1998-03-17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 17, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
GEORGE STARK
ROBERT VOLLARO
MEMBERS ABSENT
TIMOTHY BREWER
LARRY RINGER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER
-LAURA NOWICKI
TOWN COUNSEL
-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-JEFF FRIEDLAND
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
January 13, 1998: NONE
January 20, 1998: NONE
TH
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13 & 20, AS WRITTEN
,
Introduced by Robert Paling, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-98 TYPE: II ERIC REYNOLDS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A,
LG CEA LOCATION: ROCKHURST ROAD, CLEVERDALE PROPOSAL IS TO
BUILD A 15’ X 30’ OPEN BOATHOUSE-SUNDECK ON U-SHAPED DOCK. PER
SECTION 179-16 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. LGPC
WARREN CO. PLANNING: MARCH 11, 1998 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-11 LOT SIZE:
9,845 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16
SEAN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-98, Eric Reynolds, Meeting Date: March 17, 1998 “The
applicant proposes to modify a “U” shaped dock to include a sundeck. Site plan review is required
for covered docks in the Waterfront Residential zone. The dock measures 25’ wide by 40’ long
and the sundeck would be 15’ wide by 30’ long. The applicant has received a Lake George Park
Commission permit. The proposed project meets requirements of WR-1A zone for side setbacks,
height, and length of dock/sundeck. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that’s all engineering and staff comments?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MS. NOWICKI-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. CALLAHAN-I’m Sean Callahan, acting agent for Eric and Janet Reynolds.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you tell us a little bit about the project.
MR. CALLAHAN-It’s an open sundeck/boathouse, standard on Lake George. What else do you
need to know?
MR. MAC EWAN-It did go to Warren County, but I don’t have anything on Warren County.
MR. STARK-I’ve got it right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you? What did Warren County say?
MR. STARK-No County Impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Does anybody on the Board have any questions?
MR. STARK-Pressure treated?
MR. CALLAHAN-Just the legs going to the dock. The rest would be regular lumber, premium
lumber.
MR. STARK-That’s the only question I had. How old is the face, the “U”?
MR. CALLAHAN-It was just built maybe a month ago.
MR. STARK-So that’s new.
MR. CALLAHAN-Yes.
MR. STARK-So you’re going to build on the top of that. How come you didn’t put up a sundeck
when you built that?
MR. CALLAHAN-We didn’t have the permit, okay from site plan review.
MR. STARK-I don’t have any more questions.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. I looked at it. I don’t see any questions on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, I guess at this point I’ll open up the public hearing. If anybody
wants to comment on this particular project, please come on up and identify yourself.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MS. NOWICKI-Yes, a Short Form.
MR. MAC EWAN-Short Form, right.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-98
, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ERIC REYNOLDS
, and
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
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 17 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would anyone like to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-98 ERIC REYNOLDS
, Introduced by George
Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 6-98, ERIC REYNOLDS to
build a 15’ x 30’ open boathouse-sundeck on U-shaped dock; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/23/98, consists of the following:
1. LGPC Permit dated 2/2/98
2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution dated 3/11/98
3. Staff Notes prepared 3/13/98
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/17/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
6-98, ERIC REYNOLDS.
2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. You’re all set.
MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 5-98 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR.
OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 6, 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK - 48 UNITS TOTAL. BEAUTIFICATION
COMM.: 2/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-13.2, 13.3, 13.4 LOT SIZE: 11.76 ACRES
SECTION: 179-18
TOM NACE & RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on February 17 was tabled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-98, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: March 17, 1998
“The applicant for Site Plan No. 5-98 for 48 unit Town House style apartments was tabled on
February 17, 1998 because the Board requested additional information from staff and the
applicant. The applicant was requested to submit front and end elevation views of the project -
(which has been received) this has not been received as of 3/13/98. The applicant has installed silt
Staff was requested to research the water service issue.
fences as requested. • Ralph Van
Dusen prepared a letter addressing the water service issue indicating no anticipated problems.
Staff was requested to obtain traffic information for the area.
Refer to attached letter. •
Warren County DPW had the following twenty-four hour counts on October 10, 1990 for Bay
Road: - Cronin to Haviland (north) - 8,301 Haviland to Cronin (South) - 15,047 - Between
ACC North driveway and South driveway - 10,309 • Traffic counts for the Walker Lane and Bay
Road intersection were collected by Nace Engineering. Traffic counts are attached. Warren
County DPW has no count record for Walker Lane and Bay Road intersection. • Richard Goedert
of the Queensbury School Transportation Department indicated zero to six school children are
dropped off or picked up at the Bay and Walker Lane intersection. The bus picks up children
between 7:00 am-8:40 am, buses leave school for drop off round 2:11 through 3:30 pm. Children
Staff
are dropped off on the west side of Bay Road and Walker Lane. Refer to attached letter.
was requested to obtain information regarding ownership of Walker Lane.
• Resolution #166
November 14, 1963 (attached) that indicates Walker Lane is a Town Road. The Highway
Department has indicated that Walker Lane is scheduled for road improvements during the 1998
calendar year.”
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MS. NOWICKI-Do you need me to read any of the information that was passed on?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think probably your fax from the School would be worthwhile to read in.
MR. PALING-Maybe the one on the water, too.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Read into the record Ralph Van Dusen’s letter of March 6, and Rich
th
Goedert’s fax of the 12.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Dear Chris: This letter is to expand on my letter of January 26, 1998
regarding the availability of water on Walker Lane for the 48 unit apartment project proposed by
Rich Schermerhorn. As I have previously stated there is water available for this project. By this
statement, I mean that there is sufficient water available today on Walker Lane under present
conditions to accommodate these apartments and that there will be sufficient water on Walker Lane
available if the Baybridge subdivision expands beyond its current phase to include a total of 170
units West of the brook. I would call to your attention that I state the water is available on Walker
Lane. There is no way that I can guarantee water availability to a possible extension within
Baybridge until a map is available that would indicate where these additional units will be placed
and what piping is proposed to get water to these units. The single 6” line on Walker Lane is
sufficient to provide water to the entire 170 units plus the 48 apartments if the subdivision is laid
out in a similar fashion as the rest of the development and consideration given to the hydraulics
within the subdivision. If the occasion arises that the area between Bay Road and the brook is
developed, a second feed connecting Bay Road to the existing piping in Baybridge will be
necessary. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings regarding the water source availability.
Sincerely, Ralph Van Dusen Water Superintendent” I’ll read the fax. “TO: Laura Nowicki
From 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. and from 11:40 A.M. to 12:40 P.M. and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:20 P.M.
there could be anywhere from 0 children to 6 children getting on or off there. It all depends on
students going home or to a baby sitter. Then there is the 3:20, 4:20 & 5:20 Activity bus runs
which also may or may not have students. Hope that they believe you now, if you should need any
further information, please call me.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. From our laundry list of things to do, that pretty much covered
everything that we were required to come up with from the last meeting. Right? For the record,
would you identify yourselves.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn.
MR. NACE-And Tom Nace with Nace Engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you were also going to do some homework. Right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I did the silt fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the silt fence you did.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The traffic count, and I brought an elevation of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Maybe we could get that put up, because that’s the only copy you have,
right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So everyone can see that. That would be helpful. Does anybody up here on
the Board have any questions?
MR. STARK-Yes. These are going to be basically similar to the ones up on Crossroads?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, identical.
MR. STARK-Different color, same color?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Different color. I brought two color samples, if it’s important. Because
I, as I indicated before, would try and match the earth tone colors that Baybridge has now.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. STARK-So there’s going to be a beige siding, green shutters?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, sandstone or whatever comes closest to the colors that are over
there now. Dark colored shingled roof probably a brown or something like that.
MR. STARK-You don’t plan on going in, of course there was no trees over here, when you got the
land.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. STARK-Down there you’re not going to just wipe out everything? You’re going to leave a
lot of trees and work around them or?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Most of it we’ve indicated on the site plan to save as much as
we possibly could. It’s never been my intentions to take the trees. So I certainly am going to save
everything that I possibly can on the site.
MR. NACE-In fact, up on Walker Lane, there’s some wetlands that have to be preserved, Federal
wetlands, and that area cannot be cleared. So it will maintain some screening.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You know all brush, or not brush, but all the deciduous types of stuff in the
front that borders on Walker Lane, hedgerow? Is that going to be left?
MR. NACE-A lot of that will be left. If you look at the site plan, okay. This is the beginning of
the property on Walker. So all this area up to the entrance drive, with the exception of one small
place here where the water services come in, is to remain, okay, all the ground cover in here. Up
on the upper end there are a few older trees in here. If we can, we’ll save them, but we’ve also
shown some in-fill planting along the road to help screening there, right next to the unit.
MRS. LABOMBARD-There seemed like there were some big bushes in there, too.
MR. NACE-The bushes, I believe, are primarily in here. The stream crosses here. There’s a little
farm lane that comes in, I believe about in this area, and the area around that farm lane I think is
where you see the fairly thick bushes now. This area, where the construction entrance is now, is
pretty much where this driveway will be, and then up along here, there are a couple of larger
deciduous trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your landscaping plan, that’s part of the packet, right? The landscaping plan
was in there?
MR. NACE-That’s correct. Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought when we left the last time, you were going to change the roof on
those, and you were going to give us a rendering, because we know what those look like. All we
have to do is look across the street. That’s why I thought we were going to see something new
tonight.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I mentioned that I’m not opposed to the hip roof style design. I
think the concern was more the height of the buildings and I think we addressed.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we said it would still be the same height, but it probably wouldn’t
give the impression of.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and it was mentioned, but I got the feeling from a couple of other
members that we didn’t know if this was an architectural review or if it was still, it wasn’t really
clarified that I absolutely had to bring an elevation of a different style.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was one member who felt that way, and the rest of the Board felt we were
looking for an elevation.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we all know what a hip style would look like.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the people that are here this evening might, well, they have that on
their homes. So I guess they would know, too.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. NACE-I think, Cathy, the elevation would, if you put a hip roof on it, the elevation would
really remain the same, with exception of the variance.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we know that. It’s just that we’re talking about the visual perception,
how, you know, remember the last thing Craig said last month was, that whole gable effect that
isn’t as aesthetically pleasing.
MR. NACE-The front and rear elevations would look very similar. It would just be the end
elevations that would take on a difference perspective.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I purposely positioned the two buildings as you go in, so that the
gable end would be across the street from the neighbors that live there now. The hip style would
just basically just expose a little bit more roof and save the gable. I don’t think it would be a
significant change. Personally, I think it looks better with the gables, but that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Cath? Not at the moment? George?
MR. STARK-Tommy, I think you’ve got a mistake on your elevation map. This one here. If you
look down here and it shows elevations 226, 228, and again, it jumps to 330, 300, 226. That’s a
hell of an elevation.
MR. NACE-These should be 326, 326. Everything else is 300. Yes. My apologies.
MR. STARK-We were up there, but it didn’t seem that steep.
