2006-12-26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 26, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 1.
Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29
Site Plan No. 1-2006 1093 Group, LLC 1.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55
Site Plan No. 53-2006 Joseph Leuci – Mountainside Auto 1.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-7.2
Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 1.
Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12
Special Use Permit No. 35-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 18.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1
Subdivision No. 16-2006 Robert McDonald 36.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.18-2-58
Site Plan No. 49-2006 Thomas Groos 39.
Tax Map No. 249.6-1-20
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 12/26/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 26, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
TANYA BRUNO
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
BARBARA LAVIN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a couple of administrative items. Site Plan No. 18-2006 for
Stevens was tabled to 1/16/07. They didn’t get information in. So we’re going to table
them to an unspecified date until they get the information they need. The 1093 Group,
which is really Rite Aid, for most of you that know the Rite Aid people, it was essentially
tabled to 1/23/07 and they didn’t bring any information in, missed the deadline date of
th
December 15, so we’re going to table them to an unspecified date until information is
received.
SITE PLAN 53-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH LEUCI MOUNTAIN SIDE
AUTO AGENT(S) BARLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) GUIDO
PASSARELLI ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 1110 NYS ROUTE 9
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY ON THE
PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING AUTO USE ON THE SITE. PARKING
FACILITY USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE N.O.A. 6-06, SP 55-98, SP 14-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING
12/13/06 LOT SIZE 5.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-7.2 SECTION 179-4-020
MR. VOLLARO-We have one other. Is anybody here wanting to review Joseph Leuci
and Mountainside Auto? Okay. We have a letter in from Stephanie DiLallo Bitter asking
us to kindly place this application on your February agenda. So we’ll place it to, do we
have a date for that, for February? I’ll table it to the second meeting in February of 2007,
and that’s Site Plan No. 53-2006.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 SEQR TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S)
JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R JIM MOONEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 96 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 609 SQ. FT. SECOND
STORY ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THIS APPLICATION
WAS TABLED TO THIS DATE PENDING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO GAIN
THE NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM THE TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH FOR THEIR
SEPTIC SYSTEM. TO DATE THESE APPROVALS HAVE NOT BEEN ACHIEVED BY
THE APPLICANT. THE BOARD MAY ENTERTAIN A FURTHER TABLING OF THIS
APPLICATION UNTIL SUCH APPROVALS HAVE BEEN GRANTED. CROSS REF. AV
20-06, SP 31-90, AV 27-90 TB RES. OF 8/14/06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
227.17-2-12 SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & BOB FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper. Mrs. Schmulbach is an 85
year old woman who had proposed a more ambitious project previously to expand the
home, but not wanting to get involved with a septic variance, she has resigned herself to
adding a small attic addition to her 900 square foot home. She does plan on making this
her year round home. Her husband passed away and it’s just her at this point. So what
we spent the last month doing was verifying that it would just be considered upstairs
living space to add to the 900 square feet, and that had to get signed on by Dave Hatin
who asked that a window be eliminated so there was no question that it couldn’t ever be
used by anybody else as living space, and hopefully the Board will see this as a simple
request compared to where she previously was with this application.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Is that it?
MR. LAPPER-Any questions that the Board has, I’m here to answer.
MR. FORD-The public session is still open on that, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing, there’s a public hearing tonight. It was advertised, I
believe, for this evening.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody on the Board want to start off with any questions on the
Schmulbach application?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I have a few if I can jump in here.
MR. FORD-I’m going to save mine until I’ve heard from the public.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The first one is the ceiling in the attic is going to be eight feet, as
I understand it, looking at the plans.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, at the peak.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it looks like it extends, so the whole rectangular area is going to be
eight feet, as I understand it.
MR. VOLLARO-The New York Building Code is anything under seven is uninhabitable,
and I have a note here on mine, called out that we can change, in addition to removing
the window, change the ceiling height to six foot six inches. That’s on my notes.
MR. LAPPER-The architect was supposed to have been here tonight, Bob Flansburg,
and perhaps he’ll arrive before we’re done or else we’ll have to table it if we have
questions for him.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know what the overall height of the new, of the building is going
to be, because it’s not in any of the plans, or I may have missed it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on any of the plans, but having been there, looking at what it
looked like, I don’t think it looks 40 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think it’s 28 feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it should be.
MR. SEGULJIC-It shouldn’t be an issue, but I think it should be on the plans.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is that, I can understand she wants it for an attic space, but
when I look at the plans, that’s not telling me it’s an attic space. You have eight foot
ceilings. The stairway up to the area is, you know, that’s a landing.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the answer, Tom, is that it was designed to comply with the
Building Code, so that it wouldn’t count, under New York State Code, and Dave Hatin
passed on it, that it wouldn’t count as living space, and that’s why it was designed that
way. I mean, she needs more room, just because the place is tiny at 900 square feet,
and this was a question of doing as much as she could do without triggering it as living
space, to just create some extra room.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and where my concern lies is that, assuming it’s eight feet, and
you have a stairway like you do, if it was one of those pull down stairways, I wouldn’t be
as concerned, but when you look at the design handbook for septic systems, on Page
Four it says expansion of attic spaces, sleeping porches, etc., which may be converted
to additional permanent bedrooms in the future should be considered in calculating
design flows.
MR. LAPPER-And the answer is, without windows, it would be totally illegal to convert
that to bedroom space.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t mean they’re not going to, I mean it also says in the letter
that, you know, it’s going to be un-insulated. The problem is going to be there’s going to
be people there in the summer which are going to increase the uses of the septic
systems, on site septic system which we already have a concern with.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the septic system was installed in 1990, so there’s not a problem of
failing septic systems. This is over 400 feet from the lake. So it’s not like this is a
lakeside residence that’s across the street, and the simple legal answer is that it doesn’t
require any septic upgrade if it’s just not living space. It was designed so that it wouldn’t
be living space.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, would the system be adequate, then, because the rules say, an
expansion of an attic, which may be converted to additional permanent bedrooms in the
future.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It can’t be converted. I mean, that would be an illegal use.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what I’m getting at overall is that if you want the eight foot
ceilings, then I think you have to have one of those pull down stairs. If you don’t want the
pull down stairs, then I think you’d be looking at, I went up and measured my attic
tonight. It’s five feet.
MR. LAPPER-Martha’s 85. We talked about that with the architect, and the pull down
stairs would not be safe for her. I mean, she needs stairs to get up there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then I think we have to reduce the ceiling height.
MR. LAPPER-And I can’t offer that tonight without the architect, just because I don’t
know enough about the design. So what I would just ask is that, since he’s not here, that
we open the public hearing and just keep it open.
MRS. BRUNO-Tom, actually, and I just want to put this in, and I haven’t fully come to my
conclusion about the vote, but the stairs aren’t even designed to be to Code for egress.
I’m just noticing that, just to stick that in there, and I have to say, I do hear what you’re
saying in terms of those pull down stairs.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the New York State Building Code talks about anything
under seven feet as uninhabitable. So, if we make it six foot six, that’s, in my notes, and
take the windows out, from both sides, it’s an uninhabitable space.
MRS. BRUNO-Was that number given to you by Dave?
MR. VOLLARO-It was given to me by the Zoning Administrator today at about five
o’clock, 4:30.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I think we’ll get our answer right now.
MR. LAPPER-Bob Flansburg, the project architect, is here. So I’d rather have him
address the issue of the height, since he’s the designer.
MR. FLANSBURG-Good evening. Sorry I’m a few minutes late. As I understand the
question it’s why does the roof height have to be, or the ceiling height, I guess, the
finished ceiling height, have to be eight feet. I think it’s a function of the roof pitch that
we chose for the outside, the aesthetics, and at this point what we’re trying to do is make
use of as much of the interior roof as we can for attic storage. So it varies. I mean, the
height at which we decide to put the ceiling joist is arbitrary. Eight foot just is a standard,
but some of that, as you can see from the second floor plan, tapers out to four feet. So
we put a knee wall, and that’s optional, the knee wall is entirely up to Mrs. Schmulbach if
she decides to put it in or not, but, you know, at some point, that space in the eaves gets
to be a little difficult to get at. You can put boxes out there, so that ceiling height is
arbitrary.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know that, according to what I’ve received today, the New York
State Building Code says anything under seven feet is uninhabitable.
MR. FLANSBURG-To be honest, I would have to look and see what the new Code says
as far as habitable. There’s other requirements as well. This can’t be habitable space.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-The window was another one, for ventilation and so on.
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct, egress.
MR. VOLLARO-So we want to make sure that, I guess to put it right on it, we want to
make sure that that doesn’t get, in the future, converted to living space. I think that’s
what the concern of this Board, as I hear it being discussed.
MR. LAPPER-Let me ask Bob a question, as a way to try and strike a compromise.
Since the whole roof is not eight feet, it’s just at the peak, or just that rectangle in the
center?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, the dotted lines on the (lost words) eight feet, it could be higher
in the center. Again, it’ll be up to 10, 11 feet in the center.
MRS. BRUNO-I think what you’re saying is that the collar ties are setting the ceiling
height at eight feet.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-But the roof.
MR. VOLLARO-Those ties can be lowered.
MRS. BRUNO-They can be lowered.
MR. LAPPER-Would it be possible to set that at seven feet for the center, so that the
Board would be comfortable?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, there’s no reason not to, I mean, nobody’s going to bump their
head at seven feet.
MR. LAPPER-Then we could leave the roof pitch the same on the outside, so it would
still look good.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Tanya put it correctly, the collar ties can be lowered.
MR. LAPPER-So if that’s okay with you, we could offer to lower them to seven feet.
MR. FLANSBURG-I think that’s fine, that’s acceptable. Again, it’s, you know, any lower
than that, someone like myself or anyone else would be whacking their head on
something. So as long as they’re six, eight, door height seven feet higher. That’s fine.
MR. LAPPER-Unless he gets a hair cut and save a couple of inches.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d prefer to set it slightly under seven, just to make sure, six, six would
probably.
MR. FLANSBURG-I would ask for standard door height, a door is six foot eight.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just going to use it for storage. Why do you need a door?
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, it’s not going to be conditioned space up there. It’s an attic. I
mean, it’s not insulated.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I think that’s irrelevant.
MRS. BRUNO-No, it’s part of Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t mean people aren’t going to be sleeping up there. What
we want to do is reduce, that septic system has a particular design. If you have people
sleeping up there, staying over for long weekends, that increases the capacity.
MR. LAPPER-I think we’re only talking about six, six or six, ten at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, this is not saying storage space to me.
MR. LAPPER-But you have to keep in mind that it’s only a 900 square foot house.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-It was just too convenient for me, when I went and measured my
ceilings, they were all eight feet, which is exactly what this is set at.
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, again, it’s a collar tie. Eight feet is a standard, again, it varies
down to four feet, I believe four feet, I’m saying four feet knee walls because that’s
normally what I would show on a plan, and it’s to give the owner some representation of
how much of that space is, at what point are you going to bump your head in it, but
there’s no windows, there are no windows in this space. It’s not habitable space. It’s not
heated space and it’s not even insulated space.
MR. SEGULJIC-When do people spend time at Lake George, in the winter time or in the
summer time?
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, Mrs. Schmulbach spends all year round up there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if it’s just for storage, I don’t see why you’d have a problem
dropping it down to like five feet, six feet. It’s just for storage.
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, again, I’m kind of just stepping into this situation, but I’m familiar
with the design of this addition, having prepared the plans, and I guess my question
would be, it cannot be considered habitable space. We’ve talked to Dave Hatin about
that. We’ve talked to Craig Brown about that, and I know from a Building Code
standpoint it’s not allowed. If, at some day, a building inspector or anyone else drives by
and sees a window go in there, it’s a different story. I mean, at that point they could raise
the question, are they turning that into living space or habitable space, it’s an attic, and I
don’t think it’s too much to ask that you have those collar ties set high enough so
somebody is not going to, I, personally, wouldn’t want to, I’d love to have a walk up attic.
Most of us don’t have that luxury anymore, but I’m not going to want to be stooping over
if I’m carrying a box or whatever else. The point is we’re improving the aesthetics of the
building. She has a roof line and I would ask that she be allowed to make use of it as
storage space.
MR. FORD-This structure was increased in elevation, correct? It has a basement now?
MR. FLANSBURG-It does have a basement now, yes.
MR. FORD-So you have storage space, she has storage space in the basement.
MR. FLANSBURG-She does, yes.
MR. LAPPER-Is it dry?
MR. FLANSBURG-That’s the question. There was some water, there’s a water issue
there. They jacked the house up. She did put a full foundation. At one time we were
going to do a crawl space. There was a full foundation in there now. I can’t say if it’s all
dry or not, but she has improved head room and storage.
MR. FORD-What is the height of that head room in that basement?
MR. FLANSBURG-I’m not sure to be honest. I know it’s six feet or better. I’m pretty sure
it’s six feet or better.
MR. FORD-And it’s the full basement under the house, the structure?
MR. FLANSBURG-It is, yes.
MR. SIPP-I was in the basement last summer, and it was dry at that time, and that’s after
a lot of Spring rain.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, that’s the ideal case.
MR. SIPP-As far as the full height, I would say 84 inches, I think you’re seven blocks
high, I think.
MR. FLANSBURG-I was involved then. I saw when that foundation was going in. I didn’t
see it finished and the house set back on it yet. I haven’t been there since. I’ve kind of
been unplugged from the project until now, and trying to get back in the loop here.
MR. FORD-I was there that day. I remember you going in and checking that out.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FLANSBURG-It’s the Board’s concern that this space obviously would be converted
to living space after the approval was given. Is that accurate?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that that’s what the Board is contemplating, at least, in trying to
make sure that this doesn’t get converted in the future. That’s the sense I’m getting from
listening to the deliberations.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess what we’re saying is that we will offer whatever is reasonable
to assure the Board, and if it’s dropping it down below seven feet, that’s fine. It’s just a
question of trying to compromise and meet her requirements to stand up in it but to be
under seven feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-If she already has storage space in the basement, why does she need
more in the attic?
MR. LAPPER-Because the place is just tiny. I mean, there’s stuff you don’t store in a
basement.
