2007-04-26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 26, 2007
INDEX
Site Plan No. 11-2007 Kevin & Annie Dineen 1.
Tax Map No. 289.16-1-46
Site Plan No. 53-2006 Joseph Leuci - Mountainside Auto 8.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-7.2
Site Plan No. 9-2007 Katherine Lapham 12.
Tax Map No. 239.16-1-11
Site Plan No. 13-2004 David Menter 16.
MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9
Special Use Permit No. 35-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 20.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1
Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas Brennan 25.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2
Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 31.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38
Site Plan No. 19-2007 Taylor Welding Supply Co., Inc. 49.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-47
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 04/26/07)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 26, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
MEMBERS ABSENT
TANYA BRUNO
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN
AGENT(S) TODD SMITH OF MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY OWNER(S) KEVIN
DINEEN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RETAINING WALLS,
PATIO, WALKS AND STEP SYSTEM. SITE PLAN FOR FILLING AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE. ALSO SITE PLAN FOR VEGETATION
REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-92,
SP 37-92, AV 29-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.16-1-46 SECTION 179-6-060
TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
th
MRS. BARDEN-Most recently this application was tabled at the April 17 meeting. The
th
Board requested that the applicant address Vision Engineering comments of April 13,
and that the Town Engineer witness test pits to be dug for drywell stormwater controls.
In addition, the applicant was to provide an enhanced waterfront or shoreline re-
vegetation plan with native species. In response, a drawing was submitted. Finally, the
Board requested that notations be added to the plans stating that no fertilizers would be
used on the landscaping and that no new soils will be brought onto the site. Staff did not
locate these on the updated plans submitted. These should be included as conditions of
any approvals, and that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SMITH-Good evening. I’m Todd Smith with Mandy Spring Nursery. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add
or walk through?
MR. SMITH-Yes. I don’t know if we have the wrong plan in to you, but I do have that
same print, and down below where it says, for the landscaping, where it says the buffer
of five feet at lake with more native plants. There is, on my copy, the stipulations on the
fertilizer and topsoil.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Is that on yours as well?
MRS. BARDEN-Does the Board have that?
MR. SMITH-It’s the landscaping plan. Do you see that there?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry. It should have been more prominent.
MRS. BARDEN-No, that’s fine. I looked everywhere and couldn’t find it. So, if it’s there,
I’m happy.
MR. SMITH-It’s down below the title, halfway down the left hand side of the page,
Gretchen. It says refined after the 4/17 meeting, and then it says.
MRS. STEFFAN-Showing a five foot buffer.
MR. SMITH-Yes, and then below that it says no fertilizer and no topsoil, no fertile topsoil.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I don’t have that.
MR. SMITH-Does yours show that?
MRS. BARDEN-Mine does not, but Don’s does.
MR. SIPP-It says stating no fertilizer would be used to the landscaping, and no new soils
would be brought in to the site.
MR. SMITH-Could I present to you the copy.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll pass it around.
MR. SMITH-I have no idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. Anyone have any
comments or questions for the applicant?
MR. SEGULJIC-So you can only do one test pit?
MR. SMITH-I think the only other test pit that Dan wanted to do would have been down
closer to the water, and because of the way the site was previously excavated, you really
could not get there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how do you plan on working on the front of the site then, along the
lake?
MR. SMITH-We need to build the wall at that location and then there’ll be a pedestal for,
it’s very steep right now, so we need to make a pedestal, almost, the people that will do
the work will have to have a spot to work from. It’s hard to describe. I think you saw, it’s
very steep right now. So I think everything, the work will be back from there, Tom, and
we can dig, we can reach to dig the percolation basin that we’re going to have to dig
down there, Number Five, we’ll be able to reach that with the backhoe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, overall, I mean, we asked for test pits where the drywells are
installed.
MR. FORD-Right, for each of them.
MR. SEGULJIC-But our engineer did say it appears to be okay, and I guess if you ever
work on another project, what are we going to be looking for? Test pits where the
drywells are.
MR. SMITH-I think that’s clear.
MR. FORD-The engineer’s rationale was for them not being needed?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he couldn’t get there.
MR. SEGULJIC-He couldn’t get there, but it’s interesting, he’ll be able to get there to do
the site work, and that’s where I’m caught up.
MR. FORD-I can’t buy it.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SMITH-I think that had the engineer pressed, it could have happened. I don’t know.
I wasn’t there when the engineer was there. I think we could have gotten a little closer
anyway than the one test pit.
MR. FORD-I think we had a pretty substantial rationale for the test pits, and I’m not
satisfied that they were done.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t want to belabor the point, but, you know, you cut down the tree.
You did it all without any stormwater controls. You didn’t have stormwater controls
designed into the project.
MR. SMITH-It’s clear. Yes, I know.
MR. SEGULJIC-We asked for test pits. We get one test pit up gradient of everything.
You put me in a very uncomfortable position. I’ve spoken my piece.
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry, Thomas. Had I been there, I would have, I mean, Dan seemed to
think, I mean, he was very clear in his letter. I don’t know why he didn’t require the other
test pit. I think the soils are consistent. I don’t know. I’m not, I can’t speak for Dan, for
the engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-It certainly makes sense to me that the site obviously is significantly
excavated, but the soils that were obvious matched the test pits. As he said in his letter,
everything was consistent, he has no issues, and he even thought that the percolation
rates would be higher, and so that the depth of the drywells would not have to be as
deep as you have designed them. So I was satisfied based on Dan Ryan’s input.
MR. SMITH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are members of the Board satisfied with the enhanced or as they call
on the diagram clarification of landscape plans, with the additional native species?
MR. SIPP-It was increased to approximately five feet all along places.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’d sort of defer to you, Don, since you’re kind of the expert on the
lakeshore plantings.
MR. SIPP-It’s a type, you know, if you put in a good 10 foot, you would back up
considerably. I would like to see a little bigger plants, in some cases, but it’s adequate,
and it’s a beginning, because I think this is the first one that I’ve ever known on Glen
Lake where we’ve required this, and it’s a beginning.
MR. FORD-Will it set the standard?
MR. SIPP-There’s no real standard.
MR. FORD-No, so we’re establishing it. Is this what we’re going to measure all future
ones against?
MR. SIPP-All future ones will be bigger.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-So we’re not establishing a standard. We’re establishing an exception.
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s because of the steepness of the slope, and what’s already there, in
the way of terraces and you’re kind of limited as to what you can do. I’d like to see a 10
foot, 15 foot strip on Lake George, but we don’t have the zoning written that way yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-And this, as I say, is a beginning, and the plants that are there are suitable for
what purpose that they’re looking at.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SIPP-And the amount of sod area or grass area is very small, and the fertilizer
needed for that, which we’re saying no fertilizer, certainly would do the absorption of any
minerals headed to the lake.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-How do the others feel about the lack of the test pits?
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just clarify, I’m not comfortable with it, but, personally, I think I
can move forward, as long as we put in the condition that during the construction of the
drywells, that he demonstrate that he can maintain the minimum two feet between the
bottom of the drywell and either groundwater or bedrock.
MR. SMITH-I’m pretty positive we can. We looked at that. Would we have the engineer
come out?
MR. FORD-Yes. Demonstrate to whom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense to have the engineer go out during this, Chris?
What are your thoughts on this?
MR. SMITH-It only has to be, in clarification, Tom the drywell only needs to be six inches
deep, effectively very small, and it’ll just be underneath that sod area, the very small area
of sod that there is. So it only has to be six inches deep. So it’s, we’re not really going
to, it’ll be easy to show, and we can show it to the engineer quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, either engineer or Staff. I don’t know if you have a
comment on that, Susan? I don’t think it’s something that Staff currently is investigating,
but I don’t see reason why they couldn’t.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. I guess, you’re correct they could, but considering the Town
Engineer has been out there and did this one, maybe for consistency it’s easy enough to
do to have them go and do another one at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it a Town Engineer issue or a Code Enforcement, would Bruce Frank
do that? I mean, that would be part of his inspection, wouldn’t it?
MRS. BARDEN-It would.
MR. BAKER-It would be part of the inspection, on the site plan development.
MR. FORD-But he’d have to be notified, so he would be there at that specific time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s true.
MR. FORD-So it isn’t just a general inspection.
MR. SMITH-Tom, if I could. One other thing that we could do, if there was any problem,
the homeowner would be willing to do a basin there instead of an actual pit, so if that
made, if there was ever any problem, but either/or, we’ll make it work.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What you design now is drywells.
MR. SMITH-Yes, that’s what we want.
MR. SEGULJIC-And design standard is two feet from the bottom (lost words)
groundwater. You haven’t been able to demonstrate that, to date, so we’re saying during
construction.
MR. SMITH-Yes, we can do it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, how do you want that worded?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-During the construction the drywell installation be inspected by.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you want to say the Town Engineer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, the Town Engineer to demonstrate minimum two foot differential
between the bottom of the drywell and groundwater or bedrock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, I think that the engineer said that that might be a problem on the
lowest one, which is why he recommended that it be modified. There’s an e-mail to that,
and that was actually a question that I had, because the drawing wasn’t attached with the
e-mail.
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a couple of e-mails. One from you and then one from Dan
Ryan.
MR. SMITH-Would you like to see, Chris, that e-mail, or the drawing?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because the response back from the Town Engineer was please
reconfigure the lowest basin to be shallow as I stated. This will ensure that some
infiltration will still occur during high water periods. Make sure any changes are
submitted to the Town, then they will forward to me. We just didn’t get them all. I feel
comfortable that the Town Engineer signed off on it, but I just wanted to point that out,
that we need to make sure that those drawings are in the file.
MR. SMITH-Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MR. SIPP-It would have been much simpler had you put on some elevations on this
map, on this sketch to begin with, because from the elevations we could get a better idea
of somebody that hadn’t been there would have no idea how steep this is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s nothing else from the Board, we do have a public
hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had comments or questions for the Board
on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in moving forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Short SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted. Short Form, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Could the action result in any adverse affects associated with
the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. FORD-Possibly.
MRS. STEFFAN-But is it being mitigated by this plan?
MR. SEGULJIC-What was the question again?
MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse affects associated with the
following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Which are you saying yes to?
MR. FORD-The erosion potential, stormwater, that sort of thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can see what you’re saying, but I think it can be mitigated through the
design.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental
characteristics that cause the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. FORD-Are we sure of that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I am.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Smith, did you get an agreement between the applicant and the
neighbor, is there a written document yet?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SMITH-Yes, from the neighbor.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Has that been provided to the Town?
MR. SMITH-Yes, we have.
MRS. BARDEN-I do have it.
MRS. STEFFAN-You do have it. So we can take that off the motion. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes removal of ice damaged dock and sundeck and
construction of a 673 sq. dock and 684 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouses in the WR
zone require review by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/07, 4/17/07 and 4/26/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five Negative Declaration. Paragraph Six does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not
apply and Paragraph Ten does not apply. This approval comes with the following
conditions:
1.That the Staff have on file drawings entitled clarification of landscape
plans, denoting the conditions: No fertilizer to be used on the property
for grass or landscaping, no fertile topsoil shall be imported onto the
site.
2.That during construction the Town Engineer will inspect the drywells
to ensure a minimum two foot differential between the bottom of the
drywell and groundwater.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Ford
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. SMITH-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you.
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
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Certainly. Mountainside Auto is the applicant for this request for site
plan review. The subject property is located on Route 9. This application was previously
th
heard and tabled at the March 27 meeting for some additional information to be
provided. The sidewalk to be provided on the map. The current walkway, the proposed
pedestrian walkway to be located on the map, as well as some additional lighting
information and details for the sign. Those have been submitted with this application
before the Board tonight. Staff had some concerns about the revised parking calculation
as indicated in Staff Notes. The hours of operation should be addressed and located on
the final plans. The public hearing is still open on this application, and this is a SEQRA
Unlisted action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter here with the applicants, Joe and Maria Leuci. For those
of you who weren’t here in March, this application is to modify the existing site. At this
time, the site is being used for both auto sales and service. We’re requesting that the
additional use be incorporated in the site plan for a public parking facility which would be
incorporated on the existing gravel parking lot. We’re also requesting that a sign be
permitted which will identify the public parking and be displayed in the front as identified
on the map, and we’re also requesting that there’ll be four cars, areas for display, which
would also be along Route 9. As Susan had mentioned, there’s 130 spots that are
available on this site. I had actually talked to her earlier and understand how she comes
up with the calculation. It’s essentially based on the cross hatching that was done, and
going pursuant to what we’ve demonstrated on this map. We do agree with the numbers
that she’s utilized in Staff Notes, essentially 89 being reserved for the public parking use,
and 41 for the auto sales service, as well as the display cars. The only difference would
be, as the engineer noted in his comments, one space would be utilized for an access
aisle, so that they could actually enter the proposed walkway. So it would actually
reduce that number to 40, and we have no problem making that modification onto the
final map if approval is provided tonight. Some of the other items that we had mentioned
last week, or last month, were the hours of operation. We have no problem, as long as
we’re talking about operation. We don’t plan on servicing any public parking patrons
after dark, which we had demonstrated at the last meeting, and we had argued in favor
of the fact that we don’t want to change the lights that already exist there today. Mr.
Leuci had submitted the information with regard to lights. Our proposal is that, I don’t
know if there’s a picture of the lights. If you look to the side, you can see that there’s
three lights that are noted on the top, and then if you look really closely there’s two lights
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
that are in the middle. What Mr. Leuci was trying to demonstrate at the last meeting is
that he’s only utilizing the two lights in the middle which are essentially for security
purposes, and those two lights are located on all four of those poles that are represented
on the map, and that’s what he would at least offer for a condition for the seasonal public
parking use, so that these patrons, if in fact it gets to be dusk, which we’re not planning
on operating after dark, but that will encourage them for safety purposes, which was the
Board’s concern at the last meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify a point. So you’re saying you won’t use these top lights?
MS. BITTER-We’re not going to use the top lights in the summer, no. I don’t know if you
guys have visited the site.
JOE LEUCI
MR. LEUCI-I don’t use them, no.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and the lighting plan that was submitted, this includes the top
lights operating, then?
MR. LEUCI-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else?
MS. BITTER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Additional questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to clarify. This is down to 88 spaces, did you say?
MS. BITTER-Eighty-nine. If you look at the map that we submitted, I cross hatched the
area of the public parking. That’s where we come up with the 89, just those cross
hatched area. All of the surrounding parking spaces that are represented are the auto
sales service and display. So that’s where we come up with the 40 spaces.
MR. TRAVER-On the light poles, the three lights that are on the top, are they of no other
use for any purpose at all?
MR. LEUCI-I only use them in the dead of winter when it starts getting dark at 4:30 while
I still have my auto sales business. So I’ll put them on for an hour or so until like 5:30
until closing time. After that I don’t use them, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions?
MR. SIPP-My only concern is the light at eight o’clock and the last part of August is the
sun has set. Is there enough light on the entrance way, exit way to allow pedestrians to
walk up through there or cars exiting?
MS. BITTER-There’s actually a street light right at the entrance to this.
MR. LEUCI-There’s a street light right outside the entrance, and my lower security lights
are on all night long. They’re on a timer from dusk until dawn, and that gives a good
overlay of lighting within the whole.
MR. SIPP-How big is the sign?
MR. LEUCI-How big is the sign? I think it’s approximately four by five.
MR. FORD-Those lights are on a sensor?
MR. LEUCI-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone here from the public that has questions or comments for the
Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we have any written comments at all, Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-None.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes, at least speaking for myself.
MRS. STEFFAN-So as far as the lighting goes, what was talked about, the lower level
security lighting is acceptable for this use? That’s what I’m hearing from the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing that I would add on that, the lighting plan that you
provided only showed the total foot candles for all of the lights. It would have been
useful to have one that showed just the lower level.
MR. LEUCI-I had a hard enough time to find out it’s seven years old.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m just making a comment. Is this a Short Form? Okay. Are
we ready to move forward with SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I closed the public hearing. We’ll do SEQRA.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 53-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOSEPH LEUCI, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion on the site plan, or do we want
to discuss any conditions first?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’ve got a bunch of conditions that I took out of the Staff Notes.
So, let me take a stab at it and see what everybody thinks.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only one is the hours of operation.
MRS. STEFFAN-The conditions that I’ve got is that the public parking facility will be a
seasonal use from late May through October. More specifically it coincides with the
opening and closing of The Great Escape, and then 1A is that the hours of operation will
coincide with The Great Escape’s hour of operation. Number Two, that the temporary
seasonal signage for the parking facility will be removed at the closing of The Great
Escape park. Number Three, that the applicant is granted 89 spaces for public parking
usage. Number Four, to restore landscaping to conform with the original site plan
approval, and Number Five, that, regarding lighting, that the current lower level security
lighting is acceptable for this use. So those are the conditions that I’ve got. Do they
sound like what’s acceptable?
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds good.
MR. FORD-That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That wasn’t a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Those were the conditions. I took those out of the comments from the
minutes.
MS. BITTER-What was the last one? I’m sorry?
MRS. STEFFAN-That as far as the lighting goes.
MS. BITTER-That was it. I’m sorry. I just wasn’t writing fast enough.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2006 JOSEPH LEUCI MOUNTAIN SIDE
AUTO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following; Applicant 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; and
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 12/26/06, 2/20/07, 3/27/07;
and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when
required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA
Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed
modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,
and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and
8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2006 JOSEPH LEUCI MOUNTAIN SIDE
AUTO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five Negative. This application is approved with the following conditions.
1.That this public parking facility will be a seasonal use from late May through
October, more specifically to coincide with the opening and closing of The
Great Escape Theme Park. Condition One A, hours of operation will coincide
with the hours of operation of the Theme Park.
2.That temporary seasonal signage for the parking facility will be removed at
the closing of The Great Escape Park.
3.That the applicant is granted 89 spaces for public parking usage.
4.That the applicant will restore landscaping to conform with the original site
plan approval.
5.Regarding lighting, that the current low level security lighting is acceptable for
this use.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. LEUCI-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2007 SEQR TYPE II KATHERINE LAPHAM AGENT(S) STEPHEN
& BONNIE LAPHAM OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 19 SIGN
POST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING 444
SQ. FT. DOCK AND SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 59-2004 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.22
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-11 SECTION 179-5-050
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Katherine Lapham is the applicant for this request. This is site plan
review for boathouse reconstruction. Subject property is located at 19 Sign Post Road,
and this is a SEQRA Type II action. The applicant proposes reconstruction of an existing
444 square foot dock and boathouse in kind. Area Variances were granted from the
th
minimum side setback of 20 feet for both sides on March 28. The Lake George Park
Commission issued a standard activity permit on December 14, 2006 for repair of cribs,
dock and sundeck, no change in size, shape or location of existing wharf authorized.
The Warren County Planning Board at their March meeting recommended No County
Impact for this project, and a public hearing was advertised for tonight’s meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little &
O’Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me at the table are Stephen and Bonnie
Lapham, who are also partial owners of the property, along with Katherine, who’s name
the application was filed in. Basically, this is replacement of an existing dock, same
shape, same size, same location, that was partially destroyed by a windstorm which
knocked part of the roof off. I think you’ve got pictures in your application, or with the
application, that shows the dock before it was cleaned up. That’s after it was cleaned up.