MR. NACE-No. There’s not 100 feet there.
MR. STARK-That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. PALING-No, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think at this point we’ll re-open, or we left the public hearing open.
So we’ll take some comments.
MR. PALING-Are we going to have a review by the applicant of the traffic study?
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we go through that before we let the public come up and put
their input.
MR. NACE-Okay. As the Board requested, Staff tried to obtain traffic counts from various
sources. Those counts did have something available on Bay Road at various locations, but had no
information on Walker Lane. All we have done is to go out and count during the peak am and peak
pm period, the actual traffic passing on Bay Road and turning into and out of Walker Lane. We
took those counts and totaled them up every 15 minutes, so we could get the peak hour within that
three hour time span each morning, each time span, morning and evening, and then also I’ve
appended to that the estimated traffic generation from the townhouse project, which is based on
ITE trip generation rates for townhouse rental, townhouse projects, and I haven’t really presented
you with a traffic study. That’s not what you were looking for. You were looking for the raw
numbers, and these are the raw numbers to look at, and you can see the traffic movements on Bay
Road are relatively heavy. Peak hour is 3 to 500 cars. The movement in and out of Walker Lane
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
is relatively light. I think the heaviest movement is a pm into Walker Lane from the south at 30
cars an hour, which is not a significant number. I’ll be glad to answer, you have that information
in front of you, I presume. I’ll be glad to answer any questions, but it’s really just raw data for
you to look at, to draw your own conclusions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, Bob?
MR. PALING-Well, no, I just wanted to be sure they went through it a little bit like they’ve done,
but to me, it doesn’t appear that there’s a significant impact on Walker Lane, and it’s not on Bay
Road either, but the impact on Walker Lane does not seem that significant, looking at the raw
numbers, as they say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I would agree with you. Okay. With that, if you guys wouldn’t mind
giving up the table for a moment or two. Rich, one more thing, your vinyl samples and your, did
you say you brought shingle samples, as well?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ve got the shingle samples in my truck. I can go get them, but the
vinyl samples, the two colors that I thought matched closest to Baybridge I brought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you put them up there so that people can get a look at them? Okay.
We’ll open up the mike for anyone who wants to come up and comment on this project. Please
identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BOB VOLLARO
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, I’m Bob Vollaro. What I’d like to do is pass something out
before I sit down to each Board member. In the interest of saving some time and being concise, I
wrote this out so you can follow me when I do what I do up at the mic there. What I’m going to be
doing here is to address some of the topics we discussed during our last meeting. I’m going to go
over sewage, assessments, buffers, water supply, traffic and environment, and I’ll start right off.
th
Mr. Nace from Nace Engineering, by the minutes of February 17, Page 15 and 16, and by site
plan dash one proposes a mix of shallow trench systems and in-fill systems, and that can be seen
on his drawing, one of his drawings, which would be plan number one. The Rist-Frost letter dated
th
February 12 says a shallow absorption trench system could probably be installed which would
comply with the Town and DEC standards, and that the proposed system partially in fill is
technically superior, even though it may not conform to 136-10B of the Queensbury Code, B2.
The word “probably”, as far as I’m concerned is not an acceptable engineering term. It’s either
okay or it’s not okay. Probably doesn’t fit, as far as I’m concerned, in the engineering term. Now,
as an aside, and I know we have another meeting which will have the subject of this slope, but I’ve
spoken with a Mr. Mark Dent from Voltmere Engineering of Albany County, and I just happened
to talk to Mark because I know him, and they also have a 10% minimum slope, and the reason for
that is the higher probability of breakout with steeper slope with in-fill systems, and I know this is
a subject of another meeting that’s coming up. So I won’t dwell on that. I do have a question. “Is
it a requirement to do a re-perc test following a freeze/thaw cycle? Mr. Nace stated in his
February 11, 1998 letter to Rist-Frost (para. 4) that a note was being added to the drawings Re.
Overflow tanks having one access opening brought to grade.” I went through these drawings
carefully, I can’t find that note. “Perc test data was taken in November 1997 (normally dry month)
Given that the record states that these tests were done in ‘original ground’ (pg. 31 of Feb 17
minutes) let it be known that the majority of the existing fill was brought in on 10-18-97 & 11-1-
97”, which was a Saturday. Now, I’m not questioning Mr. Nace’s position. I just want this to be
noted in the record that the majority of that fill came in before November. The last one was on
11/1. Now as a general comment with respect to sewage, I ask the board to take into account the
negative aspects when allowing the mix of high density zoning/public water/and no sewers. It’s
something I think that this Board, on future actions, will have to look at carefully or the zoning
should be really looked at in MR-5 where we don’t have sewage capability. On assessments, the
Schermerhorn buildings off Blind Rock Road across the street are assessed at approximately
$300,000, and the source of that was the Assessor’s Office. I got in and sat down with the
Assessor. The actual assessments of the 16 units of Baybridge along Walker Lane averages
$110,500. Therefore, the Schermerhorn apartments are valued at 34% of Baybridge. Now, I don’t
know how that figures into, you know, changing the neighborhood, but I want the Board to at least
consider the differential between the two. A few minutes ago, we talked about buffers. I’d like to
refer to the Beautification letter of February 9, 1998 that’s provided by Staff, and it recommends
oak and white pine trees along Walker Lane. If you look at the drawing that’s in front of us, the
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
only plantings he has is in the western corner of the property, the southwestern corner, and we
talked about leaving trees. The large existing trees are dying. They really are. They’re going to
be of no value there. Take a good look at them the next time you go by. They’re not making it.
They’re on their way out, and I think the Beautification Committee said that we should put
plantings all along there with a berm, and I think that ought to be considered. Now on the water
supply, Ralph Van Dusen’s second letter on the subject dated 3/6/98 conflicts technically with Mr.
th
Nace’s letter of March 7 which was just read. Mr. Nace’s letter refers to a full build out at
Baybridge of 248 units, and Mr. Nace’s analysis was done on a total of 248 + 8 48 +4 which
+
equals 302 units, 248 + 48 + 4 is 300. Mr. Van Dusen’s letter says that the six inch line is
sufficient to provide water to the entire 170 units plus 48. I’ve got a discrepancy right there of 302
plus 170 plus 48. Mr. Van Dusen further qualifies, he says “if the subdivision is laid out in a
similar fashion to the rest of the development and consideration given to the hydraulics within the
subdivision”. I’m not sure exactly how you hang your hat on that at all. The Town’s letter, as far
as I’m concerned, is technically inconsistent with Mr. Nace’s letter and as such is not valid as an
approval by the Town. In addition, there was no supporting data by the Town’s engineer. I didn’t
th
see anything from Rist-Frost on this. Now, on the traffic, using Mr. Nace’s data of March 6,
which he just talked about, what I did was integrate the AM & PM peak hour traffic, and I wanted
to, he did, I think when he was up here, state that those were two separate inputs. One was
estimated and one was actual. So what I did is integrate the numbers, and on integrating them, I
come up with AM, you have 65 in and outs per hour. That equals one car per minute in and out of
Walker Lane, plus 14 cars per minute crossing Walker Lane at Bay Road. On the PM, with the
integration, it becomes 83 ins and outs per hour, or l.5 cars in and out of Walker Lane, plus 16
cars crossing. Now just sit and visualize that for a minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you clarify that? Did you actually do a count of number of cars?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I took his data. I took Mr. Nace’s data. If you notice, his data count, if
you take his data package, he talks about existing AM peak hour traffic because he did a count on
that, and then he did, followed that up with an estimated traffic generation. He has two. One is
existing, because he did a count, and then he did an estimated traffic generation, and what you’ve
got to do is integrate those numbers. You’ve got to make them added, so you know what the total
volume at that intersection really is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What do you mean by the 14 cars in the AM crossing Walker Lane and
the 16 in the PM crossing Walker Lane?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What he has on his, if you take a look at existing AM peak hour traffic
volumes, in the lower right hand corner, he shows 517 cars going north, and 341 cars coming south
on Bay Road. That’s 856 cars, divided by 60 minutes. That’s 14 cars per minute. That’s how we
get to 14.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So I’m just trying to paint a picture at the intersection of what the dynamics are
at that intersection, and the numbers, when you just look at them raw, really doesn’t tell you too
much about the dynamics at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but say that part again. Are you
saying that you took the numbers 341 and 517, totaled them up, and divided that by?
MR. VOLLARO-Totaled them up, divided by 60, because this is per hour, .and divide by 60 to get
per minute, and that’s how I get to 14.3. It comes out, if you add 341 to 517. It comes out to 858
cars, divided by 60. So the instantaneous crossing at that section is 14 cars per minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not so sure I would agree with you in how you ended up with your end
result, though, on those numbers. Anyway. Okay. Continue, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I looked at is the total number of cars coming south, total number of
cars going north. Now, they won’t exactly all get to the intersection at the same time, I think that’s
what you’re saying, but I’m taking, you know, trying to take a long integration on that to say that
that’s an approximation of what would pass that point.
MR. PALING-How did you get your 65 in outs on Walker Lane? How did you arrive at 65?
MR. VOLLARO-The 65 in outs on Walker? Okay, and that’s in the AM.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. PALING-AM, right.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. You take, look at the diagram, and you take, he’s got four plus three.
In other words, he’s got four coming in. Do you see that?
MR. PALING-He’s got four and eight, twelve coming in.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but then if you take the four coming in and you add to that the three
coming in from the estimated, go to your estimated sheet, now, and you’ll see three coming in.
He’s got four existing and three estimated. That gives him seven.
MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead from there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then he has eight coming in, northbound, turning into Walker Lane,
and he also has eight on his estimated. That’s 16. Seven plus sixteen, that’s twenty-three. Okay.
Then take a look at, the next one he’s come up with is, he’s got three going out, northbound, on his
existing, and he’s got eight going out northbound on his estimated. That gives you eleven. Then
you take, okay, he’s got 16 coming out southbound on his existing, and 15 coming out southbound
on his estimated. That’s 31. Eleven plus thirty-one is forty-two. Twenty-three and forty-two is
sixty-five, divided by sixty, gives me one car a minute, and that’s the methodology I used to arrive
at that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, now, if you take that picture and add this traffic mix into a 22 foot
wide road, I measured the road with Mr. John Williams, who’s here, with my tape, and I got 22
foot wide as the useful bed to that road, and that’s versus the required 49.5 feet that’s Town
requirement, three rods, that’s 27.5 feet short in width.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s Town requirement of new road construction. This is a road adopted
by the Town back in 1963, that was a road by use.
MR. VOLLARO-That may be true.