MR. SEGULJIC-She’s an 85 year old woman living by herself.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. She’s selling her home in Clifton Park and she wants to move up
here full time so she’s got stuff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, I’m just concerned it’s not really for storage, and it’s just
that the roof is set at eight feet.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, what you’re saying, Tom, is you don’t believe her, and there’s, by
taking out the window, but if you take out the window, it’s not legal to use it, and who
would want to be in space that doesn’t have a window?
MR. SEGULJIC-People that come up and visit on the weekends.
MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be hot in the summer, cold in the winter. It’s not insulated. So
we think those are pretty good indications right there.
MR. FLANSBURG-Tom, if I may add, once the decision was made, you know, it was
clear that that was not going to be habitable space. In preparing the building plans and
cross sections and I’m talking about working drawings for the purpose of obtaining a
building permit, there’s no insulation. There’s no heat ducts. There’s no provision for
that being habitable space. It’s not sheet rocked. As Jon just said, it’s going to be very
hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. I would agree, you know, in order for that
to be habitable space or for it to be comfortable for somebody to stay there for a
weekend whatever, I think you’d see sheetrock showing up. You’d see the provisions
made for that to be habitable space. It’s not going to be conducive for a guest room or
anything else. If there’s other things that we could do to I guess strengthen that case for
you, that we haven’t done.
MR. SEGULJIC-Put the ceiling to five feet.
MR. LAPPER-That doesn’t make it useful.
MR. FLANSBURG-Again, it seems unreasonable, to be honest with you, but it’s, Marty,
it’s time for her to get this project going and put her house back together. She’s been in
an apartment. Her house has been torn up for some time now, and it’s been stuck in this
quagmire. So what I would ask is if that’s what it takes to get it done, then that’s fine.
We’ll put them at five feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’ll do it for me.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think five feet is reasonable.
MR. FLANSBURG-I don’t think it’s reasonable, but I just, I mean, it’s an attic space. It’s
not heated. It’s conditioned. It’s not, she has no intention. She’s arrived at the fact that
she’s not going to have that as habitable space.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what I would ask is that what the Chairman was saying that if it’s
under seven feet, that’s acceptable, whether it’s six, six or six, ten or whatever the
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
architect could live with, that the Board would consider that, and that would be
acceptable as a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Anything under seven is uninhabitable, as far as the Building Code is
concerned.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not going to prevent people from going up there, still.
MR. VOLLARO-Even at five feet, if somebody really wants to sleep up there, they can.
MR. SEGULJIC-True, but I’m just concerned with the stairway going up there and
everything. It just doesn’t, it’s not a.
MR. LAPPER-I guess our position is it’s regulated by the State Building Code, and that’s
what we’d like you to rule on it.
MR. VOLLARO-How does the rest of the Board feel about this? Tom has been carrying
the load here for about 15 minutes now. So does somebody else want to discuss this?
MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to switch gears just a little bit. I know that we’ve been over the
septic issues many times and that’s really not our purview tonight, but when the, just to
refresh my memory, when the septic was replaced, how many bedrooms was that sized
for, do you recall?
MR. LAPPER-In 1990 when the septic permit was issued.
MRS. BRUNO-Was issued.
MR. FLANSBURG-I’m not 100% sure.
MR. LAPPER-My recollection is it’s two.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean there was only two bedrooms in the cottage. I would have to
believe if it was replaced in 1990 it was replaced for that purpose, for two bedrooms.
MRS. BRUNO-For two bedrooms.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the building permit for that in 1990 states, I believe it, I have
it here so I might as well just look at it, but I think it states, too, at the time that they put
that in, the only thing that was done there was a 1,000 gallon tank was put in in 1990. It
doesn’t seem to state on the application how many bedrooms are there.
MR. FLANSBURG-I know that the first floor that you see, the two bedrooms, one’s called
the master bedroom, the other one is Bedroom Number Two. That is where they are
now. This layout is for the most part exactly as it was. I think there were some changes
to the bathrooms in terms of where there was a door eliminated between the two and
there’s two separate bathrooms. She didn’t have a powder room, so she wanted to
create one, but aside from that, the floor plan’s accurate.
MR. FORD-Actual living space first floor square footage, please?
MR. FLANSBURG-I would say it’s probably close to, I don’t have the application.
MR. LAPPER-The application is 900 square feet.
MR. FORD-I read it in the application. I just wanted to verify that.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, I mean, it’s 27 8 by 32 feet. So I would think that’s reasonable.
MR. LAPPER-Number of bedrooms is two, in the septic disposal permit from 1990.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that on the application, or is that on the permit itself?
MR. LAPPER-It is the application.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got both. I’ve got the building permit from 1990 that’s signed by
Dave Hatin.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what I’m looking at, and on top of that was the application
which says two bedrooms.
MR. VOLLARO-Where on the application do you see that? I couldn’t find it.
MR. LAPPER-Six lines down.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Number of Bedrooms, two, I’ve got it. So that septic system was
sized originally for two bedrooms, and that’s what exists now on the first floor.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FLANSBURG-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only problem I have with that is it was installed over 17 years
ago, and secondly, when we had the plot looked at the second time, that septic tank is
only 86 feet from a well that’s on her property. Now my understanding is that she doesn’t
get potable water from the well. She gets potable water from the lake?
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s the opposite. She gets potable water from the well because the
lake water’s not that good.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, under those circumstances, I mean, even though we’re not
supposed to look at stuff, we’re supposed to be blind to the septic system because we’re
not adding any habitable space to the house, it seems to me that a septic system that’s
17 years old that is less than 100 feet from a well, which she’s using. I would like to see
that certified by the Department of Health as being okay. Yes, I really would, because
it’s for her benefit. Really, she’s taking water and she also has a well which is 86 versus
100 feet.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a problem with that, and I think that’s reasonable as a
condition.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s a very good idea.
MRS. BRUNO-I agree.
MR. FORD-Good point.
MR. SEGULJIC-The other concern I have, with regard to the septic system, how they’re
required to have an additional 50% of required infiltration area shall be identified on the
site plan, and there’s nothing on the site plan. So if we approve this, we’re turning a
blind eye to that requirement.
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s not a blind eye. That was approved according to the way the
regulations were in 1990 for the septic system, and what happened subsequently was
that her neighbor located a well in such a location that it precluded the relocation of that
septic system. That’s why she’s not (lost word) her project. It’s not that she doesn’t have
room on the site. It’s that she doesn’t have room on the site that’s 100 feet from her
neighbor’s well because the neighbor, after the fact, went and put the well too close to
the neighbor’s property line, but rather than get into a fight with the neighbor, it’s just a
matter of she’ll live with putting in attic addition for storage and that’s it, but she didn’t do
anything wrong, but having somebody go out and certify that the septic system’s
operational, that makes sense to me.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Department of Health ought to at least put their approval on it
and make sure, take some samples, for example, and make sure there’s no coli form in
the water and so on.
MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly reasonable.
MR. FLANSBURG-Mr. Vollaro, excuse me, you’re talking about testing the system.
You’re testing the well for coli form?
MR. VOLLARO-In other words, they would go into the house and take a sample from her
faucets, for example, to make sure that there wasn’t any.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FLANSBURG-Any contamination.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. FLANSBURG-So they’re testing the water.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, it’s for her benefit, really, and anybody else that might stop in as
a guest or whatever. I think the system is 17 years old and it’s not, it doesn’t meet 100
feet separation requirement.
MR. LAPPER-That’s totally agreeable.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re really asking that the well be tested, with the well water.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I said here is that the Town Board of Health will issue a septic
variance, receipt of that variance was a requirement of the 9/26 tabling motion. That’s
one of the things we had then, when the septic system was in play. Now that it’s not in
play, I think that the Department of Health ought to come out and certify that it’s, that the
water being taken from the system in the house is okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s my concern.
MR. LAPPER-You want to make sure there’s no contamination in the potable drinking
water system from the well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that’s a big consideration, for her as well as anybody else. I
would go along with this. My own take on this thing is to set the ceiling collars at six foot
six inches, take the window, make sure there’s no window in the attic. You mentioned
having it sheet rocked. I would even prefer it be sheet rocked, because to change it,
now, having just the un sheet rocked attic, pretty easy to change. Once you sheet rock
it, it’s not so easy to change a dimension anyway. You have to pull the sheet rock off
and stuff to do a lot of work on it. Do you understand my logic?
MR. LAPPER-Can you agree to that? Do you have the authority?
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, excuse me. Yes, I do. I never thought of it that way, but that’s a
good point. If you sheet rock it you’re not going to want to tear the sheet rock off to
insulate it after the fact and wire it and all that. I don’t see a problem in that, I just don’t
know if she was planning to sheet rock it and incur the expense, but it doesn’t have to be
taped.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t have to be taped.
MR. FLANSBURG-So my last when I talked to Marty, Mrs. Schmulbach was just, you
know, it’s unfinished. You’re not paying to have it insulated.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a big space and the sheet rock’s not that expensive.
MR. FLANSBURG-Sheet rock’s not expensive.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the labor to put it up.
MR. FLANSBURG-I mean, I don’t find your request unreasonable. She has no intention
of, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any comments on this, other than that? Tom?
MR. FORD-I just want to point out, if my calculations are accurate here, we’ve got 900
feet of living space and approximately 1362 feet of storage space. Just for the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s including the basement, I would guess.
MR. FORD-Correct.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-One other question. Originally you were going to have windows in the
attic. Why?
MR. FLANSBURG-Well, originally, and again, I’m going back about a year or so ago. I
mean, ideally there would be two bedrooms and a bathroom. We had a shed dormer
and that space was going to be converted to two bedrooms, bathroom, and I believe a
small portion of attic storage. So again, you know, I’m out of the loop for some time now
and coming back to it and I’m saying, Marty, how’s the project going, and she’s says,
well, here’s where we’re at. So there is no, because of septic and well and all the other
issues that we’ve already spoken of this evening, there’s no longer two bedrooms and a
bathroom and an attic storage or whatever. It’s basically an attic. So the windows were
removed, and I believe this was done, I know I revised the drawings for Stephanie.
MR. LAPPER-That was because Dave Hatin said that was a requirement.
MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. At first the windows were, again, it’s not a habitable
requirement from the outside, the aesthetics, the window looks nice in that gable. If we
can’t have it because that raises flags for habitable space, then we took the window out.
I mean, Marty is at the point, it’s an attic that’s no longer habitable space. So I hope that
answers the question. There were windows, there were dormers, there was a shed
dormer originally. We took the shed dormer off and went to just a plain gable which
reduced the head room that was available up there considerably. Now you’re talking
about that space down the middle where you used to have almost the entire second floor
available. So it’s been a, where the knee walls are now, there was full eight foot head
room out to above the existing bedrooms. I don’t know how else to describe that, but
there’s no longer, obviously the plans have changed considerably since the process was
started.
rd
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the process was started on December 23, actually, of 2005. So
we’re a year into this small application, a long time. It’s been tabled three times now.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t mean to belabor the point. So originally her intention was to have
a habitable space up there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. She applied to do a much more involved project.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, with the attic, to have the attic be habitable.
MR. VOLLARO-Her original intention was to have a habitable attic, to change that to two
bedrooms and I think a half a bath.
MR. FLANSBURG-I think it was a full bath at the time.
MR. LAPPER-She didn’t know about the 86 foot.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-No, no, excuse me. I’m looking at the November 14 drawings where
you have the attic with the two windows, labeled as attic and you have two windows. So
this is like the third revision.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the shed roof was already removed, as Bob had said, at that point,
what you’re looking at. Then Dave said to make it qualify as non habitable there can’t be
any windows. I mean, the windows just would have added light downstairs.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve never seen an attic with windows on either end.
MR. FLANSBURG-If I may, the windows were, if you look at the elevations, I think you
have elevations with you, yes, on the front page you’ve got a gable that has cedar
shakes in it. From an architectural standpoint, it begged for a window. The window has
been there from the beginning. We left it in and said I’d argue that the window be left. It
could have been a smaller window. It could have been a different window, but we had
already arrived at the fact that it was an attic. So when Dave made the comment, Dave
Hatin, to Stephanie Bitter that, you know, if you keep that window in there, they’re going
to consider it habitable space, we said, fine, take the window out, it’s not habitable
space, and that’s the progression of the last month or so. I prepared some revised
drawings without the window. You do have those? Okay. So as I sit here tonight, the
window had been removed a couple of weeks ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any other comments? Tom, how about you, are you all
set?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FORD-I’m ready to here the public.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else before we get going? Okay. I’m going to take a
few minutes to open the public hearing tonight. Is there anybody here who would like to
talk to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SHANAHAN
MR. SHANAHAN-Good evening. My name is John Shanahan. I live at 18 Seeley Road,
which is right across the street from this project. Mr. Ford questioned the height of this
house. The foundation’s going to bring the house up about 18 inches, and that cellar is
dry, and my complaint from Day One has been water from this project and one right
beside it done by the same contractor that comes right across Seeley Road down my
driveway and in my cellar. I don’t have a full cellar. I have a little furnace room, but my
furnace is setting up on cinder blocks because more than once I’ve walked down there
and stepped in six inches of water. It comes right in where the wall meets the floor, but it
only comes when water’s running down the driveway, which comes across Seeley Road.
Now the Town has repaired drains in our area and improved drainage. The contractor
on this particular project, on the last house he did right behind this one, we ended up with
a five gallon spackle bucket and a half gallon wine bottle went down the drain and ruined
a drain right in my neighbor’s yard, right behind Kathy Keating’s cabin, the lawn just blew
up. We had a little artesian well created there, because an old settlement pocket that
had been put in years ago had been obstructed by this spackle bucket and wine bottle.
That was quite a surprise to us. I think you might recall, Mr. Vollaro, that I brought in
photographs of where it blew the lawn apart.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SHANAHAN-Does anyone on the Board have a walk up attic in their home?
MRS. BRUNO-I do.
MR. SHANAHAN-You do?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. SHANAHAN-God bless you. That’s an older home, is it not?
MRS. BRUNO-Very old home.