There’s a picture here that shows the roof as it was thrown off with the railing by the
windstorm. We have letters from owners on both sides of the property saying that they
had no objection to this, that they approved of it. People to the north of the property
wrote, “Dear Steve: This letter is written as next door neighbors to you in Dunham’s Bay.
We wish you well your endeavor to re-build your dock in its former configuration. We
have no objections and applaud you in your desire and efforts to keep your property a
beautiful, functional and safe area. Good luck and warmest regards.” And that’s signed
by all the owners to the north. Their dock, which actually was attached to our dock, or
still is attached to our dock, was built some time, they’ve been the owners since before
1928, and we think that these docks date back to the 1950’s. The owners to the south
“Dear Steve: As discussed, I understand that you’re going to re-build your current dock
and piers in the same place and same size as before. As your neighbor on Dunham’s
Bay, I’ve no objection whatsoever to your doing so, and know that once the project is
completed, you will enjoy your new dock. Sincerely”, and I’ll submit those for your
record, and I’m not sure if Staff mentioned. It did go to the County Planning Board. They
had an opinion of No County Impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just replacing an existing structure?
MR. O'CONNOR-Same dock, same place, same location, same shape, same size.
MR. SEGULJIC-Same everything?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Lake George Park Commission agreed to this?
MR. O'CONNOR-Lake George Park Commission permit’s been issued, and we have it in
the file, and I think that was also submitted.
MR. TRAVER-I believe you answered this but just to clarify, in terms of the structure of
the dock, it is now a freestanding dock as opposed to a crib, like a stone filled crib dock.
Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, there are cribs.
MR. TRAVER-They are cribs, okay.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-They are cribs.
STEPHEN LAPHAM
MR. LAPHAM-And we’re going to use the same cribs.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-They’re going to remove the dock down to the cribs, probably just
below the water. That’s not damaged, and that can be utilized. So the cribs will remain
in place and just re-build the same dock over it.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had, and you mentioned it, and I’m sorry I didn’t
catch it. The way that there’s, for lack of a better term, docks, that are built that connect
these docks to the adjacent docks of the next door neighbor.
MR. O'CONNOR-The people to the north of us actually have a pole that may be over our
line that they tie off to, and they built the walkway connecting the two that goes along the
shore that’s been there long before we had any regulations. We will go to our property
line and replace that and re-attach it. It probably, and somebody on one of the other
Boards talked about the fact that that walkway probably helps as far as erosion control.
MR. SIPP-Is that concrete?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s wood.
MR. SIPP-Wood.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-All set.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that
has questions or comments to the Board on this application? I will open the public
hearing, and if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. I’m sorry, you have
written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. BARDEN-I have one record of a phone conversation taken by Pam Whiting, Office
Specialist in the Planning Office on April 20, 2007. “I received a call from Doug Wrigley,
next door neighbor of the Lapham project. He is in favor of the Laphams proceeding with
replacement of their docks and deck.” Sorry about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. That’s okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I can’t remember an application like this on Lake George where we’ve
gotten this many letters positively supporting.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mean to complicate things, but I will also ask you to look at, one
of these days, your regulations, and I guess I would feel bad if I didn’t bring it up.
Section 179-5-050, subsection C, Miscellaneous Provisions when it talks about docks
says that a permit is not required for repairs to an existing dock if such repairs do not
alter it’s size, shape, or location. Now, I wrote to Blanche Alter about this. I didn’t get
involved in this in the very beginning, but I’ve been involved in it recently, and she did not
have time to respond to me, but I think you’re getting applications you don’t need.
People are being required to spend money that they shouldn’t have to spend. If they
come in, if they’ve got a dock, there’s also another section that has to do with pre-
existing, nonconforming structures that are destroyed, and that’s Section 179-13-050.
That also provides that people can re-build if they don’t expand, they don’t change the
shape, they don’t change the size. They don’t then have to hire lawyers. They don’t
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
have to hire surveyors. They just go about their business and do it. So I don’t mean to
complicate it, but you might make a note of it that it’s something that Staff needs to
review, because I know that your schedule’s busy. I know that you have a lot of things
on your agenda, but people don’t need to spend the money they’re spending. I will
submit these two letters to you for your record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-Thank you for that point.
MR. SIPP-Do you think the Park Commission regulations should stand, though, that they
would have to get a permit? You would have to change them, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the Park Commission handles their permit much different than
you do. Staff takes care of the permit, if it’s a pre-existing dock that is simply being
replaced, it doesn’t go to the Park Commission.
MR. SIPP-It doesn’t Park.
MR. O'CONNOR-Staff issues their permit.
MR. SIPP-But it needs our building permit, though.
MR. O'CONNOR-It probably needs a building permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think any structure needs a building permit, but I think this is in the
Zoning Ordinance and what it is saying, basically, they didn’t need to go in and get an
Area Variance. They didn’t need to come here and get site plan review, but because
that’s the way that they started it off, we completed it because they’d like to build it before
the summer.
MR. FORD-Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is no SEQRA for this, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, this is a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to offer a resolution?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2007 KATHERINE LAPHAM, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant proposes reconstruction of an existing 444 sq. ft. dock and
sundeck. Boathouses in the WR zone require review by the Planning Board.
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive
Declaration; and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2007 KATHERINE LAPHAM, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five does not apply because it is a Type II SEQRA. Paragraph Six does not apply.
Paragraph Nine does not apply, Paragraph Ten does not apply.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID
MENTER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1130 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED
SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS TO STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND ADDITION OF A
STORAGE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLANS
REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 5.95 AC. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9 SECTION 179-4
DAVID MENTER, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-David Menter is the applicant for this request. This is a Site Plan
Review modification to a previously approved site plan. The property is the Country Inn
and Suites located at the northeast corner of Route 9 at Round Pond Road. This is a
SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant proposes modifications to the previously
approved lighting plan, stormwater design, and the maintenance of an existing cabin
which was previously to be removed. Most recently, the Board tabled this application on
rd
January 23 for revisions to the lighting plan, and to eliminate the upper lighting on the
hotel. With that, the applicant proposes to modify the existing site lighting at the front of
the building by removing two, 250 watt up lights in the lawn on either side of the main
entrance and two 250 watt fixtures located above the porch roof. These are proposed to
be replaced with three, 150 watt building mounted flood lights to be located on the back
of the portico. These are not compliant fixtures and that’s all I have. The public hearing
is still open on this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MENTER-Good evening. When we tabled it, first of all, I think I’m correct in
assuming that we successfully reviewed the other issues that were part of this
application, it was just this lighting one that was the reason for the tabling, and what my
intention was, was to see if I could find something else out there that people are using
that would meet my needs in providing some light on the front of my building itself.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
Comparisons were made to the lodge, but the front of that faces the highway, and it’s
pretty well lit. So the back faces Route 9, which was compared to the front of my
building, but what I did is I fortunately have that portcochre, right there, which provided
locations for low watt lighting which actually is oriented slightly downward and shines on
the face of the building, and I thought that that was. Those are the old ones. Actually,
those are 450 watt, not 250, and I originally had 250 on one of the submissions, but
they’re really 450 each, which we’re not considering. Those are still on the lawn, but I’m
not requesting use of those. I don’t know if you have pictures of the new ones that are
temporarily mounted up there. There’s three of them located on either corner of the
structure facing toward the building. One of them’s in the center and one on either
corner.
MRS. BARDEN-They’re on the back side.
MR. MENTER-Yes, it’s on the back side of that. You can’t, they’re really very small
fixtures, and they are all oriented slightly downward, and really it’s just the minimum
lighting that, you know, I believe anybody could expect on that type of a building,
because not having any lighting is simply dark. It’s just totally dark, and I think, you
know, there was some confusion, I think, as to what the actual Ordinance is on lighting
the face of a building, and that’s evident from looking around Town and seeing what’s out
there also at this point. So I decided that this would be the simplest, quickest solution,
and I think it certainly meets your needs, in terms of trying to keep light from shining up in
the sky.
MR. FORD-David, how many fixtures are there?
MR. MENTER-Well, originally, there were originally six of these 450 watt fixtures that
were actually not approved in the original plan, and they just showed up, and my builder
did them, and it was like, wow, they were there. So part of the modification was I
removed some of those, but I think there was, the Board was uncomfortable with light
shining upward from the ground. So the tabling was for me to try to seek a solution that
didn’t require light shining up from the ground. So I think that with the low wattage of
these three fixtures and their height and their orientation, you know, distance from the
building, it really does limit any light emitting off it. I think it’s a pretty simple solution.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the lighting you’re proposing right now exists on your building?
MR. MENTER-Yes, I had my guy temporarily install them at those locations. So I don’t
know if anybody got to see them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to comment on that? I mean, I thought it looked
better for sure.
MR. FORD-Yes, good improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What’s the wattage of the three new lights?
MR. MENTER-One hundred and fifty watts each.
MR. HUNSINGER-One hundred and fifty watts each. That’s a little less than 450 each.
MR. MENTER-Substantially.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think part of the, you said there’s some confusion when you drive
around Town and look at lighting. I think the reason for that is that the lighting standards
are only two or three years old, and the vast majority of the buildings around Town have
not yet had to come into compliance with the new requirements.
MR. MENTER-There were some buildings well within that range that had lights shining
up on the buildings, very visible ones, and those are the ones that I specifically said,
well, I said I know these are new projects, what are they doing? I went over and looked
at them. That didn’t clarify things for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting.
MRS. STEFFAN-They probably weren’t part of their approved site plan.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. MENTER-Perhaps not, but I think part of it, too, was the fact that the front of my
building obviously faces Route 9.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it’s very visible.
MR. MENTER-And a comparison was made to the lodge, and the back of that is just very
dark, that’s the back of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course for the majority of the year all the property to the north
of you is dark.
MR. MENTER-Yes, right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, you come down Route 9 and your building really lights
up. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-The location of these three pole lights surrounding the pool will be re-located
to a parking area at the rear of the site?
MR. MENTER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-What will the pool be illuminated by?
MR. MENTER-The pool is not, at this point the pool is not illuminated at all. It’s only
open until six or seven in the evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-And in Staff comments, Susan, it said that all of the deficiencies
identified in the site inspection report have now been addressed.
MRS. BARDEN-With regard to the stormwater changes. That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the only other outstanding issue from the site inspection
report is the lighting.
MRS. BARDEN-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-I think it’s a very successful modification. David listened and came up with a
good plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Susan, I think as far as the cut sheets go, and I went back and
read the minutes, I think the point Mr. Menter made were that the cut sheets were part of
the initial package. So I’m not sure, do you have new cut sheets? Because we didn’t get
any in our packets.
MRS. BARDEN-I have cut sheets for, not the triple fixtures, but for the new building
mounted flood lights. You don’t have those.
MR. MENTER-Yes, the minutes would have referred to the larger 450 watt ones. If I
referred to cut sheets in minutes, it was from the old meeting.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. MENTER-And larger fixtures.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Menter did submit cut sheets for the new proposed lights as well as
the locations. See these.
MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t get those in our package.
MRS. BARDEN-Anybody have those?
MRS. STEFFAN-Definite handicap, because I had a visual reference, but I didn’t have a
plan with that.
MR. MENTER-Yes, that would have made it simpler. Actually, it should have been with
all the packets, because it was in all the packets when I submitted it.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MRS. BARDEN-I would have thought so.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’ve got a lot of paper.
MR. MENTER-Yes, they’re somewhere. Somebody will find them some day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any special conditions that we need to consider?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #2 SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID
MENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an existing approved site
plan. Modifications to stormwater, lighting and addition of a storage building.
Modifications to existing approved site plans require review by the Planning Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when
required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA
[Negative / Positive] Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
6. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the
Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
7. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
8. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION #2 SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID
MENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five we did not need to re-visit SEQRA. Paragraph Six does not apply, and there are no
conditions on this modification.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MENTER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-Thank you, David.
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
STEPHANIE BITTER, TOM JARRETT, JIM MILLER, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes. The applicant proposes to construct a miniature golf attraction and
related improvements at the Fun Spot on Route 9. This a Special Use Permit, and the
th
Board did review a SEQRA, and a Negative Declaration was issued on February 20.
Following that, the application was reviewed by the Zoning Board, and the variances
were granted, both front setback relief, Travel Corridor Overlay setback relief, and relief
from the minimum parking requirement. I have a couple of, there’s a Vision Engineering
thth
comment letter dated April 24. I have a response from Jarrett Martin dated April 25,
th
April 26, excuse me that the Board does not have, that addresses those two
outstanding items in Visions comments from that letter. Two things. If the Board is
satisfied with the proposed plan, the waivers will need to be granted from the interior
parking lot landscaping requirement, and the applicant has agreed to install noise
abatement materials to the interior of Skateland, as the first stage of any site work.
There is a letter, one new recent public comment, and that’s all I have at this time. The
public hearing is still open.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s still open, yes. Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening, Chairman. Stephanie Bitter. I’m here this evening with
Tom Jarrett, Jim Miller and Keith Ferraro, the applicant. I’m here on behalf of Jon
Lapper. In reviewing the minutes, up until this point, I think everyone can agree that this
has been a detailed and thorough review of this application, and we feel as if the
application as it stands today has been a team effort, and we hope that the Board agrees
that it’s a good plan. The comments and concerns that the Board has made thus far,
both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, have been taken into consideration, and
with such modifications have been made to the proposal as we have proceeded through
the process. Just to give you a couple of examples, the sound issue has been
addressed by the applicant by proposing a noise remediation plan which will be
incorporated when the actual plan is implemented, landscaping has addressed or
modified due to the Board’s request for additional green space and less parking, as well
as we’ve made changes to the lighting as was originally submitted. We’ve addressed
engineering comments as well, which I’ll let Tom Jarrett and Jim Miller go into some
more detail, but here this evening we’re seeking Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review
and the waiver that Susan requested as well a driveway waiver that was back in our
original application, and I just wanted to bring to the Board’s attention, the driveway
separation requirement, due to the close proximity of the neighbor’s driveway to the
north. We can justify this waiver by the fact that we currently have two curb cuts and we’ll
be replacing it with one, and if you guys have any additional comments.
MR. JARRETT-I think the only thing I wanted to elaborate on were the comments from
Dan Ryan, in the last few days. The two comments, essentially, were to delete one of
the erosion control details from our drawings, which we have done, and Susan has
copies of that plan if you wish to look at it, and Number Two, he requested that the
Notice of Intent, the NOI for the SPDES Stormwater permit, be on file before any further
permitting is done through the Town, and we’ve drafted that, and that’ll be sent in before
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
approval is granted from the Town. I think that wraps up the engineering review from my
perspective.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. MILLER-One other item is that in our February proposal we reflected the request
from the previous meeting of coming in 100 feet without any parking from Route 9, and
not having any parking and landscaping that area. I think some of the Board members
were not here in February. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. I think, perhaps,
Tom, you didn’t see that at that time. We have added substantial buffer to the rear of the
property around the parking lot. So I think we’ve gone a long ways as far as buffering
and landscaping the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board for questions or comments of the
applicant.
MR. FORD-I’d like to hear from the public first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one clarification, as far as the noise abatement, you have not
started that yet, correct?
KEITH FERRARO
MR. FERRARO-That’s correct, we have not started that yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what is that going to consist of? Inside materials?
MR. FERRARO-Yes, it would be a sound blocking material applied to the front wall of the
building, on the inside.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to drop the noise?
MR. FERRARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Will this be measured before and after? In other words, decibel levels will be
measured before and after?
MR. JARRETT-We’ve done a lot of data gathering. We have before conditions
documented, and we can document later, but we’re working with at least one party in
Twicwood to try and ameliorate those conditions. So I think it’s more a performance
issue, at this stage, as opposed to a specific data gathering exercise. So we will do our
best to try and get that noise abated.
MR. FORD-How will that abatement be impacted when windows are open?
MR. JARRETT-You mean when the residents’ windows are open?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. JARRETT-When the facilities’ windows are open.
MR. FERRARO-Basically after the installation of that, we won’t have those windows
open, you know, during the time where it would be offensive to the neighbors.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. MILLER-The other issue also is that in the summertime the landscaping will be put
into effect for the golf course, you know, which we’re really here to talk about. Currently
it’s a parking lot. So, once that project’s underway, certainly the plantings will help a
great deal to soften that noise, because they’ll be directly in front of the skate rink.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The noise abatement materials that you spoke of, these are being applied
only to the front of the building facing Route 9?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FERRARO-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any?
MR. JARRETT-That’s the intent at this stage. We’re hoping that that will do a good job in
reducing the noise level.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and how will you define whether or not that’s done a good job, from
comments from?
MR. JARRETT-I think probably it’s going to be a performance issue, and we hope that,
we’ll be out there ourselves monitoring it, and we’ll try and get some feedback from
neighbors.
MR. TRAVER-And if it’s not a significant reduction, do you plan to continue to additional
noise abatement efforts?
MR. JARRETT-I think we’ve expressed that intent. In this situation it’s not really the
music that’s causing the problem. It’s the low base and the dance music Saturday
night’s especially, and the only way to really address that effectively is through an
increased mass, and it’s very difficult to add mass, but we’ve agreed to try to do the best
we can to try to reduce that effect.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I imagine there are some
people here that would like to speak to this project, if you would give up the table, please.
Anyone that wants to address the Board, if you could make sure you state your name for
the record, because we do take minutes and record the meetings, and with that I’ll open
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, I should probably read this into the record. The one
public comment that you have.
MR. HUNSINGER-The e-mail comment?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
MRS. BARDEN-This was sent from Linda McNulty to Sue Hemingway at the Zoning
th
Office on April 24th, subject April 24 Planning Board meeting. “Dear Mr. Chairman
and Planning Board members,
My Husband and I are unable to attend tonight's planning board meeting due to a long
standing commitment to bring my mother north for the summer.
There are still concerns regarding Ferraro Entertainment which has been brought to your
attention during the past several months, some of which may or may not be resolved by
the proposed changes. The current operation at that property is a major annoyance to
us and prevents us from quiet enjoyment in and outside our home during their hours of
operation. We have been told that Mr. Ferraro reoriented the speakers within the roller
rink in an attempt to mediate the deep base noise.
That attempt made no difference. One thing which I had not brought to anyone's
attention in the past relative to the noise level is the fact that the situation is worse when
the outside temperature is sufficiently warm that they operate with their windows open.
We have central air conditioning, thereby enabling us to leave our windows closed,
however, the noise still intrudes. I lack confidence that padding on only the walls will
actually eliminate this issue. What of the metal roof?
The noise of the go carts is also an annoyance. To date, only rainy days solve this
problem. When the Ferraros installed the go cart track, they removed a large area of 50-
60 foot mature pines which helped absorb noise from their business and from I-87. We
were told plantings would replace the trees--not to worry. Mature trees such as those
cannot be replaced in our lifetime. Besides loosing a noise buffer, it took away from the
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
feeling of beautiful green space which was a big draw to living and recreating in the
foothills of the Adirondacks.