MR. MAC EWAN-There are several of them in the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-It still doesn’t alter the fact that that’s a 22 foot wide road. It’s narrow, and
that’s the situation we have. In other words, what I’m trying to show is that against today’s
standards, if you built the road today, you’d be building it three rods, or 49.5 feet, and that’s
because of the kind of traffic that we have today, and then if you were to add fire and ambulance to
that mix, I think you have at best a bad situation. Take a look at the traffic at the corner trying to
get an ambulance or a fire truck in there when all that’s going on, and those are all valid
considerations, as far as I’m concerned. Now, there’s a piece in some of the staff notes that says
that they tried to provide internal traffic circulation on the site to help the traffic on Walker Lane. I
don’t know how that helps traffic on Walker Lane at all. Providing for circular traffic within the
development certainly doesn’t, in my mind at least, help the traffic on Walker Lane. Now, the
Highway Department indicates that Walker Lane is scheduled for improvement in 1998, not a very
practical statement, timing wise. This road will be used for construction from the late spring and
through the end of 1998. I checked with Rich this morning, and he said that’s approximately right.
He will not be finished with this road before the end of the year. During that period, fire and
ambulance will again be at risk. You’re going to have a lot of activity on that road.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Who did you check with about the road being finished?
MR. VOLLARO-I talked with Rich this morning to see whether or not he would be finished
building.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that, but I’m talking about the Town said that they were going to
improve the road in 1998.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the record.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that, but where, why do you say that the Town won’t have it
finished by the end of 1998?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-He was referring to Rich Schermerhorn’s project, the building project, not the
road project.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t think that Highway can get in there until Mr. Schermerhorn is out.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I see what you’re saying. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I mean, it would be impractical to finish that road while he’s still bringing
heavy equipment back and forth. On the subject of the environment, I talked to Charlie Maine,
who I had a long conversation with him, and he indicated that he only mapped the wetlands and did
the mottling test in1996. That was his job. That’s what he did. He had no knowledge that he
could tell me who had jurisdiction over the stream. He didn’t know, and I don’t know, and I don’t
know if anybody knows at this point. Maybe Mr. Nace does, but as far as Mr. Maine is
concerned, he didn’t know that. So if anybody has any additional questions as to what I’ve
proposed here or written down.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. At this point what I’d like to do is what we always do, is we’ll take your
questions. We’ll get them answered, and hopefully we’ll get all your concerns squared away.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thank you, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak?
ALBERT COOMBES
MR. COOMBES-I’m Albert Coombes, 39 Walker Lane. Concerning the width of the road, would
all of the additional width of the road be on the north side of the existing road, part of it on either
side? I’m asking this for another.
MR. MAC EWAN-To my knowledge and this Board’s knowledge there are no plans to widen
Walker Lane, that we’re aware of.
MR. COOMBES-Well, what I’m thinking of is eventually you’re going to have to widen that road.
With the present traffic there is now, you want to add 48 cars more, that are going to be using that
road, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. COOMBES-At least. Many of these families have two cars. All right. If you take land
away on the south side of Walker Lane, what are you going to run into? You’ll have to clear with
Harron cable. They have just installed a whole new system in there. What I’m saying is if you go
measuring back on the south side of Walker Lane, you’re going to disrupt everything else, the
electric lines, water lines, everything comes in on that side of the road. So my point is, you better
make allowance for the width of the road, additional needed to be all on the north side of the road.
Now I may be way out of line on this, but I just want you to know that this is a fact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. COOMBES-The other thing that concerns me particularly, and my neighbors on either side,
is exactly where is the entrance for this project going to be off of Walker Lane? I would hate to
think that that was going to be where it is now, which is right at the end of Mrs. Graves’ and my
driveway. Accidents? A favorite one of my is a man now dead who lived in Iowa, and he and his
neighbors had driveways opposite, and backed out at the same time, hit one another. This is prone
to accident. If anything, that entrance way should between existing buildings on the south side of
Walker Lane, between buildings, not opposite the driveways. Those are all dual driveways. I just
wanted to make that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a very good point. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
ANITA VOLLARO
MRS. VOLLARO-My name is Anita Vollaro. I live at 5 Gentry Lane, and my objection is seeing
the back of that building that’s going to face Walker Lane. With the existing shrubbery, or
whatever you want to call it, it doesn’t flower. It doesn’t have leaves. You can see right through
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
it. Actually, that whole thing has to be replaced, with some kind of fast growing greenery that will
hide the back of that building, specifically. That is not an attractive thing to look at, and we will be
faced looking at that continually going in and out of Walker Lane. That’s my objection.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else.
HELEN MENALDINO
MRS. MENALDINO-Good evening. My name is Helen Menaldino, and I live at 4 Gentry Lane in
the Baybridge townhouses. We purchased our townhouses a few years ago, and when we made
that investment, we made an investment not only in the property but also in a lifestyle. Like any
property owners in our area, we would like to think that our property will either maintain or
increase in value, so that some day when we pass it on to our children, it can be said that we did
make a good investment. However, I feel that if you allow Mr. Schermerhorn to build what he has
proposed, our property values will certainly decrease. There has been a lot of negative reaction to
his project that he developed on Blind Rock Road. So it’s evident that similar apartments will have
a negative effect on our property values. Many of the owners in Baybridge are senior citizens. We
were in the workforce, raised our children, and now we’re ready to settle down and enjoy
retirement. We value the calmness and the serenity that Baybridge gives us. We like the fact that
when our grandchildren visit, we don’t have to worry when they ride their bikes or go on roller
blades. Surely, this would change the impact of 48 apartments, having only one way to enter and
exit, and that’s on Walker Lane. Over the past several years, there has been considerable
development along Bay Road, especially on the west side. There has been a combination of
residential, professional and business construction, and it has all been done in very good taste. I
would like to hope that Mr. Schermerhorn would construct buildings that would be as aesthetically
acceptable as the other projects have been. I was pleased to learn, from the minutes of your last
Board meeting, that aesthetics could be a factor when you make your decision. Webster defines
aesthetics as “Of or pertaining to the beautiful”, and I ask you, do you see any beauty in what Mr.
Schermerhorn has erected on Blind Rock Road, and would you like to wake up in the morning,
look out your window, and see the back side of one of those buildings? I think not, and so I ask
that you please not inflict upon us what you would not inflict upon yourselves. Thank you very
much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Please, come on right up.
WILSON SMITH
MR. SMITH-My name’s Wilson Smith, 34 Dorlon Drive. I’d like to ask one question. You made
the statement earlier about the road being a road in use, and it’s been in use for many years, but
things are, that’s more or less, you’re saying the things that are there are grandfathered. We’re not
talking about anything that’s grandfathered. We’re talking about a new development on that road
in use. So I think the rationale there is erroneous.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the question, I guess, was posed as how are we going to handle a road
and make the road wider to conform with current Town road design standards, and my point I was
making was that that road along with a lot of older roads in the Town of Queensbury were adopted
by the Town as originally roads by use.
MR. SMITH-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And meaning they weren’t built or designed turn of the century or 150. They
were just carriage roads or something like that. So when the Town adopted them, and jump in any
time I make a boo boo here, is that if people’s property lines abutted right up to the edge of the
road, in today’s standards, there are easements along both sides of the road for the Town to provide
services, and also to provide access to be able to widen the road, should that ever come. Case in
point I can give you is that where we’re going to run into problems is on Main Street in West Glens
Falls. There is a road that goes all the way from the traffic light at Western Avenue all the way up
to the Northway that they’re proposing to make into a three lane highway, with a turn lane in the
middle. They’re going to run into significant problems with because the only way they’re going to
do it is they’re going to have to acquire property all the way up through there, and that’s where you
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
come into the problems of trying to upgrade your roads in the Town when you’re dealing with
older roads in the township.
MR. SMITH-Exactly the point we’re trying to make. Why add problems? Why put a whole
bunch of idiotic looking buildings along the side of the road, and then knowing that someday you’re
going to have to widen it. It just doesn’t make sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose the same thought could have been put to the people who lived on
Walker Lane prior to Baybridge being put in there.
MR. SMITH-I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t?
MR. SMITH-No, I don’t. I don’t think that rationale stands, either. We’re taking a road in use
that’s not wide enough. We’ve got buildings on one side of it now. It’s capable of being widened,
right, with no problems?
MR. MAC EWAN-That I don’t know. I don’t know that. We’re not in a position to have
jurisdiction over that, either. That’s the Town.
MR. SMITH-You don’t have the problem, you don’t have big buildings there now, but if you put
these big buildings in there, then you’re certainly not going to be able to do that in the future,
Number One. The second point I want to make is I’ve heard letters here from experts. I am an
expert. I’m a real estate appraiser. I’ve been a full time appraiser since 1987. I’ve been in real
estate since 1982. I have a real estate broker’s license, and I can guarantee, my professional
reputation, that the values of the houses in Baybridge are going to decrease significantly if those
buildings are allowed to be built on Walker Lane. Expert testimony. That’s all I’ve got to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-Dan Valente, 153 Sweet Road, developer for Baybridge. I came in a little late,
and you were reading a letter from Ralph Van Dusen in regard to the water. There is another
th
memo that obviously you don’t have. I’m going to read it to you. It’s dated on the 13 of March,
1998, and I want to put this in the record. It’s from Ralph Van Dusen to myself. “Dan: This
memo is to confirm our telephone conversation of today, regarding the need for a second feed to
your Baybridge subdivision. When 170 units west of the brook are completed, it will be necessary
to connect a second six inch water main before the additional residential units are placed east of the
brook, as outlined in the Master Plan.” The reason I’m bringing it up is because this was the issue
I was bringing up on the first meeting, that I didn’t want to have to put a larger pipe. This letter
confirms that the Water Department agrees with the engineer that we do not have to enlarge that
pipe, come the day I go across that brook, and I want it on the record, because if they come back to
me, it’s going to be on the Water Department that approved it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What date is that memo?
th
MR. VALENTE-This is the 13 of March, and I have both letters. I was in correspondence with
him during this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of that?
MS. NOWICKI-I don’t have a copy of that one, no.
MR. VALENTE-You’re going to have to ask Ralph for one. That’s the only one I have. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No one? I think for the time being I’ll leave the
public hearing open. Do you guys want to come back up.
MR. STARK-Chris, do you have a copy of Mr. Vollaro’s note?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’ve got it right here in front of me.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. STARK-In it he says, right in the first one under “Sewerage”, “could PROBABLY be
installed which would comply with town and DEC standards”. I didn’t know the DEC had any
jurisdiction over septic systems. I thought it was the DOH?
MR. ROUND-No, it’s the DEC. DEC develops design standards. Department of Health provides
approvals for water and, it’s a DOH approval.
MR. STARK-But you need the DOH. I’ve never heard of anybody going to the DEC for a septic
approval.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. NACE-Can I clarify, George?
MR. STARK-Sure.
MR. NACE-Okay. The Department of Health regulates and has their own standards for
subdivisions. For residential subdivisions. Any time the systems or the total sewage on any one
property exceeds 1,000 gallons a day, then DEC takes over and regulates the systems under their
standards. This being over 1,000 gallons a day is regulated by DEC, and we do have a DEC
permit. We’ve submitted everything to DEC. They’ve given us a permit for this system.
MR. STARK-They’ve looked at this system?