MR. SHANAHAN-I grew up in a home in Cambridge from the 1890’s and there was no
walk up attic in that, but I know the exotic homes did. The attic in my home, right across
the road, is just over four feet, and it only goes half the house, it doesn’t go the full
length. I heard insulation mentioned earlier, I think by Mr. Ford. I don’t have any in my
house at all. They didn’t have it in those cabins way back when. A couple of outlets I put
in. They used newspaper. So it would take nothing to put insulation up here. The vents
that they’re discussing could become a window in a heartbeat. They’re a big concern of
mine. Six foot is livable space. You mentioned something about a Code for steps and
access and egress. I have a house right next to me that’s got six bunks and a cellar.
This cellar is going to be a livable cellar. When you bring young people up in the
summer, or guests, all they need’s a place to sleep. They’ll be in the attic, that would be
much more desirable than the cellar. Inside stairs, up to a walk up attic. I think that
pretty much designates living space. I don’t care if it’s four feet, five feet, six feet,
children will be there, and it can be sold as that, and it takes nothing to put a window in.
I’m sure you’re all well aware of that. Any vents that go up in this so called attic, which
most homes have some form of, wouldn’t take much to take a vent and turn it to a
window, and I don’t think any of you would ever notice it. Those of us in the
neighborhood would, and the attorney sitting here said the lake water is no good. He’s
correct. It’s changed dramatically. I use filters every couple of weeks. In fact if some of
you will recall I brought them in here, and I’ve invited you all up for a cup of tea, and I’ve
had no offers so far. It’s all because of the project’s gone on this house and the one
behind it, which is also done by the same contractor. As far as sheet rocking and
insulating, that would just make it easier to become a livable space. My feeling is that if
it’s a conventional attic like most folks, the insulation is between the rafters, and the
shingles and things stand up longer and last better if there’s no insulation up there. They
want to be the same temperature as outside. That’s why they put vents in these roofs.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
So, I’ve always enjoyed Martha. I don’t like being here at all. I drove 200 miles to be
here today, and I’m going back tomorrow, because a neighbor in Florida called up and
said he got a notice this was going in with an eight foot ceiling. That’s a living space.
This piece of property, she’s got 900 feet on the first floor, 600 feet in the cellar, and the
second floor was supposed to have 800, and she’s putting all this on 7900 square feet of
land. That is point one eighth acre. That’s not even a fifth of an acre. We haven’t talked
about where she’s going to park. These people are going to come and visit. I’ve never
seen traffic there. I have considerable parking on our property, and I have no problem
sharing it. There’s people here tonight that can attest to that because they can park on
my lawn, wherever, I don’t care. That’s not the problem. The problem is the water and
how many people are going to use this house, and is Mrs. Schmulbach really going to
want to climb stairs with things when she could have an outside cellar entrance, such as
most of us have, with a full cellar, which some day is going to have bunks in it. You
might as well accept that now. Because I don’t know how long Martha is going to stay
there. My suspicion right along was that this was being done for sale, that her intent of
permanent residence there was of question, but it’s not my place to question that, but I
do question this so called attic. If an attic is four feet, then it’s going to be very hard to
sell it as a four bedroom, which it was going to be before. It was going to be two
upstairs, one downstairs, and I think an office or something like that. I don’t know what
you do with an office up here. Most people spend their time on the water outside having
a good time or putting guests in, but you asked some good questions and I appreciate
your time, but my concern is that this is just being done to become an expandable home
that will turn a high dollar in our neighborhood. Because putting bunks in a cellar is not
new. I have one right next door to me. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
patience.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
MR. SHANAHAN-Good luck, Mr. Vollaro, in the future.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this application?
KATHY STANDBRIDGE KEATING
MS. KEATING-Hi. I’m Kathy Standbridge, Kathy Keating, as I’m referred to here, but I
share a property line with Mrs. Schmulbach, and my concern all along with the project
has been basically the septic. I wanted to just make a comment and make sure, if we
could, if there’s any way that someone can look at where they’ve been digging and
where, some folks think that her septic is actually on my property, and I don’t know if this
is the Board to talk to or who to see about that, but even some of the spots where they’ve
talked about changing it to another spot so that she, you know, so this project could go
forward, it looks like they’ve been digging right into my line. So just to comment there.
The other concern, as John said, is the re-sale. With this project, I’m thinking that
anything could happen. It could turn around. They could build upstairs. No one would
see that, any of you that are sitting, we would see that by sitting next door, but all in all to
me the project is very large and overwhelming for the piece of property that it’s on.
That’s my take on it, and I really would like to see a nicer place there for Marty. By the
same token, I am concern about all the goings on there, and I appreciate your concerns
and your looking into it.
MRS. BRUNO-May I ask a couple of questions?
MS. KEATING-Sure.
MRS. BRUNO-So your house is one of the original, from what I understand they were
kind of association cabins originally and that’s how the land was broken up?
MS. KEATING-Owned by the same person originally.
MRS. BRUNO-Owned by the same person, and then they slowly got broken up. How
many pieces of property are there now that were taken out of that one piece?
MS. KEATING-There’s five of us up across the street, across the Seeley Road, and
there’s a number of places down by the water. It’s like a split.
MRS. BRUNO-I think I’m just referring specifically to ones across Seeley Road, yours,
Mrs. Schmulbach’s, and the others that are on that side. I’m just picturing that portion
right there.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MS. KEATING-Five of them.
MRS. BRUNO-And the approximate sizes of all of those pieces of property are about the
same size as Mrs. Schmulbach’s or no?
MS. KEATING-No.
MRS. BRUNO-They all vary?
MS. KEATING-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Out of those five houses, how many have thus far been renovated and/or
expanded?
MS. KEATING-Three, I would say three, including Marty’s.
MRS. BRUNO-Including Marty’s. Okay. All right. Thank you.
MS. KEATING-Okay. Any time.
MR. SIPP-Is your house to the northeast, northwest of?
MS. KEATING-Does it have names on it? Ours is Smith and Standbridge. That’s our
original names, yes, our maiden names. Keating/Fisher.
MR. SIPP-So where is your well located?
MS. KEATING-I don’t have a well.
MR. SIPP-You don’t have a well.
MS. KEATING-My property is strictly seasonal.
MR. SIPP-Now, to the south of this property is Howland, Dan and Julie?
MS. KEATING-Howland, no longer there, that I know of.
MR. SIPP-They’re no longer there.
MR. SIPP-But their well is within 100 feet.
MS. KEATING-The Howlands were the original owners of the whole property. So I’m not
sure what you’re looking at. There’s a few people that have dug wells. Marty in front of
me, the Rowlandson’s behind me, and then further back one of the last houses they
bought a lot more property and they did a lot with theirs. So theirs is like a home now.
So it’s definitely separate, but they still belong to our group. I don’t know what they have
for water there.
MRS. BRUNO-Staff, is this something that we can pull up on the aerial views?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MS. KEATING-Would you like me to point out different properties or anything to help?
Okay. This right here is Marty’s piece, the piece we’re talking about, I believe. This is
Seeley Road. This is my piece right here. Okay. This is the property of the
Rowlandsons. They just built a huge home back there. This is the person I was talking
about that has the property or the building was here. They bought this, expanded over
here, and they’re like their own area now. They have a large piece, and this is the
Keatings. They’re pretty well all together there, but relatively speaking, you can see how
small that is, and my concern is she has a little shed right here. I thought that was going
to be taken down, but she tells me no, and they’re digging right here for that septic, or
they were.
MR. FORD-Could you point to your well, please.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MS. KEATING-I don’t have a well. Their well’s, the Schmulbach’s that we’re talking
about here for the meeting, their well is like, I look out my front door and see it about
here.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the plan exactly that spot, yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Could you please point out the previous gentleman who spoke where he
lives? I just need to get an idea of which way the water is flowing.
MS. KEATING-Down the street here, down here, and he’s over here.
MR. SHANAHAN-This is all paved right through here. That’s all downhill.
MRS. BRUNO-So you’re saying it’s actually traveling down the road to your property, or
it’s?
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes. Now that they’ve raised this, and this one as well, they’re running
water out here at a rate we’ve never had before. So it comes right down here and right
down my driveway and right in that cellar. Mr. Mahoney in the Town put in all new
drainage in here, but that doesn’t stop, all this lawn is above the roadway. There is no
swale, nothing to direct water in any other direction, other than directly across the road.
Dick O’Keefe lives here, but he’s got enough soil between he and his garage to stop it.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. My original understanding when you
spoke was that it was due to the foundation taking up earthen area that the water was
then directed underground.
MR. SHANAHAN-Well, that’s when it really began, between that and the work that they
did on this house back here, because they ran drains over here and down and tied into
drains and let debris run in them and plug them. So that then we blew holes in this
gentleman’s yard. We had eruptions, little artesian wells showed up all of a sudden one
weekend, and then he dug that all up and that’s all been re-done. Now our biggest
problem is there’s no swale or anything in these lawns. They’re all up tapering to the
road. So the water runs to the road, across and right on down, and unfortunately our
driveway, this roadway into the rest of the Association down there is paved. It comes in
here and just turns and goes right down my driveway, right into the front of the house
and down the cellar wall and in the cellar.
MR. VOLLARO-That seems to be a function of the way that whole area developed, not
necessarily just the Schmulbach property, but now you’re saying it wasn’t until they dug
for her cellar that you really saw this water showed up?
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes. That’s when we came back and I photographed it. I’ve given
your secretary photographs of water running right down here, with mud in it, right on
down, and the mud runs right on down my driveway. There’s nothing to stop it.
MR. VOLLARO-Was that when they had, you look a little bit further back into the record,
the Water Keeper talked about material being stowed on that, from when the foundation
was dug, but that’s been removed now and I suspect that when that was there, that
might have carried a lot of that debris.
MR. SHANAHAN-It did, but the water will still run because there’s nothing there to stop
it. There’s only lawn here, and the lawn all tapers to the roadway. If there were a swale
in here to take it down to a drain, then it would go through the filtration system that, that
burrow put in into the lake, but there’s no way to direct any of the water from this area all
the way down to this area to the drain. The drain is being fed by a stream from back
here that runs up through these properties, and the Town of Queensbury took care of
that drain. Our problem now is just surface runoff that’s coming right over the road, and
with her 600 square foot cellar, we just wash that much more percolation back there. We
have a lot of clay. It doesn’t absorb a whole lot there. So the water is my biggest
problem, because my septic has never been a problem, but it sets right in this area right
here, right next to where all the water is running.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I really think we’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s happening
there, at least you’ve given us a pretty broad view of what’s actually taking place on the
property itself. So I think most of the Board members have a pretty good feeling for that
now. Other than changing that whole complex, I mean, going in and doing a complete
engineering job in that whole area, I don’t think we’re going to solve it with just the
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
Schmulbach property. That’s my opinion at this point. That’s a systemic problem you’ve
got going there now.
MR. SHANAHAN-We never had it before.
MR. FORD-But hers is not the only construction that you’ve pointed out that’s occurred
recently.
MR. VOLLARO-So things that are going on up there slowly, it was an iterative process
that began to move the water in the wrong direction, it seems to me, and I don’t know
how this Board is going to be able to cope with that whole project up in there, other than
re-doing that, cut all the houses down and re-do it again. If we had a clean piece of
paper, we could, but the way it’s there now, it’s hard to do.
MR. SHANAHAN-Well, a little swale in the lawn would work fine.
MR. VOLLARO-That might help. The problem is we’re dealing with .19 acres here. This
is a really small plot to do anything with, it’s a real problem.
MS. KEATING-My only concern, I’ll just sum up, is first of all this shows well the relativity
of the square footage to the property size. So that was my concern, that and the septic
and where it might be if they do change it or if they do anything to it, and my personal
feeling is the smaller we can make that storage area the better. I like Tom’s idea of five
feet. I think that that will give enough feet for storage and by the same token allow for
her to go up a little higher and suffice without 18 foot ceiling. That’s my personal feeling.
Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. Would anybody else like to speak to this application?
This gentleman right here.
PETER COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-My name’s Peter Collins. I live right near John Shanahan’s, farther down
the same drive. I certainly share the concerns with the dirt going down the road. (Lost
words) Town of Queensbury I think we’ve made a very good first step. The fact that Mr.
Shanahan was pointing out there (lost words) it’s going to help up where Mrs.
Schmulbach’s is. (Lost words) the other side of that drive is all, not quite completed
either. It’s in the last year, that is adding to the dirt. (Lost words). MICROPHONE
PROBLEMS.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re not sure about that, because I see two things. On the latest
drawing dated 11/15/06 which shows, one, the D Box being off the property, and, two,
part of the approximate septic field is located that lady’s property, a corner of it. So
we’ve got a lot of things about, that’s one of the things that happens when you’re trying to
pack and do something with a really small lot like this. A lot of just not enough room to
do things.
MR. COLLINS-(Lost words) MICROPHONE PROBLEMS.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that portion of it. I have feelings of that myself, although I
can’t let that sway what’s in front of us, as information unfortunately.
MR. COLLINS-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could I ask you a question?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something I just noticed also. On the stormwater drawing, there’s a
drywell within about 20 feet of the well. Is there a limit to how close you can have a
drywell to a well?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it looks like they’re taking the stormwater off the roof and moving it
into the drywell.
MR. SEGULJIC-The drywell, but is there a limitation?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve never seen a distance limitation between the drywell and the well
itself. To answer your question, I don’t know, but I’ve never seen, you know what this
distance is. It should be100 feet, but I’ve never seen a distance requirement between a
drywell and the well itself.
MRS. BARDEN-I do have one public comment, submitted written comment. Would you
like me to read it into the record?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MRS. BARDEN-This was sent to me via e-mail attachment. December 19, 2006, to
Susan Barden, Land Use Planner, Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Martha
Schmulbach, 22-2006, December 26, 2006 meeting. “Each step of this project has
raised concerns regarding the final outcome, and I believe that if there is enough space
on the second floor for a bedroom and or a bathroom, eventually someone will convert
this area to living space. The house was built as a summer residence on 1/8 of an acre
with a well and a septic that are close together, close to neighbors, and not capable of
being improved. It is located in an environmentally sensitive wetland area just uphill from
Lake George. The original permit was to put a basement and foundation under the
house. During the construction the ceiling was removed in anticipation of a second floor.