Relative to the golf course intruding on the corridor overlay, it's just one more example of
overuse of a property in Queensbury. The only reason I see for the Ferraros' plan to
place the golf course on the east side of their property is free advertising. If I remember
correctly, Queensbury's zoning code stipulates nothing intrude on the corridor overlay
areas to not only provide for potential road expansions but also to keep the character of
the Town from becoming overbuilt.
Squeezing yet another entertainment that close to Route 9 seems counter productive to
the goals of Queensbury and its residents. The Town of Queensbury touts our
community as a "Nice Place to Live". How can this be when they persist in over using
the land? Respectfully submitted on April 24, 2007 by, Linda S. McNulty 14 Twicwood
Lane Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board
on this application? Okay. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in moving forward?
MR. FORD-I don’t want to disappoint them, because I know you expect me to ask this
question. What is the latest research showing us about electric go karts?
MR. FERRARO-Basically we’re still in an investigating stage. There’s two other tracks
that are going to be electric that are just up the road from us, and we’re going to watch
and see how well they perform in actual use versus the studies and tests done by the
manufacturers that are trying to sell the product. So, we’re going to wait and see how
they actually work out, up the street.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. FERRARO-You’re welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-The pictures that are presented here, are they representative of the
mini golf course that’s going to be there?
MR. FERRARO-Yes. They’re not identical. This is actually of a course called Kimble
Farms, down near Boston, and the manufacturer doesn’t ever replicate any course
exactly, but this is the type of aesthetic look that we’re trying to achieve, and that will be
accomplished with this design that we have presented in front of you.
MRS. STEFFAN-So there’ll be highs and lows?
MR. FERRARO-Yes. Highs enough to be as tall as the front of the building, which will
also block some of this noise that we’re trying to mitigate.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SIPP-My original comment still stands. It’s just too close to Route 9. Therefore, I
cannot in good conscience vote for this.
MS. BITTER-Although I know Staff Notes do reflect this, I just wanted to remind the
Board that we did obtain the variance from the Zoning Board to be encroaching in the
Travel Corridor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is this a Long Form or a Short Form?
MRS. STEFFAN-It was a Long Form, and we did it last time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Just a clarification, Susan. Waivers. We’ve got interior landscaping,
but in the Staff Notes it said interior and exterior landscaping.
MRS. BARDEN-I believe that the exterior, now, is conforming. It’s just interior. Sorry
about that. They did make improvements to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the driveway separation is another waiver.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Board feel about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s a positive, well, since they’re eliminating the curb cut, I feel
good about it.
MR. FORD-Going from two to one, I think it’s a good move.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. So are we ready to move forward with an approval?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we are.
MRS. STEFFAN-And have you submitted your, I’m assuming that you have sanitary
sewer connection plans?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You haven’t hooked up yet, but you are going to be?
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The plans have been reviewed in preliminary fashion with the
Wastewater Department. They don’t issue the permit until we actually have a contract.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A special use permit application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following; 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
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on9/19/06, 11/21/06, 12/26/06, 2/20/07,
3/ /07, 4/26/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 35-2006 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five Negative Declaration. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This application is approved
with the following conditions.
1.That the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will grant waivers for the
driveway separation interior landscaping requirements.
2.That the applicant agrees to install all of the noise abatement materials to the
interior of Skateland in expedited fashion. This should be accomplished in
Phase I of the project. Applicant agrees to keep the windows closed as an
additional noise abatement measure.
3.That the applicant must obtain Vision Engineering signoff.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Sipp
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
THOMAS BRENNAN AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A
LOCATION 751 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
22.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO
2.33 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH: 10/17/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING
4/11/07 LOT SIZE 22.70 TAX MAP NO. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. Stuart, I’m sorry.
MR. BAKER-Good evening. My Staff Notes were rather lengthy, but I’ll try to summarize
them briefly. Issues that were raised at Sketch Plan review that remain outstanding
include the length of the proposed road. Town Code requires that roads with cul de sacs
be limited to 1,000 feet in length, and as proposed, this road would be over 2,000 feet in
length. I also raised a concern about density calculations and expected additional
comment on that from the Town Engineer, but none were provided. So that may not be a
concern. I was concerned that that could be excessive slope on three additional lots,
and I did speak with the Town Engineer about that, and he was going to look at but didn’t
raise it in his comments. So I suspect it isn’t an issue. Also at Sketch Plan review the
applicant’s agent stated that they would document that there was no Karner blue habitat
on the property. No documentation has been provided. Also stated that perc tests would
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
be done on the property, and provided results at Preliminary review. That has not
occurred. In discussion at Sketch Plan, the applicant’s agent stated that they would give
some consideration in providing sidewalks along the proposed road. There’s no
discussion of that or provision for that in the Preliminary submittal, and at Sketch as well,
the applicant proposed a pedestrian bike path to be conveyed to the Town that would
provide a connection to the Town bike and pedestrian path on the adjacent Town owned
right of way that goes to the Hudson Point property. However, the proposed location of
this connection as shown on the Preliminary submittal doesn’t connect with the Town
property. Instead it connects to property owned by the Hudson Point Homeowners
Association, and no documentation has been provided by the applicant indicating that
the HOA would then provide an additional easement to make the connection over to the
Town right of way. I had additional notes about required information that’s missing. I
guess most notable is the amount of land proposed to be conveyed to the Town. This is
the proposed bike and ped connection. They’re proposing conveying approximately
5300 square feet of land, where Code provides and requires at least 1,000 square feet of
recreation land per lot, or 16,000 square feet for a project of this size, unless that
requirement is waived by the Town Board, and no request for a waiver, to my knowledge
has been submitted. Waivers that have been requested include the landscaping plan,
yet the plans that were submitted due provide some detail about size and location of
maple trees that are proposed for planting in both the boulevard islands and the cul de
sac. Additional observation, the applicant is using an outdated application form, and we
would ask that the applicant and their agent use the current forms, for future submittals,
and I also note that when the adjacent Quincy Lane project was reviewed back in 2003,
Staff at that time recommended that the Planning Board require that applicant provide a
future stub connection towards the Brennan property, in anticipation of such a proposal
as you have before you this evening. No such stub was provided. So at this point we’re
now looking at subdivisions, potentially subdivisions on two adjacent properties, both
with dead ends, when a loop road could have been provided for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter here with David Gardis and Tom Brennan. As you’re
aware, we’re requesting to consolidate two lots for the proposal of 16 lot residential
subdivision. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the engineering comments were issued
yesterday, our engineer hasn’t had an opportunity to respond in detail to them, especially
because our stormwater is an individual as a consultant, but I’d like to at least go through
the Staff Notes so we can at least respond to some of the items and have this be a
working project. The first one, unfortunately I think Jon Lapper was here during the
Sketch review process, and I believe there was a discussion about the length of the cul
de sac. I know that there are certain subdivisions that exist in Queensbury today that
have been reviewed by this Board where the length is based on the end of what I refer to
as the boulevard of the landscaping issue, to the end. Certain subdivisions that I have
as examples are Hiland Estates, which is right behind us here, Grandview Drive, Quincy
Lane, ironically, and Surrey Lane, and I’m not sure how it was left at the Sketch Plan
review, but obviously from Staff Notes, it really wasn’t left answered as to whether or not
we can continue to proceed with what’s being proposed. Because these other roads
exist in this manner, it would kind of be considered selective enforcement if now we’re
measuring the distance differently than what was reviewed at that time. So when we get
into more of a discussion, I would like the Board to address that. The density calculation
we can supplement for the next submission. I don’t think we have a problem with that, I
believe if the engineer finds that it’s necessary. The Karner blue butterfly, we can
definitely look into that. I believe that was a discussion at Sketch Plan, which Stu
referred to. The perc tests, unfortunately when this application was submitted, it was in
the middle of winter. So we were kind of in a position where perc tests couldn’t be done,
but Dave has informed me we can do them pretty much tomorrow, and provide them in a
supplemental submission so that you have that information.
DAVID GARDIS
MR. GARDIS-I might add to that, for this Preliminary design, we used the percolation test
and the soil test infiltration test data that were used for Quincy Lane. The soil types,
we’ve done soil borings. The soil type is exactly the same. It’s a mirror image of, and
those perc tests that were done for Quincy Lane were witnessed by the Health
Department. We intend to do our own, but we used those numbers for our Preliminary
submittal, due to weather conditions.
MS. BITTER-As for the sidewalk, at this time the applicant’s really not interested in
incorporating sidewalks. Obviously, you know, we would be willing to discuss it, but we’d
rather not have it incorporated in the plan if possible. As for the pedestrian bicycle
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
connection, I don’t think anyone, at least not on this side, realized that there was a hop
that needed to be made in order to get to the Town property, and we’d be willing, if the
Board is interested in us examining that possibility, to at least reach out to Hudson
Pointe to see what the possibilities are, to get an easement to connect to the bike path
that is there. As for missing information, we can definitely submit that with the next
submission. I believe Stu mentioned that we need Lisa Brennan’s signature. That’s fine.
As for stamped or signed by the licensed engineers or surveyors, I know that the
engineer’s surveyors get ify on this. They don’t like to stamp them unless they’re final
plans, which I know the Zoning Board’s having issues with that. So I think that’s why it
was submitted in that fashion. Septic locations we can provide. This maintains public
water. So a well wouldn’t be required. As for the park and open space, I guess when we
get to the point that we definitely can provide that connection to the bike path we’ll worry
about the actual area and talk to the Town Board at that point, or we can withdraw it if it
doesn’t work out, and we’ll be willing to supplement, as to the location of proposed
electric and cable wires, as requested.
MR. GARDIS-How do we do that?
MS. BITTER-I think, well, you can talk to the Board.
MR. GARDIS-I’ve never been on a project, I’ve never done a subdivision plan that
required the location of electric and gas and telecommunication lines. That’s always
been decided by the utility company.
MR. BAKER-It’s clearly laid out as a requirement in the Queensbury Code, however.
MS. BITTER-So at least you could, like your proposed area and if NiMo decides
otherwise.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. It’s to show that it would work.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just like with proposed septic locations.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not stipulating that those are the exact locations that will be,
and where they will be installed.
MS. BITTER-And then clearing limits. More details necessary, I think we can do that.
MR. GARDIS-That’s not a problem.
MS. BITTER-And I think that was it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-I think you just had one more response to the engineering notes, because.
MR. GARDIS-Please keep in mind, I got these at four o’clock tonight. In regard to the
question about the trip generation, I checked with Edward and Kelsey today, traffic
engineers. That number should be corrected from 30 to 15, and that’s from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, and I did check. The engineer states that the pre-treatment
system that we are using is not approved by the New York State Department of
Conservation. In fact it is approved by it. It is not in the blue book. The manual was
printed several years ago. It is on the web site shown as an approved and highly
regarded system for pre-treatment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MS. BITTER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board for questions, and/or comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess my comment, right off the bat, is that, you know, as I was home
doing my prep on this particular project, I was extremely frustrated. I thought that the
Staff Notes were very comprehensive, and that we did go through Sketch Plan and we
did make many recommendations which apparently fell deaf ears, because there are just
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
things that you don’t want to do, and so I think we will be in a situation where we’re going
to have a test of wills on a couple of these issues. You’ve asked for some waivers. I
would certainly not be willing to go, you know, to give you a landscaping waiver. We
talked about the sidewalks. I understand you don’t want to do that, but that’s going to be
an issue that we’ll talk about, but I stopped after a half an hour of input on this particular
application because I felt like I’d be doing a lot more work than had been done to present
this application. So I’m extremely frustrated about the amount of work that needs to be
done before this comes back to us in some kind of a logical format so that we can
actually review this application as a serious application, and so I’m just pretty frustrated
th
and it may be that it’s the third meeting of the month, and it’s, you know, the 20
application that we’ve looked at, but we spent a lot of time on it at Sketch, and now we’ve
got all these notes from Vision Engineering. We’ve got Staff Notes, and then we’ve got
some feedback from the Highway Department. So, I’m compelled, at this point, to just
put a tabling motion in place and send you away, so that you need to come back with a
better submission than you’ve got.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree with that. I just think we should give them some
direction as to landscaping, and I would say I think they’d have to submit a plan for that.
MS. BITTER-And I apologize that you feel that way, but if we could ask for one
determination or one point of direction as to the boulevard distance, because I think that
seems to be an outstanding issue as well. That would be helpful. Is it the Water
Department that you were speaking of or the Highway Department? Because I only
have notes from the Water.
MRS. STEFFAN-On the drainage, it says a vortex unit. We have not used this system.
We have no history of possible future maintenance problems with this type of unit and
the infiltration trench. We would prefer conventional systems with stormwater basins as
we currently use in all of our subdivisions as per Town Code. Note: Please refer to
Town Engineer Dan Ryan’s letter to the Planning Board. Also, we would rather not have
a median where we have them. It makes it much more difficult to plow and creates a 60
to 80 foot right of way, and then it also says the Brennan Estates sign should be off the
Warren County right of way. Make sure there are no sight distance problems. So that’s
another thing you would have to address. I don’t know if you have a copy of that or not.
MS. BITTER-We do now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it’s dated today.
MRS. STEFFAN-We just got it today.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but as far as the medians
and the boulevards, I think you have to go to the Zoning Administrator and get some
direction.
MS. BITTER-Okay, but you can understand where we’re coming from, that there’s three
different subdivisions that have it that way. So that’s why we were obviously kind of
confused.
MR. BAKER-I can’t speak to all three, but I did look at the record on Quincy Lane in
particular, and in that instance the Planning Board didn’t grant a waiver to the length, but
was well aware of the length of that road when it was approved. That’s essentially what
the minutes reflect on Quincy Lane. It was prominently, the length of the road was
prominently request, but no formal waiver was requested and none was explicitly granted
and yet it was approved at that length proposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that my memory is that I voted against that plan, for that
sole purpose, because the road was too long, but that was just one vote, and I know we
talked about that at Sketch Plan, but as Staff pointed out, unfortunately, you know, the
decision that was made on Quincy Lane now impacts your proposed subdivision, and I
don’t know if there’s anything that we can now do in arrears.
MR. BAKER-There’s nothing that can be done in terms of a connection from Quincy
Lane, unless the private property owners there were willing to convey land. However,
there could be an opportunity to, as I mentioned in my notes, to create a loop to this
Town owned road here in the Hudson Pointe property. As you can see, this is the
Brennan property here, and the only point of connection of tangency really between the
Brennan property and the Town road is at this corner here. So there isn’t an opportunity,
anywhere really, to convey a continuous 60 foot right of way, but I would strongly
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
encourage the Planning Board and the applicant to work to perhaps find a way to create
a future loop connection there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I would certainly encourage that. I don’t know how the rest of
the Board feels.
MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense.
MR. FORD-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Who owns this sliver of property between the back of the Brennan
property and the path?
MR. BAKER-I believe this is the Hudson Pointe HOA as is this.
MR. GARDIS-It wasn’t when Michaels Group, when they got the approvals to put the
convenience store out on the corner. Everybody in Hudson Pointe raised concerns that
they didn’t want a road coming through.
MR. HUNSINGER-I remember that. Yes.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct. However, the Town Board, in their discussion on that road,
explicitly has retained a right to use that as a future vehicular connection. It is reserved
solely for bike and pedestrian right now, but they were very specific in their motion, in
that they wanted to retain the right to do a future road connection in the future. I think
that’s the primary reason it’s a 60 foot right of way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any other comments or questions from the
Board?
MR. SIPP-On your plan here, you have on the north side of this land, a 20 foot buffer that
extends from Lot Six down to Lot One. What about Lot Seven? What about the other
side?
MS. BITTER-I think, Mr. Sipp, that’s actually in the Quincy Lane subdivision.
MR. GARDIS-What we did is buffer the entire length of the Quincy Lane subdivision with
a no cut buffer zone to leave foliage between the two projects. I think if you look at the
next sheet you’ll see.
MS. BITTER-It does arrow out to Lot Seven.
MR. GARDIS-If you can look at Sheet Number Six, you’ll see a continuation of that.
MS. BITTER-Sheet Six of Eleven is what he’s referring to.
MR. FORD-Twenty foot wide.
MR. SIPP-Twenty foot wide non disturbance buffer, but it doesn’t continue here.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the buffer zone continues along Lot Seven, also?
MR. GARDIS-It continues the full length of the boundary line.
MR. FORD-You can see the confusion there where the arrow comes in, part way down
the side of Lot Seven.
MS. BITTER-We’ll extend it to the end.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the confusion is the arrow.
MR. FORD-They’re going to change that. They’re going to bring it down here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Now, one of these lots, you mention the percent slope was.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. BAKER-Yes, and I had discussed that with the Town Engineer and expected he was
going to address that point in his comments. He made no mention of it. So I suspect he
looked at that and found those slopes were below 25%. I’ll discuss it with him and
confirm that, but that’s my suspicion.
MR. GARDIS-The average of those slopes are 18 to 24. The one that we’ve identified is
a little over 25.
MR. BAKER-I do have one additional comment in regards to the Highway
Superintendent’s comments. He stated that they’d prefer not to see boulevard islands,
but in further discussion with him, he noted that if the boulevards were, began further in
on the road rather than as close to the intersection with Corinth Road as currently
proposed, it would work better. The primary concern is having enough swing room for
the plow trucks when they have either a single blade down, or the blade and the wing
down. That’s the primary concern. So if the boulevard islands themselves are moved
further in, providing that swing room, that would address their concerns.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did he tell you how far in, or did he give you a radius?
MR. BAKER-No, he didn’t, but that’s certainly something that the applicant should
discuss with Highway
MS. BITTER-We can touch base with them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-How about the radius on the cul de sac, is that enough to make a swing
around, with the plow down?
MR. BAKER-The radius of the cul de sac does meet Code, and there was no comment
from Highway on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
MR. FORD-Fill in the blanks, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Was there anyone here that
wanted to speak on this application? Okay. We do have at least one. I think I’m going
to go ahead and hear the comments before we table the project. Good evening. If you
could just state your name for the record, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHARLES MOORE
MR. MOORE-My name is Charles Moore. This is John Kessler, and we represent the
Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, and first of all we’ve not been contacted about
a connection of a bike trail to property that we own. There is not a bike trail there to be
connected to currently, and we’ve heard a lot of encouragement about extending the
road and connecting it to the Hudson Pointe Association, and you heard one person here
say that there was a lot of objection to that at one time, and we want you to understand
that that objection still exists. Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions to the Board?
Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Would anyone like to put forward a
tabling resolution? I think it’s going to be pretty simple. Just to address Staff comments
and engineering comments.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS
BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
thth
Table this to the June 26 meeting with an application deadline of May 15, to address
Staff Notes, Vision Engineering comments, Highway Department notes and the Town of
Queensbury Water Department notes.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE
AGENT(S) JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) GEORGE PENSEL
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA. MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS
A MARINAS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE
2.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 SECTION 179-10-10
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff comments, please.
MR. BAKER-Gladly. The applicant is proposing the following changes in the current
marina permit for the site. One, reducing the number of rental dock slips from 25 to 12.