MR. NACE-Yes, they have.
MR. STARK-The pumps going up to the mound?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. NACE-It complies with DEC standards, and they’ve given us a SPDES Permit for it.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those topics, Chris, the statement in there that it may be technically
superior, although it may not conform with 136-10B(2) of the Code, would they need to get a
variance from the Health Department, which would be the Town Board?
MR. ROUND-Yes, they would. They were to meet Monday night, but the meeting was canceled
because of other circumstances.
MR. MAC EWAN-So they would need a variance on that. That’s with the Town Board, right?
MR. ROUND-Town Board.
MR. NACE-Town Board of Health. We have applied for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Perc test.
MR. ROUND-I’m confused as to what this refers to, to be honest with you.
MR. NACE-Can I, I’ve made a list here, too, Craig. Can I go down through some of these, maybe
clarify some of the issues?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I just want to really go down this letter right off the bat and just click
these things off by paragraph.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the perc test can also fall into, on a previous, on the second page, about
doing the, yes, it was in that same section, about doing the test pits in November.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. NACE-Okay. There are two issues, okay. The pits themselves, to locate where high
groundwater is, can be done any time of the year, as long as they’re done by somebody that’s
approved by the Town Board of Health. Both Charlie Maine and I are approved, and both of us
observed these test pits. The issue of the perc tests, they do have to be done after the fill is placed,
okay. As he noted, he’s correct. This system is partially what’s called a shallow system, and
partially a fill system. The area for the fill, the fill has to be placed, allowed to settle, and then
perc tests from that part of the system run. The shallow system, the tests are run in existing
ground, and that’s the reason we went ahead and did the tests, the perc tests that we’ve done, to
accommodate that part of the system. They were done in an original ground. He referred to fill
being brought in to this site, and within, some time around the time period that the perc tests were
done, there has been no fill placed in the area of the septic systems. All the fill was placed up
front, in the area of the parking and a couple of the buildings. All of the ground out where the
septic systems are proposed is still original ground.
MR. MAC EWAN-Buffers I think relate more to landscaping, and I think we can address that
down the road a little bit here. The water supply issue. There seems to be some real concern about
that.
MR. NACE-Well, he referred to the differences between Ralph’s letter and my letter, and I had
talked to Ralph before, right after the last meeting with the Planning Board, and Ralph and I agreed
that we would both look at the system in different ways and then compare answers, and see if we
both arrived at the same conclusion. I took a little more conservative approach than he did in some
areas. He has a computer system where he can mottle the distribution, the water distribution in the
piping, and I did manual calculations. Both of the answers came up that there is plenty of water
and plenty of pressure, okay. Mine was a little more conservative because I added the fire flows
in, and I included all the flow into the complete build-out of Baybridge, at 248 units, whereas he
used only the west side of the brook, or I think 177 units, okay, but the bottom line with both is
that with the single pipe on Walker Lane, single six inch pipe, there is adequate water for peak
domestic use and for fire flow.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets do this one more time so I’m totally clear. His letter, Mr.
Valente’s letter, or fax that came from Mr. Van Dusen said that he would need to put in additional
service if he ever was trying to obtain build-out of his subdivision. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-Build-out past the 177 units, okay. He still has, I don’t know, how many units do you
have now, Dan, exactly?
MR. VALENTE-Seventy.
MR. NACE-Seventy. Okay. So there would still be an additional 107 units that he could build
before bringing in the other service entrance from Bay Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, do your 48 units come off that number?
MR. NACE-How’s that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Do your 48 units come off that number?
MR. NACE-No. Our 48 are included in that, well, not in the 177, but are included in Ralph’s
analysis that says 177 plus our 48, plus a couple of existing residences can be utilizing the single
existing pipe on Walker, okay, and I think Ralph’s consideration for the other entrance is two fold.
It’s redundancy. It’s not necessarily flow requirement, to provide adequate water, but having the
redundancy in case there’s a main break somewhere in the system. There’ll be a stream crossing
there. Any time you have a stream crossing, that’s a weak point where you like to have a loop
system, so you can shut have of it off and still provide water to the residents.
MR. MAC EWAN-Traffic.
MR. NACE-Okay. Numbers. You can do anything you want with numbers, but the way to look
at these numbers is, you know, I didn’t try to provide you with a “traffic study”, I’ve provided you
with the raw data. The by-pass traffic on Bay Road is really, in this instance, if you were doing a
full blown traffic study, is relatively inconsequential because Bay Road is wide enough there to
permit traffic to by-pass cars which are stopped to pull in to Walker Lane, okay. The real issue
with the flow on Bay Road would be, if you have a car stopped, northbound car on Bay Road,
stopped to make a left hand turn into Walker, whether or not that traffic going north on Bay Road
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
can get by him, and they can. Bay Road has quite wide shoulders there. The actual number of
cars on Walker Lane, if you add both the existing and projected together, amount to 60 plus cars,
67 in the AM, and I think it’s in the PM it’s 83 cars per hour, but that is in both directions, and
that is a very small traffic volume. Some reference has been made to the width of the road being
substandard, and it’s been compared as a 22 foot road now, versus a 50 foot required by Town
standards, and that’s comparing apples and oranges. Twenty-two feet is the existing pavement
width. The Town standards for a new road only require 24 foot driving surface, driving lanes,
total driving lanes. So it’s only substandard by two feet. To compare, Sweet Road was just re-
paved, re-built last year. Prior to that re-build, Sweet Road, in most places, was only 20 feet of
asphalt, and Sweet Road had a tremendous amount of traffic on it, compared to Walker Lane.
Even after these townhouses come on line, Walker Lane, the traffic on Walker Lane of 60 or 80
cars an hour, both directions, is peanuts compared to what was on Sweet Road. So, you know, the
50 feet versus 22 feet is not a real comparison. I don’t know what more I can say about the traffic.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A question was raised regarding the exact location of the proposed
driveway in proximity to townhouses on the opposite side of Walker Lane.
MR. NACE-Sure. Two factors. One, there was another comment that sort of wraps into that,
which was the internal circulation comment of the proposed site plan. The internal circulation is so
there is only one exit, okay, or one entrance/exit onto Walker. That’s preferable to two, because it
keeps everything at one location. The fact that we’re across from driveways is preferable, because
then traffic pulling out of Rich’s project can see any cars backing out of driveways. They’re not
surprised because a car is backing out of a driveway, you know, 40 or 50 feet down the road, and
they don’t see it until they pull out. It’s better to see those other movements, okay, and, you know,
it’s not desirable for traffic backing out onto a Town road, but it happens a lot, and it’s better for
other traffic to see what’s happening then to be removed from it. It’s safer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think one of the last comments I had jotted down was a couple of individuals
were referencing berming and/or screening the two proposed units that have their backs toward
Walker Lane.
MR. NACE-I wasn’t quite sure which units were being.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s one right there I can see. It’s got the eight, nine decks out on the
back of it. It actually has its back right against Walker Lane. I think they’re referring to that one
and the one to the right of it.
MR. NACE-Okay. This one is approximately, that’s probably about 150 feet or 140 feet anyway
from the edge of Walker Lane to this building, and there’s somewhere between 60 and 100 feet of
existing vegetation in here for screening. We cannot, because this is Corps regulated wetland, we
cannot go into that wetland and do additional planting. We are doing the screening up here. I think
there was a comment, there’s some older trees along Walker Lane that may not survive forever,
and that’s one of the reasons we’re doing this screening up in here, but in here that pretty much has
to remain as it is, and there is fairly good screening there. A lot of it, she is correct, a lot of it is
deciduous. So in the winter, there won’t be the leaf cover, but it is relatively thick in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the potential of an idea of putting a berm right near the boundaries to
the wetland that’s like an evergreen berm of some kind?
MR. NACE-To be effective, the berm would have to be up at Walker Lane, and there’s, you might
do a little partial berm in here, but because of the wetland, existing Corps wetland is right almost
out to the property line here. So there’s really not room for it all the way along there. A little of it
could be done in here. I suppose we could do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of wetland, I just thought of another one that was asked, who
actually has, this is I guess more toward Staff, who has jurisdiction over these wetlands?
MR. ROUND-They’re Army Corps wetlands.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who represents the Army Corps? Does the Army Corps represent themselves
in this sort of thing? I mean, how do they, so the people understand, what’s the process that
someone would go through when you have that threshold that’s less than, what was it, 13 acres?
MR. ROUND-A third of an acre for Corps wetlands. Corps wetlands are regulated. They’re not
mapped wetlands. Any time, there’s not a DEC wetland, there’s different criteria by which you
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
identify wetlands, and DEC identifies them in a certain protocol, and the Corps does also.
Generally, the broadest jurisdictional is Army Corps wetlands, things that aren’t DEC wetlands, or
potentially could be Corps wetlands, whether it’s a stream. They call it waters of the U.S., and
the Corps will, if you have a project where you anticipate you have wetlands on it, the first thing
you do is get a jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers. It involves hiring a
consultant. Identifying the wetland, flagging the wetland on your property, getting confirmation
from the Army Corps that that is indeed what they determine the wetland boundary to be, and then,
as far as permitting requirements, it’s based on disturbance. If you have to disturb more than a
third of an acre of a wetland, if you’re going to fill it, or, there’s what they call the nationwide
permit system, which is you can do certain activities without any Army Corps involvement. As
soon as you exceed a threshold, then you have to actually negotiate with the Corps for how things
are going to be managed, whether you have to replace wetlands on site, or whether you have to
construct other wetlands or mitigate damage or disturbance in other manners, but in this case,
they’re below that threshold. They’ve identified, they’ve delineated the wetlands and they have
identified that to the Corps and they’ve followed the procedural requirements that’s identified by
the Corps. Wetlands are a real confusing issue, because we regulate them on a local level, but we
really don’t have any jurisdiction over wetlands outside of the DEC wetlands. Now, why get
involved with DEC wetlands if the DEC’s already handling it. So that’s another subject entirely,
but they’ve identified that. In regards to the stream, I believe that’s a DEC regulated stream. You
only need a stream disturbance permit if you were going to disturb the stream, cross the stream,
etc. So they’re not doing that, and they’re staying outside the buffer area required.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody up here have any questions so far?
Aesthetics. Everyone’s favorite topic.
MR. STARK-Did you get your shingle?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. STARK-Okay. Green, or what color is it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Brown.
MR. STARK-Okay. It’s going to be brown.
MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re basically, your design that you’re showing us here tonight is
basically what you have over here across the street, vinyl sided.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I may say something, we’re hearing the people that are in the
audience tonight and their opinions. I have had a lot of people come up to me and say that they like
the style of those apartments. I think people, if they really looked at the list of the people that live
in my apartments, that are local business owners and doctors. There’s a lot of good people that
live in these apartment buildings. I’ve had a lot of people that like the buildings. Now, sure, I’d
love to build some really aesthetically eye-pleasing designs like the Hiland Park townhouses or
something of that sort, or that nature, but, you know, I don’t want to say these are affordable
rentals, but they’re not expensive rentals. They’re in a medium income level that I’m filling a need.