Then the application for a second floor “storage room with windows” was submitted. This
area is big enough to be a bedroom and bathroom. Separating the two projects was an
attempt to avoid proper review of the total project by neighbors and the town. I strongly
oppose any construction that would make it possible to add a bedroom and or bath on
the second floor. If this is truly a “storage area”, the town should limit the height of the
roof to eliminate any possibilities for conversion from storage to living space. Bottom
Line….It would be too much house for too little property. Sincerely, C. Todd Mahoney 87
Seelye Road Cleverdale, NY 12820”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody else want to speak to this application? Okay. I’m
not going to close the public hearing on this this evening.
MR. LAPPER-I’m going to ask that you table it because it seems that there’s a credibility
issue and I’d like Marty to appear and let everyone talk to her directly. She’s her best
advocate, and I think it’ll be pretty clear what she’s proposing to do and why if she were
here herself, but I can’t, she’s away I can’t tell you when she’ll be here. So I’d just ask
you to table it and I will send a letter to Planning Staff as to when she’ll be back in Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the problems, so long as we’re talking about this, and just
to get it on the record, because I won’t be here when this comes back the next time, but
in looking at this, we’ve been looking at this for a year. It’s a small project. A year is an
awful long time to be looking at this, and when I look at the progression of the drawings
that were submitted on this, the last drawing submitted on this was 11/15/06. It’s a very
recent drawing. The drawing before that, if you look at the progression of drawings,
when it goes back to a drawing dated February 9, 2006, the D Box was located on the
property. Now as a result of the re-survey, particularly if you take a look at the distance
between the corner of the septic field and the well, which turned out to be 83.8 feet, the
D Box was then relocated off the property to the south of it, on the southern line of the
property, and then the approximate septic field shows a corner of it possibly being over
on the next lot. That next lot belongs to the lady who just left. So there’s an awful lot
about this, and what happens over time, we tabled this from the first meeting, which was
5/22, then 6/27, then 7/18, and now we’re here at 9/26, and now we’re here at 12/26. So
this has been a long progression of information on a very small piece of property. We
should have never taken this long, and the reason for that is that it’s so confined and so
many things going on with it that we find it very difficult to come up with.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but part of this, it’s lake property and they were small parcels that
were cut up a long time ago, and she’s trying to do what is legally allowed, the minimum
that she can do to get her better living space that’s legally allowed, and even if it turns
out that the D Box is on the right of way, I mean, that’s an existing condition. That’s not
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
something we’re proposing now. That’s something that was done 16 years ago, what
have you, it is what it is, and there’s nothing special about an attic, but I’d like her to
come here and you can see her face to face and grill her and I think that’s appropriate.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think what happens is the problem with tabling it is the
continuity. Continuity is always difficult on long successive tablings. The picture never
gets clear. I don’t know how you feel about that, but we’ll table it at the applicant’s
request, but table it to an unspecified date because I don’t know when she’s coming
back.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just to clarify, it would be one thing if she wasn’t looking for an
expansion and it was all existing, but you’re looking for an expansion, in my opinion.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s only an attic.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think it’s an attic. That’s what I’m getting hung up on.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. That’s what you need to talk to her about.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s where I’m getting hung up.
MR. LAPPER-Then let’s get her here and you can talk to her about it. I think she’s pretty
convincing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where I really get hung up, I don’t know if these figures are accurate,
but 900 square feet of living space, 1600 square feet of storage. I know of no one else
who has that.
MR. FLANSBURG-So, my question would be, coming back before we opened it up for
public comment, where we were doing whatever we needed to do to establish that this is
an attic, I mean, here’s where I’m coming from. The option would be, you know, I mean,
you have to have attic access, by Building Code today. So if we took, there’s a set of
stairs that go down to the basement. That set of stairs that you see on the plan. There’s
a set of stairs already there in the floor plan that get her from the first floor into the
basement. The idea is to use the same area for a set of stairs that go up to the attic.
The stairs are going to be there anyway. So I guess where I’m going with this is, again,
it’s the ease of getting to this space. In other words, an attic hatch which we, pull down
set of stairs which would be, you have to have an attic hatch anyway. The pull down
stairs are optional, but you have to have access to any space under a roof by Building
Code. The reasoning here is that, again, that set of stairs that gets her to her new
basement is already in the floor plan, and to add a set of stairs, which is common in any
house I’ve ever designed, you try to make use of that square footage, you put a set of
stairs that also leads up to the attic. There’s not meant to be any trickery there. It’s just
that’s why it is what it is. There’s a walk up attic. It’s more by default than by asking her
to climb up through an attic hatch. I hope that makes sense. I’m trying to explain that.
So if you limit the ceiling height in the attic, there are no windows. It’s not conditioned
space. I guess if, her family lives out of the area, to my knowledge. I’ve met one son
that lives in Soloxi. I don’t know that there’s going to be 40 kids coming and staying
there. She has no plan. I wouldn’t want to live in a basement or stay in a basement, but
all of these things have probably been done around Lake George at one period of time or
another on any given house. That’s not the thought here. I guess I don’t know how else
to, I guess what I’m asking is are there any other conditions that would be put forth to say
it’s an attic, and as I said before, if you see windows poked in it or we, you know, if we
have the ceiling ties, or, pardon me, collar ties set low enough where it’s not conducive
to convert that space to living space.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things I would guess is if anybody tried to convert that to
living space, the first thing that would happen, there would be a hue and cry from the
neighbors, almost instantly to this Town.
MR. LAPPER-That’s for sure.
MR. FLANSBURG-I would agree, yes, and as a result, I mean, I know the Town, Dave
Hatin and folks, I know they would be there and respond to those calls.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re also looking at incrementalism. That’s how we got into the
situation in the first place. We’re just letting it continue.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that’s a criteria for denying something, though, because, you
know, you think somebody might do something illegal in the future, but in any case, I’m
just asking for you to table it and let’s bring Marty here.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we do that, because we’ve been an hour and ten on this.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s a long time.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
To table it to an unspecified date, until correspondence with Staff tells us when she’s
going to be back.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Seguljic
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Can I say a word, Mr. Chairman, about addressing the residents and nearby
residents?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SIPP-There is a proposal which I and several members of the Board are working on
to have, whenever a piece of property is sold, have the septic system inspected and
passed before the property can be sold, and if it’s not up to snuff, then the seller must do
it, is responsible for doing it before the property can be sold. Secondly, anything within
500 feet of the lake we’re looking at requiring buffering of some kind that is native plants
that would be on the property to filter out, absorb as much water as possible so that it
neither runs toward the lake or on somebody else’s property. You, as property owners,
are going to be faced with this within the next year and if you want to protect the lake, I
would suggest that you get behind the Lake George Association, which is aware of this,
and push the Town, when the new zoning regulations, the new Comprehensive Land
Use Plan is put into effect, if you want to protect the lake. Take these conditions and see
that they’re put into law.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Sipp.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, BPSR OWNER(S):
ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1035 ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20,856 SQ. FT. MINIATURE GOLF
COURSE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK AT THE FUN SPOT. EXPANSIONS OF
SPECIAL USE PERMITS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THE
PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE SEQRA FINDINGS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 42-06
WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: APPROVED LOT SIZE 3.51 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.9-1-1 SECTION 179-10-015
JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Now before we start, I just want to make a comment. The ZBA moved to
the Planning Board for a coordinated review for recommendation from the Planning
Board, particularly on parking, but general recommendations concerning the site plan on
this. So I see one of the ZBA members sitting here. I just wanted to acknowledge that
we understand it’s been moved to us for recommendation to your Board.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, again. For the record, Jon Lapper, with Tom Jarrett, Jim
Miller, and Keith Ferraro. I guess in this case I’d like to ask the Board how you’d like us
to approach this tonight. Your tabling resolution required a substantial amount of
information. We put together what we think is a pretty comprehensive submittal. We
have a review letter from Staff and from C.T. Male. Many of the issues have been
satisfied, to their satisfaction have been addressed, but there’s still some technical
issues that are left. In terms of presentation, we can go through everything we’ve
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
submitted. We can address questions. Just let us know how thorough a presentation
you’re looking for tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the first thing I’d like to do is to compliment Mr. Jarrett on this
particular submission. It’s very inclusive. I was able to review this with the drawings
quite well, and I’d like to see them all come through this way, as far as completeness is
concerned, not necessarily, because I was able to see what C.T. Male said, what the
responses were, what our tabling motion said, what the responses were. All in one
place, and so I’d like to just throw that compliment out if I could.
MR. LAPPER-To that end, Mr. Chairman, the applicant has certainly shown their
willingness to work with the Town and the issues that came up here were really
dampening the noise, the pre-existing noise, which isn’t specifically a site plan issue for
the mini golf, but in terms of going back and addressing the pre-existing uses, the music
coming from the skating arena and the go karts, and we’ll continue to, but they’re
certainly a very cooperative applicant, and that’s, our response should have indicated
that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, since you’re on the sound, I have a statement, I’m going to hold my
statements back because I like to hear what the Board has to say and then I’ll jump in at
the end with my comments. I guess everybody on the Board has had an opportunity to
review this. Just to make sure that when we talk we’re all talking about the right
drawings, because there’ve been a lot of drawing inputs here. The two drawings that I
see that are operative are the stormwater plan, dated 11/14/06, and I believe that also
carries the new lighting plan as well, in C-3, the C-3 is the lighting plan, and that’s on the
11/14/06 submission, and there’s an 11/06 submission from, that was done, I guess, by
Northfield design. That’s the last, the two operative drawings that we’re talking about
now?
MR. JARRETT-It sounds correct, although we submitted, with this packet, we submitted
Drawing C-1, C-2, C-3, and EC-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you did, and that’s what I have, of the 11/14/06 submission. Okay.
I just wanted to make sure we’re all talking from the same drawings here. I’m going to
start off with this. Mr. Sipp, do you have any comments on this?
MR. SIPP-Let me say that I’m still not happy with this being that close to Route 9, and
that’s my biggest complaint about this set up of the golf course. The use of, as you put it
here, landscaping to cut down on the noise is fine, but I’ve been to too many of these
meetings where The Great Escape used to say, we can cut down all the trees we like
because it doesn’t affect the noise. Trees don’t absorb sound, and you have a very
comprehensive landscaping plan there which includes both deciduous conifers shrubs,
which will look nice but at the outset of these three inch caliper maple trees have not
much sound absorbing or bending effect, and I’m afraid that it’s going to be a good many
years before we find out that you don’t soak up the additional noise that may result from
the golf course or from the go kart track, but I still say that it’s too close to Route 9. I
would be happy if you could push it back further, but I know the limitations of the facility
is such that I don’t think you can. I noticed you changed whole configurations from last
time to this time. It’s different, so that the structures that are on the golf course, the
windmill and the bridges and so forth, have all been changed from what they were to
begin with in November I believe, but I don’t feel, even with all that landscaping, with all
those trees that you have listed there, that it’s going to have much affect on the noise
and the noise affecting the people across the road in Twicwood. I don’t think it’s going to
dampen it that much. Twenty years from now maybe, but these trees and shrubs are
much too small right now to do much in the way of sound.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in and of themselves, trees are not great absorbers of sound. A lot
of people think they are, but they’re not.
MR. SIPP-And you’re dealing mostly with deciduous. Probably your year of the golf
course being open will not extend beyond leaf drop, but I still feel the big objection I have
is it’s too close to the road. I just inviting trouble with people gawking as they drive by.
When that drive in movie lets out it’s murder up there on Route 9 at 11:30, and with this
being open, I assume, at the same time, I just feel you’d be creating a safety hazard.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford? Thank you, Mr. Sipp.
MR. FORD-The proximity to the road, I share that concern, but I also have some others.
Could you bring me up to date, please, or bring us up to date, on where you are relative
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
to looking at the potential for converting to electric or similar type of go karts? I’m still on
the noise factor, obviously, but I was the last time, so I’m sure you’re getting used to it.
KEITH FERRARO
MR. FERRARO-Right. I understand. No, I’ve done some investigation, and electric go
karts, I think, are still in their early stages. I’ve talked to another operator under Buffalo
who does have a track, and he’s gone through many trials and tribulations with batteries
and motors and things along those lines, and he also has a very detailed knowledge of
battery systems and stuff like that, just from his own personal background, and is in the
process of possibly developing his own electric go kart, and he’s familiar with our facility
and with the layout which has the bridge and the underpass and the hill associated with
it. He wasn’t really that confident that there’s a system out there that can handle the
elevation changes for any length of period of time with battery usage at this stage of the
development of electric go karts, if you follow my thoughts there. Most electric go karts
that you see now are normally flat, and he said, you know, it might work, but I don’t know
that I’d want to be the first one, and we’ve also done some investigation into cost. We’re
probably in the four to five hundred thousand dollar range to retrofit this particular facility
to electric go karts, because you’d have to buy two fleets of cars. You’d have to re-do
the pit charging systems and all those things. I mean, it’s not something that we’re ruling
out. It’s just something that doesn’t seem feasible at this point in time without any
definitive positive results, if you understand what I’m saying. I haven’t seen any other
tracks like ours that have done it to say that I know it will work, that if we spend all this
money and then all of a sudden we get there and it doesn’t work, then it may be not the
best choice for us at this time.
MR. FORD-You’re not ruling that out?
MR. FERRARO-No, we’re not.
MR. FORD-What about number of parking spots and matching Code on that?
MR. LAPPER-Our proposal is that these uses have shared parking because of the
different seasons and the different weather. So we’ve done an analysis, as part of the
submission, as to why we think that the parking that’s proposed is sufficient for this site.
We certainly don’t think we’re creating a parking problem, but we need the Board to
understand and to agree with us that the uses that happen on a rainy day during the
summer versus on a sunny day won’t all be happening at the same time, so that they can
have shared parking. Just to remind the Board, in general, the goal here is to remove
the waterslide facility at the back, move the parking behind the building so that the
building shields the parking and do what’s really a major investment in landscaping to get
the golf course in up front just would make this a lot more pleasant looking when you
drive by, rather than this sea of asphalt that’s there now, and we certainly have designed
the different uses or the size of the golf course so that it would, there would be sufficient
parking there at all times, and we’re certainly here to discuss that, but we hope that the
Board will agree with that.
MR. FORD-That’s what I have at this point, Bob. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Ford. I’ll switch to the other end. Tanya, what’s your
take on this?