Two, increasing the number of quick launch boats stored on site from 80 to 100, and
Three, eliminating the rental of boats altogether. Additional comments from Sheet E-1,
and Sheet SP-1 were not signed and sealed by a design professional, as required by
local Code. Sheets S-1, E-1, and SP-1 don’t show the stormwater infiltration trench and
basin that were prescribed by the 1997 stormwater control report previously done for this
property. Tax Map parcels noted on Sheets E-1 and SP-1 are incorrect. On Sheets E-1
and SP-1 there are notes stating that quick launch boats shall be stored in Area C. The
only location noted on the plan submitted as Area C is a septic area. So that certainly
needs to be clarified. The Board should certainly discourage and prohibit, as Code does,
either storage of boats on the septic area or travel over that with boats or other heavy
vehicles. The non-permeable figure provided on the Site Development Data Sheet is
incorrect. It is shown, however, correctly on Sheet SP-1 submitted. At pre-application,
Staff had suggested that both winter and summer boat storage layout be shown, and that
was not provided with the application. The location of the dumpster needs to be
indicated as well, and waivers have been requested from the lighting, landscaping and
stormwater plan requirements. I also noted that Section 179-10-060 of the Queensbury
Zoning Code states that the Planning Board shall consider the State requirements in its
Special Use Permit review of a Class A marina which this is, and I included those for
your review with the comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I’m here with
the applicant and the owner, George Pensel. A little current history on the property.
George purchased the marina in 2005. This was the marina that was formally owned by
John Brock, of the Mooring Post Marina, and when George purchased the Marina, he’s
been operating it under the existing Special Use Permit that John had in the Class A
Marina from the Park Commission, which transferred with the land. The one thing that
was different in the purchase, John Brock owned the residence to the north of the Marina
on the lakeside, and he always owned that in his own name, and he retained that,
obviously. That wasn’t part of the sale of the Marina. However, the boat slips on the
lake, in front of his residence, were part of the marina permit, and he retained those. In
the drawings we show, there were nine slips that were part of the marina permit which
now below to Mr. Brock. The four slips on our northerly dock that encroach onto his
property, there was an easement, as part of the sale, that those four slips would still be
part of the marina. So, what George did is he, you know, approached the Lake George
Park Commission to amend the Class A permit to reflect the different dock
configurations, and what the Park Commission suggested as a first step is that we come
here first to the Town and address the Special Use Permit and modify the Special Use
Permit. So when we looked at having to go through the approval process, George, as
you know, owns the boat sales facility up on 149, and so some of the terms in the
previous permit are a little bit different than the way he would like to operate the Marina.
So he figured since he was going through this, we were going to ask for some changes
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
to that. The one thing about this, which is why we asked for the waivers, is that there is
absolutely no construction proposed. Nothing, unless there’s something we’re directed
to do. It’s simply a matter of changing the wording on the permit. Here’s the, the existing
condition drawing, there’s three parcels involved in the marina. Here’s Cleverdale Road
and Lake George, and this is Mason Road to the rear. There’s three parcels. Parcel A is
the Waterfront parcel of the Marina. Parcel B is the larger parcel of the Marina, and
there’s a smaller parcel here, Parcel C. Those are the three parcels that are owned by
George and are part of the Marina. The residence that we’re referring to was John
Brock’s residence to the north here, and this is the existing Marina permit. You can see
it shows docks and a boathouse in that area. Those are the nine slips that were part of
the permit that George doesn’t own. The permit, in this scheme here, there were 36
slips, wet slips, in the Marina. Three of them were for gas sales. Three of them were for
quick launch boats, which are stored in the back, and I’ll talk about, and there was 25
slips that were rented for the season, and also the Mooring Post had, in the permit, they
were allowed to keep 10 rental boats that were available for daily rentals. The buildings,
well, the quick launch area was, the boat storage for the quick launch was the area to the
rear along Mason Road behind the buildings. Eighty boats are stored in this area, and
when the owners request, they want to use their boats, the boats are taken by trailer and
launched, and that’s why they had the eight slips at the Marina to accommodate those
boats that were being launched and when they came back in off the lake before they got
trailered back and stored.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on how many boats are actually stored there
now? We didn’t count them when we went on site visits, but it didn’t seem like there was
80. Do you know?
MR. MILLER-I don’t know, George, how many boats do you have on the property right
now?
GEORGE PENSEL
MR. PENSEL-There’s around 120 boats on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, I never would have guessed that.
MR. TRAVER-It’s pretty well organized, because when we went on site visits, certainly
on the one hand we were impressed by how many boats there were. It took quite a bit of
maneuvering to navigate sort of through that area, but as Chris said, it sure didn’t look
like there was anything like 100 or 120 boats there. That’s interesting.
MR. PENSEL-Of the 120 boats, a number of them are in the showroom stored. So
they’re in the building, and there was a little more capacity, but the permit, I think, is in
the tune of 180 boats.
MR. MILLER-One hundred and eighty for winter storage is allowed in the current permit.
MR. PENSEL-But it isn’t my philosophy to operate that way, because it would just create
a bottleneck right at that location. So I would prefer not to get into that. I’d like to have
room to move to do my operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. One of my observations, when we were driving around out there,
was I would really hate to be the guy in the back of the property and want to go out on
the lake this weekend, because there were many, many boats in the way. I mean, you
must have to really structure the Spring deployment of the boats by the owners.
MR. MILLER-In the winter, though, they stack them end to end like that, and then he’ll
start getting them ready and open them up. Some of those boats actually, you know, are
just stored there, will actually leave.
MR. PENSEL-Once we get going in the Spring, you know, my philosophy would be also
that, you know, the boats that come in later are the ones that stay at the Marina. So the
ones that come in later are typically a consumer who’s going to ask for his boat early.
So, those, you know, were already from the point and time when you were there, you
would be kind of probably surprised to see how much it’s opened up, because the ice
went out last Sunday.
th
MR. TRAVER-The 20.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. PENSEL-We’ve already cleared out probably 20 boats.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry to interrupt and digress.
MR. MILLER-No problem. There’s two buildings on that parcel that face onto Cleverdale
Road. The building to the north has a retail store, the office in it. There’s the restrooms
are in there, and then the rear is the service building. The other building is identified in
the current permit as the showroom and boat storage, and so that’s basically what the
current permit was, and then they needed to provide 105 parking spaces which, you
know, there’s paved parking in this area. In the summertime, they park on some of the
lawn areas. There’s parking along the fronts of the buildings in Cleverdale, and there’s
some area for some overflow parking on this smaller parcel. So that’s how the parking is
accommodated. One other thing, there was some discussion is that, obviously on a
busy day and boats are being launched from the back, if boats are launched there’s
space available. So if there was overflow parking required, they could park in the back,
and what’s being proposed, as I said, is no construction. The rear portion of their
property would remain the same. The buffer areas that were required as part of the
permit and all that would remain exactly the same. The function of the building remains
the same, and obviously one of the changes is the Waterfront area. Now we have 27
slips. The way George is proposing those is that we would go from 25 seasonal rentals
to only 12. We keep the three gas slips, and then that increases the number of slips
available for the quick launch to 12, which makes it easier for people launching boats
and retrieving them. Now you’ve got more basically storage slips on the site. So there
would be a reduction there, and that would stay. The one thing that he proposed
modifying was to increase the quick launch from 80 to 100 boats, and the reasoning
beyond that is that the storage building and the sales building, he has less demand,
there’d still be some sales, but it’s much reduced because he has the major dealership
building down on 149. So we’d like to use that existing building, which has all high bay
doors, it’s a wide open building, use that for boat storage and then be allowed to quick
launch some boats out of that building, in addition to the ones that are stored outside,
and that gives us the ability to have some indoor storage, especially for customers who
want to store their boat longer term. That’s really the proposal. What I’d like to do is go
through the engineering comments and address some of the Staff comments, if I could.
We received a letter yesterday from Dan Ryan, and we have not had the opportunity to
respond at this point. Dan, I understand, visited the site, and apparently he went through
the existing permit in quite a bit of detail, and I’d like to address those items. Number
One, he talks about Condition 15 of the permit which talks about cleaning the shoreline
including the lake bottom. He’s asking for a copy of a maintenance program. There
really isn’t a maintenance program. George owns the Marina, and he’s on the site
almost every day, and basically there’s a daily policing of the site that occurs, and that
includes the cleaning of the waterfront. So there’s not a real official maintenance
program statement that’s ever been prepared. Condition 20, references the bulk storage
for the fuel. George has the permits and all that information, and obviously it’s regulated
by DEC, and it’s current, and we have that information, if you’re interested, to review it.
Condition 21 talks about maintenance of the fuel pumping facility and talks about the spill
prevention plan. DEC requires a document, a spill prevention document, which George
has, and we have a copy of, that talks about the potential spills and what happens in
case of a spill, and that also requires periodic inspections, which are done of all the
pumps, the equipment, the tanks, the hose lines, basically to verify that everything is
tight, and we have that information that’s current. Number Four talks about Conditions
23, 24, and 35, which talks about the boat cleaning. Within the permit there is a location
that was identified to the rear, that little circle on the plan to the rear of the maintenance
building is a boat washing area. That area was identified as a low area on the site where
water’s basically contained by the slope of the land. It’s farthest back from the lake. So
it doesn’t discharge, drain to the lake, and also the other requirements for the types of
soaps and things, you know, he complies with those conditions of the permit. Item
Number 29 talks about the stormwater. When we first submitted this, was right after one
of our snowstorms. We submitted Tom Nace’s stormwater report and in that report it
showed along the lakeside along the driveway it showed a stone infiltration trench, and it
showed a stone infiltration basin at the bottom, and this report was done about 10 years
ago, and we looked at it, and Dan Ryan looked at it and said he didn’t see any evidence
of it. We looked, and it appears that there was some stone along that driveway, and I
don’t know if over 10 years it’s grown in and it’s filtered in. There’s some stone there and
we certainly would refurbish that or reconstruct that. It’s hard to tell if it was constructed
exactly according to the plan, and the infiltration area at the bottom, it was not
constructed according to the plan. There’s a drain there, and it’s hard to tell if they, you
know, I could see where there might be a concern having gravel in the area of the boat
launch where it would get kicked around, but what we would need to do in that area,
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
there’s a drain there. It needs to be cleaned out to verify if they installed a stone
infiltration and possibly paved over it. We couldn’t tell that on a surface inspection, but,
you know, we’d be happy to work with the Town Engineer, whatever, and verify that
those items of the permit were done properly.
MR. HUNSINGER-We sort of noticed the same comment when we were there on site
visits, that it appeared as though the paved parking area discharged into the lake, but
there was also snow on the ground when we were there. So you really couldn’t tell.
MR. MILLER-Some of it does. The permit required some areas of, you know, down by
the water, some grass areas as a buffer area that wasn’t supposed to be used for
parking or anything, and I believe the intent was probably to act as some filtering from
that area, but, I mean, our position is we’re willing to comply with those things. That was
things that were supposed to be done 10 years ago, before George owned it, so, you
know, we don’t know the history of that, but we’d certainly make sure that it was done
according to the requirements. It talks about, the permit talks about underground fuel
storage tank. The fuel tank that’s there has been replaced. It’s a newer tank, and it was
installed as an above ground tank and enclosed with a roof, and it meets DEC’s
requirement. We weren’t involved in the replacement of the tank. Maybe there were
some groundwater issues or things to replace the tank, and that was the reason they
went to an above ground tank, I don’t know, but the current tank is an above ground tank
and it’s approved and it’s permitted by DEC.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, was that tank removed, the underground tank?
MR. MILLER-The old tank?
MR. PENSEL-All the tanks were removed, and in fact the property was scanned with
sonar or x-ray equipment to make sure there’s no.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that was at the time you purchased this?
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MILLER-Item Seven, the pump out holding tank should be indicated on the plan. It
actually is indicated. It shows as a manhole cover in that grass area. Part of the permit
requires a pump out facility, and it goes directly to the holding tank. It doesn’t go to the
septic system, and the holding tank is pumped out on an as needed basis. Compliance
notes on Permit, the Number Eight, on Condition 17, 22, and 25, that’s where they talk
about the sewage disposal area in restrooms. The restrooms are provided, as I said, in
the building, the retail building. There’s the pump out is located at the docks, near the
gas dock, and the other item talked about portable toilets, pump outs, and what happens
is someone comes in with a portable, that’s pumped out the same as someone with a
holding tank on the boat. So the same pump out facility is used for portables. So those
conditions are met. Existing stormwater control measures should be indicated on the
plan. I addressed that and we’d take care of that. I skipped one, and one of the items
talked about trash areas, and one of the Staff comments was where’s the dumpster?
The dumpster is located to the rear of the storage building. So it’s located to the rear of
the building, but during the season, trash containers are located around the docks and
on the site, water tight containers that are for the customers, and those are emptied on a
daily basis and the site’s policed, and so that portion of the permit is complied with. Item
10 talks about the wastewater treatment system. There’s an existing septic system that’s
identified as Buffer Area C to the north of the building, and there hasn’t been a recent
inspection of that. We talked about that. The system probably is going to be pumped
out prior to the season, and George has agreed that we’d have Tom Nace, when the
septic tank was pumped out, conduct an inspection of, the best he can, the septic
system. So he can’t see everything, but we certainly could have that done and comply
with that. So those were the engineer’s comments. I think we can address those and
the areas where he questioned the conditions of the permit, I think we can illustrate that
all those conditions are being met. The other item, the Staff comments, I’ll quickly go
through those. As far as stamping the drawings, it’s always been our history with the
Town is we don’t stamp the submission drawings because they’re being modified as we
go through the process, and then when the thing is approved, the project’s approved, I
mean, certainly we’d have a survey stamped. That’s not going to change, but then when
the project is approved, the final drawings are stamped and submitted, that way we don’t
have multiple renditions of a plan all bearing seals indicating they’re finished. The
stormwater controls, we certainly would add that to the plan. That wasn’t picked up on
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
the survey. That’s why it wasn’t shown on there. Tax Map parcels, I will certainly
discuss that with the Town and correct those. The comment about the quick launch
boats on Area C, I probably created that confusion. The area identified as Area C is
Buffer Area C on the plan, which is an area that says you’re supposed to stay off of it
because it’s a septic, a septic field. I believe the permit referenced an Area C, and they
probably had a sketch showing that back area, calling it C, and I copied it verbatim. So
there is no boat storage on that septic area. As a matter of fact, the Staff discussed
putting in some curb stops or bollards on that, and we believe that’s a good idea. We’ve
talked about it, and thought that it might be better to do something like a post and rail
fence or something around that area, so people wouldn’t drive on that.
MR. FORD-So there’s no traffic whatsoever on that?
MR. MILLER-There wasn’t any on there when I’ve been there, but we would agree to
fence that to ensure that there isn’t any.
MR. FORD-As a preventive measure.
MR. MILLER-Yes. The non-permeable, I have no idea why it was wrong on the Data
Sheet, but I’m glad it was correct on the site plan. I must have transposed a number
incorrectly. The winter and summer boat storage, basically what happens, and the
reason we didn’t submit the winter storage, obviously there’s no need for parking. So
areas that are available for parking they use to store boats. The other, as we discussed
earlier, there’s no need to have access to all the boats. So in some areas where there’s
aisles, boats will be stacked in those aisles. So, it’s a much more compact configuration
than you would get during the summer season. We could provide that drawing, but that’s
essentially what happens. There’s no need for the parking. So that space become
available for storage. Location of the dumpster we’ll add to the plan. It’s behind the
building. The reason we ask for the waivers is, you know, we weren’t proposing any
construction. Lighting is fairly minimal. There’s one light pole on Cleverdale Road that
lights the road. It looks like it’s a Town or municipal light. It doesn’t belong to the
Marina. There’s building mounted lights, typically over the doors, and the Marina is not
open at night, and so most of those are out, except for some security lighting, and there’s
some lights that are down, you know, the slips are covered, most of them, at the lake.
So there’s some lighting around those slips in case one of the customers comes in at
twilight or something, after the Marina is closed. They can see to get off their boat. So
there’s no proposal to change that lighting, and it’s pretty minimal. The same with
landscaping. Again, we’re not proposing any changes. We didn’t propose any
landscaping, and the same with the stormwater. We’re not subject to any DEC
requirements where we have to be disturbing an acre of land. We’re not disturbing
anything. So as far as the stormwater, you know, it’s what we had talked about. We’d
be willing to make sure that what was approved previously was installed properly, and
with that, I’m open to any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I’d like to hear from the public before I comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to your, should I call it the boat wash area? What happens
to the water there? How do you do it, and what happens to the water?
MR. PENSEL-Basically, the water lands on the ground, and it either evaporates or it
percs into the soil.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s not a drywell there.
MR. PENSEL-There is no drywell.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and what do you use for boat washing?
MR. PENSEL-We use a product called Slimy, Grimy. It’s biodegradable. It doesn’t even
hurt grass. It’s pretty (lost words).
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s one of my concerns.
MR. PENSEL-It doesn’t hurt lawns or anything like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know what your SIC Code is by chance?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. PENSEL-SIC Code?
MR. SEGULJIC-Standard Industrial Code.
MR. MILLER-I’m not familiar with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You do repair on site, correct?
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I think you’re subject to the New York State Industrial
Stormwater Permits also, and what that says, if you have a boat wash area, then you
have to get, at a minimum, a SPDES permit for that also.
MR. PENSEL-A what?
MR. SEGULJIC-A SPDES, State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. I
guess, it’s not my job to make the determination, but there’s another program out there
called the New York State, it is the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation SPDES Multi-Sector general permit for stormwater discharge as
associated with industrial activity. If you go to section, you go in the back, you go to
Sector R, Ship and Boat Building or Repair Yards, and it clearly defines that a boat is
defined as anything less than 65 feet in length. Ships are over 65 feet. So it applies, as I
interpret it, to marinas, that have boat, that do boat repair on site, that discharge to a
surface water. To the whole site would be subject to this, and it has certain provisions
for particular activities on the site. So I’d like you to look into that and see if it does
apply, and if it does apply, then you have to do your Notice Of Intent, and you have to do
your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is in addition to all the other
stormwater plans.
MR. MILLER-Okay. I’m not familiar with that, and surprised with the Park Commission
there and the facilities around the lake that, I mean, typically other permits that are
required, bulk storage, they make everybody aware of those things, and make sure
everybody complies with that. So I will have to look into that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With regard to your spillage plan, do you have any spill response
materials on site?
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-What do you have?
MR. PENSEL-We have a boom set up that will, we are trained to contain a large spill in
the water, and we have those, they’re clothes. They’re like absorbers. Usually have two
or three packages of those distributed in different areas, and we have the cat litter
product.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like you have good material there.
MR. PENSEL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and as far as the pump out station, what exactly is that? I realize
what it is, but exactly what do you have, in particular, on your site?
MR. PENSEL-Okay. On our site we have a holding tank, and we have plumbing to that
holding tank from the dock area, and we have a pump. It’s a diaphragm style pump,
which then is attached to a hose with various fittings that attach to the side of a boat that
has a holding tank system within, and we literally get this attachment together with the
boat and this hose, and then we turn on this pump, and it pulls the waste from the boat
and pumps it into our holding tank.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that tank, is that referred to as the pump pit? Is that referred to as
the pump pit on your drawing?
