asking for any waivers or any buffer waivers or anything else
anymore. All of the buffers were put back into place.
MR. FORD-At our last meeting, correct?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no waiver.
MR. PRATT-No waiver for buffers.
MR. VOLLARO-And there’s no waivers for parking and the uniformity ratio is okay, as far
as I’m concerned.
MR. PRATT-The parking, all we’re asking for is to put it in as we build the buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. You’re still going to get to, what is it, 62 that you need?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I don’t have a problem with that, and your uniformity ratio is
pretty close. I looked at that on your, you’re three, six, three, eight. So you’re okay,
uniformity ratio. You’re close to four to one, and I don’t have any further questions.
Anybody else got questions on the Board?
MR. FORD-I’m good.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, does anybody here want to talk to this application? The
application is for a Mr. John Miles, Site Plan No. 27-2006 on Corinth Road. Seeing
nobody, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We have a Short Form SEQRA to go through.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 27-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN MILES, 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
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. VOLLARO-On the motion, when we get to Number Seven, we want to provide as
built plans to certify the as built will be to the drawings dated 11/15/06.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 JOHN MILES, 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 nine (9) Self-Storage
buildings (totaling 37,800 sq. ft.) and associated site work. Self-Storage facilities in the
Light Industrial zone require Planning Board review and approval. New information has
been submitted by the applicant in response to the September 26, 2006 tabling.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/18/06, 9/26/06 and
11/21/06, 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 [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 and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO
APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 JOHN MILES, 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 was an Unlisted, the Negative Declaration. Paragraph Seven, whereas the
applicant will provide as built plans dated 11/15/06 to certify that the site plan was
developed according to the plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This is
approved and subject to the following conditions. That the color scheme on the buildings
have garnet doors with dark green trim, and there is a picture to support the dark green
color.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MRS. BARDEN-Mrs. Steffan, do we have a copy of that picture?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, but I’ll e-mail it to you.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. PRATT-Thanks.
SUBDIVISION 15-2006 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LEGACY LAND
HOLDING AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME
ZONING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE LOCATION BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 26.15 ACERS INTO 16 LOTS FOR
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES RANGING IN SIZE FROM 25,000 SQ. FT. TO 60,911 SQ.
FT. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 26.15
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BORGOS-Good evening.
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. You are, for the record?
MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos here for the applicant, Legacy Land Holdings. I’m here
with Tom Jarrett, the engineer for the project, and Dan Valente, the principal behind
Legacy.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is a Sketch Plan Review.
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. Your file and the application in the Staff notes referenced
some of the history of this parcel of land, and some of the prior submissions that have
been made by the applicant. I think the last one was in 2003. This plan has taken into
consideration all the comments of this Board and the public and anyone else who is
interested in offering advice, and I think what you see before you today is our attempt at
really incorporating all of those elements and fulfilling the goals and the intent of the Bay
Road corridor design guidelines. There are a couple of things I’d like to point out to you.
If you look at the plan, there’s currently a gravel drive that connects to Baybridge, off of
Bay. What we propose to do here is realign that with the road from the property to the
east. So they line up, and that curve that’s drawn in there will be more aesthetically
pleasing than a straight run. It’s also going to slow down traffic and encourage people to
utilize that roadway for access to the buildings that are going to be constructed within the
park, rather than just as a cut through to Baybridge. I think we’re going to see an
alleviation of traffic on Walker Lane that is currently going into Baybridge. There’ll be a
little bit of a sharing there. So I think it’s going to improve both intersections, both from
Walker Lane, Bay and Baybridge Drive and Bay. Once this field is developed, it’s going
to be landscaped in a style that’s going to create that park like environment. Again,
that’s part of the Bay Road design corridor guideline, and as I visualize it, it’s going to be
similar to what’s already there on the west side. You have Dr. Bannon’s office and some
of those other small residential type construction buildings. That’s probably the biggest
asset, the biggest selling point for this project is that these are small lots. They’re
designed to be for smaller commercial tenants. Right now Queensbury lacks lots like
this in its commercial areas. You have large lots, but not everybody wants a 12,000,
15,000 square foot office building. There are a lot of small professional offices and small
affiliations of professionals who would like to have a 2,000 square foot building, or 4,000
square foot building. This plan offers some flexibility for purchasers in that category
because they can buy, one, two, three lots if necessary to coordinate, if they have a
larger association, or they can just buy a single lot and develop it that way. So there’s a
lot of flexibility inherent in here. Tom Jarrett’s here and he can explain a little bit more of
his design because he’s come up with this, and he’s developed it from what was
presented back in 2003, and I think the way to summarize the criticism then was that it
was too cookie cutter like. It achieved the goal of removing access from Walker Lane,
but it was very, it was just a straight run through and lots on both sides. This design is
much more aesthetically pleasing, we believe. So with that, Tom, if you’d like to discuss
that.
MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Mike. We’ve covered much of it, but to reiterate, the fact that we
tried to build in flexibility as well as creativity in this lot design, especially reacting to the
Board’s comments a couple of years ago, this parcel, its size and its constraint with
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
wetlands to the south do not lend itself to a much more serpentine road. We’ve curbed it
as much as we can to slow traffic, to calm traffic. We ended up with a 16 lot subdivision.
There’s one main lot to the south, contains most of the wetlands, and then 15 new
commercial lots proposed. This design includes no access to Walker Lane. All the lots
would be accessed off Baybridge Drive, and we plan on maintaining the vegetative buffer
along Walker Lane and along the stream on the west side of the property, along the west
property line. Our design will incorporate, as you can see on the board here, will
incorporate shared driveways to the extent possible.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a representation of what would take place on?
MR. JARRETT-That’s an idea, that’s a concept for the Board to.
MR. VOLLARO-So that would be Lot 14 and 15.
MR. JARRETT-Shown as example, that’s correct. We would come back with that
concept for the entire subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. These are all slab on grade, knowing that piece of property pretty
well, this would be a slab on grade design?
MR. JARRETT-Likely.
MR. VOLLARO-So you would have to do some test pit work out there, just to determine
what the seasonally high groundwater is?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that would come with the next stage.
MR. JARRETT-Right, we have to go to the Town Board and get that approval, but yes.
Water supply would be from the Town. Wastewater disposal would be disposal would be
a connection to the sanitary sewer on Bay. We’ve had that discussion with Mike Shaw.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re doing your Map, Plan Report now?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we have initiated that. That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We’ve had several discussions with Mike Shaw, as you see in the Staff
notes. Stormwater management would meet New York State DEC stormwater
management requirements as well as the Town’s. We anticipate utilizing some of the
land to the south and west for stormwater management, in those buffer areas.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about Lot 16 now?
MR. JARRETT-Possibly a portion of Lot 16 and maybe the perimeters of lower Lots 11
through 15.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what the wet ponds are for?
MR. JARRETT-That’s just a representation of where they could go, I think. We actually
have discussed moving them from there now, but it’s just an idea that we would use that
southern portion of the property for that.