MRS. BRUNO-You caught me in the middle of numbers. I could ask the applicant, the
first thing that comes to mind is that horrific parking lot that I have always hated, and as
we strive to come up with some new design guidelines for Queensbury, in putting the
parking lots behind buildings and making things more aesthetic from the road, you’ve
certainly answered that, what we’re going towards or trying to achieve in the last
Comprehensive Master Plan. A question of mine from the previous meeting keeps
coming to mind, though, and I’m picturing the parking lot as it is now, with the number of
children that go in, and then looking at the parking lot as you’ve got it proposed for the
future, and I’m thinking safety. First of all, I’m looking through here, and I haven’t
counted it, your current parking lot, how many spots do you think you have right now? I
know some of them are, there are areas that aren’t designated for parking that I’ve
noticed typically are used by your clientele during high peaks.
MR. VOLLARO-Tanya, I’m just going to interject for a quick second on that. I think that
when they submitted their Long Form Part I, Part I asks that question and the answer is
unknown, and I don’t know why.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MRS. BRUNO-Right, and I’m noticing that as well in our Staff Notes, and it says however
the site plan indicates 112 spaces existing. So that’s why I was just asking for some
feedback this evening.
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-In our submission we have an existing site plan, Drawing ES-1, and I
believe that number of 112, if you tally up the parking spaces that are shown there, that
that’s what it comes up to.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’re asking for 136 I think. Go ahead, Tanya, you can continue if
you want to.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. I overlooked that number. I see it now on your plan, and you
are proposing a total of 136.
MR. VOLLARO-136.
MRS. BRUNO-The interior of the skating facility doesn’t warrant a back exit, if I
remember correctly, because of the laser tag. I’m still thinking about your clientele
coming around the side of that building where it’s the proposed access road. I know that
there’s a sidewalk there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we added the sidewalk after that was raised at the last meeting. So
that is a new feature from the last time. There’s also the issue of security and having
one access point for people paying. So, that’s really why there’s one front door.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. As you can tell from right now, I’m still thinking all of this through.
So maybe I could pass it on to the next member, if she’s got something.
MR. VOLLARO-Barbara?
MRS. LAVIN-Well, I guess probably my most concern right now, as Tanya said, with the
pathway around from the rear to the front. Is there a fence that will guard along that as
well? I mean, most kids running from one end to the other are running full bore. Is it
wide? How wide is it?
MR. LAPPER-It’s curbed.
MR. MILLER-It’s a six foot walk along the building with a curb, and then when you
continue along the north side of the golf course, there’s a continuation of that same
sidewalk all the way out to Route 9.
MRS. LAVIN-Okay. Well, thank you.
MRS. BRUNO-This is what I have pictured in my head. I have to just interject again.
Having been there a couple of times, for each child, birthday parties that you often give,
arriving there with 10 children, my colleague was saying children tend to run at full bore.
I’m just picturing these groups of kids, couple of moms, groups of kids. They don’t fit on
that six foot sidewalk. I mean, they would, granted, if you got them to perhaps contain
themselves, not expecting the fun time that they’re, I’m just concerned. I’m not saying
this is a bad design. I’m really just trying to feel this one through.
MR. MILLER-I would draw the parallel to the Civic Center. I mean, that’s fed by
sidewalks. People park in remote areas and they access the Civic Center by way of
sidewalks. It’s the same situation, except our sidewalks are on site in a much more
controlled situation.
MRS. BRUNO-And I guess I’m, not to belabor the point, but I’m, children tend to think of
roads as roads and parking lots as not quite as dangerous, which, as we all know, they
certainly can be. I will say again, though, that I think from Route 9, if we go forward with
this project, it will definitely improve a lot in terms of the aesthetics.
MR. FERRARO-The one thing I might add, though, the way we have it set up now, if you
see kids like farther down in the parking lot, they come up and they run between the
cars, and then they do end up right in the traffic lane. I think this situation would be much
better. At least it they’ll be alongside the building, with the entire traffic lane there for
them. They’ll be more easily seen, versus running between cars, as we have them now,
and then it just appearing in the traffic lane.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. FERRARO-So I think this still will be a better scenario. It’s not perfect, but I think it
would be better than what we have now.
MRS. BRUNO-And I have seen a lot of people dropping their kids off right at the door,
which I’m not so sure, I tend to not let mine out of my sight, even though they’re getting
older. I’m not sure the greatest of ideas, either.
MR. LAPPER-I agree with you there. When it’s birthday parties, you park and you bring
them in, but one feature of this new plan is that if someone was going to drop them off,
they wouldn’t be walking through the parking lot because you’ve got that whole
entranceway in between the mini golf and the skating facility that would not be
accessible to cars. So that’s safer. Keith has certainly tried to address these types of
functional and safety issues, in terms of making this as good a project as he can. We’re
also talking about noise that Tom was speaking about, and a lot of the noise that the
neighbor was talking about was from music inside the building, and that’s where we
agreed last time that we would put insulation on that side of the building that would act as
noise dampening to address that. That should be a big help from what’s there now, even
though that’s not part of the current site plan to change the building.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess since we’re talking on sound, I will jump in here for just a second.
We learned a lot on sound when we did The Great Escape. We spent a lot of time in the
Environmental Impact Statement when we did The Great Escape, and in there we talked
about a thing called L-90. L-90 is a background noise, and that should be determined at
all the receptors first, the receptors being Skateland, Twicwood, etc., and that
background noise should be established, and then, once that’s been established, and
that’s got to be done at specific times of the day, so that you get a correlation there, and
that would establish a background noise as a baseline. Now any reading above the
baseline by six dba, in other words anything greater than six dba, which is the New York
State DEC Guideline, should be considered for mitigation. Now when I looked at
Attachment Three in Tom’s large book here, I didn’t quite get a sense that the baseline
was looked at first, and we should really establish that in order to get something that’s
around, there’s two numbers that float around. Five db is FHA requirement. I’m giving
you the benefit of the doubt and taking the DEC requirement which is six dba, but that’s
something we should decide, whether or not the facility generates six db above ambient
noise, because the ambient you can’t do anything about. It’s there, and when I got into
Number Three, I didn’t see, in three, exactly how you got to, I think it’s Number Three, I
believe.
MR. JARRETT-The Attachment Three, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I didn’t see anything in Attachment Three that showed me where
you were getting above the ambient by approximately six db. That’s something I think
we have to establish before we, because we fought that a lot at, not fought it, essentially
worked on it a lot when we did The Great Escape, and that was one of the criteria that
we used there. So that’s just my comment on the parking, so that you know where I’m
coming from.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you’d establish ambient noises at
different periods throughout the day and then compare them?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So you’re saying that we should go back and re-submit for existing
ambient noise?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would say so, in order to be able to say that this facility doesn’t
generate, because anything over six db becomes quite objectionable, actually, from a
noise point of view. That’s all I’ve got on the sound. I’ll let everybody continue on.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-To elaborate, maybe, for a second, I know The Great Escape took a
lot of noise measurements, and all of that is public record. It may be worth your while to
make use of that information.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the EIS, and it’s on Section Seven of the EIS under Noise.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s also part of the, I forget if it’s an annual or a quarterly report
that The Great Escape submits to the Town, since it was approved.
MR. VOLLARO-Their report, yes.
MR. SIPP-There was also a Chazen study done for a noise ordinance after the, that
should be on record somewhere.
MR. JARRETT-The readings you see on the top of this chart in our book I believe are the
Chazen readings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-They were not qualified when they were given to us, but I believe they
were done by Chazen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The lower readings in the chart were done by my office.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t see anything wrong with the way this was taken except that
you.
MR. JARRETT-We need to fill in the other periods of the day.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because these readings should be absent whatever ambient is
around, and that’s where you find out how many db above ambient you are when you
take these readings.
MR. HUNSINGER-And not to minimize the concerns that have been raised by other
members of the Board, but one of the real issues that was discovered with the noise
measurements taken for The Great Escape is that the most objectionable noise in that
general area is from traffic, specifically Route 9 and the Northway. So, that’s part of the
reason I suggested it might be worth looking at that because those conclusions have
already been drawn, and if you can just re-submit the same information that’s already on
record as part of the record for this project, it may help, it may not. I don’t know.
MR. LAPPER-It’s probably just worth mentioning at this point, it’s probably clear to you,
but the applicant is willing to go to whatever length is necessary to satisfy the Board to
address the existing noise, so that they can benefit their business, if you will, by taking
out the waterslide that really can’t compete anymore now that Great Escape has made
their investment in the water park. So in order to add the new mini golf in the front, which
they think would be a success, they’re certainly willing to address the noise issues to the
Board’s satisfaction, and that’s why we’re here.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with Mr. Hunsinger here, too, as well. There’s no sense in re-
inventing the wheel, going back to the EIS. The data is there, and also I guess it’s the
quarterly readings that they take every quarter is also available. So no sense in going
through this whole thing again when it’s been done once before.
MR. JARRETT-I appreciate that input.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? Tom, you haven’t said anything about this yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Overall I’m fine. My only two concerns are the landscaping and the
lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the lighting we can talk about. I think I’ve got some comments on
the lighting, but I’ve looked at it pretty carefully. Actually it’s not a bad lighting plan, when
you look at it real carefully with respect to, there’s one A fixture there that’s a floodlight at
1,000 watts that’s up in the northeast corner of the property I believe, northeast. It’s the
A, it’s listed in C-3. C-3 is your lighting plan, and when you get up to C-3, there’s a, you’ll
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
find out in the winter lighting plan and also in your summer lighting plan that there’s an A
sitting.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, bringing that down, I notice you’ve got spill at both times, off onto
Route 9, not an awful lot, though. Summertime spill is more than winter spill, and I think
that if you reduce that one lamp down to about 750 watts it would pull some of that light
spill off Route 9.
MR. FERRARO-The floodlights at the top of the sign will be removed with the new
proposal.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the drawing.
MR. JARRETT-That’s my fault. I guess we didn’t realize it was being removed.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that when I look at the description of the site luminaire schedule,
symbol A, existing 1,000 watt floodlight, 1,000 watts metal halide, and it’s described as
the A fixture.
MR. FERRARO-Right, that exists now.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re planning on removing that?
MR. FERRARO-Yes. The sign itself is illuminated from the inside. This is on a pole
which goes above it, and that’s basically lights the whole parking lot now, except for the
three lights on the side.
MR. VOLLARO-Was this photometric done with that 1,000 watts in system?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you pull that you’ll get a significant reduction.
MR. JARRETT-Overall illumination, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-But you’d have to put the new sign in.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, but internally lit signs are not going to provide a lot of overall
illumination, though.
MR. VOLLARO-No, that will, though, that 1,000 watts.
MR. JARRETT-Well, that’s really going to help us.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, a lot. I’ll bet it pulls a good deal, maybe 80, 90% of spill off of 9. So
I didn’t realize it was going to be taken out, but, other than that, I think that’s a pretty
good lighting plan, all told. Your Uniformity Ratios are pretty close. I don’t have any
problem with the lighting plan.
MR. LAPPER-I’m going to quote Bob on that next month, after he’s not sitting on the
Board.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the record.
MR. SEGULJIC-As I look further at the lighting plan, I think I understand what’s going on
here. My concern was with the go kart track.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you had some real hot, relatively hot spots. You had 50 foot
candles in some spots, and it dropped down to fives and fours, but as I look at it further, I
think it’s because of the positioning of the lights.
MR. JARRETT-Are you talking about the lighting plan or the existing lighting as you view
it physically in the field?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems particularly bright when you look at it from the field.
MR. JARRETT-Now we’re going to modify that plan. Those lamps are going to be turned
down.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s not shown on this plan, then?
MR. JARRETT-No, the lighting plan does show those lamps turned down, and it’s still
bright.
MR. SEGULJIC-On C-3?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, but when you look at it in the field, those lamps have not been
turned down yet. So they’re going to be mitigated significantly when they’re turned
down.
MR. HUNSINGER-What are they now?
MR. JARRETT-They’re flood lamps that are turned up, but we’re going to turn them
down to mimic a cut off fixture, and it’s going to significantly reduce the off site spillage
and concentrate it on the track itself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I had the same concerns as Tom on the track lighting, and it
was in Staff comments as well as C.T. Male comments. Is there any way to reduce the
wattage? I mean, I don’t know what wattage is available, and of course following up on
Bob’s comment, the Uniformity Ratios are pretty close, it’s going to change your
Uniformity Ratio if you reduce those fixtures. So, you know, solving one problem might
create another.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, looking at, trying to do an eyeballed integration of these
numbers here on the track itself, looking at it, if you were to look at that, I think you’re
probably looking at an average of maybe 30. I’m just guessing now looking at the spread
of numbers there, and that’s not much more than we allow under the canopy of (lost
words). So it’s not really all that bad, I don’t think. There’s some hot spots in it, and that
I can see, but if you do an overall integration, just an eyeball integration, it doesn’t look
all that bad to me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess it’s just that there’s some real hot spots. So if you’re going
to take these lights and now turn them down, won’t that increase?
MR. JARRETT-The big concern before was spillage off site, and what we’re doing by
mimicking, we’re turning these fixtures down to mimic cut off fixtures. It reduces that off
site spillage dramatically. If you looked at the numbers before, there was a lot of off site
spillage, both north and south and into Route 9.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Pardon my ignorance, then. On C-3, we’re looking at the
proposed lighting, which is with the lights turned down.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, right, which is explained in the narrative. Rather than confuse you
with too many lighting plans, I knew I had to give you a summer and a winter plan
because of the diversity in uses here. I didn’t want to have too many plans in front of
you. I did not show the existing plan because I figured everybody was pretty well familiar
with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any way to reduce those hot spots, like those 54, 64, 56?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know what, the hot spots don’t tell you much. It’s the
integration of all of that lighting on top of the track that’s really important. So if you did an
eyeball integration of all of these, add them all up and kind of divide by the number, just
roughly, you’re going to see that you’ve got an average illumination of about 30 foot
candles here, which isn’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s high, isn’t it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we put 30 foot candles underneath the gas canopy.
MR. JARRETT-That’s an intense use there.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-In the Code the highest number is 25 for.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that.
MR. LAPPER-But it doesn’t spill.
MR. JARRETT-And it’s an existing use that we’re trying to mitigate.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think with anybody driving around in there, I’d just as soon see it
well lit. You don’t want people banging in to one another.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s definitely a safety issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess maybe just to summarize, the biggest thing that I was
concerned with is when you look at the spillage over onto the southern property, you
have 6.5, 6.6.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s considerable over there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that was the biggest concern of mine.