MR. PENSEL-Pump pit?
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is your holding tank on?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. MILLER-The pump out equipment is on this dock here, the fuel dock, and it pumps,
see where the manhole is, right in that area, that’s where the holding tank is.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s an underground holding tank?
MR. PENSEL-Yes, it is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how often is that pumped out? How do you know if it’s full?
MR. PENSEL-It won’t pump if it’s close to fill.
MR. FORD-What is the capacity of it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. PENSEL-1500 gallons, 1,000 gallons. I am not sure. It will not pump, and we call
and we have it pumped out, generally in the Spring and the Fall.
MR. SEGULJIC-Getting back to Condition Number 15 of your Park Commission permit,
that deals with the, implementing a maintenance plan sufficient to keep all docks, moors,
adjacent shoreline water and lake bottom clean of debris. I guess you have a plan,
correct?
MR. PENSEL-Well, our plan is basically to pick up anything that we see, and we even
send our dock boys and girls down in the water, in the season, to pull a beer can or any
kind of debris, you know, you’re not supposed to really do anything to the lake, but if
there’s litter, then we remove it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, I guess, technically it says a program, not a plan. So I
misread that. Do you have anything written with regards to that at all?
MR. PENSEL-We have an employee manual that we distribute to our dock boys and girls
and employees, that covers litter.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and a question for Staff. With regards to storage of boats on site,
is there anything in the Code about that at all, about how many you can store per? I’m
not aware of any.
MR. BAKER-No. Code doesn’t put a limiting factor on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in theory they could store as many as they wanted. Right?
MR. BAKER-Well, as many as their Park Commission permit allows.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. BAKER-That’s the limiting factor, the Park Commission.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the last thing is, because you did submit the stormwater
control report. Because you purchased the marina recently, and it looks like they may
have never implemented this. That’s one of the things we need to determine.
MR. MILLER-I think they implemented some of it, and I think what they’ve implemented
probably because it wasn’t maintained. What happened, with any kind of infiltration,
you’re talking about gravel channel, sediment and dirt will wash in, and if it’s not
maintained, it’ll eventually plug, and I think that’s a condition, you know, we didn’t
excavate it to tell if it was installed exactly according to the detail. I believe something
was installed, but it’s kind of overgrown now, and it needs to be addressed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You alluded to this earlier, and one of the things I’m going to
need to see is what exactly is there now for stormwater controls, and in particular, is it
matching up with what the plan said you were going to do. That’s all I have for now.
MR. SIPP-What I’d like to see is some elevations on this map, particularly of the areas in
Parcel A, the elevations of Cleverdale Road. Is water running from the road down to the
boat launch site? What is the difference in elevation from Cleverdale Road down to the
boat ramp? And what is to prevent gas, oil, antifreeze from running into the lake at that
point? There’s no elevations on here. So it’s difficult, but by eye you can see that there
is a definite slope from Cleverdale Road down to the boat launch, and with this being
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
asphalt, all being paved, not all of it but a good share of it. That Buffer Area D, I’d like to
know the elevation of that. Is that lower than the surrounding area?
MR. MILLER-I think it’s pretty much flush. Everything from that area that is probably 10
foot of drop from Cleverdale Road down the lake, eyeballing it, and that area there is
grass, and I think it’s pretty much the same slope that I think the intent was not to have
vehicles parked that close, and then provide some kind of filtering. I think that was the
intent of why that was identified as a buffer area.
MR. SIPP-I definitely want to see where this water goes when it rains or snow melt.
What is Pump Pit located in the center of the grass parking area on the south end of
Parcel A?
MR. PENSEL-Years ago, even more recently, that was a utilities pit, where you’d find
electrical wiring and things, but there was a bladder tank and a water pump which would
supply the water to the facility across the road, and that was being, you know, that was a
problem that I was dealing with right away. I have eliminated the use of that. I have a
submersible water supply coming from the lake, and I have moved the bladder tank to
the building and put an elaborate wiring system to operate it. So that is a, just an old
concrete room underground.
MR. SIPP-What is the shed located on the concrete pad there, shed 106 square feet,
right by the dock? What’s stored in there?
MR. PENSEL-Okay. That shed is where we put, it’s a little shed where we house
equipment. That’s where we storm the boom for the spill prevention plan, and that’s
where the garbage, the waterproof trash receptacles and recyclables are placed by our
customers.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Up in the grass parking area, the north side there, there’s a block
labeled concrete. Is that a light post on that or what?
MR. PENSEL-Okay. All right.
MR. MILLER-These are things that the surveyor picked up. You own that.
MR. SIPP-Is it above ground, or is it ground level, or is it below ground?
MR. PENSEL-I didn’t even know it was there.
MR. MILLER-I think it’s a flush pad, and, you know, it’s probably there from something
that was there in the past, the pad was never removed.
MR. SIPP-I assume these S marks along this hedge here are a certain type of planting,
but I don’t know what it means. You’ve got six of them just to the west of the Buffer Area
D, six circles with S in it.
MR. MILLER-Those were some shrubs that were planted there. What happened, when
John Brock retained the residence, he had some planting in there, and they installed,
you know, there was an agreement to install some additional landscaping. So some of
that hedge that’s been planted was planted as part of the purchase agreement to provide
some buffer to the Brock residence.
MR. SIPP-Okay. That’s all I’ve got right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else on the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Tom addressed most of my concerns related to stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here
that had comments to this application? I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BAKER-We have received one letter that I’ll read into the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
th
MR. BAKER-This is dated April 25. It’s from Fred and Linda McKinney at 23 Mason
Road. “Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to offer our support to Boats By George in their
Special Use Permit 15-2007 for modifications to their Marina. The Pensels’ have taken
time to fully explain to the neighbors their proposed changes to the existing Class A
Marina. Since they purchased the marina they have made beautiful, functional and
sensible improvements. This has enhanced the quality of life for the residents living
around the vicinity of the marina. For lake safety, it makes sense to remove the rental
boats in favor of adding additional quick launch boat capacity. The proposed changes
would blend beautifully into the natural Adirondack Lake George setting. It certainly
compliments the neighborhood and shoreline. Any project that Mr. and Mrs. Pensel
have embarked on in this community has complimented our neighborhood and the
surrounding Cleverdale properties. They are long-time lake residents and very
conscious of the need to protect and cherish this great natural resource. They have
graciously supported our community by allowing the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire
Company to dock their fire boat and use their dock for emergency access to the fire boat
at no charge. Often, his employees have assisted the firemen in a safe and quick
departure on water emergencies. His boat ramp has voluntarily been made available as
a year-round water access source for fighting fires on Cleverdale. We would like to
request that you take into consideration all of the plus features, and vote in favor of the
proposed changes to the current Class A Marina permit held by Boats By George.
Thank you for your interest in this request. Sincerely, Fred and Linda McKinney”
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience that had questions
or comments on this application?
BILL WETHERBEE
MR. WETHERBEE-Mr. Chairman, we submitted a lengthy statement to the Planning
Board, it was hand carried to the Planning Board three days ago, in writing. My name is
Bill Wetherbee. I live at 51 Mason Road, Cleverdale. I’m somewhat perplexed as to
where that communication may be and why it has not been read into the record.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I do have it right here. I’d be happy to read it into the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any other comments?
MR. WETHERBEE-No. I want to make sure that, is that going to be read into the record,
or what’s going to happen?
MR. BAKER-This will certainly be read. I can read it right now.
MR. WETHERBEE-I have two other comments, in addition to that. My name is Bill
Wetherbee. I live at 51 Mason Road, Cleverdale, New York.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. WETHERBEE-That communication which the Planning Staff now says will be read
into the record was prepared by an affiliation or coalition of citizens of Cleverdale. I
happen to be the one who submitted it, but it represents the opinion of a number of
people who are here tonight, many seasonal residents who could not be here this
evening, and a number of other year round residents, and reflects our concerns with
respect to this matter. I don’t know what the protocol calls for in terms of reading it in the
record?
MR. BAKER-I will.
MR. WETHERBEE-I would like to make two clarifying comments. The statement that the
Planning Staff member will read presently speaks particularly to the expansion aspects
of the marina, particularly to those aspects of the marina permit which propose an
expansion, and one thing that one of your members indicated just a few moments ago, I
think needs to be clarified. The Lake George Park Commission, in 1997, explicitly and
definitively identified the limits of use of that marina, in actual, numerical citations. It was
not a case, as one of the members of the Planning Board said a few moments ago,
where “you can do whatever you want”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
Lake George Park Commission, and we encourage you to look at that permit, explicitly
identified, after lengthy deliberation, the maximum numbers of usage that were
permissible on that site. An increase from 80 to 100 quick launch represents a 25%
increase, after the Lake George Park Commission specifically cited 80 as the max. That
will be underscored in the comments that the Planning Board member will read to you
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
subsequently. I would append one final comment to that. It’s sort of a comment and sort
of a question. The marina constitutes a nonconforming use in this Waterfront Residential
zone. It is a nonconforming use. Any expansion of any nature in a nonconforming zone
requires a Use Variance. Why, then, has the expansion elements of this proposal not
been referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Let me read the referenced letter into the record. This is from Cleverdale
rd
Coalition of Concerned Citizens, dated April 23, addressed to the Planning Board,
th
received by our Department on April 24. “This is provided in response to the “Notice of
Public Hearing” transmitted to specified Cleverdale property owners pursuant to the
above-referenced matter. The “Notice” identifies “Tuesday, April 26, 2006” as the date
on which the Queensbury Planning Board will meet to consider this application.
However, we believe the actual meeting date is Thursday, April 26, 2007. Since
assuming ownership and management of Boats By George “On the Lake” (formerly The
Mooring Post Marina) approximately two years ago, Mr. Pensel has been forthright and
forthcoming with many who reside proximate to the marina with respect to his plans.
Moreover, he has been proactive and positive in his stewardship of the business. This
communication is primarily intended to register our concerns and reservations within the
context of the chronology of events and determinations which have been made with
respect to this marina in the relatively recent past (+/- 15 years). We believe it is
imperative that any consideration of marina expansion be examined and evaluated
within this important historical context. The spokesperson for Mr. Pensel’s application for
a modification in his marina permit (James Miller of Miller Associates) classifies the
request for an increase in permitted quick launch capacity as part of a “minor revision”.
The current specified quick launch capacity in the prevailing marina permit is 80 boats.
The application requests an increase to 100 boats. This is an increase of 25%; an
increase of this magnitude is hardly “minor”. On September 29, 1997, the Lake George
Park Commission issued a permit to the then-Mooring Post which explicitly specified a
quick launch maximum of 80 vessels for the marina (see “Special Conditions”, page 4,
item #32). Subsequent renewal applications and approvals maintained this standard.
This level of quick launch activity was not the result of impulsive or haphazard decision-
making. Rather, it was the product of protracted and exacting due diligence – hearings,
facility inspections, consideration of neighboring property owners, historical levels of
operation, and other related factors. In summary, the 80 vessel threshold was a
deliberate , thoughtful, and conclusive determination. Any expansion of quick launch
activity at Boats By George “On the Lake” inevitably translates into more commercial-
related activity, other adjustments notwithstanding. This means more vehicular traffic;
increased noise as boats are moved to and from storage areas to the waterfront, and
vice versa; increased boat traffic in an already over-used bay; more pressure on the
lake’s ecosystem to adjust to and withstand greater usage; additional parking at the
facility; and the concurrent consequences of these conditions in an otherwise residential
locality. When the Lake George Park Commission established the standards for quick
launch usage in 1997, these inputs were essential and central factors in the conclusions.
They remain at least as relevant today, and a 25% increase would clearly exacerbate
these concerns. The application for an increase in quick launch capacity cites other
waterfront adjustments as serving to offset an increase in overall marina activity. Such
“concessions” are somewhat illusory. Mr. Miller points out that nine berthing slips have
been foregone as a result of the transaction between the previous owner of the marina
and the current owner. This was a part of the transaction which occurred between a
buyer and a seller some 2 (+/-) years ago. In consummating this arrangement, the
current owner knowing relinquished title to waterfront facilities which were approved for
the berthing of nine vessels. This should not now be deemed a “trade off” to justify quick
launch expansion. Moreover, if the current owner (of the former marina berths) elects to
use his waterfront facilities to berth vessels in a quantity consistent with that for which
they were approved, there would be no decrease whatsoever in overall waterfront usage
as a result of the provisions in the change in property ownership. Further “reductions” in
waterfront usage would necessarily accompany any expansion in quick launch activity,
since more berths would be needed to accommodate increased numbers of customers
boarding and returning vessels. In this respect, Mr. Miller’s suggested equating of the
“elimination” of 10 rental boats with the expansion of 20 quick launch vessels is hardly a
justification for the requested level of expansion. We hence urge that this application be
viewed within the context of substantial and compelling precedent. Both current
circumstances and the weight of our previous analyses and conclusions need to be
examined in concert. Thank you for your attention and time. If we may respond or clarify
further, please contact us. For the coalition Robert Kladis William B. Wetherbee
Spokesperson”
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir.
FRANK PUSATERI
MR. PUSATERI-My name is Frank Pusateri. I live at 75 Mason Road. My major
concern is the impact on a decidedly residential neighborhood of additional quick boats.
This request seems to generate additional traffic, but not cars only, tractors and trucks
pulling 20 foot plus boats across the small residential road. It generates additional noise.
Nowhere has anybody said whether or not George needs more heavy equipment to run
additional quick boats. Does he need more tractors and trucks to move this around his
yard? Parking already is a problem. We have a small road. Who’s going to police this
new parking? Who’s going to make these people park in the back behind the building?
Who’s going to keep the road open? The one thing that this proposal seems to assume
that we’ll accept, which isn’t true, is that one quick boat is equivalent to one moored boat.
Well, the moored boat isn’t hauled back and forth across the road every day, isn’t
shuffled around a storage area. It sits in the water at a dock. It comes in and out twice a
year. A quick boat moves back and forth across the road every time it’s used. They are
not equivalent. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
ROBERT EVANS
DR. EVANS-My name is Robert Evans. My wife Cheryl and my four daughters live on
the south corner and also the west side of the Mooring Post Marina. We’ve lived there
for 25 years. George and Boats By George are excellent neighbors. They’re
professionals. They’ve cleaned the place up. We want their business to do well, without
question. Concerns we have, we have spent hours and hours with the Park
Commission, the Town over the last 10 years working with Mr. Brock and the
Commission in terms of the numbers of storage, winter/summer, quick launch, rentals,
hours. The Mooring Post is what it is. That’s the way it was bought, purchased, and
that’s all it really can do. Eighty boats going to one hundred boats is a 25%
improvement. Rentals going to quick launch is a questionable, apples for apples
comparison. Docks were lost in the deed change when some of these docks were
deeded to Mr. Brock, and again, there’s some questions in regards to septic, etc. that
were brought up tonight. In my corner, my concerns are the runoff. Each year it is a
flood. If you came up on Mason Road, I’m at 47 next to Mr. Wetherbee. The water
comes back to the southwest corner. It comes down the street. You can see where it’s
eroded the street and it goes through my neighbor’s lawn into the lake. Occasionally
there are little oil slicks. DEC, Lake George Park Commission have checked into it, and
it’s annually a problem. It’s never been addressed. It bothers me there’s all this the
storage, it’s open storage, and I’m concerned in regards to the penetration there. I think
that needs to be looked at, but, in the sense, when you talk about changes, modifications
and expansion, I really do indeed feel that this needs to go to the Zoning Board. I think
these are changes. Again, it’s a Critical Environmental Area. These are changes in a
pre-existing, nonconforming structure and a very residential community. The traffic up
and down Cleverdale Road is increasing every day and transports from 149 to the
marina, and I think these need to be addressed before the permit can be granted and
this goes back to the Commission. Again, we applaud George and Patty and Boats By
George in everything they’ve done. I mean, they’re professionals. They’ve been very
above-board with us. We want them to survive and do very well, but we want it to be
done right, not like it was 10 years ago. We spent so much time on this. We want it
clean, above-board, professional, and again, hopefully you’ll consider our comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Could you point to your residence on the map?
DR. EVANS-Absolutely. It’s better over here, I think. I’m right here. This is my property
and this is my property. The drainage occurs here. Stones, cement, old buildings,
concrete, and every Spring there’s a lake here that floods through here, across the road,
the road’s dropping down to my neighbor’s lake, but it’s also just a river down here. You
can see it every year. I don’t know if you came up in the rainy season, but any time
there’s a rainy it’s just a very wet land. I think somehow that needs to be taken care of.
Drywells, I’m not really sure, but I think that flooding needs to be looked at. That’s my
property where the arrow is now. This is my property here, this is my property here. The
water seeps here, comes down through across the road here, where there’s changes in
the road already, and down to my neighbor’s property here in the lake. When it’s a real
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
flood, it’ll rush down through here. Anybody that’s driven this road, 47 Mason, after snow
or Spring, there’s water in that area. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open.
If the applicant wants to come back up. I had a question for Staff, Stu. Maybe you can
answer it, maybe not. The first member of the audience asked a question about why this
is not going before the ZBA as an expansion of a nonconforming use. Do you know why
it wasn’t?
MR. BAKER-I’m not aware of any discussion by Staff, especially the Zoning
Administrator, on that question, but I’ll certainly bring it up in discussion tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I know you’re not the Zoning Administrator, and I know
that’s his ruling to make, but didn’t know if maybe you had an answer. Maybe the
applicant has an answer.
MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding, and it’s why we’re here tonight, is that
a marina in the waterfront zone is allowed, but it needs a Special Use Permit, which is
why we’re here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MILLER-So it’s a Special Use item. It’s not nonconforming.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it is a Special Use Permit.
MR. MILLER-That’s my understanding.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-That’s my understanding as well, and I don’t know if anyone has asked the
Zoning Administrator the Use Variance determination question.
MR. MILLER-Well, we had our pre-application conference and we discussed it and it was
never brought up, and to my knowledge there’s no current variances on the property, that
all the approvals were contained within the Special Use Permit. The other thing, you
know, the first thing Mr. Wetherbee spoke about was the requirements of the permit. I
think we’ve been above-board. We’ve submitted that permit, and we’ve addressed all
the items of that permit. We’re certainly not looking to disguise the numbers or any of
the requirements of that. The other thing I’d like to say about that is George, when he
first pursued this project, he went to the Park Commission, and they were the ones that
directed us here first. So, obviously, whatever happens here, our next step is to go back
to the Park Commission, and whatever you approve or allow us to modify, that would be
what would get submitted to the Park Commission who, again, would review that, and so
we have to go through two steps for the modification.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could ask a follow up question to that.
MR. MILLER-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since I’m personally not that familiar with these types of review before
the Park Commission. There is a couple of different letters in the file. I don’t know if, you
probably submitted them, related to your permit application with the Park Commission. I
realize their approval is contingent upon our approval, but are there occasions when their
approval would be different than what we would approve? I guess really the real
question is if we were to approve the site plan as proposed, is it then a fait accompli that
the Park Commission would approve it?