MR. FORD-Could you elaborate on that stormwater management area that is at the cul
de sac?
MR. JARRETT-We thought, there’s a possibility of doing some of the stormwater
management in that cul de sac and then it will overflow through the storm system to the
west or the south from there, but we might be able to initiate some of the pre-treatment in
that cul de sac area. The alternative would be to use that for landscaping, or both.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the snowplows will, you know what’s going to happen there.
They’re going to run those plows right around that cul de sac and get an awful lot of
snow right up there. So if you’ve got any landscaping, it better be very salt tolerant.
MR. JARRETT-The landscaping has to be the center, you’re right.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-And a salt tolerant species I would think as well.
MR. JARRETT-Absolutely, in the center of the cul de sac, you’re right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There was mention in the Staff notes about a 50 foot buffer on
the north boundary.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. That constrains us significantly. We may seek an Area Variance
for that, to use a rear lot line there. Since we’re isolating Walker Lane, we’re proposing
no access on Walker Lane, we’d like to treat that as a rear property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I know Lot Six would almost take a big hit there if it was 50 foot.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it would. We’ve discussed it, and we are currently discussing
whether we should go for an Area Variance on that situation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the concerns I have, because I have a personal interest,
and Mr. Valente knows that. I used to live there in Baybridge at one time, and I’m a little
bit concerned about the amount of traffic that would come through there, right down
through the Baybridge community.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, okay, from the existing homes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes I don’t know whether they would or people visiting or service
people or whatever would be coming up that road to get into Baybridge, but I think that,
you know, given the fact that it’s a dual situation between Walker Lane and Baybridge, I
looked at that pretty carefully, I think you want to control two things. You want to control
the speed of your own development, people zipping through there, and I think you’ve
done that with the curve. It seems to help some, and I don’t, this wasn’t publicly
advertised, I don’t think, this Sketch Plan. So the Baybridge folks haven’t had a chance
to really, they will come in on the Preliminary, I would assume.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t expect to see a great problem there.
MRS. STEFFAN-We would need to see some traffic analysis, just because the entrance
to this aligns with the Professional Office area across the road, and so there’s going to
be a tremendous amount of traffic going back and forth. So we would need to see some
traffic studies on that. Because there may be a light required. I’m not really sure,
depending on the usage and the amount of cars coming in and out.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether the County will put a warrant out for a light on that
or not. They may. It seems, you know, they’re getting pretty sticky with warrants these
days.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s worth looking at because that park, we’ve just approved some other
development work in that professional complex and there’s more to come, and so we’re
going to have to look at the cumulative effects of the traffic coming out from right across
the street.
MR. VOLLARO-The one to the north of this, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Schermerhorn building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Are those roads going to line up, then, the one from?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-If you’ll notice on our plan you’ll see the road on the east side, the
entrance is shown on our plan. So we will align.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that’s going to continue into Baybridge, then.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Ninety percent of the traffic that would be used on this road would
probably be people from Baybridge coming to and going from Baybridge, I would think.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
That’s my guess. Except for whatever services you’re going to have, you know, into
Baybridge or into this complex.
MRS. STEFFAN-But a right hand turn out of the Baybridge complex would not be a
problem, but the left hand turn out of it would be, or, if you’re traveling toward, north on
Bay Road and you want to make a left into Baybridge, we’re going to have traffic
concerns with College getting out. So that will need to be looked at, traffic.
MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of tenants do you envision?
MR. BORGOS-Well, I think we’ve discussed and we’ve certainly had some interest
already from professionals with, or maybe one professional per office, say a dentist, a
lawyer, an accountant, things of that nature. I think that’s what we would expect to see,
but there may be other groups, maybe a medical practice would like to come in.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the professional office, more or less lighter traffic other than a
doctors office, because accountants are on the lower end and doctors are on the higher
end.
MR. BORGOS-Again, I think it really fits very well with the design criteria. That’s exactly
what has been drawn here, and we think that’s the ideal tenant. This is really what the
Town has envisioned, and it’s the prefect site to develop in this fashion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I assume also that it’s going to be, each lot will get sold off,
as it’s sold off it’s developed by that person?
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. There’ll be a site plan for each lot as it’s sold off, and
again, there’s the flexibility inherent in this design to allow for somebody perhaps who
wants some more open space around their building, who wants a different layout. They
can accomplish that by buying two lots or more.
MR. SEGULJIC-I do have to say, I mean, this looks much better than the original one I
saw, three years ago now.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was three years ago when he came in, yes. Well, they’re not
faced with the same problem that they faced three years ago. You were trying to put
septics in here. Now you’re going to be tied in to municipal sewer. So it’s a whole
different ballgame, really.
MR. SEGULJIC-So pardon my ignorance. So this is one lot that you’re subdividing into
two, and one’s going to contain the 17 and the other lot’s going to (lost word)?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, technically it’s a 16 lot subdivision. One large lot to the south, which
will be preserving the wetlands, and then 15 professional lots on the north end.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that would just stay, I don’t want to use the word forever wild, but that
would just stay as it is?
MR. JARRETT-Undeveloped is a better term.
MR. SEGULJIC-Undeveloped, better. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Are there any plans, Mr. Valente, to develop Lot 16 in the future or
what’s
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-I have no plans at this point. You know as well as I that it’s mostly
wetlands.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve tromped around there a little bit. I know what’s there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we know how much of it’s wet?
MR. VOLLARO-Practically all. I’ve walked it a lot.
MR. JARRETT-Ninety-nine percent of it.
MR. VALENTE-Yes. There might be an acre and a half that’s usable right now.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-Since this is Sketch Plan, one of the things I’d like to see are sidewalks.
Because we’ve got the O’Connor development on this end and then you’ve got condo
developments across the street and this is walkable from both of those locations, and I
know no one likes to hear that word.
MR. JARRETT-We anticipated that question. Do you want to tackle that one, Mike?
MR. BORGOS-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-And plus all the workers that would be working in these complexes.
They’re going to want to walk at lunch or walk to a deli or something like that, and we
have those proposed right on Bay Road now. So I want to throw that out.
MR. BORGOS-Sure. Where on Bay Road are they proposed? I’m not familiar with
where they are currently?
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re being proposed right down the road, near Stewarts.
MR. BORGOS-Across the road, and that would be a sidewalk on Bay Road you’re
talking about?
MRS. STEFFAN-They would walk, they would be able to walk from this complex down
Bay Road to the delis, to the deli or to Stewarts or whatever it happens to be, but I think
we have to pay more attention to that because in this Professional Office area you’re
going to have workers who are going to be getting out and walking at lunch time and plus
all the condo development around there, you know, what we’re trying to do is encourage
walking, and so people need sidewalks to walk on.
MR. SEGULJIC-And hopefully people can walk to the different offices to get their
services done.
MR. BORGOS-That would be great.