MR. LAPPER-The neighbor is here, and we addressed that, because they have security
concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it said that in the package, but, you know, the Code is the
Code, and the Code says you shouldn’t have spillage onto a neighboring property.
MR. LAPPER-It’s an existing situation that we’re making better by turning the lights
down, just because that’s a, you know, just the safety issues that you want to have
people be able to see where they’re driving on go karts. So it’s kind of a unique use, and
we’re making it better on this site, the site next door.
MR. VOLLARO-What is there, on the spillage to the southern side of the property, what’s
there? Is that a parking area for the neighbor, what is there?
MR. LAPPER-Cars for sale.
MR. FERRARO-It’s the A-2000 storage units.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see.
MR. FERRARO-In front is where they have the cars, but we’re not really up in that area.
We’re behind the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, considering everything, I’d just as soon see, when we pull this
fixture out here, hopefully we’ll move this in off Route 9 a little bit. This certainly is a spill,
but I don’t know, if you’re between the two, I would just as soon see this come in, if we
could get it off the Route 9 area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because the overall lighting plan looks good. My concern is the
kart track, but I can understand why it has to be lit. You’ve got people driving around.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not as concerned about spillage onto Route 9 because
you have street lamps there, too, and I don’t think it’s going to conflict with street lamps.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know whether this took into account. So if the street lamps
weren’t in here, they’re not in here, I believe.
MR. JARRETT-Frankly, I don’t think Route 9 is all that well lit, to be honest with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we jump to landscaping?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to get into parking a little bit because so long as I’m in this mix
here, I might as well continue on with my discussion here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What I did is I first took a look at what Creighton Manning had to say,
you know, and they went into ITE information and they said that the trip generation seven
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
addition, which everybody’s using these day, really they said there was limited trip
generation data available for this kind of a use. Then therefore they put this chart
together, and then they said therefore the changes in recreational activities is not
expected to have any significant peak hour changes, and if that’s true, then I’d go to, I
guess it’s Attachment Number Two where you’ve done some, somebody’s taken the time
to look at two peak hours, 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., and I did a, I added them all up and I get
that your average parking at 2 p.m. is 57 cars, and your average parking at 8 p.m. is 34
cars, and then I took the average of those. So you’ve got an average of about 50 in the
static mode, about 50 automobiles on the property. Now you’re asking for 136, and
that’s a difference of 86 cars. So you’re really asking for 58% more parking than the
survey actually shows. Now I’m for lowering the parking on this, like you’re proposing to
do, as a matter of fact. The less asphalt we have the better off we are, but I don’t even
see where 136 is necessary. I mean, that’s the thing I’m really looking at. When you’ve
got a historical database that says you’ve got about 50 in your peak periods, which is 2
p.m. and 8 p.m., and then when the ITE says, or Creighton Manning really says in their
analysis that therefore the changes in recreational activities, meaning the go kart versus
the other, is not expected to have any significant peak hour changes in the existing traffic
generated. What Creighton Manning said, it’s almost a wash.
MR. LAPPER-The applicant agrees, and the reason why they put as many spots as
possible was to get it as close to the Code requirement, but they don’t think the 136 is
needed either.
MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t know how the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I’d have to
ask the Chairman that. Does the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talk to the same level
that we’ve got now in the Code for parking?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s under discussion now.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s under discussion now, yes. You see where I’m coming from on this,
and I don’t know whether I’m on the right path or not, but that’s how I looked at it when I
looked at the data.
MR. LAPPER-Keith would be willing to go to like 125 and to obviously replace that with
green, and we could do that right up front, if we didn’t need the parking.
MR. FERRARO-Based on what you’re saying, Mr. Vollaro, another consideration might
be that that back parking lot is surplus or auxiliary, where we could park, on either end
where it could be parking on grass for overflow, if there ever was a need, but for the most
part it’s green.
MR. VOLLARO-Actually your historical data is giving me a base of about 50
automobiles, and then Creighton Manning’s comment, when they did the study for you,
which you folks must have paid for, it says for the changes in recreational activity. Now
they’re talking about the difference between Skateland and the golf course. I believe
that’s what they’re referring to.
MR. LAPPER-They’re talking about from the water park to the golf course.
MR. FORD-If we’re considering reducing the number of parking spots, then let’s also
include in our thinking the increase in green space close to Route 9.
MR. LAPPER-We would propose, to satisfy you, to take out the spots right along Route 9
and add green space up front. That would help mitigate. It will give you the most bang
in terms of people driving by.
MR. VOLLARO-In your own analysis, I mean, talking to the owner now, I assume that’s
you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, Keith Ferraro.
MR. FERRARO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Keith, what’s your perspective on this, in terms of where you are now in
parking which looks like a static of about 50 cars, in the peak hours. How do you feel
about, like do you need to double that, to be 100 spaces, based on what you think is
going to happen? You’ve done some marketing studies and some analysis of where you
think you’re going to be with the golf course, mini golf course.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FERRARO-Basically what we had tried to do with the whole proposal was provide
as much parking as we could, assuming that’s what the Board wanted, you know, to
provide for all these uses, so they weren’t too much.
MR. LAPPER-The variance request was as small as possible. Right?
MR. FERRARO-Right. So we’re, you know, we don’t need as much parking, you know,
and if we could reduce it to 120 or 125 spaces, I think that’s more than adequate for what
we need.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to, you know, from my point of view I like that idea
because it presents more green space, and I know we’re a little bit in conflict with our
own Code when I speak that way. You’re trying to match the Code, and what we’re
saying is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, according to the Chairman of that
Committee, is examining that. Hopefully they’re examining it, because in certain areas I
think we have a lot more parking than what we need.
MR. SIPP-What’s the turnaround time that you expect from the golf course from the time
they start until the time they finish, in relation to the waterslide, from the time they would
enter the waterslide and finish?
MR. FERRARO-People would stay at the waterslides for a much longer period of time
than they would at the golf course. Probably more like the three hour timeframe to the
waterslides and I’m assuming an hour, an hour and a half for miniature golf.
MR. SIPP-So you’d have twice the turnover.
MR. FERRARO-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-About twice, right.
MR. FERRARO-But you don’t have the capacity at any one time though either, because
you could put more people on the waterslides than you can on a miniature golf course.
MR. LAPPER-If you looked at the site plan and just filled in the first five spaces on each
side with grass, that would probably help.
MR. SIPP-Has anybody talked to the Wilsons next door in the sense of overflow
parking? If you’re basically an afternoon, night operation and they’re a daytime
operation, and they’re not taking in 50 cars at one shot at Yamaha dealership, has
anybody spoken to them about using part of their lot as overflow?
MR. FERRARO-Well, we presently have a gentleman’s agreement with Mr. Wilson about
parking, they could park on our property, we park on their property. Basically, you know,
it’s not an issue for them. He doesn’t want to give anything in writing, unfortunately,
which would encumber his property in the future for alternative uses, but there’s no
issues there now, as far as parking on his property.
MR. LAPPER-And we showed that lake area in the back where we his property is
particularly next door.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d kind of be, you know, looking to get a pretty significant reduction
here.
MR. SIPP-Where do you park a bus? Where is the bus parking?
MR. FERRARO-The bus parking now, or the bus parking in this future proposal?
MR. SIPP-Well, where in the future?
MR. FERRARO-It would be out behind the property. So they would drop off their
children at the access point, and then they would drive around and take up two spaces in
the back, and then come around to pick them all up when they’re exiting.
MR. VOLLARO-So you would think that in your general look like 100 spaces would be
probably okay?
MR. FERRARO-Well, presently we have 112, you know, slated on our property. I’d still
like to stick in the 120 range, to be honest, but I don’t think we need the 136, no.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That’s all I really have on parking. I think the applicant
is willing to move down to about 120 spaces, and that might be about right for a facility
like this, considering our Code is much higher than that. If you look at the multiples of
the different uses, our Code kind of adds together.
MR. LAPPER-That also bears mentioning, leave 75 feet of green at least on either side
of the access drive on the north side of the site, if we take off those spaces right in front,
the full 75 foot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand where we’re going with that. I guess I’m down to the
C.T. Male letter of 12/20, and some comments have not been addressed, and I’ve made
a list of those, gone down your list of the ones that haven’t been addressed.
MR. JARRETT-In their latest letter of last week?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at their letter of 20, I believe.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, December 20.
th
MR. JARRETT-December 20, right. There are a number of what I consider relatively
minor technical issues that need to be resolved. The major issues, I feel, have been
satisfactorily resolved.
MR. VOLLARO-Just looking for the signoff, basically, from them.
MR. JARRETT-Anything you want to particularly discuss tonight, anybody on the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-I just went down and then put yeses and nos. I didn’t really take a good
hard look at many of them. Number 21 one there’s a compaction, standard (lost word)
compaction of 95%, I don’t think that’s going to be difficult to answer.
MR. JARRETT-Frankly we designed it the way we felt it needed to be designed, but I’ll
defer to C.T. Male just to move things along at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s nothing, you know, I’m looking at my own no’s here. It says
until recently no details regarding the golf course layouts were available. A layout of the
course has now been provided. Stormwater management has been coordinated with the
course. Okay. He’s questioning some of the drywell infiltrators. That doesn’t seem to
be a, 100 year storm. There’s nothing on here that’s really a deal breaker as far as C.T.
Male is concerned.
MR. LAPPER-That’s how we thought.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve just got to get a signoff from him on that. I did have one
question. It always bothered me. So long as I’m leaving, maybe I can get an idea of
what this is about, but the letter from DOT always comes out with the same comment,
and that comment is this is a preliminary approval and we can’t do anything for you until
we get all this stuff nailed down. When does that happen? When do they say, okay, this
is our DOT final approval on this? Does it ever happen?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it does. When they issue their permit, basically.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but right now he doesn’t see enough here to give anything else
but a preliminary approval.
MR. JARRETT-I’ll defer to Jim on this. He’s been dealing with DOT.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct. At the planning stage we show radiuses and we show
distances from our side yard setbacks, and that’s all they can go. When we put together
our construction documents, there might be some more details there as far as curbing,
but not a whole lot much more.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what they want to see is the construction drawings?
MR. MILLER-Yes. Basically what we’ll submit to the Town to build the thing, they’ll get a
copy of that.
MR. JARRETT-Then they’ll issue their permit.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Their permit. Okay. All right. I just didn’t know whether that ever did get
translated, ultimately, to an approval. Because every time I see one of those, it’s
preliminary. Just a quick look at your FAR sheet. You’ve got plenty of Floor Area Ratio,
but I think you have to use the .3 figure as opposed to the .22, you know, the 30% versus
22%, but you’ve got plenty of FAR. So it doesn’t make any difference. Now, there is a
public hearing on this this evening, and I think we’ve discussed this enough so the public
got the general idea of what we’re doing. So I’d like to open the public hearing and see if
we have any comments from the public. I see a couple of people here that might want to
talk to this application. Did anybody want to speak to this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHARLES MC NULTY
MR. MC NULTY-Hi. Chuck McNulty. I’m at 14 Twicwood Lane. Several thoughts
thrown out basically as thoughts, because obviously the public comment is not a vote,
it’s to give you guys thoughts and information and let you make the decision. I think in
general, and I don’t know as we’ve said it before. The golf course idea in general strikes
us as being reasonable. I do have three concerns connected with that, but the idea of
the golf course there, if they think it’s going to be viable is fine. I wonder whether we
need to collect more golf courses in the Town of Queensbury, but if we’re going to collect
something, I’d rather collect golf courses than the tee-shirt shops that Lake George is
collecting. So, that’s great. I guess one thought. A portion of this golf course is going to
be in the Travel Corridor Overlay, and we always rationalize, well, we’ve widened Route
9, probably nothing else is going to happen, but we don’t know that. Something could at
some point in the future. There’s been some discussion, I believe before the Zoning
Board as well as this Board, the idea that, well, we’ll move all our building structures
back so they’re in the Travel Corridor Overlay, but should DOT some time come through
and say we’re going to use the Travel Corridor Overlay space, that’s going to take a fair
chunk of that golf course out and might not make the golf course viable. In which case it
doesn’t matter whether there’s structures in that Travel Corridor Overlay or not. The
applicant is going to lose a substantial chunk of money and they may go back and look
for DOT to reimburse them for that loss. So I think it’s a sleeper if you say, well, there’s
no buildings there, so we don’t need to worry about it. On the other hand, I think the golf
course is going to look a lot better than that parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a big improvement.
MR. MC NULTY-So, if I were making the decision, I would opt for allowing the golf
course on that basis anyway. My basic concern yet is a response to problems. The
applicants obviously are allowing their engineers to work on the noise problem, which I
think is great, and the engineer has talked with us a few times now and explained some
of the things they’re looking at. I still have a little concern about what happens if some
problem occurs with the golf course later on, whether we’ll get a good response or not,
but I wanted to make a couple of comments about noise, partly in relation to this project
and partly the general comment about noise measurement. There are certain kinds of
noises, if you can hear them, they’re a problem. It doesn’t matter how loud they are.
MR. VOLLARO-The boom, boom, boom.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s one of them, boom, boom, boom, or if the go kart bothers you,
then you hear a whine of a go kart, it’s going to drive you nuts. It doesn’t matter how
loud it is. If you can detect it over the ambient noise, it’s going to be irritating, and I
appreciate the mitigation measures that are being proposed. I have no idea whether
they’re going to work or not. So I can’t say I’m satisfied by any means at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re looking at, as you know, there’s two standards that FHA has
one standard and Department of Environmental Conservation has another. DEC says
six db above ambient and FHA says five. So, you know, I’ve given them the benefit of
the doubt and said, can you get under six.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, you know, I don’t know how the decibel comes out on the deep
base. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is almost not detectable if you could measure just that.