I have 90 apartments right now, and which 70 of them are in Queensbury, and I have no vacancies,
or one vacancy in the Queensbury apartments. If I, aesthetically, you know, sure I’d love to dress
these up and do all kinds of things, but then I’m going to be in a situation where they’re not going
to rent because over the prices, anything higher than what I’m renting these for now, you know,
people are on their next levels to buy homes. Now, one of the gentlemen was a real estate
appraiser in the audience, and he’s a professional and I respect that. I’ve been doing this 11 years,
and I know, personally, when I build my own homes, or I invest in the property, I look at the
surrounding areas, what the zoning is around me currently. Where I currently live now, I know
what’s behind me, in front of me, and beside me. The people over on Walker Lane should
understand that the land that Dan Valente owns in the very front of that complex, now he could tell
people it’s always going to have nature of residential. Well, we don’t know that. Dan could, 10,
15, 20 years from now, they could change their plans. That land, and I’m not sure, it’s either MR-
5 or Highway Commercial. I tend to believe it’s MR-5. I’m not sure, but MR-5 is a number of
things. I brought what MR-5 breaks down but these people could have office complex in front of
them. They could have day care centers. There could be health centers. There’s numerous things
that could go right directly in front of them. Now, the land that I purchased was on the market for
over five years, and it goes back to, you know, it’s been for sale. People knew what the zoning
was, or I would think they would know what the zoning is. I guess what I’m trying to say is when
people buy something, maybe they should just look at the surroundings and see. Now, I want to
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
give you an example. The Michaels Group, which I think they do a fine job, and they’ve done well
in this area. They purchased Cedar Court townhouses at the same time that I purchased Hunter
Brook Lane. As a matter of fact, the Board which approved my Hunter Brook apartments is most
of you that are here tonight in front of me. Those townhouses have sold very quickly. They’ve
done a wonderful job over there. They’ve sold them out quickly. Now Dave Michaels and I had
an issue where I was only 30 feet from a property line, and six of his townhouses are only 20 feet
from the rear property line. I don’t think he sold one of those townhouses less than $100,000,
$105,000. So if they want to talk about values, we could probably, I mean, we could check, but I
know that the townhouses in Cedar Court sold very well, and they didn’t sell them inexpensively.
So my apartments I think have more of an effect on Cedar Court than they would on Walker Lane,
because I mean if you look at the buildings that I have, I mean I’m right on top of them and they’re
right on top of me, and they’re built out. I think they have one unit left to sell and they’re out of
there. That’s it. So, I guess that’s it on that.
MR. NACE-If I could add one thing. People have been making a comparison to the two projects.
The one thing that is extremely different between the two is that this project has elevation
difference through the site, so that the units aren’t just on a flat playing field, and there’s existing
tree cover on the site, a lot of which is going to be maintained around the periphery. It’s not going
to be sitting out in the middle of a field for everybody to stare at.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else?
MR. PALING-I’ve just got one question, and maybe it should be directed to Mr. Valente. It’s on
the water hook up thing. As I understand it, there’s plenty of water for everything that’s going in
right now, and this goes out to 170 Baybridge units and the 48 that are being put in here now, but
if anything is put or built there, whether it be Baybridge or otherwise, that there will have to be a
second six inch main put in, to accommodate that. Okay. What is the hang up because of that?
There has to be one put in, so this is what happens when you build.
MR. VALENTE-The Master Plan, in 1985, called for that loop to go back to Bay Road. The
engineer, when we engineered the conceptual design, called for a six inch line to go back, once I
come over the brook, and it calls for 75 townhouses on that front parcel, in the Master Plan. It’s in
the Town records. So, my concern was that when this development went in, that that six inch line
didn’t get increased to an eight inch line, because we already have the T’s in place to receive and
go over the stream, when the time comes. If the Town said it had to be larger, the worker had
already done, it would have had to be ripped up, at an additional cost to me, plus an eight inch line
being in instead of a six.
MR. PALING-All right, but you have the confidence now, based upon the letters written, that a six
inch, addition to, will do it.
MR. VALENTE-I’m not going to be on the record to say that, because I have engineering report
that says differently, and I haven’t brought it up because everybody does it a different way. Ralph
did it one way. He did it one way. My engineer did it another way. I’ve got a letter from the
Town that says that’s what I have to put in. If I have a problem when I get there, you know where
I’m coming, don’t you? I’m coming right to you guys, and the Town.
MR. PALING-The Town, though, is saying that a six inch line will do it, if I understand it, an
additional six.
MR. VALENTE-I have a letter from Ralph Van Dusen that says a six inch line will be, as long as
I stay with the Master Plan, and 75 units on the front, that the six inch line will do the job, and I’m
not saying I have confidence in it. I’m just saying, I’m just part of the process here.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Okay. With respect, I guess, to the design, as it was left last month,
and correct me anyone up here if I’m wrong, I thought we were going to see something that was a
little bit different than the design you have across the street, and when you opened up the meeting
tonight and said that it was identical, your design was identical to what you have across the street.
I thought you were going to put some architectural differences in it, with the hip roof that we spoke
about, and maybe some ornamental detailing on it that was going to enhance them somewhat
without being cost prohibitive, and I thought that’s what we were going to do, and I thought
actually, we were going to have a plan that went along with our packet, but we got it tonight. So
we really didn’t get an opportunity to really look it over well. I think what we need to do is,
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
honestly, we need to table this, because you need to get your approvals from the Town Board first,
and we’re not in a position that we can make conditional approvals.
MR. NACE-You’re talking about the septic variance?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s going to hinge a lot on what we do.
MR. STARK-Do they meet Monday, next Monday?
MR. ROUND-They’re on the agenda for Monday, and in your resolution, you can, you know,
contingent upon receiving approvals.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a practice we’ve been advised in the past not to do, make conditional
approvals.
MR. STARK-Ask Jeff.
MR. PALING-They could come back next week.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. Whether you condition it or not, they still need their septic variance.
MR. ROUND-Yes, and they won’t get a building permit without the septic variance. So the
project won’t go ahead until that’s received.
MR. MAC EWAN-I, personally, would also like to see some re-vamping to your design.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You and I did discuss it at the meeting. I spoke to some of the Planning
Board members and some of Staff, and it was kind of recommended to me not to, it was indicated
to me from several individuals that we were on a fine line. It’s not an architectural review board,
and I don’t know, I was asked not to take this issue too far, because I asked a lot of questions,
because I talked to a lot of people. I’m not disputing that you and I talked about it, but it was,
from some members and some Staff, that they asked me not to, they said we’re getting into a
different type of, I don’t know how I want to put this, but it was a, they said there’s not an
architectural review board, and they had some concerns with me doing that. So, I mean, I could
tell you I’m going to do the hip style, if that’s what you’d like to see. I don’t know how much
more, other than putting, I don’t know, personally, like I said, the people in the audience tonight,
aesthetically, they don’t like it, but I’ve got a lot of people that do like the aesthetics of it. These
are the buildings that have been approved in the past, right next to Cedar Court and right out here
on Bay Road. I guess what I would be asking for is, I don’t know, I guess I’m happy with the
design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has anyone from the Town advised him not to pursue enhancing the design at
all?
MR. ROUND-I haven’t discussed the project with Mr. Schermerhorn.
MS. NOWICKI-I’ll answer this one. For what Rich and I have discussed, I don’t remember
hearing, I mean, you didn’t ask me to get that information.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that was something he was going to do. He was going to come back with
what we talked about, a different elevation and an end view.
MS. NOWICKI-That’s what, I mean, that’s what I thought he provided with this drawing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was going to be in our packets a week ago. That’s what I thought.
MS. NOWICKI-Right. That was anticipated, but I mean, he submitted this one, and that’s what I
believed you asked for.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Craig, obviously, I’d like to get our approvals tonight, but if you’re not,
if we’re not satisfied with the design, I honestly don’t know how much I could really change it to,
even if I put the hip roof style on, it just tones down the gables, basically.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. STARK-I’m satisfied with them.
MRS. LABOMBARD-This is the main issue, it seems. I mean, it seems like we’ve addressed the
safety of the children and I haven’t heard any complaints or people being upset about that, and kids
going to the bus. The water main issue, we have some kind of comments on that. At this point
maybe Mr. Valente feels okay about it, but it’s the design that keeps being brought up by the
people at Baybridge. Now, we talked about it, Rich, and you’re right. People, there are people, if
people didn’t like the way that looked, you would not be so successful renting it, because people
wouldn’t want to live in it, and again, it’s a matter of personal taste, but right now, we’ve got all
these people that are going to be your neighbors, and you’re right, we’re not an architectural
review board, and we don’t pretend to be, but what we want to do is kind of resolve this to make
everybody feel comfortable about it, and for you to go in as a good neighbor, and for them to be
good neighbors. So, I understand where you’re coming from, as far as keeping your design to
make it cost effective. So we’re kind of caught, I think this is where we’re being hung up.
MR. PALING-Well, when these units are under construction, they don’t look too good, and they
do look like Army barracks, but when they’re finished, painted, and they have shutters on them, I
don’t think they look that bad. I live in Cedar Court, and right over the way are these buildings,
and since they’ve been finished, I, personally, don’t find any objection to them. I don’t think
they’re that bad, and they make good neighbors, and I hope we’re good neighbors to them. So
aesthetically, from a personal standpoint, I don’t see the need of changing a roof line is going to
make that much difference to this whole project. If it were some other kind of change, I might go
along with it, but not just to change a roof line. I don’t see where it’ll do much good.
MR. STARK-I think they’re going to look a lot nicer down there. He’s making a concession with
a little different color siding, a brown roof as opposed to the green. It’s going to be buffered a lot
by the, you’ve seen the trees down there, walked the property and everything. It’s really nice.
They’re going to look a lot nicer down there, and I think these across the street, he planted I don’t
know how many plantings across the street, over 100 per unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think on that aspect I agree with you that it’s not going to have the visual
impact that these over here on the corner would have, only because of the lay of the land and the
way it’s situated within the wood lot. Is there anything that maybe we can do to maybe increase
the buffering along Walker Lane to, you know, kind of screen it somewhat in some ways?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I spoke to Mr. Vollaro this morning when I was out there, and I told
him, I’m not opposed to doing, for example like Wal-Mart. I was noticing the other day I was in
there. They put a nice pressure treated scalloped fence, and they put their plantings in front of it. I
don’t know how people feel about fences. I’m not opposed to doing a berm. It is heavily bermed
presently where we cannot disturb where the wetlands are. I mean, it’s really heavily buffered, but
I’m not opposed if we want to, you know, add some more buffering on the front. I don’t have any
problem with that at all.
MR. PALING-The most objection seems to be, if I read it right, from the townhouse four. The
side of it faces Walker Lane, and there’s a 30 foot buffer there, and that is not wetland or anything.