MR. VOLLARO-And on this one I’m going to go with you, Gretchen. Even though it’s a
sidewalk to nowhere, I think it’s going to be connected up. Usually I’m not a big fan of
putting sidewalks that go no place, but I think this is a good spot for it. So I’m with you on
this one.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had mentioned the wet ponds before. What are they for again?
MR. JARRETT-Just the initial concept for stormwater management.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-That site is conducive to a wet pond type stormwater management as
opposed to sub surface or certainly not dry pond.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There was a comment on, I know that DEC flagged these in
2003. I think probably we ought to get an update on the flagging just to make sure.
MR. JARRETT-We have that, and I’ll provide that correspondence to Susan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-They’ve confirmed that layout that’s on this plan. I did not have the
confirmation and the time to submit it with this. We got it in early November, but they
have confirmed that original delineation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When you come in with the Preliminary, make the edge of the
wetlands a little darker than the other lines. It’s tough to see. That’s about all I have.
You got our pitch on the sidewalks.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. I think we’re hearing that you’re fairly comfortable or comfortable
with the overall layout and the concept of the subdivision. We’ve just got to address
some of the technical issues.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing you’ve got to do is overcome, get yourself a
variance on that 50 foot if you want Lot Six to work. Other than that, Lot Six won’t work.
So you’d have to go for a variance on the 50 foot buffer, on the north side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Either that, or Lot Five and Seven get a lot bigger.
MR. FORD-Right, Five and Seven combine. That works.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-At this point we’d like to maintain the lot size and the flexibility because
right now there’s a demand for smaller lots, smaller buildings, and if somebody comes in
and wants to combine lots later, fine, but we’d rather not combine lots and make larger
lots right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. You’ve got a pretty light density here to begin with. You’ve got,
what, 26 acres here.
MR. JARRETT-Total acres. So half of that is what we’re developing. The other half is
undevelopable, or undeveloped.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to lighting, is the plan to have each parcel develop their
own lighting, or are you going to have lighting along the street at all?
MR. BORGOS-There would be a site plan for each parcel as they’re built out.
MR. JARRETT-We thought we might spot lighting here for the Preliminary review, of
where the lighting would be, but it would be the responsibility of the lot buyer to install it,
and maintain it.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as you’ve got an average of two foot candles in the parking
areas.
MR. JARRETT-Well, that would be part of the site plan review for each lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-But we’re talking about lighting along the road I think right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-A combination.
MR. JARRETT-A combination? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’d like to have it because the road lighting could take care of the
parking lot lighting.
MR. JARRETT-Well, with parking in the rear, it’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got to have an average of two foot candles in your parking lot.
So they’re going to have to get close to that. That’s what the spec calls for.
MR. SIPP-My comment would be on Lot Eight, Seven, so forth, if the parking is to be to
the rear of the building, the building is going to have to be fairly small.
MR. JARRETT-Well, the lots along Bay Road, the parking would not be on the Bay Road
side. It would be on the inner side. That’s going to take precedence there.
MR. SIPP-Yes. It’s going to cut the size of your buildings considerably on those funnel
shaped lots.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. That’s correct. Well, depending on how we’re able to lay out that
parking, we’ve been looking at Eight, Nine and Ten, and some creative ways to install
that parking with shared access. It’s a little more of a challenge for those three lots, but
the parking won’t be on the Bay Road side. Bay Road will stay intact.
MR. SIPP-Now, will each individual then be required to submit a landscaping plan for
Bay Road?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Each lot will have to come to site plan review before you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it looks good.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It looks good to me. I don’t have any other comments on it. You
will have a DEC letter in to Staff?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the name of this road is going to be Baybridge Drive?
MR. JARRETT-We propose to maintain it as Baybridge Drive.
MR. VOLLARO-That goes all the way up into?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VALENTE-That’s what was originally.
MR. VOLLARO-Envisioned.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, it was approved from the original townhouse subdivision, because
originally this was all townhouses up front, and that conceptual was approved.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think this is a good plan. I have no other problems with this.
Make sure that on the Preliminary we see some test pits, so we know what the
seasonally high groundwater is.
MR. JARRETT-I’m sure we won’t be digging very deep.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. SEGULJIC-A question for you, a thinking forward conceptual question. Would it
make sense for us, I mean, this architectural look residential look. Is that something we
condition on the subdivision?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it goes along with the Bay Road corridor design.
MR. JARRETT-You would have that ability at site plan review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think we just want some uniformity, I guess, instead of looking at it
one by one, sort of set it out up front.
MR. JARRETT-Right now, it’s Dan’s intention to build those buildings. So I think he
plans on maintaining that theme.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If you go up to the next, to the north of that, there are different buildings
in there that look much different than one another. So I think that’s what you might plan
to do. You’re not, you won’t make them all look the same I guess is what he’s saying.
It’ll have this residential look.
MR. VALENTE-Right. Everybody’s going to want something a little bit different.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to build each lot to spec. I mean, each lot owner will say this
is what I’m looking for in a building and he’ll build that building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FORD-Are you going to have a number of different designs from which they will
select?
MR. VALENTE-Typically we custom design to suit their needs. Cottrell Dental’s a
perfect example. I just did his office for him. That was designed to suit what he needed
and every individual is going to have certain needs. He’s a dentist that wanted, I think he
had 10 operatories and maybe a dentist only wants six. So, you know, we’ll design
around their needs.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You know the building he’s talking about? It’s right off Homer. The new
building off Homer Avenue. A nice looking building.
MR. VALENTE-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions. Are Board members happy with this?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. BORGOS-Well, thank you for your comments. We’ll see you back here at
Preliminary.
MR. FORD-It looks good.
SUBDIVISION 4-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AMEDORE HOMES
AGENT(S): CHAZEN ENGINEERING OWNER(S): BROWER FAMILY TRUST
ZONING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL – MR-5 LOCATION 314, 320 & 322 BAY
ROAD APPILCANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO SITE GRADING PLAN ASSOCIATED
WITH ELIMINATION OF THE PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION AREA.
MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 2-2005, SP 62-99, ORIGINAL
APPROVAL 9/20/05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.12 AC., 2.87 AC., &
3.83 AC. SECTION 179-4-020, A-183
JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Chris Round. When we were here getting
this project approved, we had anticipated on site wetland mitigation, mainly because the
Corps generally prefers on site mitigation to off site mitigation, but when Chazen
Companies went for the Army Corps permit, for a whole host of reasons in this case, the
Corps thought that paying money for off site mitigation for Warren County Soil and Water
to do what they considered a significant project would be a better result, and in this
particular case, they felt, after seeing the site, that they’d like to save the trees that we
were going to remove that were adjacent to the wetlands to construct new wetland areas.
So it wasn’t what we anticipated, but it’s certainly understandable when you look at the
trees that that’s what the Corps decided. So we’re here to ask you to modify the
subdivision. Let me hand it over to Chris and he’ll give you the details.