It’s also a problem for us because the noise is a lot like odor. It can be loud in one spot,
not loud in another spot. Sitting in our house with the house closed up, even in the
summer with the air conditioner running or this time of year, either in our family room or
the bedroom, when they kick that base on, you can feel it and you can hear it. It’s not
loud. It’s just there.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s low frequency. That’s the problem.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s the problem with it, and that particular noise is deliberate. Now,
the traffic noise bothers us, too, yes, and while all the engineers say that cutting trees
down isn’t going to make much difference on noise, it has for us over the years. We’ve
been there since ’73, and all the clearing that’s happened between the Northway and our
development has made a substantial difference in the amount of traffic noise we get, but
as you say, traffic noise, nothing to do with this project. The go kart noise doesn’t bother
us as much as it does some of our other neighbors, and why they aren’t here
complaining about it, I don’t know, but we do hear comments from some of the other
neighbors that the go kart drives them nuts, but that’s kind of a by-product from the go
karts. The deep base is deliberate. There’s a switch they can flip to turn it on or turn it
off. So that’s the ultimately solution, and one passing thought, or final thought, too, is I
always wonder if we can hear it, a quarter mile away, in a closed house, what’s it doing
to the hearing of those kids in that same room where those speakers are producing that
base noise?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a systemic problem with the current society.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. Anybody else?
LINDA MC NULTY
MRS. MC NULTY-I’m Linda McNulty. I want to add a couple of things. Number One, I’m
wondering, isn’t there something that they can do now to solve that base problem? Why
do we have to wait until the golf enterprise is brought in? Couldn’t they resolve that issue
now?
MR. VOLLARO-That base originates inside Skateland, is that correct, inside the
building?
MRS. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is could they put sound absorption material up
now and try to mitigate that?
MRS. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll ask them that question when they come up, certainly.
MRS. MC NULTY-And it does, it’s totally irritating, because the other night we tried to sit
and listen to a classical Christmas concert from Lincoln Center, and the beat that you get
from that versus the beat that you get from Skateland muddies the whole program.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I can understand that. Yes. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. There’s
nobody else, I’m going to leave the public hearing open on this because I think this is
going to be coming back to us anyway. One of the objectives tonight is to try to get as
much information as we could to lead into a coordinated review on SEQRA, and I think I
would sort of caution the Board not to get into SEQRA too early here. There’s a couple
of things I think they need to know before they go forward, but we’ll take a general look at
this. One thing I’m going to do is caution this Board in the future, don’t throw away
SEQRA too early. It’s not a good idea.
MR. LAPPER-We understand that you want us to update the noise with the existing
ambient that’s out there now and compare it, so you can look at that six db increase
standard, and we will do that and we also heard that we’re close but we need to get that
C.T. Male signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And in terms of what the McNultys are saying, I mean, we’ve taken their
comments seriously all along and that’s why we’re talking about insulating the inside of
the Skateland building.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what she’s talking about now is could that be brought forward, out
from underneath this project and try to put some absorption material in there now to try to
absorb that low frequency beat.
MR. LAPPER-The real issue for them is that they’re proposing to finance this as one
project, which includes all aspects of it, which is a pretty substantial project, but we
certainly can come back with some more details about the noise issue.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re looking at about four or five ’07 to complete this project,
somewhere in there. Is that what I saw?
MR. FERRARO-Five ’07.
MR. VOLLARO-May of ’07.
MR. JARRETT-Spring of next year.
MR. FERRARO-Actually the construction wouldn’t even start until next September.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FERRARO-And then be completed until Spring of ’08. Because it would take the
manufacturer of the golf course four to five months to do their project. So we’d have to
start in the Fall, give them a couple of months in the Fall and a couple of months in the
Spring, because we need to make the money for the summer to pay the mortgage all
winter. So that’s the way it would have to go now.
MR. LAPPER-Can we agree to do the noise in the building as the first part of the project?
MR. FERRARO-Certainly.
MR. FORD-On the noise issue, can we re-visit that switch that is thrown, please, for that
double base, and explain to us why that needs to be thrown and why it has to be? Why
can’t that just be left off?
MR. FERRARO-Well, it appeals to the teenage market on Saturday nights, and that’s
when it’s turned on. That’s the only time it’s turned on, and that’s what they want to
dance to and that’s why it is turned on, but at the same point in time, you know, Tom and
I have been looking at several alternatives to cover the front wall with noise absorption
material which will help to mitigate this for our neighbors.
MR. LAPPER-He’s still proposing to make the teenagers deaf, but he wants to help the
neighbors.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Well, the teenagers want to become deaf. That’s exactly what
Mr. Hunsinger was saying. Absorption material, if it’s put up with the right size holes,
they’d be fairly large holes, you know, if you look at some of the sound absorption
material in offices, for example, and you look at it very carefully, there’s a whole bunch of
little holes in this thing, when the sound gets in, swirls around, and slowly dies out.
MR. JARRETT-Or an egg crate style.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can do that as well, but for the frequency that you’re talking
about, this absorption area has got to be pretty large, because the frequency is so low.
The higher the frequency.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t disagree with you, but interestingly, there’s a big difference
between trying to attenuate noise inside a structure, which is basically acoustical in
nature, versus trying to attenuate noise outside, which we’re trying to do, and frankly I’ve
had differing opinions from various experts as to how best to do it, but I think we’ve got a
relatively good consensus on this product that Keith and I are looking at right now, and
that would line the interior wall, that Route 9 wall.
MR. VOLLARO-That product really has to be sort of designed towards this low
frequency.
MR. JARRETT-Exactly. What attenuates that noise is a mass. Heavy mass attenuates
that, and short of building a whole other structure in front to attenuate that noise, which
I’ve actually suggested to Keith and he picked himself up off the floor.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s all about money. I know. I understand that. Okay. This is a
coordinated review, this SEQRA, because we’re going to be making recommendations
back to the ZBA, which they’ve asked us to do. So before we get into doing a SEQRA
Long Form, which would essentially be guided toward their questions, I would like to
make sure that everything is pretty much settled out before we go through SEQRA. I
don’t know if the rest of the Board agrees with that or not, but that’s just my
recommendation to the Board. Does everybody agree with that?
MR. FORD-They’re going to be coming back, and I will again ask for a current update on
the potential for electric go karts.
MR. FERRARO-Just one comment for you, Tom. The price of gas and cost of
maintenance, I’m looking at them all the time, too, believe me.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what we’re hoping is that we could maybe be back here for the
second meeting in January, if you could give us a submission date to get the C.T. Male.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to be looking at setting the January agenda on the 28,
Thursday I guess it is, and we’ll look at that, but right now the agenda looks pretty heavy,
because I just did the completion reviews.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then we take the first one in February, if that’s the best we can get.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll look at it on the 28 and see what we can do, because we’re
going to be setting the final agenda then. I won’t be doing it. This will be my last act as
playing around with this Chairmanship.
MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to bring up two things, though, before we start thinking about
a tabling motion. Back to Staff comments, and that is the landscaping regarding the
required interior and exterior parking lot, and also the buffer towards the campground,
because we haven’t really given the applicant direction on either of those two issues that
have been raised by Staff.
MR. LAPPER-We left the five foot strip on the north side. That was one of the Staff
comments. So we have area proposed for landscaping, and we were proposing some
deciduous trees, because we thought that they would visually look nice, but we can beef
that up if that’s what you want, and in the back we’ve got the arborvitae, and if there’s
something else you want there, let us know.
MR. MILLER-I believe we’re in compliance with the, well over what’s required. We have
rd
55 specimen trees that we’re proposing. The requirement is about 1/3 of that,
especially up along Route 9. I mean, it’s a forest we’re doing there. In the back, it’s
been pointed out that we have a new hedgerow of arborvitae going in. That’s new since
the last submission, but the count for trees around the parking lot is right by your Code.
Initially we sat down with the planners when we first started this and came up with a
count, and that’s what I showed. In one of the first reviews, it asked for more trees, and
we added more trees. So I think we should review that, because I think we’re well above
what’s required.
MR. SIPP-So what’s the distance from the property to the first campsite, or the campsite
behind you to the west?
MR. JARRETT-I was guessing 50 feet and Keith was saying 30 feet from the property
line to the first campground.
MR. SIPP-Thirty feet. What size are these arborvitae that you’re putting in?
MRS. BRUNO-Two to three feet in height?
MR. MILLER-Two to three feet. Four years would be six to eight feet.
MR. SIPP-Are these going to be placed so that they’re in the lot, so that those branches
will be in the lot?
MR. MILLER-You don’t want to put them too close together.
MR. SIPP-No, but when these get to be 20 feet tall, they will be one solid mass.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FORD-It may be too early for you to address this, but we did talk about reduction of
the number of parking spaces and adding green space. Can you speak to that tonight,
that green space, what you would actually do with it?
MR. LAPPER-We figured you’d want it up front, visually, but if we took out four spaces in
the back, every four spaces in the back, we save, what, 10 feet.
MR. MILLER-Yes. In essence, if you look at, if you have the Drawing S-1 in front of you,
we have shown in the existing tree line where it’s alongside the waterslide. We’ll
basically be back within that if we were to take out a row of four spaces, in board from
the west side.
MR. FORD-I thought we were concerned with along Route 9 and the reduction of spaces
there, and it lends itself to vegetation.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if we got rid of 16 spaces, if we went down to 120, maybe we’d take
out eight up front and eight in the back. That might help the back.
MR. MILLER-So that would be basically a 40 foot more of a buffer in the back. Are you
following what we’re saying, Tom?
MR. FORD-Yes, and I, for one, am not that concerned with the buffer in the back. I’m
still concerned about Route 9, but I’m only one voice.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what would you like? They’re going to be taking 16 spaces out.
Do you want them out in front as opposed to out in back?
MR. FORD-That’s my opinion, yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes. I would say better out front than in the back.
MR. MILLER-Wherever you folks like. In the front that would be 80 feet, basically.
MR. SIPP-Maybe move a hole or two away from the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think if you’re going to look at green space out front, then you
take the whole 16 out for us.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. FERRARO-I had spoken with the lady that operates the campsites to see if either
herself or her company had any issues with what we were doing, and she said there
were no problems as far as she could see, or that they could see in their operation. I did
also say that, you know, if there is a concern in the future, you know, that the lighting is
inconvenient for the campers or something like that, that we could also, in the short term,
erect a fence of some kind that would block the light to that campsite, if that was
necessary, but that would be something that we could do afterwards if it was still
inconvenient for them or their campers. So we’re still willing to work with them, because
we’ve been good neighbors for many years, and we don’t want to lose that relationship.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a couple of islands in the back parking lot, but I didn’t see any
shrubs or trees there.
MR. MILLER-They’re just striped on. It’s not a, its just striped, for snow plowing
purposes. It’s not broken up. So it’s basically perimeter landscaping that we’re talking
about around the parking and the access road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Those islands are just level with the asphalt.
MR. LAPPER-They’re just painted.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve never liked islands in parking lots because of the snow plow
requirements. That just seems to me not good design, basic functional design anyway,
but that’s just my.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it is the Code. The question gets raised, we should talk about it.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-I like it at Hanneford. I think it’s really effective in a large parking lot, but in
the back here, we tried to buffer the perimeter for the campground. That was the goal.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Where’s the new sign going?
MR. LAPPER-At the corner of the golf course, right outside the fence, relocate sign, right
where the black fence has a little diagonal.
MR. SIPP-Will that be the same type sign?
MR. FERRARO-Yes. We were planning on just re-locating the present sign.
MR. SIPP-I’d like to see a better looking sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a monument that they have there now?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a standing sign?
MR. SIPP-Freestanding.
MR. FERRARO-You mean, by monument style sign, you mean something without such
long poles on it, so bring the sign down?
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. FERRARO-Yes, we could certainly look at those possibilities.
MR. VOLLARO-Monument signs make things look much nicer than the big tall signs.
MR. SIPP-If you go across the road and take a look at Suttons’ signs, some of the better
ones in Queensbury, both for the restaurant, the toy shop, the clothing store and even
the barbecue are all monument type signs which are much, and right across the parking
lot the new sign for the campgrounds, which is a nice monument type sign.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. Okay. We’ve got a lot of issues that we’ve talked
about. I think we might want to take a couple of minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve only written down a couple of things. I mean, obviously we’d be
looking for a revised site plan. The only real specific item is the reduced parking, C.T.
Male signoff, additional detail on ambient noise levels.
MRS. BRUNO-Adjustment in the lighting plan once the signs.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, they say they’re going to remove that 1,000 watt light,
and that should be revised. Do you have that in your notes when you come in with your
revised plan that that 1,000 watt light’s going to be gone?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, was there anything additional on the landscape plan?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t have anything, personally, but, Don, on the landscaping plan,
are you pretty much satisfied?
MR. SIPP-Yes. What is there is a forest in some cases. They’ve got quite a bit of
landscaping. I do have the one, the flowering dogwood, I hope it makes it through the
winters here.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t have winters here anymore. It doesn’t matter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. SIPP-That’s a borderline. It’s a nice looking tree at the time it blooms, but, and even
the forsythia, which is out in the open, a couple of cold winters and you’ll be replanting, I
think, but the rest of it is good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else we want to see?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me just run with it, then, if there’s nothing else to add.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
To the February 20, 2007 meeting of the Board. Table is pending submission of the
following additional information:
1.A revised site plan that shows reduced parking. The reduction in parking
shall increase green space.
2.C.T. Male signoff.
3.There should be additional detail provided on background ambient noise
levels.
4.A revised lighting plan that shows an adjustment with the removal of light
that’s labeled “A”.
5.Details on the sign.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Revised landscaping, Chris.
MR. VOLLARO-No, there isn’t any revised landscaping.
MR. FORD-We’ve got all that green space, and we need to do something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s part of the parking.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to take out 16 spaces up front.
MR. FORD-I want to know what’s going to happen with that space.
MR. VOLLARO-Grass probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would be grass. I mean, we could specify that the reduction in
parking shall increase green space. I think they kind of know that.
MR. LAPPER-That’s our intent.
MR. FORD-If all they’re going to do with the 16 spaces is plant grass, then they might
want to consider some other plantings as well, which means a revised landscaping plan,
for that portion right there.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you want details on the sign?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you, details on the sign.
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much, and, Bob, enjoy your Tuesday nights.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT MC
DONALD AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING: SR-1A
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
LOCATION: 603 CORINTH RD., KIMBERLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE TWO LOTS, ONE WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE, INTO 4 LOTS OF 1.03
ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 73-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-58 SECTION 179-13-010
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I think there was a denial on this by the ZBA, I believe. I think the
Zoning Administrator had some, or did you have some discussion with?