That, I would assume that could be enhanced.
MR. NACE-Are you talking about this one?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. STARK-Are there any trees out there? It doesn’t show them on here?
MR. NACE-Existing?
MR. STARK-Yes.
MR. NACE-There are some in the form of a hedgerow right along Walker Lane. They’re probably
on the property line. I’d say some of them may be in the Town property, some of them on Rich’s
property. Those, I believe they’re the ones Mr. Vollaro was referring to, are probably in pretty bad
shape.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. There’s some silver pines that he and I saw.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. NACE-Then there we tried to put in some buffering. I can’t do, because of the drainage
system, I can’t do too much of a berm there, but we could certainly do some staggered planting to
help thicken up the screening.
MR. MAC EWAN-What did you have in mind?
MR. NACE-Jim Miller could probably stand up here and tell you exactly, you know, I’m not the
landscape architect.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-From my experience, if we want a buffer, we’d probably want some
white pines, something that’s going to keep color year round. If we put white birches or maples,
they lose their leaves and their barren from winter season. Hemlocks are another one.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re showing two evergreens there now and what, nine or ten small shrubs?
MR. NACE-No. These are pin oaks, Craig, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Yes. The two big ones are pin oaks, and then the other ones are white pine. They’re
four, three, four and four.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the caliper of those white pine?
MR. NACE-That’s what I was just looking for. Three to five foot height.
MR. MAC EWAN-Three to five foot height, and how many did you say you had?
MR. NACE-There’s 15.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fifteen.
MR. NACE-But even those we could, like, stagger them and put in some additional, you know, in
front and behind, thicken up that buffer.
MR. COOMBES-If you have to widen Walker Road, you’re going to be right in those (lost
words), aren’t you?
MR. NACE-No. These would be back on our property, and there’s.
MR. COOMBES-Would a road be too close to the side of your building?
MR. NACE-No. That’s, again, what this road width conception, if they were to re-build Walker
Lane, probably the most they would do would be to add a foot or two of pavement on each side of
the road, and then maybe smooth out the shoulders a little bit, in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have 15 white pine, call that. Now if we asked you to plant a total of 20
or 22 of them, to thicken that up in there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else up here?
MR. STARK-You’re talking, just so we know.
MR. MAC EWAN-That corner right there.
MR. STARK-Building Number, south of Number Four Townhouse?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. NACE-Well, that four indicates that there are only four units there. I would say that’s, the
southwestern most.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. SMITH-A quick question, very quick. How much acreage do you have here?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Eleven and a half.
MR. SMITH-Eleven and a half, all together, all the way across there, right? Why don’t you take
this one and put it back here some place?
MR. NACE-Because of the slope. The site, as you get back toward the back, it slopes up
significantly.
MR. SMITH-They build houses all over the Rockies and the Green Mountains and every place
else. I mean, I don’t think the elevation would change putting that house back here some place.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I had mentioned that last time.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Other than the fact, I’ve met with Steve Pinchuk, and I’m trying to
protect his view, which he’s on top of the hill, and if I did that, it would wipe everything out.
MR. SMITH-Right here.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, then we’re into the back of Brown’s Path’s four lots that back up
to me, and then Mr. Valente would have a problem with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We need to do a SEQRA. Is there anything else from anyone else?
LADY IN AUDIENCE-Okay. I understand the wetlands in front of the ones with the back to
Walker. Could anything be planted toward your building from that wetland, an evergreen?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I talked to him about before, putting a buffer, a berm there.
MR. NACE-It would be less effective. Obviously, the screening toward the building has to get
much higher than the screening up toward your viewpoint. I suppose there could be a couple of
White Pines in here or (lost words).
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not opposed to that.
MR. WILSON-Right close to the road there, that’s pretty much a quagmire, isn’t it?
MR. NACE-Just off the edge of this bank, we could put (lost words).
MR. SCHERMERHORN-How about eight White Pines, three foot to five foot tall back there,
staggered, I guess?
MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean directly behind that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Directly behind where the woman has the concern.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is eight going to cover it in there?
MR. PALING-Call it the south center building?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Do you see the area where he’s talking about doing it?
MR. PALING-Yes, right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. What we’ll do is we’ll close the public hearing. We need to
do a SEQRA.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. LABOMBARD-Long or Short?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Long Form, right?
MS. NOWICKI-We have a Short Form.
MR. MAC EWAN-Unlisted, Short Form.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I’ve got it right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly.”
MR. STARK-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would say on that one.
MR. STARK-Why?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I would think so. All right. We should explain briefly, and if it can be
mitigated.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay.
MR. PALING-Well, what are we talking about?
MR. MAC EWAN-Aesthetics, neighborhood character, the impact on aesthetics and neighborhood
character, and I said, yes, it would, small to moderate, but it could be mitigated.
MR. PALING-It’s no more aesthetic than the Baybridge, something like that, some other building.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You’re right, it’s a personal thing.
MR. STARK-Well, it can be mitigated.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MS. NOWICKI-Hold on. Can you explain why you’re saying yes, so I can write it in your notes?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s a small to moderate impact, aesthetically, on neighborhood
character. That’s my opinion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Because of the, yes. Obviously, there’s a lot of people that feel that way
and have brought that to our attention.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move on.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO.
, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD SCHEMERHORN
, 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:
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
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 17 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to make a motion?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think whoever’s going to make this motion has to put in all those
stipulations.
MR. MAC EWAN-George is busy writing.
MRS. LABOMBARD-George, you’ve got it there.
MR. STARK-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-98 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
,
Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Paling:
As written, with the addition of five to seven more white pines on the south of the southwest
Walker Lane side of the building, plus eight white pines, three to five foot in height, in back of the
south center building. With the siding being earth tone, and the shingles being dark brown, or earth
tone shingles, and hip the gables on the roof. Contingent upon him getting his variance from the
Town Board of Health for his septic system.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 5-98, RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, to construct 6, 8 unit apartment buildings with associated parking and
sitework - 48 units total; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 1/26/98 from R. VanDusen, Water Dept. Superintendent
2. 2/4/98, Meeting notice letter
3. 2/9/98, Beautification Comm. recommendations
4. 2/10/98, Notice of Public Hearing
5. 2/10/98, Rist Frost Review
6. 2/11/98, Nace Eng. Response to Rist Frost review
7. 2/11/98, C.A. Grant, Fire Marshal
8. 2/12/98, Rist Frost review in response to Nace letter
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
9. 2/17/98, Staff Notes
10. 11/14/63, Town Bd. Resolution re: public highways
11. 2/17/98, Planning Board resolution - tabled
12. 3/5/98, Meeting notice letter
13. 3/6/98, T. Nace to C. Round - Existing traffic data
14. 3/6/98, R. VanDusen, Water Dept. Superintendent to c. Round availability of water.
15. 3/7/98, Fax from R. Schermerhorn to C. Round - silt fence
16. 3/7/98, T. Nace to R. VanDusen, water supply
17. 3/12/98, R. Goedert, Qu. School to L. Nowicki, Bus stop numbers
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/17/98, 3/17/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
5-98, RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
2. The applicant shall present two (2) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
7. Engineering Fees to be paid before C/O is issued.
8. Recreation Fees are payable upon submission of a building permit.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-And you were going to have your gables hipped. Is that what you said you
would do?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If the Board would like the gables hipped, I’ll hip the gables.
MRS. LABOMBARD-See, it’s too bad that we couldn’t see what they would look like. I mean, I
think that it will mitigate that aesthetic issue.
MR. STARK-I don’t know what you mean.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think that it will look lower, even though in reality it isn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re for it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I think, yes. I am for it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s two for it. Are you for it?
MR. STARK-I don’t know what you mean.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Instead of being like this, it would be like this, on the end.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Tom could possibly draw it and show you.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. NACE-Unfortunately, we don’t have an end elevation that is shown, but in essence, it would
just take the roof line, probably will parallel one of these entry way roofs, so that the main roof line
on both ends of the building would do that, and then if you were looking at an end view, instead of
seeing a full gable on the end of the building, okay, with the windows, what you’ll see is a distinct
line here, and this will all be roof here, instead of siding.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One thing I just want to point out, the only drawback to hip roofs, from
a builders standpoint sometimes, is it can be a potential ventilation problem, because I put gable
vents in my gables, which let a lot of air flow through, and when you do the hips, you can only put
the venterige on a short span of roof now, where he drew that line in. So you do cut down
probably a third of ventilation. Now, it’s just a problem that I could be faced with.
MR. MAC EWAN-But there’s certainly other avenues you could do to vent your buildings.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You do like Cedar Court did, where they have those spinning
ventilators, and quite honestly, I know a lot of people that have hip roofs, and in some close
vicinities of mine, there has been some ice and water backups, and I’m not saying it’s caused
because of, if you want to make the call, I’ll go with whatever.
MR. STARK-Do you have ridge vents?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, conventionally, believe it or not, it’s still built out of pre-
engineered trusses.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I have two for them. Do you want them, Bob?
MR. PALING-I don’t think it’s necessary, but I don’t feel that strongly. I don’t think it’s a good
move.
MR. STARK-It creates a lot more expense for the applicant.
MRS. LABOMBARD-No, it doesn’t. It’s not going to be any more expensive.
MR. STARK-Yes, it does.
MR. PALING-Do you have ridge vents on the roof?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and, Cathy, it is considerably more to do hip styles.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I’m just thinking about the other faction, here, and I want to just
keep.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I understand. I’m not opposed if the two of you want, I’ll let you guys
call it.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re not opposed to doing it, lets add it to it. Okay. We’ll move that right
along. Okay. That’s part of it.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
SITE PLAN NO. 9-98 TYPE: UNLISTED NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C. OWNER:
SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER DIX AVE. & QUEENSBURY AVE.
PROPOSAL IS TO UTILIZE PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT,
SALES, RENTALS AND SERVICE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 46-1996, AV 61-1996,
SP 43-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: MARCH 11, 1998 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT
SIZE: 1.728 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
MIKE O’CONNOR & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-98, NuTech Reality, L.L.C., Meeting Date: March 17, 1998
“The applicant proposes a business for the sale and rental of construction tools, vehicles and
equipment. Site plan review is required in the HC-1A zone for this particular use. The applicant
provided a letter indicating various types of inventory. The applicant was informed of compliance
issues (landscape plans) and plot plan discrepancies. The Warren County Planning Board
indicated concerns regarding the Dix Avenue access and its proximity to the traffic light. The
applicant indicated he would relocate the access point to the satisfaction of Warren County. The
Board may consider the access being located further west. The Board should also address the
amount of landscaping along the northern boundary, location of on site inventory with respect to
traffic site distances and service repairs of vehicles and equipment. The applicant has indicated
that the soil remediation process is still being evaluated by the NYSDEC which is causing a delay
in the planting of the required landscape conditions. The applicant has not provided basis for this
information.”
MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read any letters that, correspondence?
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess not at this point.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you had some conversation, or someone did, with the County Planning.