MR. MILLER-Not necessarily. I think they’re going to conduct their review separately. I
think, for example, if you approved our proposal for the 100 quick launch, they may come
back and tell us, no, we’re only comfortable giving you 90, and so obviously whatever’s
the most restrictive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MILLER-But typically what happens with a regional agency like that, and the
Adirondack Park Agency is the same, is they don’t like to grant any approvals ahead of
the municipality.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MILLER-They would rather that you review it, based on your Codes, and prior to us
submitting to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. PENSEL-The Park Commission has stated that before they would issue my new
permit, that they would be doing on-site inspections to make sure we were in compliance
with the existing terms.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. MILLER-There was some other discussion about we’re not looking to expand, and if
I said it’s minor, I think I was just trying to set the tone for your review, which obviously
doesn’t work very good.
MR. FORD-You’ve noticed that.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I did notice. I keep trying, though, but, you know, I think we lost nine
slips in the sale, were removed, but we went from 25 down to 12. So there was actually
four wet slips were removed that would be available for the quick launch. So, you know,
so that’s an equal trade, and the 10 rental boats are gone, and, you know, rental boats,
in my mind, are more of a problem. I mean, these are typically people that aren’t boaters
and they want to go out on the boat for a day. So, you know, they’re more reckless
boaters, and, you know, one of the comments was made about the quick launch versus
the wet slip, and I think, what typically happens, wet slips always are much more
expensive to rent than a quick launch. I think the people who tend to rent the quick
launch are the people that don’t use their boat as often. If you only use the boat every
other weekend, or something like that, you know, you would favor a quick launch rather
than pay to have the boat sit there in the water, and you’re not using it, and I think what
we’re proposing is to utilize some of the space that’s now showroom as storage. So all
of the quick launch boats that we’re talking about now are going into that building. So
we’re not doing additional outside storage. We’re trying to utilize that space that was
utilized before for storage and showroom that we don’t need. So it’s a combination of the
decrease in the rental boats and the slips and trying to utilize that building that was
previously there for sales and showroom.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the commenters mentioned concerns about vehicular traffic,
specifically tractors and trailers and large trucks that would be pulling boats that would
use the quick launch. Just so I understand, boats that would be using the quick launch,
they would only arrive at the marina once a year, or would they be coming and going?
MR. MILLER-They’re typically stored at the marina. As a matter of fact, most of the
storage, they’re not on trailers. They’re sitting on blocks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we saw that.
MR. MILLER-So the trailer pulls in, picks them up, and launches the boats. I believe you
have two trailers, is that correct?
MR. PENSEL-Two tractors and two trailers, and the Park Commission regulates the
purchase and sale of that equipment, and any of that, but typically the boats that are on
quick launch there are there for storage. They stay there. They don’t even come in and
out of Cleverdale Road. Those boats just stay all winter, right at the marina.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I think what the comment referred to was not so much
leaving the entire area, but rather the traffic from the storage area to the ramp area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I think it was both.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Different commenters commented on both. That was my impression.
MR. PENSEL-We believe that parking a boat on a dock and parking a car for a customer
who’s parking on a dock is the same as a customer parking their car to pick up their
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
quick launch boat, and the same thing as for a rental boat. Somebody that wants to rent
a boat, they’re going to want to park their car while they rent the boat. So we don’t think
there’s going to be anymore traffic. In fact, we were reducing, we were going 10 rental
boats, 10 docks, for 13 docks. So we’re actually three less parking, and the other fact is
that, well, I lost it.
MR. FORD-Would you reiterate, please, your actual dry storage right now, compared to
what is proposed?
MR. PENSEL-What’s that?
MR. MILLER-Are you talking about the total storage or the quick launch storage?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think what Tom was saying was how many boats you have currently
stored right now versus how many you’ll have in the summer with availability.
MR. MILLER-We’re not looking to change the total number stored. The permit now
reads there can be 147 boats in the summer on the property. That includes on the
docks, in the buildings and on the property, and we’re not looking to increase that. We’re
saying that 147 stays the same, and the same with the winter storage. It’s 180. That
would stay the same.
MR. FORD-So how does the utilization of that building factor into that?
MR. MILLER-Well, that building.
MR. FORD-Currently it’s not being used for storage. Correct?
MR. PENSEL-Yes, it is.
MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. It is.
MR. PENSEL-And in fact it has been used for quick launch since I’ve owned the facility.
We went that way. When one of the, as I was applying to the Park Commission to
modify the permit, this process began in June of ’05 when I purchased the property, and
it continued on until April or May of (tape turned) when the Park Commission said, after
requiring me to go through the whole process, at the very end they said you need a letter
of non-jurisdiction from the Town of Queensbury. So, I had worked on this permit with
the Park Commission for a year and a half before I even knew I had to go to the Town,
and so, you know, what I did find, in the time period the Park Commission, when I put in
the application, which initially was just to transfer ownership of the Marina, to the time
they told me I had to go for a modification, I realized that by not using that building as a
showroom, by using it for boat storage, and specifically for quick launch, that relaxed a
lot of the traffic or congestion in the back area. I had more room on the property because
I’m only operating 80 quick launch because that’s what I have a permit for. So, if I took
10 boats from out in the rear and put them in the storage building, then I had 10 open
spaces in the back, and so that is how I came upon the decision to ask for the additional
quick launch in trade for 10 rental boats.
MR. FORD-It’s appreciated what the neighbors have complimented you on as being a
good neighbor a good steward. However, I would appreciate it if you would address the
percentage increase in quick launch, philosophically and the reality of a 25% increase in
quick launch.
MR. PENSEL-Okay. First off, originally there were eight slips reserved for the quick
launch in the water. So this is boats that are going in the water or coming back out,
returning from the day of boating on the lake. Our proposal basically increases that to a
total of roughly 12, which is a 50% increase of space allotted for these boats to get off
the water and get out of the bay and not be, less congestion in the water.
MR. FORD-They’re not at docks?
MR. PENSEL-Well, what happens is these boats, they need docks to come into. They’re
going from eight to twelve.
MR. FORD-They’re going from eight to twelve.
MR. PENSEL-Right.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FORD-In docks.
MR. PENSEL-Right. So what happens is they pull in and that, we have a capacity of 12
boats staged to come out of the water, or 12 boats staged to go out on the water. So
that just increases that capability. What else?
MR. FORD-The reality of the increase of 25% quick launch.
MR. PENSEL-All right. We did a study, and on the busiest holiday weekends, the
busiest weekends which probably, you know, represent four or five days a year, in the
boating season, we had 40 boats in the water. Approximately 50% of the people that
have their boats stored on our quick launch use their boat at any one given day. So if
there’s a 25% increase, the most there would be in the water at any given day is an
increase of 10 boats being launched through the facility.
MR. FORD-Is there not a potential for an increase of 20 boats?
MR. PENSEL-We haven’t seen that. We’ve never had 80 boats in the water. The most
we’ve had is half of those 80 in the water at any one given time. Never once has that
exceeded that number.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s probably also a limit to the number of boats that you could,
you know, physically take in and out of the water in a day anyway. Do you know what
that number might be?
MR. PENSEL-We operate, yes, we operate 12 hours in the main season. We are
regulated by the Park Commission in that we don’t operate past nine o’clock. Our hours
are eight to eight. As far as the capacity, it’s approximately six minutes a boat. So in
one hour we can launch 10, and in one hour we can retrieve 10.
MR. TRAVER-Would that be both at the same time, or just one or the other?
MR. FORD-Yes, is that 20 boats, then, you’re talking in an hour, 10 in and 10 out?
MR. PENSEL-Theoretically, if you’ve got 10 waiting and 10 going in, yes, we don’t
always have that. We don’t always have a boat, that would be very aggressive, though.
That would be about total capacity. Operating two tractors.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is that why you have two tractors and trailers for coming and going?
MR. PENSEL-Typically we very rarely operate the second tractor, yes. It is the reason
we have it. We have it for the holidays when we have large numbers, like the Fourth of
July we’ll have a lot of people in and out, and so we have two drivers available. Never
has this Marina had the service level at the magnitude that we were operating it at
currently. There might have been one dock boy on at a time in the past. We operate
with a minimum two, and on weekends three and four dock boys and girls, which are,
you know, working with the tractor drivers pulling the boats around, helping the
customers get out on the water.
MR. FORD-So traffic is a substantial increase, then.
MR. PENSEL-No, traffic is not. We move things along faster because have more.
MR. FORD-Because you have to, because you’re moving more boats or moving more
people or, isn’t that the reality of it?
MR. PENSEL-We’re operating the same way the Marina has always operated. The only
difference is we’re able to get the job done more efficiently.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to clarify. You commented that you can either launch or
retrieve a boat in six minutes. So is 10 an hour, regardless of whether it’s launched or
retrieved, is that the max?
MR. FORD-That’s not what he said.
MR. PENSEL-It could be 20 an hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I understood. That’s why I wanted to ask the question.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. PENSEL-It could be as many as 20 if all the stars align.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So maybe you could do that for one hour, but I guess, I’m still
sort of, you know, trying to flesh out the answer to, there is a physical limit to how many
boats can be launched and retrieved in the same day, and I’m trying to understand if, you
know, you can physically launch and retrieve all 100 boats, or is it 80 boats or is it 60
boats or is it, you know, some other number.
MR. PENSEL-Well, I don’t think there would be a problem, based on what I’ve
experienced. I think we could do them all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you? Okay.
MR. PENSEL-I think we could.
MR. MILLER-But I think the thing to remember with quick launch, I mean, you go to a
marina where it’s all wet slips, where all in the water, even on a holiday weekend, not
everybody is there. People are off doing other things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. MILLER-And quick launch appeals to people that use their boat even less. Like
George said, you know, 40 on a holiday, half, that’s a lot for a quick launch.
MR. PENSEL-I mean, I have a customer that lives in Atlantic City. He virtually keeps his
boat at our Marina, and he rents a place on the lake, maybe twice, three times a year,
and that’s all he uses his boat, and although he’s just like everybody else, he’s got his
space at the Marina and he loves it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So he’ll launch his boat when he starts his vacation, and then when
he finishes his vacation, you’ll bring his boat out.
MR. PENSEL-And that’s all we see him is maybe three times like that a year, and then
we have the other people that you see them, the fisherman that you’ll see every day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments from members of
the Board? I did leave the public hearing open, but it’s only so that we can provide an
opportunity the following meeting, because we’re going to table this application.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only question would be, and in looking at Staff Notes, there’s
number of Use Variances and Area Variances, Administrative Special Use Permit.
Would it make sense for us to get copies of those?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any that you want to see?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, actually, there’s a Site Plan 1995. Would that make sense to look
at?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know.
MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, Tom, what was your question?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at the parcel history, there’s 10 Use Variances, Area
Variances, and there’s a prior site plan. I was just asking if the Board thought it would
make sense for us to get copies of those so we can see if there were any other
conditions put on the property.
MR. MILLER-This property has had a long history. The Special Use Permit, we tried to
get a copy of a current Special Use Permit, and what Craig informed us of is that it’s this
Special Use Permit, the Town had basically adopted the conditions of the permit, of the
Lake George Park Commission permit, that there wasn’t specific items that the Town
identified, which had me confused for a while. I kept looking for the Special Use Permit
document, and I finally understood that there wasn’t one, but some of the other things,
there was a long history on the property. There was a bunch of barns and buildings in
the back, when Mr. Brock owned it, and they were removed and he had a bunch of
proposals to do new storage buildings, and then it boiled down to the plan that’s before
you.
MR. FORD-I remember when I served on the ZBA and it came before us.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, perhaps Staff could review.
MR. SEGULJIC-And give us a summary of those?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, let us know if there’s anything that they feel is relevant or
germane to this discussion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and there might be nothing. There might be some conditions that
were put on the site plan in the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how difficult a task that might be, Stu?
MR. BAKER-Just a matter of pulling the files out of the archives.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Can this expansion of use be accommodated with the current level of
equipment?
MR. PENSEL-Actually I think that this, if we call it an expansion of use, is actually eases
the need for equipment because when you, and employees and everything, because a
rental boat operation would require a different set of circumstances. We’re equipped to
handle this, and we’d have to have a separate level of equipment and employee level to
handle a rental operation. So we think it’s a more efficient use of the property.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Any special considerations for a
tabling resolution, other than what may have been provided in either Staff comments or
engineering comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one thing, this is under Staff comments, the stormwater, a
determination of what stormwater features exist on site at this time. I don’t know, do you
have a site plan with contours on it?
MR. MILLER-No, there hadn’t been one. We used an existing survey. This survey was
a recent survey that was done when the Marina was purchased, and there was no
topography done because there was no construction proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of my concerns is that the public made the comments
about the stormwater pooling in the back along Mason Road, on the southwest corner, I
guess.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t know how the Board feels about it, but we need to have
some idea of what’s going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think I would agree, especially if there’s a known concern that’s
been identified.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s relatively flat up here, and then it drops off into the lake.
MR. MILLER-Yes, and I think what happens, too, is both of the roads, I mean, you know,
they’ve been there a long time. I think probably the rear portion of the Marina property
does drain to the west, but a lot of that runoff, you know, Mason Road slopes to the
south. So I think a lot of that road is, a lot of that water is runoff coming down the road.
It’s a combination of thing. This has been built so long ago, nothing’s true.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think you know what one of my biggest concerns is going to be.
MR. MILLER-I’m going to call DEC in the morning and ask them directly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was going to say about the stormwater runoff, as well as the
industrial stormwater runoff.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. MILLER-I’m going to find out about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
ROBERT EVANS
DR. EVANS-Robert Evans, for the record. Again, having been through this before, my
concern is just, again, this is a nonconforming use in this zone, and any expansion of any
nature requires a Use Variance in this area. My comment and concern is this first goes
to the Zoning Board, if that’s determined, so that the Town can look at this in terms of
their own laws. I think that needs to be looked at. I think that’s a logistical step that
needs to be taken. So if you would, I think that would be greatly appreciated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we looked it up while you were, after the question was
raised, and we will look into it further.
DR. EVANS-Yes. We want Mr. Pensel to be successful, but again steps.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, the point was taken, and will be looked into.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that something we should put in the motion, that the Zoning
Administrator look into?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can do that.
MR. BAKER-If the Board would like a written determination from the Zoning
Administrator on that point, please do specify it.
MR. FORD-That would be appreciated so we could put it in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll do that.
MR. FORD-I just want to get a clarification while we’re working on this. On that holding
tank, I just want to make sure I understand this. This, if it nears capacity, we don’t know
what the capacity is, 1,000 gallons, 1500 gallons, whatever. It will not pump if it reaches,
as it approaches total capacity.
MR. PENSEL-That’s right. It just doesn’t work.
MR. MILLER-Is it a vacuum tank?
MR. PENSEL-No, it’s not a vacuum. It’s a plunger.
MR. BAKER-A float switch.
MR. FORD-And you indicated that that usually is pumped twice a year?
MR. PENSEL-Yes. I generally don’t pump it at the end of the season, but I pump it at the
beginning of the season and then when it slows down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you got it all?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
thth
To the first Planning Board meeting in June, which would be June 19, with a May 15
submission deadline. This is tabled with the following conditions:
1.That the applicant provide a stormwater management plan.
2.That the applicant address the Vision Engineering comments.
3.That the applicant address Staff comments.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
4.That the Community Development Staff will review copies of documents
included in the Staff’s parcel history and provide relevant information to the
Planning Board.
5.That the Zoning Administrator will review this application and make a
determination of whether it needs a Use Variance.
6.That Area C labeled Buffer Area C, septic field, should be fenced. The plans
will need to be changed.
7.That we would like contour drawings of the site.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
MRS. STEFFAN-Did we want elevation drawings for Cleverdale Road? That was
something that was talked about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the question is whether we want elevation drawings of
the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Of the site, and that we would like elevation drawings of the site, so
those are the conditions.
MR. BAKER-Elevation drawings or contours?
MR. HUNSINGER-Contours.
MR. MILLER-Topography, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Contours.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re going to need that to determine if stormwater’s going to work.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Jim. Just for benefit of the audience, the public hearing
th
was held open, so that when this application is further reviewed on June 19 there will be
additional opportunity for public comment and consideration.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TAYLOR WELDING SUPPLY CO.,
INC. AGENT(S) MATT TURNER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI LOCATION 22
LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXPANSION OF USE TO
INCLUDE A 30,000 GALLON LP TANK & A DELIVERY SERVICE FOR LP.
EXPANSION OF ALLOWABLE USES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO.
PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 1.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-47 SECTION
179-4-030
MATT TRAVER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. BAKER-Certainly. According to the data submitted by the applicant, the proposed
action will increase the non-permeable area on the property by 225 square feet, or less
than one percent. The action will increase an impermeable area and is likely to be larger
as the driving surface for vehicles filling from the tank and delivering to the tank will be
required. The Planning Board should require the applicant to show proposed truck
driving areas to and from the tank, and include those areas in the site development data
calculations. The site plan submitted does not show the fencing around the bulkhead
noted in the narrative provided. Fire Marshal Mike Palmer has reviewed the plans
submitted and has noted the requirements for the New York State Fire Code in the
attached e-mail. For safety and security reasons, the Planning Board may still wish to
require fencing around the bulk tank, in addition to the bulkhead. Bollards may also still
be appropriate to protect the tank and bulkhead from vehicles.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Long month for you guys it sounds like. My name is Matt
Traver. I’m with Taylor Welding Supply, and we’ve got representatives from Farrell Gas,
the propane distribution company. The plans that we’re looking to put in front of you, of
course, is a 30,000 gallon bulk storage facility. What Stu had said about the fencing
around the bulkhead area, I guess I did have it in the letter to you, to the Board, and it
was not in the drawings, but it definitely will be fenced in, the bulk area. The area that
actually will be modified will be that area the bulkhead will be in. There will more than
likely be just crushed stone in that area. The area where the bulk tank itself will set will
set on two concrete piers that will be set on concrete footings, with appropriate depth of
probably four foot or better for the frost line. Other than that, the parking or the area that
the trucks would drive in to fill the tank, probably the third photo, fourth photo that we
have is, actually there is a paved area on the right side of the building that is certainly
enough to have the trailer back in to and fill that bulk tank. There really isn’t any
additional need to bring in any other paved surface in that facility to fill that. There’s,
there will be parking there. The bob trail trailer itself will park in that area when it’s after
hours, but, you know, when that’s out making deliveries, or if it does happen to be on site
when the trailer comes for the bulk delivery, then certainly we can just move on site,
because we’ve got, the entire area is paved in front of our annex building as well as on
the side of it, and next to our retail store location. So as far as needing any additional
pavement for truck or trailer deliveries, I don’t really think it’s going to be needed at this
time. I don’t know if there’s going to be a requirement of widths, but it’s certainly going to
be wider than what any trailer would be to back in. There’s enough, I mean, we have
trailers delivering in there all the time that come in and swing around and can back in to
there. So there shouldn’t be a need to, you know, any additional pavement for the truck
deliveries. As far as fencing the area in, Farrell Gas, certainly if it’s the wishes of the
Board, we will, and they think that it may be to their benefit to have that entirely fenced in
anyway, the bulk tank, and then internally the bulkhead itself, where all the piping and
veils and things are, and at that point, they also would install any crash barriers for the
bulkhead. So if the trailer, you know, is backing in, that it would hit a, you know, a
concrete filled bollard and with the fence area, that’ll be in the grass area, the bulk tank
itself will set in the middle of that field essentially, and we also can do any type of
landscaping, putting some shrubbery around it, that kind of thing, but it’s going to be a
brand new cylinder put there, the tank itself, and, you know, if it’s the wishes, and I think
Brett, from his experience with other facilities, probably most of them do get entirely
fenced in. So we can entirely fence the thing in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t know what other questions you may have. I know I did ask the
Board for a waiver on stormwater, and I don’t know whether that’s going to be required.