MR. ROUND-Thank, Jon. I think in your packages we did, hopefully we did a pretty good
job explaining the background of the project, because it’s been a year since we’ve been
here, and as Jon mentioned, as a part of our submittal to you back in September of last
year we provided the Planning Board with a copy of what they call pre-construction
notice. That’s the document that goes to the Army Corps to permit projects such as this.
MR. VOLLARO-How long does it take to prepare one of those, by the way?
MR. ROUND-It depends. If you’ve looked at it, I take it that you went back and looked at
that particular document, it’s significant, and then what happened is the Corps, we had to
respond to comments on that document, and we’re always operating under the premise
that we would construct wetlands on site because that’s typically, that’s the worst case
for us because it’s going to impact your site. You have to monitor and maintain it long
term, and there’s a cost associated with that and people generally don’t like wetlands on
their property because they’re an attractive nuisance in a number of ways, and so we
commented on that, or we responded to their comments and asked us to look at
alternatives.
MR. VOLLARO-We saw that.
MR. ROUND-And so we went through that process, and lo and behold the Hadlock dam
failure occurred during this whole process and did significant damage to both
environment and hydrology and hydraulics of Halfway Brook. We’re in the Halfway
Brook watershed. They said, you know, we have options. You can construct wetlands
on site. You can do, we would rather you not construct wetlands on site because you’re
going to damage the terrestrial ecology of this site. You have some very nice mature
pine trees. We’d rather see you do a fee in lieu of mitigation on site, and they, actually
Corps steered us towards the DEC and the stormwater conservation district, and we
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
came up with a project in concert with them and we’ve actually constructed it. I do have
photos if you’d like to see that on disk, but basically it was a stream restoration project
where the Soil and Water Conservation District used the funds that we applied to this
effort and basically reforested a stream section, rebuilt the structure of the stream. The
stream was basically washed out entirely and a whole alley carved down the stream
corridor, and they rebuilt a defined stream channel as a part of this project, and the
Corps, DEC, and the Halfway Brook watershed all benefited from that, and I think the
concern that the Town Engineer had on the project was that there had been some
localized flooding issue that was addressed as a part of this project when this project
went through the review process.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw his letter. I just got it on e-mail today.
MR. ROUND-And to be frank with you, we were very frustrated that we were, that the
flooding was associated with this project, because during the review process we
demonstrated that our stormwater management plan was in compliance with DEC. We
did test pitting, a whole investigation, and I think the problem was that the engineer
reviewing the project had never been to the site. So we conducted a site visit last
Thursday and he quickly came to the realization that this project is separate and distinct
from a localized flooding problem that has been occurring on the Homer Avenue area for
a number of years, and so the letter that the Town Engineer wrote to you on November
th
16 was basically summarized in that fashion, is that this is separate and distinct from
the flooding problem, and the not constructing of wetlands or the failure to construct
wetlands is not going to exacerbate any localized flooding issue.
MR. VOLLARO-How much fill went in there? I was up there the other day twice, too.
MR. ROUND-You know, I don’t have a number, but I recall that it was between three and
five feet, and depending on where you are on the site it’s less at the road and more as
you go to the back of the site. The grading plan that you had and that’s in front of you
tonight is, would talk about that. I don’t have a number in my head on that one.
MR. VOLLARO-The grading plan that we’re talking about tonight is your attachment
number two.
MR. ROUND-Right, and there’s two grading plans, the changes, if I might just walk up,
the grading changes are minimal. The entire developed pad as you see has been
constructed out on the site, and I’m just going to call the developed pad. This Bay Road
runs north/south. This is the Niagara Mohawk right of way, Minogues is over here, and
Homer Avenue would be down here on the south of the page. This entire pad, nothing
has changed. The only grading that we’re changing that we’re changing, that we were
going to construct wetlands here, here, here, and here, and what we would be required
to do is to create small depressions, not a significant excavation activity, but small
depressions that would be hydraulically and hydrologically connected to the wetlands,
because the depressions themselves would not turn into wetlands. They need to have a
constant flow of water, and so these depressions would have been graded such that they
connected with the wetlands and had some water flowing in them and were wet at all
times. So the change that we’re asking from you, if you went to the site today, that’s the
way it’s going to remain. We’re not going to do anymore work on the site. So that’s it in
a nutshell.
MR. VOLLARO-So that drawing would amend the existing drawings in the Town’s
possession today. So when we come and look at the site, that’s the drawing.
MR. ROUND-That’s what it looks like, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got it.
MR. ROUND-And I know Craig Brown was on site with us and I know the Code
Enforcement Officer, the inspector Bruce Frank has been on site daily, and we have as
well. We’re contracted to do stormwater management inspections as part of the SWPPP
process. There’s a weekly inspection that’s conducted, and we have been on site every
week, and then you’re also required to do inspections every time there’s a greater than
one half inch rainfall event. So we’ve been on there quite a bit.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve been on there a lot.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. ROUND-We’ve been on the site, even though you’ve been on the site once in a
week, you still have to do an inspection after a half inch of rainfall, and the construction
has gone very nicely in our opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to have a nice view from there, too, I think. The people on
the second floor will be able to look over onto the mountain.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Chris, was there any back up from the latest rain last week, that day we had
an all day rain?
MR. ROUND-We were actually out there Thursday, and I know it rained more so Friday.
We haven’t seen any, because what we did, on this site, there is a small structure that
conveys stormwater across our site that emanates from Homer Avenue. What we did as
a part of the original approval is we basically piped that pipe, it used to discharge into the
wetland that’s on the site. Now it’s piped across and does discharge to the wetland as it
did prior to construction.
MR. SIPP-Now is there any connections with these wetlands and the culverts by
Minogues.
MR. ROUND-No, there’s not, and I think the letter from the engineer, and I’m going to
just go up to the aerial photo. This is the site that we’re talking about. This is our site.
This is Minogues over here. The drainage structure that they’re talking about from the
Town Engineer’s standpoint, there’s a, this drainage course, you can see it on here,
comes through here and enters culverts here, and culverts go underneath the ground
and go to Quaker Road. Our site basically goes to here. Our stormwater management
ponding goes here. You can see this drainage course goes to a different set of culverts
on Quaker Road and discharges.
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly what C.T. Male was verifying when they were out at the site
last week to make sure it was separate, and it is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what we’re doing here is we’re essentially modifying the plan to
eliminate the on site mitigation.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. ROUND-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And to approve it as it is now.
MR. LAPPER-One thing Chris mentioned in passing was that it’s in the same drainage
corridor, and that’s a requirement in the Corps, if you’re going to do off site mitigation, it
has to be in the same drainage corridor. So you can’t be doing stuff in the Hudson River
corridor. You have to be in Halfway Brook. So that’s why that project qualified.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like the Corps was really looking for some financial support really
to take care of the Hadlock Pond thing.