Where did they want clarification of ingress and egress? I mean, where do they want that drive
moved? They don’t say.
MR. ROUND-Maybe I could help you out with that one. I guess Bill Remington had looked at the
site plan at the time it was presented to the County Planning Board, and said it should be moved
further west of the traffic light, and apparently subsequent to that, they’ve shown a new location
further west of the light, and Bill Remington said he was satisfied with that location. We’re talking
about the Dix Avenue entrance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that we should be aware of? Would you identify yourself
for the record, please.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor,
and I’m representing the applicant tonight. With me is also Timothy Barber, who is a principle of
the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you share with us a little bit about what you want to do?
MR. O’CONNOR-As I understand basically what the applicant wishes to do is to abandon a prior
application approval for a site plan, and utilize the site for another use, which he’s outlined and
specified in a letter to the Town Planning Staff, and for that purpose, he has come back to you with
a new site plan application, which basically leaves the building footprint as is, but changes the
exterior use in a minor manner, in that some of the equipment that he will be selling or renting will
be on display outside of the building, within the first 10 feet of the building, around the perimeter
of parts of the building. He’s changed his parking, because with the change of use, adding the
retail from what it was before, I think it was a construction operation before. The same parking
requirements weren’t there. There are more requirements now, so he’s added more parking. As to
the issue of the County Planning Board, I’ve appeared there with the plan that was in part of your
initial package, and at that time, I believe that the entrance to the site from Dix Avenue was about
30 feet closer to the intersection than what it presently is. Bill Remington was at their meeting as
their highway consultant, if you will. He suggested that we move the entrance some distance
further west. He and I got into a discussion of how far further west we would do it, and I
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
suggested that rather than try to orally describe how it was going to be re-designed, if the Board
would conditionally approve it subject to his signing off on a written plan that was submitted to
him, we would be satisfied, and that is what they did. The plan was subsequently re-drawn, and
was submitted, and he did sign off, and I think I have given Staff a copy of the fax from the
Warren County DPW Department, which is a notation on there, approved by Warren County
DPW, 3/16/98, William Remington. I think that the issue that we had with the County Planning
Board is no longer an issue. They are satisfied. We have a full approval. It was a unanimous
approval from the Planning Board. As to the other Staff comments, the first one that I would
address separately I guess would be the suggestion that the Board look at the landscaping along the
northerly boundary. My understanding is that this application was before the Board just within the
last year, or maybe within the last two years. We don’t propose to change the landscaping that
was then approved by this Board along the northerly boundary. We really don’t have any great
difference in use or impact on that boundary now than we did then.
MR. PALING-But then would somebody clarify this, then. Are there discrepancies with the
original plot plan, or there are discrepancies with the original plot plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I guess maybe we could try to cover all this in one fell swoop here.
th
There’s a letter, did you get a copy of the March 10 letter from Laura to Mr. Barber?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, could you read that into the record, because there’s some people here
in the audience who may want to know what that’s all about. So if we can get that read in, maybe
that’ll help get the ball rolling on some of these things.
MS. NOWICKI-“We have received your Site Plan Review Application for the construction
equipment sales/service/rental facility at the above referenced location. Several deficiencies were
noted during review of your submission. Generally, they relate to buffer area and parking
requirements, and compliance issues associated with previous approvals. They are described as
follows. A fifty (50) foot buffer area is required between a commercial zone and a residential zone
as indicated in Section 179-72 and Section 179-23C of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. No buffer
area was depicted on the plan. The buffer zone should be located on the north side of the property
and should extend the entire length of the property (approx. 379 ft.). Buffer zones, as defined in
the ordinance, are an unpaved, natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of
adverse impacts associated with conflicting land use. No parking, vehicle storage or storage of any
items associated with the facility is allowed in the buffer zone. Additionally, landscaping measures
sufficient to provide screening between the commercial and residential uses should be incorporated
into the buffer. Several items on your application need to be clarified. First, the drawing
submitted indicates 12 parking spaces and the application refers to 14. Please correct the drawing
to show fourteen (14) parking spaces, the minimum amount required for the designated use.
Second, the plan notes indicate a fence surrounding the entire property, and the drawing
graphically depicts a fence around only a portion of the property. Please revise accordingly.
Finally, please indicate on the plan those areas where equipment will be stored on the site. During
review of the application it was brought to our attention that conditions of previous approvals for
this site have not been satisfied. Site Plan 43-96 for the existing business, Area Variance 61-1996
(reduction of required buffer area), and Use Variance 46-1996 (operation of a construction
business) all contained conditions relating to landscaping. Based on a recent site inspection,
landscaping provisions have not been adequately addressed. As a result of the deficiencies the Site
Plan approval and the referenced variances have expired and are no longer applicable to the site.
Please be aware the Planning Board may express their concern regarding the compliance issues.
Please submit the requested information by 4:30 PM Thursday, March 12, 1998. If you have any
questions, please call.”
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. My understanding was that Staff had retracted most of that letter.
MS. NOWICKI-That’s not correct.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Round?
MR. ROUND-No, nothing’s been retracted. I guess you’ve addressed some of the deficiencies, as
they were noted on the site plan, and that’s where we’re at now, I guess.
MR. O’CONNOR-The variances have expired?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. ROUND-The variances have expired. That’s my position on that, yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I asked that question specifically, and my understanding was that that
they have not. Let me go through each step and see if Counsel agrees with me. You’re blindsiding
me, and I’ll say that up front, and I objected to this letter when I got it. I don’t understand why this
is happening, but lets go forward with it. The 50 foot buffer area was not shown on the initial
plan. In fact, there was no buffer zone. I think there was one short line. We did revise the plan to
show the buffer zone as it was allowed under the Area Variance that was granted in the prior
application. There’s a 50 foot buffer for the first part of the property, as it adjoins County Line
Road, and then it cuts down to 40 foot, and then it cuts down to 10 feet. That is now shown on the
plan, and we do not intend to violate that buffer zone as it was shown.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you saying that the original buffer that was approved for the site plan
approval for the construction company?
MR. O’CONNOR-It was a separate approval. It was an Area Variance by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. That’s what sets the buffer, not the site plan approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-The site plan approval, though, and the conditions of the site plan approval for
that buffer, it was going to be heavily vegetated, under the site plan approval.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Let me get to that step, step by step. The creation of the size or
dimension of the buffer zone was by Area Variance. Okay. After the Area Variance was obtained,
the applicant got a building permit and has obtained extensions of the building permit, through
extensions of the temporary certificate of occupancy that followed from the building permit. As I
understand it, those extensions go through some time in May of 1998. It’s my understanding that
if you get a variance and you apply for a building permit within a year, and you complete the
requirements of that building permit, that variance is alive. There is a provision within the Zoning
Ordinance that says that if you don’t complete your project within a year, apply for a building
permit and complete your project within a year, that the variance will terminate, but it’s never been
our practice in this Town to think that a variance granted has been terminated if the people are
acting under a valid building permit, whether it’s extended, because you can extend the building
permit by a year, or if you get an occupancy permit, if it’s only a temporary certificate of
occupancy, you get extensions for the temporary certificate of occupancy. There’s never been an
enforcement issue on this, of any nature. There have been renewals, I think, right through
December was the last renewal by the Building Department, saying that the Certificate of
Occupancy was being renewed.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what you’re saying, then, as long as he was having extensions on his
building permit, the variances are still alive and he’s still in compliance with his site plan?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response to that would be that, historically, there’s been a practice
in the last four or five years of this Board anyway that when we grant approvals for site plans, that
they are contingent upon everything being done prior to the issuance of a CO, and we don’t specify
whether it’s a permanent CO or a temporary CO.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think, then, you need to check with the Building Department, because that’s
not a practice that they have necessarily followed. They have been issuing temporary certificates
of occupancy where there’s an understanding that something that was required was not completed.
In this instance, the thing that was not completed was the landscaping, and we don’t deny that at
all.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s some issue with the fence, too.
MS. NOWICKI-There’s not an issue with the fence.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, not that I’m aware of. So, we have a temporary CO. You begin with a 90
day temporary CO, and it gets renewed if you make the application, and that’s what’s been
happening. Now we never have had any complaint by that, and except for the applicant coming
forth with a new business plan, I’m not sure where we’re going. I said I thought that this would
resolve with Staff, because Staff was not aware that there were extensions of the building permit or
extensions of the temporary CO when this letter was initially written.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. ROUND-Well, I guess my understanding is that the temporary CO had expired as of, in ’96,
and that they just came in Friday for an extension of the temporary CO.
MR. O’CONNOR-Which was granted.
MR. ROUND-Which was, yes, it was granted, but there was a one year lapse in the CO, but the
CO doesn’t relate to the Variance, though. I don’t see the connection between the two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Lets back up on this CO thing just for a second, so it’s clear in
my mind. If you have a CO, and it expires, how can you grant an extension to something that has
expired?
MR. ROUND-Right. I guess that would be my position as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just like us granting an extension to a subdivision plat that’s expired. We
can’t do that. So how could you grant an extension to a CO that’s expired?
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. My understanding is that it had not expired, that there had been a prior
extension prior to this most recent one.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Maybe I can just help get things back on track here. You have a site plan
application in front of you, all right, which you have to consider. The Zoning Administrator has
made a determination that this also needs an Area Variance, because the prior Area Variance has
expired, okay. That determination has been made.
MR. O’CONNOR-I have not been advised of that.
MR. ROUND-That was in the letter that was addressed.
MR. O’CONNOR-Didn’t we have a conversation after that letter, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Yes, and I said that was my position that it had expired, and that you had indicated
that.
MR. O’CONNOR-You did not indicate to me that if the building permit had been issued, and that
the Certificate of Occupancy had been extended, the conditional, that there would be no violation?
MR. ROUND-I didn’t indicate that.
MR. FRIEDLAND-In any event, let me just finish, if I can. If you want to just go ahead, I’ll shut
up, but if you want me to continue, I will.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, please continue.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Again, you have a site plan application in front of you to consider. The
Zoning Administrator has made a determination that the prior Area Variance has expired. That
determination has been made. Whether it was made in this letter, whether it was made tonight,
whichever, it was made. There may or may not be some enforcement issues from the prior
approvals, and you’ve indicated that there’s site plan approval, and area variances which may have
expired because the conditions were not met. Those are enforcement issues that the Zoning
Administrator can consider, but you still have in front of you a site plan application for you to look
at, and I think that’s the business that you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-But even now, with this twist in the road here, for us to consider this site plan,
it needs to have a variance to go with this site plan. Is that not correct?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, he needs to have a variance from the ZBA first, before we would entertain
an approval of this site plan.
MR. FRIEDLAND-I think that’s normally been your practice, to have them get the Area Variance
so that the ZBA doesn’t impose some conditions that would change some change some site plan
approval, but that’s up to you. You can consider this now, or you can ask them to get a variance
first, if you want. That’s up to you.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the practice we’ve always done.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, while he’s here, I guess I also had a question regarding the comment
here about the soil remediation. I’ve never heard of that. I mean, can you kind of fill us in what’s
going on with that?