Essentially we will not be doing any grading at all. The only really digging we’ll do is to
dig for the footings for the concrete piers.
MR. FORD-That’s the only part that will be underground?
MR. TRAVER-Correct.
MR. FORD-The tank itself will be all full exposed?
MR. TRAVER-Will be above ground. That’s correct.
BRETT YATES
MR. YATES-All the piping as well. I’m Brett Yates, with Farrell Gas. All the piping that
comes off the tank, the tank will sit above ground probably, depending on which, the
diameter of the tank, some are, all the capacities are the same, but some are longer than
others. So it’ll determine the height of the piping off of the ground, but all the piping will
be exposed. All of the, any mechanism, in terms of motors or anything to deliver the
liquid from the bulk tank to the bob tail vehicles, all that will be clearly identified and
marked and we use all pneumatic valves on all of that. There’ll be emergency shut off’s.
Everything will be to Code and typically we find we exceed the Code in terms of safety
on all of our installations, and it’s our intention to keep the facility secure when nobody’s
around. That includes fencing the entire tank and bulkhead, and then obviously the
crash protection as well that has to be there.
MR. FORD-And the tank capacity, please.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. YATES-Thirty thousand gallons.
MR. FORD-Thirty thousand.
MR. YATES-It’s never filled beyond 80%. You need that expansion room in there.
Liquid does expand in the heat.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board, comments?
MR. FORD-So there will not be an opportunity, this is from that 30,000 capacity, and
then you’ll fill smaller trucks for distribution to customers.
MR. YATES-Sure.
MR. FORD-There will not be an opportunity for hot air balloon pilots to back their trailers
up and re-fuel?
MR. YATES-Actually, we currently do that behind our retail location. Right next door we
pump your hot air balloons, okay. I’ve got you. It’s getting a little late. Certainly, if you
want to be a Farrell Gas customer, not withholding this, we are a national propane
supplier. I’m sure we can find a program that fits in with your needs.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just quickly clarify for me this drawing.
MR. TRAVER-As far as the bulk tank, as you can see, that’s off to the left of the annex.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Where is Lower Warren Street?
MR. TRAVER-You’d be right on the bottom. Lower Warren Street is here, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the bottom. So the trucks would just come in this side here?
MR. TRAVER-Right. We’ve got, the entire frontage of the annex building, the property
that is the blacktop area in the blue, you can pull in that entire road frontage right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s all blacktop?
MR. TRAVER-That’s all blacktop. Then in front of our retail, the warehouse, that’s all
blacktop as well to the left of that. I just didn’t have that as blacktop because it is a
separate parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then this back here is all?
MR. TRAVER-It’s all grass area.
MR. SEGULJIC-All grass.
MR. TRAVER-All grass area, and some shrubs going back to where Jerry Brown and
Glens Falls Cement Company I think owns the property behind us.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe you said it, I may have been asleep, but how does the
truck get back here to fill up the tank then?
MR. TRAVER-Well, what it will do, it’ll back into this area, and fill into the bulkhead area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-So they’ll back in on the pavement area there, alongside of the annex
building.
MR. FORD-On the south side.
MR. SEGULJIC-So between the annex building and the tank, essentially.
MR. TRAVER-East I guess essentially.
MR. FORD-On the east side of the building, however, south to north.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-And I think the building’s set back far enough, you know, when that
transporter comes in, he has more than enough room to swing and still be far enough
away from the road not to obstruct the traffic flow.
MR. YATES-Yes. We have liquid trailers come in to fill our CO cylinder, which is behind
2
the retail store, and we also have a small bulk propane that will fill our 20 pounders and
that type of things behind our store location, which a trailer comes in or a bobtail would
fill that, but the area where they’d back in is along the store right here. So that’s where
they would back in and then connect with the hose to the bulkhead.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I’m all set. This seems very straightforward.
MR. S. TRAVER-In terms of security, do you have like sniffers that will set off an alarm if
there’s a leak or what do you do about security in terms of some crazy person wanting to
come in and damage the piping and leak this 30,000 gallons into our community?
MR. YATES-I think Gary, he’s our Operations Manager. I’ll let him.
GARY BARMAN
MR. BARMAN-My name is Gary Barman. As far as security goes, we’re going to put six
foot or higher fence. If a crazy person wants to get in there, they’re probably going to
find a way. As far as a sniff system, not really, no. We do weekly checks on the hoses.
We do monthly checks on the piping, and quarterly checks on the whole system that are
built into our standard procedures.
MR. S. TRAVER-Okay. So this installation is essentially the same as that?
MR. BARMAN-We have about 700 bulk plants nationwide, and we use a basic template.
All the piping is handled in the same way. All the trucks have the same fitting. So it’s a
pretty standard installation, and the tank has check valves and various valves. So if
there’s a piece of the system that’s compromised outside of the tank it could be
shutdown without human intervention.
MR. FORD-Is there a venting mechanism?
MR. BARMAN-Yes. There is a pressure relief valve on top of the tank.
MR. S. TRAVER-I noticed, too, that you work with the local fire protection district and that
type of thing to handle that. In this type of installation, do you need to coordinate with the
County Emergency Management office or anything like that in case there was a blevy or
some kind of a?
MR. BARMAN-What we do is a site security plan, and we provide copies to the local
emergency management, the local fire department. We offer in-house training for the
local fire department on our plant. We offer tours. They can come down and see what
it’s all about, you know, where things are, where the emergency shut offs are, where the
different valves are and what they control, and they also get a copy of our security plan.
MR. S. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SIPP-What happens if we get a roaring fire in the woods behind your property?
MR. BARMAN-You better call 911 and the fire department will, they just want to dowse
that tank and keep it as cool as possible, and I would say evacuate the area. I mean, it’s
propane.
MR. SIPP-What is the actual distance from the tank to the woods, 50 feet?
MR. BARMAN-From the brush and wood area, it’s probably around 80 to 90 feet. I
talked with Mike Palmer, and I think that he has gone through a lot of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And this isn’t the installation ever.
MR. BARMAN-Right, and we deal with other cylinder and gases as well at our main store
location and we certainly are always audited and looked at.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FORD-I think it’s a nice expansion of the services already provided by Taylor.
MR. BARMAN-Sure. We think it fits in as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? There is a public
hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing and seeing that there’s no one here.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we have received a letter. The letter was faxed in today to
the Planning Board from the law firm of Borgos & DelSignore. It reads, “Dear Planning
Board Members: Please be advised that we are the attorneys for Daniel Olson, the
owner of real property located on Lower Warren Street immediately east of and adjacent
to Taylor Welding Supply Co., Inc. We write on behalf of Mr. Olson to object to the site
plan submitted by Taylor Welding Supply Co., Inc. and request that this board not
approve the pending application. Upon review of the site plan application we note that
the applicant indicates that the bulk storage tank will be 45’ in length, yet a careful
reading of the schematics submitted with the application reveal that just the Pier
Dimension “E” alone is 46’ in length and there is another 9’6” shown on the pier detail
bringing the total length of the storage tank to 55’6”, 9’6” in depth and approximately 15’
high. In addition, it is proposed that there will be a fence surrounding this bulkhead area
although the dimensions of the fence are not clearly presented. Of particular concern to
our client is the location of the storage tank relative to his property line. Mr. Olson has
been marketing his vacant parcel for some time and believes that the construction of this
bulk storage tank in close proximity to his property will devalue his lot and make it more
difficult to sell. It is apparent that there is adequate space to the rear of the applicant’s
annex building to locate the tank out of view of anyone on the public highway and it
would move the tank position farther from Mr. Olsen’s property line and closer to that of
the adjacent parcel owned by the applicant. At a minimum, the tank could be
constructed perpendicular to the highway to minimize its profile from the road. Please
consider this letter in opposition to the currently proposed site plan. Mr. Olson regrets
that he is unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to the relatively short notice afforded by
the ordinance and he will certainly attempt to attend any future meetings regarding this
proposal. Mr. Olson requests that the Planning Board deny this application unless there
is movement of the tank location and acceptable vegetative screening on the plan to
minimize the impact of this large and unsightly tank upon his neighboring property and
those passing along Lower Warren Street. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly
yours, Borgos & DelSignore Michael S. Borgos, Esq.”
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you move it behind the building?
MR. YATES-Mr. Olson stopped in the other day and I talked with him for a few minutes,
and I guess our concern was if we did put the storage tank behind the building, then the
setback requirements from the property line may not meet what requirements, I guess I’d
have to take a look to see if it could set back, because there’s really not a reason why it
couldn’t, other than not being able to meet the requirements of setback, and with the
pavement that we already have in place, it makes more sense, and it needs easier
delivery, because if you go between our two buildings, and have to circle around the
building, it gets pretty tight behind the two buildings. So that was the reason why we
looked to put it there as well, and I think for safety purposes, seeing someone climb a
fence where we are proposing the location, there is traffic going by there all the time. So
as far as anyone going in and maybe climbing the fence and fooling around with it, you
put that behind the building, and, you know, it’s out of sight, out of mind maybe to any
law enforcement that may be going by to see if anybody is there trying to get inside the
facility. So that was probably the main reason why putting it there, and as far as
property.
MR. S. TRAVER-I’m sorry. What about the issue of turning it so that it was?
MR. YATES-That could very well be done. We really hadn’t, you know, I hadn’t thought
about setting it that way, but I’m sure, and as far as, you know, the lengths, I think that
we had 45 feet. Those cylinders, depending on the manufacturer, could vary a couple of
feet, depending on who they source the manufacturing of the particular tank from. So
the tank size could vary in length by as much as three feet, probably.
MR. BARMAN-It very easily could be shorter and taller, it depends on what we bring in,
what’s available.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FORD-Was your original intent to place the tank parallel to Lower Warren Street
then?
MR. YATES-Correct.
MR. FORD-Well, I certainly would support a perpendicular configuration exactly where
Stu has the arrow pointing.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other direction, would that be for advertising purposes, the way you
proposed it, printed on the side?
MR. YATES-Usually there is signage typically on the cylinder, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Who owns the property behind you?
MR. YATES-I believe part of it’s owned, that area is probably the cement company, I
believe, Lehigh.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, right behind you.
MR. YATES-And then behind Mr. Olson’s lot I believe is Jerry Brown.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay.
MR. FORD-What do you think about that parallel to the annex and perpendicular to
Lower Warren?
MR. YATES-It would change very little in terms of our plan. I mean, you know, either
way the plumbing’s still going to come off the middle of the tank.
MR. BARMAN-Rather than the middle of the tank, it would come off the end of the tank.
The piping really is not a problem.
MR. YATES-I don’t think that would make a difference, based on the footage.
MR. FORD-That would satisfy my preference for it. I don’t know the way the rest of the
Board feels.
MR. SIPP-Is there lights on that side of the building?
MR. YATES-There is light on that side of the building, yes. Yes. We certainly could, like
I said, it’s really not going to make much difference. I think for signage purposes, having
the tank, but you could still have that on one side of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-How big around is the tank? I mean, it’s still going to be big enough
you can put a sign on it, right?
MR. YATES-Yes, you could probably put it on the end of it, or on the side.
MR. BARMAN-The only thing is putting it perpendicular might be more aesthetic for
people driving by, but the new property owner’s next door are now going to have 45 feet
of tank that they look out every window and they’re going to see, versus the end of the
tank. It’s ugly. It’s a big piece of steel. It’s like putting a 500 or 1,000 gallon tank in your
backyard. People don’t like to look at them.
MR. SIPP-Is there a fence at this time on that side?
MR. YATES-There’s no fence currently there.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is the area zoned?
MR. YATES-It’s Commercial Industrial, CI.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the use is, it’s a district to provide mixed commercial industrial
uses in areas that are in transition between older industrial uses and newer commercial
warehousing and retail uses. That’s what this property is designed for, but turning it the
long way, if it is built as proposed, then it is very visible to the road, and from the security
issues that we talked about a little while ago, front side back. I mean, it would be very
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
visible, and if somebody were to buy the lot next door, I can see your point with them
having a long tube to look at.
MR. YATES-Right, 45 feet, nine foot diameter tube. I mean, we could place it either way.
MR. FORD-Well, there’s a question, two things to be addressed. One is the parallel
placement along Warren Street places it much closer to that property, and so there’s a
natural concern on the part of some people, a potential neighbor, for safety, due to the
proximity, and you have to weigh that and compare that with the visual of looking at the
side of the tank if it’s placed perpendicular to Lower Warren. I still would prefer that, but
I’m only one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, did you provide your thought on that?
MR. S. TRAVER-Well, I was the one that originally asked him if he could move it, and I
think that the adjacent property owner had asked about that as well, in his letter. That
was the only question that I had. It certainly seems as though they have provided for the
operation and maintenance of the tank.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the adjacent property owner doesn’t want it at all, according to the
letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-So we move it further away from his property line.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, even as designed there’s an 85 foot setback, which is
predominantly wooded.
MR. YATES-Right. Yes, there’s a pretty thick tree and brush line between those two
properties.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I wonder, you know, how much you’d even be able to see it from
the adjacent property.
MR. YATES-When the leaves are off, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the pleasure of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Perpendicular to the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the other issue is the property has been on the market for some
time.
MR. YATES-It’s in a tough area there. You’ve got a junkyard, a cement factory.
MR. BARMAN-Well, that cylinder may not be white for long with the cement company
across the street.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I project a gray.
MR. BARMAN-Yes, you know, but they’re a good customer.
MRS. STEFFAN-And a very major employer in the area.
MR. BARMAN-Yes, they are, but we can set it either way.
MR. FORD-Let me throw another point out, relative to the perpendicular placement. I
think that that configuration would actually improve security, because it’s going to be
sitting close enough, that tank will be close enough to the ground so someone on the far
side of that, if it’s parallel to Lower Warren, would be hidden from view from the street,
but if it’s perpendicular and parallel to that building right there, then it would be clearly
visible on both sides of it to a police or anyone coming down.
MR. YATES-We’ll certainly get our opportunity for people to see our brand on the side of
the tank. Obviously if you’re coming up Warren Street you’re going to see a billboard,
you know, running back into that lot. There’s no real trees that are going to obstruct. For
us it’s not, this was our initial plan that we measured off and said, you know, where can
we put this thing, and certainly, you know, it makes no difference to us.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. BARMAN-No, it’s not a problem. If it keeps the neighbor happier.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. So do we have to do a Short?
MR. BAKER-Just an additional note of information for both the Board and the applicant.
The Town’s Geographic Information System is showing some Federal wetlands that
extend onto the applicant’s property, so setbacks from that will need to be a
consideration for the tank.
MR. SEGULJIC-Fifty feet from the wetlands?
MR. BAKER-Seventy-five, I believe. Let me take a look. It’s 75. Keep in mind, this is
showing just an approximate location. So you’ll need to work with the Army Corps and
determine where the exact edge is on that property. The edge of the wetlands could
actually be up here and off your property, but this depiction is showing it extending on to
your property. So that’s something you’ll need to determine. I think the fencing would be
subject to the setback as well. Let me get rid of the ortho photo and the zoning, and it’ll
give you a clearer picture of the wetlands. So it’s part of this larger complex here.
Again, this is only an approximation, but you will need to get the precise location of the
edge of that wetland located so you know if it’s on your property or not.
MR. FORD-What is the depth of that lot?
MR. M. TRAVER-Two hundred feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 200 feet.
MR. FORD-So if the wetland came right to the back of it, you’re talking about cutting 75
feet off the depth of that, so you’re down to working with 125 feet.
MR. M. TRAVER-We may have to move that tank closer to Warren Street.
MR. FORD-But at any point, there is no call on your plan for it to exceed the front of the
annex building and be closer to Warren Street than that?
MR. M. TRAVER-No, that’s where we would like to put it, and that leaves us plenty of
room, setback wise. I think just aesthetically, and, you know, to put it about midway
through the annex and the trailer and truck backing in to the paved area to put the
bulkhead just makes sense, I guess, and we’ve got to contact the Army Corps, then, is
what you’re saying and find out just actually how far that may come in?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to make sure you maintain a minimum 75 feet.
MR. M. TRAVER-Okay. That’s for any type of construction, then? You said the fence
also will have to meet that or is that not part of that?
MR. BAKER-You’ll need to double check with the Zoning Administrator on that. I think
for the tank itself, definitely. With the fence, possibly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I think it said structure. Isn’t the definition a structure?
MR. S. TRAVER-The fence would be pretty close to the tank itself, would it not?
MR. YATES-Yes, it can be pretty tight right there.
MR. BAKER-Again, just to give you an approximation, right now where the cursor arrow
stands on the map is approximately 75 feet from what’s shown as the edge of the
wetland. So the actual location of that edge is going to be important to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if that is correct, you would need to place the tank parallel with
Warren Street.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to say something like the wetlands have to get mapped,
delineated, and then the location of the tank would be verified by Staff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FORD-Stating our preference as being perpendicular to Lower Warren, but if that is
prevented by the wetland, then go parallel.
MR. M. TRAVER-Now being that it may not be considered a structure, do you think that
still, or we just have to clarify whether that even comes into play with that?
MR. BAKER-You’ll need to clarify that with the Zoning Administrator. I’m fairly certain
the tank itself would be considered a structure. The fence may not be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready to do SEQRA? I believe I closed the public
hearing. If not, I will now.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
TAYLOR WELDING SUPPLY CO., INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MRS. STEFFAN-And I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2007 TAYLOR WELDING SUPPLY CO.,
INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following; Applicant is proposing expansion of use to include a 30,000 gallon LP
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
tank & a delivery service for LP. Expansion of allowable uses requires Site Plan
Review;
2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/26/07;
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
and
6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do
not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,
therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection.
11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2007 TAYLOR WELDING SUPPLY CO.,
INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph
Five, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Six does not apply. Paragraph Seven and Eight
are fine. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and Paragraph Ten does not apply. It is
approved with the following conditions:
1.That fencing around the bulk tank and the bulk heads be provided. Bollards
will be installed to protect the tank and the bulkhead to meet New York State
Fire Code Section F 3807.4, entitled Protecting Containers from Vehicles.
This is in accordance with Regulation F 312.
2.That the applicant contact the Army Corps of Engineers to verify wetland
boundaries.
3.Tank placement must meet Town setback requirements.
4.Based on the wetland outcome, the Planning Board provides the following
direction regarding tank placement. Option One, place the tank perpendicular
to Warren Street, and Option Two, place the tank parallel to Warren Street,
and based on the two options provided, Option One is the preferred option of
the Planning Board.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing I would add is that it doesn’t sound like you’ve
provided the preference of the Board.