MR. ROUND-I think it was an opportunity that they saw, and the other thing they
balance, not to drag this out further, is what are the quality of the wetlands, and they will
protect and seek mitigation where that wetland has a benefit to either habitat or it’s
unique in its ecological makeup. These were low producing low quality wetlands that
don’t have a significant benefit, and they are looking for flood storage, too, is the other
issue the Corps is interested in, and these, in their mind, didn’t serve any of their
purposes that they sought that needed replacement.
MR. VOLLARO-So the key to this whole thing is the SP-4 Drawing, that drawing, the SP-
4, dated 2/22/06. That’s your latest drawing. That’s the grading and drainage plan.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Which will be added to the drawings we currently have in Town and they
will be the drawings that would be really called, eventually be the as builts, if they look
about like that. The as builts may have some changes to them.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. ROUND-That’s correct. We could call it SP-4 revised, so that they know that this is
the revised grading plan. Everything else will remain the same.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand, you did your mitigation back in December or
January. (Lost words) with Warren County back in December or January?
MR. ROUND-No, it was actually constructed, we talked to them back in, I’d have to look
at my notes, but the actual construction occurred just in May, I think May or June of this
year.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why are you here now? Why weren’t you here back then?
MR. ROUND-Well, we never had a Corps permit, I mean, we got an approval, and
pending a Corps permit, and the Corps only approved the project just within the last
several months.
MR. SEGULJIC-Even though the check was dated December or something like that?
MR. ROUND-Well, it was all contingent upon them accepting the check, accepting that
project, etc.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I see, so they finally did that. All right.
MR. ROUND-And the other issues why we weren’t here sooner, our impression is we
didn’t have to come back to the Planning Board for this modification, and as part of the
inspection process, the Town inspector said, hey, this wetland is not on here. It’s not a
part of your approved plan. You need to go get it modified and we had to design a
grading plan to meet.
MR. SEGULJIC-It all makes sense to me. I was just trying to understand.
MR. ROUND-You’re absolutely right.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we’re really approving here is the change in the grading
plan SP-4.
MR. SEGULJIC-The change in the drawing. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s really what we’re doing.
MR. ROUND-That’s all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess we’re ready for a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What we’re doing is SP-4, the grading plan, dated 2/22/06 will
replace what’s currently on file in the Town. That’s what we want to put in the motion.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 MODIFICATION AMEDORE
HOMES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes changes to site grading plan associated with
elimination of the proposed wetland mitigation area. Modifications to approved
subdivision require review by the Planning Board.
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, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, if the application is
a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
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 called SP-4 Grading Plan dated 2/22/06 prior
to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 MODIFICATION AMEDORE
HOMES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, this application is a modification. The requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modifications do not result
in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further
SEQRA review is required. Paragraph Seven, Whereas the applicant will provide as
built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans
called SP-4 Grading Plan, dated 2/22/06, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Have a nice Thanksgiving, everyone, and we’ll about the deli
and other stuff next week.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2006 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS E.I.S. GREAT ESCAPE THEME
PARK AGENT(S): LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RECREATION
COMMERCIAL 15 LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
ADDITION OF TORNADO WATERSLIDE TO EXISTING SPLASHWATER KINGDOM.
AMUSEMENT CENTER USES IN THE RC-ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/8/06 LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES [RPS] TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-
9-020
JOHN LEMERY, ERIC GILBERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is John Lemery, Lemery/Greisler,
Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park. Eric Gilbert is on my left. Eric is Operations
Manager for The Great Escape Theme Park, and Bob Holmes on my right is an engineer
with Jarrett-Martin. We have an application before you for a new water ride to be added
to the Theme Park. It’s called The Tornado. It’s a 65 foot tall four person water slide ride
to be located within Park Area A. The ride is 65 feet at its highest point, and it meets the
threshold requirements, therefore, of the Impact Statement. It doesn’t fall within, the
height limitation at that area is 115 feet. This doesn’t come within 20 feet of that height.
So color and lighting plans are not subject to additional review by the Board during the
process. Based on the Creighton Manning Traffic Study which was reported to the
Board, The Great Escape is not yet required to implement the next Phase of the
mitigation measures under the 2000 Plan. Some folks might not understand it.
MR. VOLLARO-I got it, but the EIS that we did, Environmental Impact Statement, had
some thresholds in it, starting in 2001, I believe, John?
MR. LEMERY-Correct, 2001.
MR. VOLLARO-And was modified eventually in 2004.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. LEMERY-2004.
MR. VOLLARO-And in those thresholds, so long as new rides come in Area A, as long
as those thresholds are not exceeded we don’t do any Environmental Quality Review
Act, or anything to do with SEQRA concerning those at all. So just so the Board
understands what Mr. Lemery is saying.
MR. FORD-I got that from the documentation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-That was a lot of documentation, too. The most recent sound study,
provided this past summer, as required, indicated that the only daytime sound increase
above the Findings Threshold occurred at Glen Lake, and these were caused by noise
associated with Glen Lake. Any nighttime readings after park hours which were elevated
were unrelated to park activities. As far as stormwater is concerned, the project area is
52,339 square feet, or 1.2 acres. There is 15,084 square feet of impervious area in the
project site, 71% permeable. Of this amount, 1477 square feet of the existing impervious
area will be removed. There will be a total of 9,297 square feet of new impervious area.
The Tornado ride, the water which will be used for that ride is Town of Queensbury
water. The Great Escape gets its water from the Town. It is metered and provided for by
the Town of Queensbury. I want to point out that we provided the Planning Board with
the stormwater management plan and unfortunately, just today, you received the, there
is no lighting plan because there are no new lights. Only the existing lights are going to
be applied.
th
MR. VOLLARO-That’s in your October 13 letter on Page Four you talk about that.
MR. LEMERY-Right. There was a problem with the comments that we got from Chazen.
Chazen sent those comments to the LA Group. We never got them until Friday. So
somehow the engineers, the Town Engineers sent them to the wrong place. We kept
asking for them. We finally got them Friday, and we’ve responded as fast as we could.
So we hope that you’ll take that into account. We’ve provided the landscape plan today,
and to the extent that you would require a further look at that, we would certainly, as has
happened before, make that a condition to the building permit.
MR. VOLLARO-We have that in file in the Town. There are six, I think there are six
questions in there on Chazen’s Page Two under site plans. Could we just go over those
real quickly?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Just one after the other.
MRS. BARDEN-Would you like these in front of you?
MR. VOLLARO-Probably we should look at them, yes. We ought to accept them for
tonight because the fact that they were sent to the wrong place is not your fault. So we
probably ought to look at those. Got rid of Number One in a hurry. So you are going to
set a full set of plans to the constructed wall, engineered drawings?
BOB HOLMES
MR. HOLMES-That would be at the time we would file for a building permit, that would
be our intention.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Number Three is really taken care of by your letter on Page Four,
I believe.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Because there isn’t going to be any change in the lighting?
MR. LEMERY-Correct, that’s correct, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t find this statement anywhere. I looked and maybe I just didn’t
get it, but I couldn’t find a statement that said the washing of construction vehicles would
be accomplished on a stone basin. Show the source of water and how the runoff would
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
be controlled. That’s Number Four in the Chazen letter. I went to all of the
documentation I could find. Is it in the stormwater plan?