MR. STEVES-I did with Craig Brown, yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Steves? Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And so you’re planning on putting in a double driveway?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Shared driveway, on Corinth Road.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I’ll explain.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just to make sure we’ve got some idea of what you’re doing. Go
ahead.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt Steves of Van Dusen and Steves,
representing Robert McDonald, sitting here with me at the table. This is a four lot
subdivision, two existing tax parcels. There is a triangular shape lot on the easterly edge
that fronts on Kimberly Lane, as depicted by the Lot 31 emblem, as part of the old
Southern Exposure subdivision. As you can see it’s kind of a narrow, long lot, and then
another larger tax parcel that fronts on Corinth Road, just to the north of Hudson Pointe
Boulevard. The existing house is located in the northwest corner of the property. The
proposal is to divide into four one acre lots, two of them fronting on Corinth and two of
them fronting on Kimberly Lane. As Chairman has stated, this was in front of the Zoning
Board last week, and we were asked if we could not share a driveway on Corinth Road
because of the fact that the existing house on the north has a substantial garage, and
when I say substantial, I mean that thing is a concrete fortress, and somebody at the
Zoning Board, not realizing what type of garage it is, suggested that it be craned over
and moved to a different location. That’s impossible, but because of that, there are two
options. We can go back in front of them and that may be an alternative after the
subdivision, if we move forward with the subdivision approval, but that’s something we
can look at down the road, but in order to keep moving the project forward, we would just
share a driveway off of Corinth Road, centered on the lot line. Therefore the 150 foot
minimum lot width with the shared driveway requirement meets with the Code, and then
see if we can come back and loop around to the back of the garage, see if it’s feasible as
far as cost to relocate the doors to the back of that, or relocate it or some other option at
that point, but because of the denial at the Zoning Board, we can always go back, but we
want to move forward with the subdivision so we will commit to sharing a driveway until
such time as we can.
MR. VOLLARO-So what your plan is, then, is to move this forward with a shared
driveway temporarily, but liking to go back and plead your case one more time. Is that
the idea?
MR. STEVES-Yes, and then if not, we’ll leave it as a shared driveway. Understood. It
just, we want to be able to be right up front with you, that I don’t think there’d be any
question that even if Mr. McDonald sells that lot, we will cut off the driveway the driveway
in the front. We’ll have the shared driveway requirement, but if you went over to take a
look at that garage, and not just drive by and say, yes, there’s a garage, it is a 10 inch
concrete block garage with a full upstairs in the building, I mean, and it’s three bays
across, and it’s a fortress. It’s not a wood frame garage that you can pick up and move
to a new slab, but I mean, there are alternatives, obviously, and we are moving forward
with that, sharing a driveway and possibly taking the doors from the front to the back and
accessing it from the back.
MR. FORD-And you’ve looked at access from Hudson Pointe Boulevard?
MR. STEVES-You cannot.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You cannot. No, Hudson Pointe, the Homeowners Association put that.
MR. STEVES-There’s an ownership between the Town road and our property, which is
owned by the HOA of Hudson Pointe, and if you go back to the Planning Board approval
of the Hudson Pointe subdivision, that was specifically placed there so that there was no
access off the Boulevard. Yes, we looked at it, but it cannot be done.
MR. VOLLARO-The two lots in the back, Three and Four, the access there?
MR. STEVES-Off Kimberly Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Is off Kimberly Lane, which is not a problem.
MR. STEVES-Correct, and they’re all, you know, looking at the subdivision itself, the only
problem we had obviously was the two driveways on Corinth Road, because the one
exists. If the garage and the house were reversed from each other, it’s a pretty simple
shared driveway, but in the current location, it’s tough, and you’re taking a driveway that
currently exists into a garage that is, like I say, a substantial garage and we’re going to
close it off and put in a shared driveway, but we’ll look at options down the road, but we
didn’t want to stall the process of the subdivision approval.
MR. VOLLARO-That Lot Four, the Lot Four well and septic, is there 100 feet there?
MR. STEVES-Actually you take off the well, Bob, this is Town water.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I’m looking at the separation distances here, and it
looked close.
MR. STEVES-A draftsman error, but there’s no reason to have a well.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-These are all on Town water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Corinth Road properties, too?
MR. STEVES-Yes. Hudson Pointe’s all Town water. Kimberly Lane’s all Town water.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t have any other comments on that, since it’s a Sketch. I
think it’s a pretty simple process. You’re hoping to get the ZBA to bend to two drives. I
think that’s what you’re looking at.
MR. STEVES-Yes. Like I say, if it doesn’t, there are alternatives, and we have no
problem meeting the rest of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (lost word) abide by
the shared driveway. We just, you know, in our hearts, we know that it’s a better
scenario not to do that, because of what’s there, but the four lots, we want to go forward
with the four lots. It’s a nice subdivision. It meets all the criteria of lot width, size, area.
It takes a very substandard lot in a one acre zone on Kimberly Lane and makes it two
viable lots on Kimberly Lane which is a nice residential area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that would be an addition to that neighborhood. I
appreciate you being up front with us about the Corinth Road properties. There was
recently a subdivision that this Board approved that was conditioned on a shared
driveway, and the applicant then went to the Zoning Board a year later, got the Zoning
Board to approve a variance, same scenario, and now it’s back before the Planning
Board, and, I mean, I don’t think we want to see that play out that way. I mean, I think,
just speaking for myself, if we approve a subdivision based on a shared driveway, you
know, that would probably be a condition of our approval.
MR. STEVES-That it stay shared?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Yes, and then it would have to come back if anything changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. STEVES-And we were upfront. You know that the Code says share a driveway or
get a variance not to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-So hopefully, if we move forward, we have to get the variance to allow
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I would suggest that it’s not based on the use of the garage, but
it’s based on the sight distances. It’s based on the traffic. It’s based on access
management.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not what’s already built.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because my response would be, well, maybe you just do a nice three
lot subdivision, which is an option.
MR. STEVES-Yes, understood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Any other comments on this Sketch Plan? I think we know what
you’re about. It’s fairly simple. It’s not complex.
MR. STEVES-Yes, we’ll be in with the standard test pits and topography and engineered
septic system. Like I say, I apologize for the wells, but there was no well detail
necessary, unless somebody wants to put it in to water their lawn.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SIPP-We’ll have contours?
MR. STEVES-Yes, topography, test pits, and engineered septic system.
MR. VOLLARO-When do you plan to come in with this?
MR. STEVES-Test pits, since we’re not within the CEA, we’ll contact the Supervisor’s
office to find out when they will allow us to go ahead and do test pits, and hopefully, if
everything works out, we’d like to submit back in February for March.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It sounds good. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
MR. STEVES-And good luck, Bob. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS GROOS OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 11 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 198 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. EXPANSION OF NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 75-06 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.22
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-20 SECTION 179-13-010
TOM & HOLLY GROOS, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Before we start on this, Mr. Groos
(SOME LOSS OF TAPE DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH MACHINE)
MRS. BRUNO-I think you’d have to prove that the taxes are paid, that your names are on
both of the deeds.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, that will take care of the Floor Area Ratio, correct? How does
that impact, however, the fact that this is a non compliant structure and it’s an expansion
of that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I follow you.
MR. FORD-Is this structure already too close to the road?
MR. VOLLARO-I think they got, did they get a variance?
MRS. GROOS-Yes, we did.
MR. VOLLARO-They got variances on the side yards, on the setbacks. It’s already
been, if you take a look at the ZBA motion that’s part of the package, they gave them the
side setbacks but never looked at the FAR, and they should have, at the ZBA level.
MR. FORD-The Staff comments say, however, the resulting encroachment into the side
setback will increase the overall nonconformity of the existing residence.
MR. VOLLARO-That might be, but they’ve already given them the variance. I think the
Staff Notes might have been made before the ZBA got the variance set up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they just got the variance last week.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s pretty close.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. LAVIN-May I ask a question, for clarification? When you talk about combining
parcels, since I was to that site when we did our drive arounds, where is it in reference to
that home?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s right across the street, and I can bring, right across Hanneford Road.
I can bring that up for you.
MRS. LAVIN-So the parcels are non contiguous, then?
MRS. BARDEN-They’re separated by a road.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re separated by a road.
MRS. BARDEN-I think that the County considers that to be contiguous.
MRS. LAVIN-So they don’t necessarily have to be connected to the parcel where the
addition is going to be made?
MRS. BARDEN-As long as they’re right across the street.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you bring it up. Can you bring it up?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-And then we can take a look at it.
MR. FORD-I thought we had addressed this on another parcel here, a few weeks back,
and there was a real concern because they were separated by a road.
MR. VOLLARO-By a road, but there he wasn’t going to put them together. He put his
septic system over on the other side. That’s the one you’re talking about?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the County considers this to be land hooked when a road
separates the two. Okay.
MR. GROOS-It’s the one on the right.
MRS. GROOS-Yes, the one directly across the street. That’s a little wider. The yellow is
the house.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-It’s outlined in yellow, and your other one is right across, is that
Hanneford Road going up through there?
MR. GROOS-Yes.
MRS. GROOS-Yes, it’s barely, it’s not a two lane. It’s like a little wider than a one lane.
MR. VOLLARO-They’ve identified, that’s the property that we’re talking about right there,
where you’ve got your pointer.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MRS. LAVIN-All right. I have another question. So if you had a few more parcels in
different places around Town, can you combine them all? I mean, this may be unrelated
to you. They have to be relatively somewhere within the main parcel?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. See what the County thinks of that as a land hook between the
two. They usually have a thing on the drawing that looks like a big “Z”, and they define
that as the land hook between the two, across the road, but you can’t take a piece of
property on the other side of Town and do that, it’s got to be contiguous.
MRS. LAVIN-Okay.
MR. FORD-They have to be common tax parcels, do they not?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, those are two different tax parcels, I’m sure of it.
MR. FORD-Right. Are you going to try to combine them now, for that purpose?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they’ve got to try to do.
MRS. GROOS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And then once they’re combined, that’s when they’ll consider them as
land hooked, yes. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re going to have to get them combined, and come back before
us.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of things I’d be looking for. I’d like to see a little more
understanding of what’s going on besides this, particularly, what you’re going to do with
your stormwater.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-I do have the survey map.
MRS. GROOS-You want more of a three dimensional drawing? Okay.
MR. GROOS-Are you looking for gutters on the overhang?
MR. SEGULJIC-An elevation view. I realize you do have an elevation view, but
something a little more robust.
MR. GROOS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is your stormwater going to run to from that. Something of that
nature.
MRS. GROOS-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is it going to be located on your parcel relative to your boundary
lines.
MR. FORD-Hopefully by the next meeting we will have that.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could also do me a favor. Most of the people on Hanneford Road,
in the front is that rock cliff, they clear those off, on the 9L side. Please don’t do that.
MR. GROOS-We haven’t touched it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Leave it vegetated because that’s what’s going to absorb the water. It’s
going to stop the sedimentation of the lake and all that.
MR. GROOS-No, I haven’t touched that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t do like everybody else is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re going to table this application. I guess we’ll table it to a
meeting in, well, we won’t know what to table it to. I think we’ll have to make it an
indefinite tabling until we know when they get their.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, there’s a public hearing tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-There is. I see that. Does anybody want to talk to this at the public
hearing?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL DI PALMA
MR. DI PALMA-My name’s Michael DiPalma. My other neighbor took sick very suddenly
and he couldn’t make it. He was for the project also, Joe Barone. They live right next to
him. I live like across the street on 9L, from Tom. I’ve been in this area for quite a
number of years now, and I’ve been through this process myself, through some grief, but
everything worked out well and it had a very happy ending to it when it did, and I’d like to
say that what he plans to do, from what I see, is no big deal to me, and it seems like
sometimes, I mean, I know you men have a job to do, and you do it quite well, for what
you have to do, but for what he wants to do, it seems like you’re making him go through
an awful lot of problems just to get it done, and I can’t see that. I know what he wants
and what he wants to do, and to do that on his own property, it seems like it’s not
feasible.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the real problem is we have a Code that says your property size
kind of dictates how much you can put on that property in terms of structures, and the
size of his property is only two tenths of an acre, a little over, .22, and it’s just not enough
property for him to do that until he takes and consolidates the two pieces. Then he can
do it. That’s just the way the Code is written.
MR. DI PALMA-I do understand it.
MR. VOLLARO-Those of us up here have to work with the Code, and I know sometimes
from that side it looks like, why are they making them go through that, well, it’s because
of the way our Codes are written here.
MR. DI PALMA-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And, by enlarge, it’s beneficial to the Town overall.
MR. DI PALMA-I understand. I just wanted you to know, the reason I’m here is, I have
nothing against the project. I think it’s a good thing he wants to do, for his property, and
my neighbor Joe couldn’t be here because he took ill all of a sudden.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate it.
MR. DI PALMA-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-I have one written correspondence that was faxed to our office and
received December 22, 2006. This is from Kennis Sweet, 8 Hanneford Road,
Queensbury. Queensbury Planning Board, “Dear Friends: Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on the application for my neighbor, Tom Groos. Tom is a great neighbor,
and so I support his application with two points. Tom is a good caretaker of his property.
Some may think that a Down stater won’t be a good steward of our lake, our
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/26/06)
environment, and our community. Tom is a responsible person. His improvements
made to the buildings and grounds at 11 Hanneford Road are very tasteful and
appropriate. I know that Tom’s proposed porch will also be in keeping with the style of
the property and our neighborhood. Second, the proposed porch is in an acceptable
location. Other options are not appropriate. There’s not a sensitive environmental area
to worry about that would be affected by a small porch. The porch’s only environmental
impact would be to Route 9L. None of us need to worry about impacting that road.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks again for your time.
Sincerely, Kennis Sweet”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. I gather he’s in favor of this project. Thank you very much.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll have to table this application, but we won’t table it to a specific
date. When you get the properties, you know, combined, then you let Staff know, and
then we’ll pick a time to bring you back in. Okay?
MR. GROOS-Okay. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to vote on that, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 THOMAS GROOS, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Tabled to an unspecified date, until such time as the applicant combines the two parcels
on either side of Hanneford Road.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
43