MR. FORD-Yes, I agree.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you provided both options, but you didn’t say which one was
preferred.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Option One I thought would be the first, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just add, as part of Option One, that Option One is the preferred.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. M. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Have the Army Corps look at it, and you’ll be good to go.
MR. M. TRAVER-Sure will. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you have any questions about that, you can contact Staff.
MR. M. TRAVER-Great. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-By the way, you put together a very nice package. There was a lot of
information, and it was easy to understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn, there was an e-mail that I sent around today. I’m
not sure everyone got it. It had the draft agendas for the month of May, and I was hoping
that we could avoid three meetings next month, but there are 24 projects in the hopper
for review, not counting any that we tabled this evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-So those are 24 new projects?
MR. HUNSINGER-There are 24 projects waiting to be reviewed. It includes some old
projects, and I forgot to bring the list that was printed off. It’s a mix of new projects that
haven’t come up yet. There were 12, at least 12 projects that were bumped from review
this month because we had a full agenda.
MR. SEGULJIC-As much as I don’t want to, I think we have to.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like we have to. The saving grace, if there is one, is what
nd
would be our normal meeting date of May 22 is tax grievance day. We run into this
every year, where the fourth meeting in May is tax grievance day. So we can’t hold a
meeting that night because this room gets used. So the proposed schedule is the third
ththst
Tuesday, which is the 15, then it would also the be the 24 and then the 31 of May.
th
Memorial Day is the 28. So we would only have, even though we would have three
meetings, there would only be one meeting a week. It would be a Tuesday, the following
Thursday and then the following Thursday.
MR. FORD-Tie up three weeks.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would probably be better than a Tuesday/Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s too much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Too much. You don’t even know what you’re doing anymore.
MR. TRAVER-My preference would be to have more meetings a month, but to have
them be a seven to eleven timeframe. I mean, that’s what kills me is, you know, having
to get up to work the next day.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. TRAVER-I mean, even if we just said, not that we’re ever going to be able to end at
11, but if we just said that the last item that we’ll review, will start the review at 11. It can
still go until midnight, but if it gets past 11, we’re not going to go to another.
MR. HUNSINGER-Start a new agenda, and then what do we do with that item? Do we
put it first for the following meeting?
MR. TRAVER-We could do that. I mean, that would be appropriate. I mean, I know it
would be inconvenient for the applicant, but I think that at some point they’re also not
getting a fair hearing when, you know, we’re here until midnight.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to be honest, this is, in the seven years that I’ve been on the
Planning Board, this is pretty unprecedented, in terms of the number of, even in those
prior years, there was an occasion where we would have three meetings a month, and
we would do that. We would clean up the backlog, we’d be okay. I mean, we’ve never
had two months in a row with three meetings, let alone three.
MR. TRAVER-Obviously I’m still new to the process, but I’m amazed at how many of
them just get tabled, and tabled and tabled, and tabled. I mean, it keeps growing, and
growing and growing. A lot of it’s because they’re not submitting stuff that they need.
MR. FORD-We had a good example of it tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, we shouldn’t have had to waste our time with that.
MR. FORD-Where Gretchen expressed the frustration. She spoke for all of us. I mean,
that probably could have lead right into a tabling resolution right then and there. Go do
your homework.
MR. TRAVER-We would have had 23 to do now instead of 24.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-But, I mean, my personal preference, I wouldn’t mind having, I mean,
whatever we need to do, I mean, it’s our responsibility. If we have to do four meetings a
month, you just get home at a decent hour. So that it wasn’t such an interference with
your personal life.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I couldn’t agree more.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m weighing and considering this. Last week when we were here until
12:35, the last item happened to be the item that filled the room, and we had elderly
people, and so to send them home would have been very bad from a public relations,
customer service, whatever you want to call it. Dan calls it customer service.
MR. TRAVER-There’s no question there’s that tradeoff, but I think they would know
before 11 if they would be heard, and eventually I would think, and Chris has tried to do
this already, but I think that the agendas would be broken up in such a way that hopefully
we would be close to being able to do everything. I’m not saying that we’ll put 10 items
on the agenda and we’ll only do four of them. We might end up with, your agenda might
only have four items on it.
MR. FORD-I’ve already mentioned it to Chris, and have recommended something based
upon a memo that just came out within the last day or so, that the agenda is determined
by the sequence with which the applications are received, and I think that that needs to
be adjusted somewhat. I don’t think there should be anything sacred about being third
on the agenda because my application happened to come in third. As we look at,
whoever looks at the agenda and makes that determination, I think there’s some
consideration that should be given for those that have the potential for generating a lot of
public input, and those that are a shoe-in or a quickie.
MR. TRAVER-And if there was some way, also, to, I know it’s really our duty, but if there
was some way Staff or somebody could, if they’ve got an application that they just know
is going to be tabled because they haven’t submitted the information, why not, instead of
having them sit here and wait to have us tell them that, why not just say, look, guys, this
is never going to get anywhere. You might as well go back and do items one through
twenty-one.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-Susan did tell me tonight, when I talked about the application that I was
upset about, she said we tried to tell them that they weren’t ready, that the Planning
Board was going to reject it, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, the applicant has a right to be heard.
MRS. STEFFAN-Apparently they have the right to be here.
MR. BAKER-I mean, Staff can advise an applicant that they’re going to get nowhere with
the Board based on what they’ve submitted and the Board’s previous comments, but the
applicant still has the right, and Staff can’t prevent them, from saying we want our time
before the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, let me ask you another question. Let’s say if someone has
obviously not made a good faith effort to address their application in a professional way,
is there any reason why they can’t be tabled three months from now instead of next week
and bump somebody else that’s got a legitimate application?
MR. BAKER-Certainly, the Board has the discretion to table it to whatever date you feel
is appropriate.
MR. TRAVER-I think if we do that, then we’re not enabling, and I’m not saying that we’re
intentionally doing it, but the system is in effect enabling this kind of behavior where you
do a quick and dirty thing, you get on the agenda, and let us do their work. As Gretchen
pointed out, if words gets around, you know, you guys better be prepared, because for
every item that you should have known was that was ready and it’s not ready, that’s
another month that your project is going to be on hold, and they’re not going to do that
anymore. I just know from human nature, they’re going to be ready.
MR. BAKER-Yes. I mean, certainly we want to check with Town Counsel and find out
what, if any, constraints there would be on the Planning Board, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think there’s anything that would prohibit us from putting
them to the end of the line, which is what you’re suggesting, you know.
MR. FORD-Yes, and I don’t think there’s anything to prevent us from once we go down
through Staff Notes and our own observations, that it’s an incomplete proposal before
us, table it. Why spend 20 minutes on it, or 30 minutes.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean, if there’s, and Staff Notes say that such and such was
required or requested and was not submitted, that should be like an automatic.
MR. FORD-And over and over and over again there was a litany of incompletions in this.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that was a severe example, but I mean, I’ve been, in trying to sort of
figure out the pattern here, as a newbie, you know, I’ve just noticed that it appears that a
lot of the things that we review are things that maybe we wouldn’t have to review or at
least not review in the way that we’re reviewing it, because there are things that Staff
already is aware of that they haven’t submitted but they need to submit, and yet they get
their seat at the mic, you know, and I understand that they have that right.
MR. BAKER-Well, an example would be, you know, using the Brennan application, if, at
Sketch Plan review, the Planning Board had said, and we will not consider Preliminary
until we see this, that and the other thing addressed in the Preliminary submittal, then
Staff has something we can wrap our arms around and say, you know, at Sketch they
said we won’t, and you didn’t provide.
MR. FORD-Good suggestion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that is a good suggestion.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the kind of thing that we need, because that’s also being fair to
the other applicants. I mean, they have a right to be heard, but so what about the other
applicants that have a right to be heard that have done their homework?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and of course the other thing that happened this month, you
know, I sent the e-mail out early in the month. We tabled a bunch of projects from March
th
to April, pending submission by April 4.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. TRAVER-And they failed to hold up their end of the bargain.
MR. HUNSINGER-They got put on the agenda. The agenda was finalized before April
th
4. So they got put on the agenda. They didn’t submit the materials, they still took up a
spot that we could have used to get into our backlog, and that’s really unfortunate.
MR. TRAVER-And I don’t know, I mean, it’s like no application left behind maybe. I
mean, can we somehow rate the agents? I’m sure, because I’ve never tracked this, but
I’m sure that there are performance differences between the different representatives of
these applicants, and if applicants are aware that, you know, you have a Class Three
representative or something, then you’re going to be less likely to get moved up on the
agenda because we have more qualified applicants ready to be heard, they’re going to
go out and.
MR. BAKER-That’s treacherous territory unfortunately. I know, as a policy, Staff, when
we get questioned by potential applicants all the time, who should I use to help me
design my project? And we can’t recommend one designer over another. We simply
say, there’s a number of designers here in Town and in the area. Most of them are listed
in the yellow pages, and that’s as much as we can say.
MR. TRAVER-Would it be a problem for you to provide performance information to those
people? In other words, if I’m a customer and I say, can you recommend anybody and
you say, no, but I can tell you how many times their applications are tabled versus Guy
B, what would be wrong with that?
MR. FORD-It’s leading.
MR. BAKER-I don’t know. I would want to discuss that, I guess, at length internally.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Traver has talked himself into a job. You know
where I’m going with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know where you’re going. I was thinking the same thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-But, you know, I think it’s great, but I can’t do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know what we’re talking about?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can come in, and it’s a great idea, sit down and look at them before
and say, yes, this is complete we’ll review it, or no, this is not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Completeness review.
MR. TRAVER-Like Bob used to do?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I would be willing to do that, but I have two issues right now. One is that
I’m working down in Troy, and it would be very, very, it would be basically impractical for
me to come up here and be able to accommodate.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s the problem we have. We leave Staff to do it, and the
problem is with Staff is they’re supposed to be impartial. So the applicant comes in and
Staff says, well, you didn’t do this, and the applicant says, well, I want to get a waiver for
that, then the applicant has the right to be heard, and we’re right back where we started.
MR. BAKER-Again, if the Board gives Staff clearly direction, especially in the form of
your resolution, a tabling resolution, and says we won’t consider this application again
until the following information is submitted, then Staff has something black and white we
can go by.
MR. TRAVER-Well, can we say that we won’t consider them for being placed on the
agenda until they have, or is that the same thing?
MR. BAKER-That’s the same thing.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MRS. STEFFAN-We had the same discussion last month, and we wanted to empower
Staff to make some of those decisions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because we didn’t want to do completeness review because nobody
has any time.
MR. BAKER-Again, the important thing is Staff needs very objective criteria to use.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, like a lighting plan must be submitted.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-In accordance with Queensbury’s standards.
MR. BAKER-Yes, and where it says may in the Code, you know, it’s discretionary, and
there’s, that applies to Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-But then the problem is the applicant can ask for a waiver, and this is
why we get into this situation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other night, the 25 foot light poles. What was that?
MR. TRAVER-Well, realistically, how many of the non-submission of required documents
would that apply to? I mean, yes, it would apply to some, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the thing is it applies to the big issues that we spend our time
debating. It applies to landscaping. It applies to stormwater. It applies to buffer zones.
It applies to, I mean, just about everything.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, to me, that’s the best solution, someone volunteers to do
completeness review for the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but wouldn’t they have the same problem, though, if they just say,
well, I’m just going to ask for a waiver? In other words, even if one of us does the review
that Bob Vollaro used to do, for example, what’s to prevent the applicant from saying the
same thing, I’m just going to request a waiver. I mean, just because we’ve got a badge
in our wallet doesn’t mean, you know, that we can say, well, you can’t do that.
MR. BAKER-It would put them off for at least a month, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would put them off for a month, though.
MR. BAKER-We do the completeness review, say this hasn’t been submitted. The
application is incomplete, then they have to submit a letter, we forgot, please, we’d like to
request a waiver from this requirement. Great. We get that waiver request, then it’s
complete. Then we put them in the queue.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but how much ahead of time do we have to have this decision made in
order to structure a newspaper or notice to residents in the area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the agenda for next month is being finalized tomorrow morning,
right?
MR. BAKER-I believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So there’s your answer.
MR. SIPP-Final submission date isn’t until May what?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s already passed for May.
th
MR. BAKER-It’s on or about the 15 of each month.
MR. TRAVER-Could we request, if somebody just says, well, I’m just going to ask for a
waiver, could we request, you know, a paper or a written dissertation or something as to
why they think they need a waiver and automatically put it off a month anyway so that at
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
least going, before they give that knee jerk reaction, they remember that there’s a price
to be paid for that because there’s a month.
MR. BAKER-I think we would need to put that in Code. Right now all it says is they need
to ask for a waiver, and many times all we get is one sentence that says we hereby
request a waiver from X requirement.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the feedback from the Staff, when you pre-conference, is just to
say if you’re going to ask for a waiver, you understand that there’s a risk that the
Planning Board will not accept that and that you will be tabled and it will put your project
off a month or two.
MR. SIPP-Well, now, if you would do that, I would try the job, because I don’t go to work.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have a volunteer.
MR. TRAVER-There you go.
MR. SIPP-But I’ve got to have specific guidelines, or else I’m going to have to make my
own, fumble my way through it.
MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we do this? Why don’t we have, if we can, if we ever do, if we
have a third meeting when we really don’t need one, just to come up with a list of these
issues and develop, maybe with Counsel and with Staff, and develop a remedy for Don
for each one of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing I was going to ask Staff is, is there any way that we
could do completeness reviews an evening? Because, you know, a lot of work out of
town. If we were to do it one evening a month. Not seven o’clock, but say five o’clock,
five thirty.
MR. BAKER-That could be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I know it’s a burden on Staff.
MR. BAKER-It could probably be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I could do that, you know, I could come in at five o’clock. I
just can’t come in at eight or whatever.
MRS. STEFFAN-I still think if somebody comes in and does that for completeness
review, I think they should be paid for it, and I know it’s not much, but I think that the
person who is spending that extra time should be compensated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it should constitute a meeting.
MR. TRAVER-I know when we had a conference with Matt about having a quorum and
having discussions outside this forum and that kind of thing. Is this something that we
could do deliberately as a conference telephone call with Staff, that all of us would, I
mean, they have those 800 numbers that you can hire that you call in with a code
number, and we can all get on the line and not approve.
MR. BAKER-If you have more than a quorum of the Board in a discussion at any given
time, via any means, be it conference call or instant messaging or anything in between,
that constitutes a public meeting of the Board and would need to be properly noticed.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that Mr. Hunsinger has a solution. Chris and Don do the
completeness review, five o’clock once a month. I think that’s the only thing we can do.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll give it a try.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we’ve just got to talk faster during the meetings.
MRS. STEFFAN-I spent a lot of time this month prepping the conditions based on Staff
Notes and some of the other things, by looking through prior minutes. It takes me a lot
longer to prep for meetings that way. I had three hours of prep for each one of these
meetings, but I think that speeds things along.
MR. HUNSINGER-It does.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. SIPP-Question, Chris. If May agenda’s already made up, and the submission date
th
is May 15 deadline.
th
MR. FORD-That was April 15.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-It was April 15.
th
MR. SIPP-It was April 15. All right.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, April 15 for May.
MR. SIPP-So then you look at the May agenda and there’s none of the submission on
this particular item, off they go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MR. TRAVER-So maybe we’d have one meeting in May.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’d be reviewing June’s, the next completeness review we would be
reviewing for June, because May will be set for tomorrow.
MR. FORD-And if one slips by, like that one did tonight, boom.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re ready to fire us, right?
MR. FORD-No, no. It could happen, but we immediately, we get rid of them.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the consequence has to happen right now.
MR. FORD-We send them packing. I don’t want to hear public. I don’t want to hear
anymore discussion. I don’t want to hear your presentation. You’re incomplete. Go
back and fill in the blanks and then come back to us.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that might be, and, you know, it’s gracious of Don to volunteer to do
the thing, but we could do that right now, and that would be more of an inconvenience to
the applicant and more behavior modification if you will for the applicant. If they came
and waited and got on the agenda and in two seconds they were packing, I mean, if we
did that right away and didn’t give them their time to make the presentation.
MR. FORD-I thought, actually, that’s where Gretchen was going tonight with your
frustration.
MR. SIPP-This has got to be made as a resolution from the Board.
MR. BAKER-Resolution and as an addendum to your Bylaws, Policies and Procedures.
MR. TRAVER-The consequences of doing it as Tom suggested are actually more severe
for the applicant, or for the agent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think if we start doing that a little bit, I think the message
would get out there real quick.
MR. FORD-Yes, I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just think that it’s very unfair for the folks on the other side of the table
to put some of these burdens on us.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we’re certainly being considerate of them, but they’re stealing from
us, from our time. We’re volunteer. We’re trying to do a good thing for the Town, and
they’re stealing from us, and I just think that that’s really wrong, and there have to be
consequences for that.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m willing to do my part.
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like everyone’s in agreement on that.
MR. TRAVER-And behavior will change. If we set a standard and stick to it, they will rise
and meet that standard. I’ve seen it, you know, I’ve been involved in mental health and
everything, and if you raise your standard, people will rise to meet that standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll put this into action next meeting.
MR. FORD-And Staff, keep those good memos coming, relative to completion or
incomplete statements and so forth.
MR. BAKER-We can make it very easy for you and make the very first segment of, you
know, substantive segment of our Staff Notes be completeness items, so you don’t even
have to read complete memos if you don’t want to, to see the completeness items.
MR. FORD-And has been said, the word will get out. You either come in with a complete
package or you might as well not come in. Because it’s going to cost you money and
time. So do it right the first time.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and we’ll have to be very consistent to make it work, but in six
months you’ll see a change in behavior.
MR. BAKER-And that’s going to be key, the consistency is the key.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, otherwise, you know, it’s a paper tiger.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think one of the other frustrations is an applicant will come in, like they
did this evening, with a subdivision application and say, well, several years ago we had a
similar one approved or there’s one next door that got approved. Well, you know, we’ve
spent two and a half years with the Ordinance Review Committee looking at the Town
and the policies and practices and the assumption that.
MR. BAKER-The quickest response to statements like that is that the Planning Board is
not obligated to repeat errors of the past.
MR. FORD-Yes, good point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. That was a bad plan. Do you know, Stu, Hoffman, what
did the ZBA do last night, do you know?
MR. BAKER-I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I missed most of the debriefing this morning,
due to another meeting.
MR. TRAVER-That brings up another point. The contact I have with the Park
Commission has asked for the details on the property because apparently they may not
be entitled to use that dock, as long as they have not gotten.
MR. FORD-That’s the way I interpreted it, too.
MR. TRAVER-So, I mean, unless there are any objections, why don’t I give them that
information.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s public information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I agree.
MR. FORD-And I noticed that she was not on any of the projections.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-No, she is, May 15.
MR. SIPP-Yes, she’s on.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we tabled it to, May 15.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/07)
MR. FORD-Okay. Can we appeal to the Town Board for alternates?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I spoke to the Supervisor a couple of months ago. I will do that
again.
MR. FORD-Would you, please.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? If not, a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL
26, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Ford
ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
67