MR. HOLMES-It is in the SWPPP. Exactly where that is right now, it could take me a few
minutes. I could find it for you.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I went through it and couldn’t find it. I looked for it in the
Appendix.
MR. HOLMES-It’s in there, and we’ve actually, the comments provided by Chazen we’ve
addressed those as best we can, not necessarily the clarification specifically on the plan,
but identifying you in the letter that you have before you on how that’s to be achieved,
our construction access. All we’re intending to do is on that southeast side of the site
area is we would access that by filling the Adventure River in temporarily to build a
crushed stone surface road over that, to facilitate the construction. Once that’s done, all
of that will be removed again from the Adventure River and that section of the property
restored to the pre-existing condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-Where does the Adventure River go?
MR. HOLMES-The Adventure River goes in a circle. It’s an attraction. I think they
originally referred to it as a Lazy River. You just float on a tube and it’s approximately
1100 feet long and you just float in a tube, sipping daiquiris, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be good.
MR. FORD-You’re not bridging it? You’re not putting a culvert in, so it’s going to stop
flowing? You’re going to fill it in.
MR. HOLMES-The Adventure River is an attraction. It’s only a seasonal operation.
Presently, or during the winter months when this would be constructed, the Adventure
River is empty, so that there will be no water in that facility.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You already have submitted a landscaping plan.
MR. HOLMES-The package that Susan just passed out to you, that landscape plan is
attached.
MR. LEMERY-It’s attached to what you just got.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not attached to mine.
MR. HOLMES-You should have a Drawing C-4, in that package.
MR. VOLLARO-C-4. Okay. I’ve got it. Okay. Yes. I think that that was also in the first
design package we got, I thought.
MR. HOLMES-There was limited landscaping addressed on the original Drawing C-1. A
comment from Chazen is they wish to see that separated package in which we’ve
actually provided some embellishment to that.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s your C-4 drawing?
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand.
MR. HOLMES-And the landscape plan that was prepared by Great Escape staff is meant
to be incorporated with their scheming to add to it and embellish what they presently
have.
MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, are there any additional Staff comments on these plans? I
mean, you got them yesterday. Were there any additional Staff comments?
th
MRS. BARDEN-I got them today as well. They’re dated November 20.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-As far as the plans themselves are concerned, the other thing we didn’t
get to look at originally was the C-4, but the rest of it looked pretty good to me.
MRS. BARDEN-And they would have gone back to Chazen for their review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You will change that. Number Six has got to be changed. I see
where they, the reference should be Six and Seven P-2.
MR. HOLMES-If you look in that package you have before you, we submitted an
additional drawing P-2 in which that correction has been made.
MR. VOLLARO-You made that. Okay. Yes, okay, I’ve got it. It’s on P-2, it’s right at the
top, where it says proposed retaining wall, Six and Seven P-2 has been correctly
installed. Okay. I don’t have any other questions on this.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Mr. Chairman, the original Impact Statement said it had to be less
than 125 feet or 150 feet, all the attractions?
MR. VOLLARO-It had to be within 20%, and they’re within that. They’re within that limit.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I have no problem with it. I think you have all the interest in the
world to make it look good.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as they don’t exceed any of the thresholds in the EIS, that was
the name of the game when we spent six months or two years going through an
Environmental Impact Statement, long, long time. There’s a public hearing on this
tonight. The SEQRA is for a prior Environmental Impact Statement. There is a public
hearing. So I’d like to just open the meeting up for anybody who would like to speak to
this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Hi. Good evening. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, Glen Lake, President of the
Glen Lake Protective Association. I just have a comment and a couple of questions.
The first is the comment about the increase on the daytime noise levels on Glen Lake
that’s on Page Four on their application document. They actually take those noise
studies from my porch on Ash Drive, and I just want to make the comment that the
reason those noise levels are up is because this year when they took the daytime noise
level there was a sea plane landing and taking off on the lake. This is a very rare event.
It only happens maybe three or four times a year. So I didn’t want to give the impression
that we’re increasing noise levels on Glen Lake. So I didn’t want to generalize from a
single event on that. Just for the record, and then I did have a question about the sound
impact. It says in their application, quote, since the project is a waterslide, the noise
generation is different than other rides and will not trigger environmental review, end
quote. It doesn’t really tell us if it creates any noise. It just says it might be different. I’m
just curious if there are any pumps on this ride. If this ride actually turns and generates
noise, if there are loud speakers on the rides, if there’s music playing from that ride or
any kind of noise that might be generated from it. It doesn’t really say anything about
that. So I’m curious about those questions, if they can answer that. The height seems to
be fine. It’s well within the 115 feet that’s required there. I had a question about the
wastewater. It said on Page Five that their application says in description that the
wastewater will be allowed to infiltrate into the ground, pre-existing infiltration system the
Adventure Ride. My question is, how much additional water, if any, is being generated
by the Tornado water ride, and will that system be able to handle additional waters? In
other words, has it been tested out that it can handle X amount more water.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean you’re talking about the receiving system?
MR. DERBY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the cumulative effect of that ride plus others on the
ability of the system to handle the cumulative water?
MR. DERBY-Correct, because it says that it’s going to go into the already existing
Adventure ride, and it doesn’t have numbers about the kind of waters, and I’m assuming
that water is infiltrated into the ground which will go right into the Glen Lake Fen, and
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
also I think it tells how often the water is held, de-chlorinated, and released into that
system. Pretty much the same question, how much water goes into that? That’s it.
Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak to this
application?
MRS. BARDEN-I do have one written comment, if there’s no one else to speak. This is
th
dated November 17 to the Queensbury Planning Board, subject: Application by Great
Escape Theme Park to add the Tornado waterslide to the existing Splashwater Kingdom.
“Gentlemen: I have received your notice of Public Hearing on this matter and regret that
I cannot attend the Tuesday, November 21, 2006 meeting. However. I have reviewed
th
the application at your office yesterday, the 17 and would like to state that although I
have no objection to the addition of this attraction, I do have the following concerns about
its construction that I would like to be read and documented into the minutes of the
Planning Board’s meeting. These are: 1. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. The plans show
an access road to be built from the construction site into an existing small service road
that spills into Round Pond Road. Please note that Round Pond Road is a small, two
lane County Road with a bicycle path on either side. It serves School Bus, normal
vehicular, emergency vehicle, cyclist, and pedestrian traffic. More importantly, it is the
only access road for residents of Birdsall Road and Highpointe Drive, both of which are
dead end streets. I am concerned that the quantity and size of construction vehicles
using Round Pond Road would cause abounding traffic jams on Round Pond Road and
State Route 9 from which these vehicles must enter or leave Round Pond Road. That
intersection has no formal traffic control to regulate such turning and would consequently
also bottle up. Such jams could reach as far as Exits 19 and 20 of the Northway, as
happened when the overpass to The Great Escape was built this summer. Therefore, I
would urge that Town, County and State traffic studies be conducted to require remedies
for these potential problems to be put in place for the duration of the project. The studies
should address the major arteries that would be affected ranging from Northway Exit 19
to Aviation Road to Route 9 to Round Pond Road; Quaker Road to Country Club Road to
Birdsall Road; and Northway Exit 20 to Route 9 to Round Pond Road; and Birdsall Road
to and from Route 9 and/or Quaker Road. 2. FINANCING OF THE PROJECT. Recent
news of The Great Escape’s and its parent company’s, Six Flags’ financial problems
cause me to request that this issue be addressed by the Board. The Board should have
proof that the project have adequate financial backing not only for the estimated costs
but for unexpected over-runs as well. Lest these become a burden passed on to the
taxpayers. Respectfully submitted for your consideration by, Siegfried Goldstein 24
Highpointe Drive Queensbury, NY 12804-6218 P.S. Could you please avail me of this
meeting as well as your conclusions/action items. Thank you very much.”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else like to talk to this application? If not, we’ll have the
applicant back up again.
MR. GILBERT-Eric Gilbert, Director of Operations.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. GILBERT-In reference to the sound, there are pumps. Pumps are, I believe,
currently located inside the building that is existing.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. Additional pumps will be located in that castle building that’s
immediately adjacent to the slide.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So they’re not outside.
MR. GILBERT-Not outdoors. Low level sound, area music, things of that nature will be in
existence. However, it is low level.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as they don’t go, have you looked at the impact? I guess you
have, the impact of the noise versus what was agreed to on the EIS. As long as they
don’t exceed those thresholds.
MR. GILBERT-Correct.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. That’s what that was all about at that time.
MR. HOLMES-Mr. Derby addressed the concern there with the wastewater. During
normal operations of this ride, all the water is filtered and recycled back into the ride
itself. There is some limited backwash water that occurs during normal operations to
make sure water quality standards are met, as far as the bathing load. There’s small
amounts. It’s my understanding that it generally would not be more than about 900
gallons every couple of days that would be discharged from this, and that is to go, will be
directed to an on site infiltration system that is presently existing for treating of the
bathing water for the Adventure River itself, which is actually located to the northeast of
where this site is. The water will be pumped to that direction and there’s actually a
holding tank that presently exists in which the water will be allowed to sit in that tank
before it fills up, before it leaches into the ground at a very slow constant rate.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s really the de-chlorination concept.
MR. HOLMES-Correct, and then at the end of the season, what they call their end of
season dump, the ride will sit dormant and actually the water will sit in the existing splash
pool for several days. I don’t exactly know what that timeframe is, and will allow the
water to de-chlorinate, and once that has occurred, that will then be pumped to that other
system and disposed of. Just a quick note.
MR. FORD-And disposed of how?
MR. HOLMES-Disposed of how? It would go into the existing infiltration system.
MR. VOLLARO-See, eventually, Mr. Ford, all of this water finds its way back into Glen
Lake after it’s been de-chlorinated and purified. In other words, it’s filtered all the way
through to Glen Lake.
MR. FORD-What I’m trying to get at is the amount of water at the close of the season
would be a substantial increase over what normally would be filtering out during the
season.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. At the end of the season when they dump the water, the existing
system that they have can only tolerate, I don’t know the exact numbers, can only
tolerate a certain amount of water being applied to that system per day. So it actually will
take several days to drain this facility out and get that into the groundwater, and it’s not,
because it could sit there for several days, it’s not going to exceed what the daily
capacity of this existing system is.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. I just get concerned when I hear words like dump being
used.
MR. LEMERY-Well, first of all, we don’t think that water ends up in the Glen Lake Fen,
Number One, when it’s discharged, because it’s all sandy soil there, 100, 200 feet deep,
and so whether end of that ever ends up in the Glen Lake Fen is a question, but
historically what has happened with the flume ride and all the other rides in there is at the
end of the season the water is allowed to sit and it’s tested all the time, and then there
are existing SPDES permits which permit the discharge into the groundwater on a basis.
So that’s all in place, but they’re very careful about that at the end of the season.
MR. SIPP-When do you assume you can start construction? Is it going to be this winter?
MR. GILBERT-It would be this winter, yes.
MR. SIPP-And how long would this take?
MR. GILBERT-I don’t know.
MR. HOLMES-It’s my understanding you’re probably looking at a couple, three months,
to get everything from soup to nuts, to get everything completed and ready for opening in
I believe mid-May.
MR. SIPP-So you wouldn’t be into the summer season where you’d have excess traffic
on Route 9, maybe possibly on Round Pond Road?
th
MR. GILBERT-No, the ride is scheduled to open May 25.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. LEMERY-The real issues are the footings. The rest of it is a ride that’s prepared by
Pro Slide. So it’s basically it comes in, it’s a fixture that is put together, so it’s not being
built, if you will, on the site. The only thing that’s being done on the site are the footings
for the.
MR. SIPP-Will this be visible to the housing development to the east? Passarelli?
MR. LEMERY-It may be. We don’t think so, but it’s possible.
MR. SIPP-It’s 65 feet tall.
MR. LEMERY-But I have to tell you that years ago when Passarelli came in to the
Planning Board to get his subdivision approved, I came to the meeting on behalf of The
Great Escape, and I said that The Great Escape had absolutely no objection to Mr.
Passarelli’s subdivision, but we wanted it known that The Great Escape was there and
that this subdivision sort of curled around the back of the Comet in that area, and we
said, look, you know, we just want you to be mindful in approving this, the then existing
Planning Board, that The Great Escape is here, and that’s on the record. So I have that
on the record. We don’t think that the way this ride is proposed that it will, if you’re
speaking of those two new houses there that are on the north side of the Glen Lake
Road. Are those the houses you’re speaking of?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. LEMERY-Round Pond Road.
MR. SIPP-Round Pond Road, yes.
MR. LEMERY-I don’t think they can be. It’s possible that if someone were to locate
some housing along the, on the south side, that you could see that because it’s up where
that castle is there.
MR. SIPP-Now, can somebody quickly explain how this operates? Are they on rafts or
rubber rafts when they ride in this?
MR. GILBERT-They are.
MR. SIPP-And actually this cone does not move.
MR. GILBERT-Correct.
MR. SIPP-The water is what moves the rafts.
MR. GILBERT-Yes, correct. The way the attraction actually works is that riders take a
tube up to the top of the waterslide. They board the waterslide four to a rubber raft.
MR. SIPP-Four?
MR. GILBERT-Yes, up to four people for the rubber raft, shaped like a cloverleaf. It’s
called actually a cloverleaf tube. Once they enter the start tub, they actually come down
the slide, they hit the funnel, or they enter into the funnel, and then the funnel actually
has water jets at the top and actually allows continuous flow on the funnel and then the
riders go back and forth down to the end of the tunnel, or into the funnel in which they
dump into the splash pool. It’s actually a lot of fun.
MR. SIPP-Well, I just wondered. You’re cutting, I think, 10 trees in there and I just
wondered if that would open it up. I guess there’s quite a bit of wood lot between, on the
back side, on the north side of this, between that and the next.
MR. LEMERY-Between that and the subdivision?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-Well, there’s that big hill behind the Comet.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s forested.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. LEMERY-Well, I don’t know how far back the subdivision goes back in there.
MR. SIPP-Buyer beware.
MR. LEMERY-I don’t know how far back it goes in there. It backs up against The Great
Escape property, but I don’t know, up at the top of that ravine.
MR. SIPP-Well, the only concern, and I see it actually points to the north/northwest, is
the screams it would emit from here bothering Twicwood.
MR. HOLMES-The funnel’s actually located away from Twicwood. It’s headed actually
back into the park itself.
MR. SIPP-You’re going to the northwest with the sound, really.
MR. FORD-Into the park.
MR. HOLMES-Into the park and away from Twicwood.
MR. FORD-So that sound should be absorbed largely by that funnel? It won’t have a
megaphone effect?
MR. GILBERT-You’d be able to hear, there’s actually a viewing platform. You’ll be able
to hear their screams on the viewing platform.
MR. FORD-But I read some in your documentation about it being absorbed by the ride
itself, and I’m, this is open on that upper end, the large cone effect there, on the large
end of it, is that open?
MR. GILBERT-Yes. You’re looking into the.
MR. FORD-So does that not have a megaphone effect?
MR. GILBERT-To be honest with you, I don’t know if.
MR. FORD-In other words, it’s shaped like one. So I’m wondering if it might have that
effect?
MR. LEMERY-Well, it may. It’s directed into the interior of the park, and when we do the
noise studies, we have to make sure that we’ve met the noise study obligations there.
So we have thresholds which have never been met.
MR. FORD-That’s true. I see that on that map. Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have two things we’re looking at here. One is the landscape
plan was submitted today. I don’t know that, I would suspect that Chazen has to, should
take a look at that, I would think, at that landscape plan, unless we want to take a look at
it here. I, personally, don’t have any objections to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-This is inside a park. There’s a lot of difference. So I’m not concerned
about it.
MR. VOLLARO-Neither am I. So I don’t even know that that has to go back to them. I
think that we’ve seen the plan. We’ll approve it at this Board’s level, and I wouldn’t make
that a requirement for them to go back for a signoff on that. It’s a fairly minor plan. It’s in
the park.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we’d have to do is that, concerning the foundation and the
structural design for the retaining wall, at the time of obtaining a building permit, the
Building Department will look at that, and they’ll probably just want to see that it’s
designed by a qualified engineer and stamped. We should have it in our motion.
MR. LEMERY-That’s fine. We appreciate that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There is no SEQRA on this, and the public has been conducted,
and the public hearing I believe is closed. Nobody else wanted to discuss it. So I will
close the public hearing.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And we can go into a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2006 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
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 addition of Tornado waterslide to existing
Splashwater Kingdom. Amusement Center uses in the RC-zone require review by the
Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and scheduled for November 21, 2006,
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, 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.
6. 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2006 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1. Paragraph Four complies.
2. Paragraph Five is not necessary,
3. Paragraph Seven,
4. 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 a Certificate
of Occupancy
5. I’d like to put one condition on this approval, and that is satisfaction of the
Chazen comment that the proposed retaining wall shown on Sheet P-2 to be
constructed should have plans prepared by a licensed design professional. The
top of the wall should be protected from pedestrians. The wall height should be
included. A foundation design prepared by a licensed design professional
should also be included. There should be provision for weep holes to drain any
ground waters from behind the wall.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Just a comment. This is a good example, I think, of how to get a major
project, the EIS really pays off at the front end.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
MR. LEMERY-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-It really pays off. It’s a laborious effort, but I think it takes something like
this and just runs it right on through.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, it works very well.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN 46-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED COMMUNITY WORK AND
INDEPENDENCE AGENT(S): KEVIN ELMS OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE
ZONING HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 724 GLEN ST., 22 LA
FAYETTE ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 600 SQ. FT. COVERED PATIO AREA WITH
CONCRETE SLAB, POLE BARN STYLE COVER WITH METAL ROOFING ON THE
EAST SIDE OF THE CWI ADULT CARE FACILITY. MODIFICATION OF OFFICE
USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 1-06, BP 06-609, SP 48-90 LOT SIZE 2.88 AC., 3.92 AC. SECTION
179-9-020
KEVIN ELMS & MARK DONAHUE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening.
MR. ELMS-Good evening.
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are, sir?
MR. ELMS-I’m Kevin Elms, Facilities Manager for CWI.
MR. DONAHUE-I’m Mark Donahue, Chief Financial Officer for CWI.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to give us just a brief history?
MR. DONAHUE-Well, we have, for years now, been applying for, we get these minor
maintenance grants from the State for projects and we have an adult daycare center
there, Glenview, and for several years we’ve been applying for a picnic area that would
be covered for the consumers there. Some of them are sun sensitive and they like to be
able to have picnics outside, and so we were awarded the grant, and there’s a window of
opportunity with these grants. They’re awarded, it was awarded in June, and then we
have to go through a process and pick up a contractor and everything, and then when we
finally got that all done and he applied for the application, we found out we had to come
before you for site plan review. The issue is that if we don’t get the project completed by
stst
the 1 of January, if we don’t have the project completed by the 1 of February, we lose
the grant.
MR. VOLLARO-That simple.
MR. DONAHUE-So what I’ve done is, the drawing I did was kind of, you know, spur of
the moment, and the contractor that’s going to do the job if it’s approved has done a
better set of drawings, and I have copies here if that’ll help you.
MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s an open pole barn kind of building. I don’t have any comments
on this application at all.
MR. DONAHUE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked at it and understand it
MR. FORD-It won’t interfere with the proposed Rite Aid development?
MR. DONAHUE-No. It sits back to the back of that, and that’s a separate, up in the front,
and the Staff notes mention that, that it wouldn’t effect that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. There is a public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is a public hearing, and there is a SEQRA on this as well. So,
does anybody here want to? I see nobody here. So I’ve opened and closed the public
hearing.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll go through a SEQRA, Short Form.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION NO. 46-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
COMMUNITY WORK AND INDEPENDENCE, 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.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. VOLLARO-Make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2006 COMMUNITY WORK AND
INDEPENDENCE, 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 a 600 sq. ft. covered patio area with
concrete slab, pole barn style cover with metal roofing on the east side of the CWI Adult
Care facility. Modification of office uses in the HC zone requires review by the Planning
Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and scheduled for November 21, 2006,
and
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/21/06)
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 [Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive]
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2006 COMMUNITY WORK AND
INDEPENDENCE, 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 and a Negative, and then 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 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MR. ELMS-Thank you very much.
MR. DONAHUE-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
32