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, would you consider the application without, just extend the 50 foot buffer
without any claim of grandfathering?
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again?
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. You’re basically saying that you can’t go forward with the application
because I’ve been told tonight that I need an Area Variance, if I don’t show and maintain a 50 foot
buffer zone along that adjoining property line. Lets show 50 feet along there, and I’ll go to the,
and lets get the approval on that basis.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather not put the cart in front of the horse.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, why do I need to go and get a variance if I tell you that I’m going to show
50 feet? I agree to a 50 foot buffer.
MR. ROUND-That’s perfectly acceptable, yes.
MS. NOWICKI-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Move on. We’ll take that into consideration.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. If we go by the buffer zone issue, it says, I would go all the way down
th
to the third paragraph of that letter of March 10. The drawing indicates 12 parking spaces,
instead of 14. Okay. My understanding is that the drawing was modified to show 14 parking
spots, and I understand that subsequent to this, there’s a note on the drawing that says how that 14
was arrived at. Apparently, it was not modified to reflect the actual 14. If you’re going to be
totally in sync, I think you had five for employees, one handicap, and eight customer. You’d have
to change that note on the drawing to 10 customers, and we indicated that our drawing machine
was not available, but we would be willing to submit that as part of the final, and as a condition,
change that note. I’m talking about a little note on the corner, Bob, over here, where they added up
the 14, on the drawing. That’s all. Trying to be consistent. We had 12 parking, obviously, we’ve
got room for a lot more parking then even what we show. We were told one time 12 is enough, and
some place rather we put in 14 or somebody now thinks 14. So we’ve got 14 shown. I don’t know
if there’s any issue on that. Second, the plan indicates a fence surrounding the entire property. On
the earlier map, at the very bottom of the map, it said six foot chain link fence around property.
We took the word “around” out because it doesn’t go all the way around. Part of it goes into the
building. Obviously, the corner with the building and the yard in the front of the building isn’t
included in the fence. So Staff was correct saying that we shouldn’t say the fence was “around”
the property, and we changed that. I don’t know what, are you working with the corrected map, or
does the Board have the corrected map in front of them?
MR. VOLLARO-The corrected map is in front of me.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. The word “around” is out. Okay. Finally, please indicate on the plan
those areas where equipment will be stored on the site. The main storage of the equipment is where
is shown at the front of the building, within that 10 foot of the perimeter that surrounds the
building. We have indicated in the other areas reserve area for future display of equipment, if we
get to a point that we need future display of equipment, with an idea simply so that we would not
have to make a new application if we, in fact, moved areas or equipment there for display. Okay.
During review, it was brought to your attention conditions of previous approvals for the site had
not been satisfied. That, I think, is what they’re talking about is the landscaping, which we
acknowledge, it has not been done. We were trying to contract, the contract for the landscaping all
as one package, so that we wouldn’t have people there more than once.
MR. MAC EWAN-It took two years to do that?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, except for the fact that there’s a business risk that’s going to be assumed
that would probably even take longer. In the front of the site, there were, prior to the present
applicant’s purchase of the property, some underground storage tanks for petroleum. When those
tanks were removed by, I’m not sure, the prior owner, it was determined by DEC that there was a
leakage problem there. It is not a high priority spill on DEC’s list, and we have been working with
the consultant, with DEC, to work out a final remediation plan. It may require excavation of a
good portion of the front of the property on Dix Avenue. We actually have on file with DEC, a
Phase II remediation or Phase II plan, and I can show you, this is our copy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where exactly are the, where the tanks located, where are they located, where
were they located?
MR. O’CONNOR-Where were they?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-In front of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-In front of the building. Okay. So why was that a hindrance to plant all the
necessary buffering to the adjacent property owners in the back of the building?
MR. O’CONNOR-It did not affect that, except for the fact to try and get, as I understand it, the
berming was put in place, and everything was there except for the planting of the trees or
shrubbery. The grass was planted there. The trees were not put in place, with the idea that the
shrubbery would all be purchased at the same time. The shrubbery on the prior plan was much
more extensive, particularly in the front, than what’s shown now, because it was going to be an
office building, an office type complex. Here’s a mapping that shows, and this is Dix Avenue.
This is the building here. This shows the area of contamination. It doesn’t show, unfortunately,
what over to, yes it does, Queensbury Place. I guess it does show. Apparently, this is going away,
by natural tenuation, and it may not have to be excavated in full. As I said, it’s not DEC’s top
priority. We did send to Staff a copy of a letter we had.
MS. NOWICKI-Yes. All I have is one letter. Do you have a copy of that still?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve got notes all over.
MS. NOWICKI-The information you gave to the Board, do you have a copy of that?
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s the only one of that I have, but how about the letter I sent you?
MS. NOWICKI-I have that.
MR. O’CONNOR-Does Staff have that, or does the Board have that?
MS. NOWICKI-The Board does not have that one.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Just as backup, these are the people, Northeastern Environmental
Technologies Corporation, who have been dealing with the contamination problem, and it’s their
opinion that if we did the planting, particularly in the front, if DEC doesn’t fully buy into the
remediation that we’re trying to work with them, and they have no apparent timetable, we may
have to excavate. I said in my reply to Staff notes today, that notwithstanding that fact, we are
willing to say we will go ahead with the landscaping at this time, and we would install the
th
landscaping now, as weather permits, and if you wanted to use, I think I said June 30 as a date, of
this year, for completion of the landscaping along the back, as we’ve shown it, and the landscaping
along the front, we have no problem with that. Notwithstanding the fact that this very likely won’t
th
be resolved in full with DEC. I think June 30 was the date that I said in my letter to Staff.
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions I have for you.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the construction company no longer going to be there.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Dissolving or whatever, moving on to another location.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just going to be the rental of equipment?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of equipment, specifically?
th
MR. O’CONNOR-There’s a letter on file dated March 5. Is that part of your package? For
retail or rent, will be generators, sump pumps, trash pumps, air compressors, concrete trowels,
concrete finishing equipment, scarifiers, tile chippers, Dual-Disc grinders, masonry mixers, plate
tampers, block saws, airless paint systems, power rakes, lawn seeders, hydraulic aerators, sod
cutters, high grass cutters, blowers, outdoor vacuums, hedge trimmers, framing nailers, chainsaws,
drills, full lines of hand held power equipment, power washers, mini loader/backhoes, skid steers
and attachments, etc., and items for retail are Concrete boots, gloves saw blades, abrasive blades,
diamond blades, safety equipment, equipment attachments, etc.
MR. MAC EWAN-So this is along the same lines of a U-Rental kind of thing?
MR. O’CONNOR-But mainly for construction, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Outside storage.
MR. O’CONNOR-Outside storage will be of some of that yard type equipment, or the small
backhoes, the mini backhoes, but it would be within that 10 foot area that we show near the front
of the building, or in the open area to the west of the building. Here is a layout of the interior of
the building or a good portion of the interior of the building for the display, if you want to take an
idea, and see we’ve got some itemization of where the equipment would be within the building, and,
Tim, where is Dix Avenue here? Is Dix Avenue out here?
MR. BARBER-Dix Ave. is over here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Dix Avenue is here.
MR. BARBER-Our mechanic’s bay presently is here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Here is a picture, here is the type of equipment, there are two pictures that I
would show you. This is the type of equipment that you’re going to see. That equipment and this
is the showing of the racks that they’re going to have in the display areas within the store.
MR. PALING-That’s strictly inside.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s inside, right.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to do maintenance of this equipment in this building?
MR. O’CONNOR-In the building in the back area, interior. No exterior maintenance.
MR. VOLLARO-So when something comes back and it’s failed, you’re going to fix it back in
there?
MR. BARBER-Back in this mechanic’s bay, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Right in here?
MR. BARBER-That’s correct. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Here on the outside of this, you asked me about some of the other things. The
outside equipment, here are some of the size of the equipment. This is a regular van. You’re
talking about miniature backhoes. You’re not talking about the gigantic backhoes, or that line of
equipment.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. VOLLARO-That looks like a little skid steer, there?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. PALING-But this is all permitted within the zoning, what they’re proposing here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. We had a Use Variance before for the construction operation, which
we’re abandoning.
MR. PALING-But this is sales, service and rental.
MR. O’CONNOR-Off the record, and I didn’t mean to be off the record, I was showing you a
store fixture unlimited detail, if you will, of the interior, and we have a magazine Rental
Management, March 1998. We were showing you Pages 60 and 61, and Pages 45, to give you an
idea of the nature of the equipment that we would be selling or renting from this site, and how
would we be displaying it. Does that answer your question as to the type of equipment, or
whatever, that we would do?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Does anybody else have questions?
MR. PALING-We better get back to the basic issues, I think, here. If we are going to proceed with
this, they have committed to a 50 foot buffer. I’d rather see it on a print. They’ve clarified the
parking spaces thing. Now on the fence, are you going to have a fence around the entire property
where the storage of equipment will be? I don’t mean in front of the building.
MR. O’CONNOR-There already is, Mr. Paling. The issue that Staff had taken up is in here we
had the word “around”, okay.
MR. PALING-All right. That’s taken out.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s taken out. The fence, if you will look at it, adjoins the building here,
and it’s shown coming down and around this area here, back to, Timothy, you’ve got to show me
this fence on here. I think the fence comes right across here, goes over, and there’s a gate there.
You’ve got to look very closely, and then comes over and attaches back on to the building. So the
back yard and the side yard is enclosed. This area up here where we will have outside display is
not fenced in. Probably the more portable equipment that’s put out there during the daytime will
go back indoors at night, for security purposes.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on something. What are you going to do with all of this
existing unimproved area that remains? When I looked at the site, it just looks to me like you’ve
got to do a lot of clean up there. I mean, for the kind of business you’re talking about, display and
rental of small equipment, what are you going to do with the rest of this? How is that going to be,
how are you going to clean that up?
MR. BARBER-We’re presently moving our construction operation. We’ve already moved a lot of
equipment. We’re starting this week, actually, we’re starting to move a lot of supplies to our
previous Hudson Falls office, which we’ve re-opened, and we’re taking all this, anything that’s in
this yard now, up in the back corner, all the construction supplies, they’re presently going back
over to Hudson Falls.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re saying before you open for business in this new rental.
MR. BARBER-That’ll all be cleaned up.
MR. VOLLARO-This’ll all be out, because you’ve got a lot of stuff.
MR. BARBER-As a matter of fact, Thursday morning there’s two Waste Management dumpsters
that are going to be dropped for starting collection of steel and scrap. So we’re starting it this
week.
MR. O’CONNOR-Let me ask this question, just so there’s not an issue later, is there a problem
with having a property line fence outside of the buffer, a property line fence outside the buffer?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. VOLLARO-Where?
MR. O’CONNOR-I mean, I can tell you Wal-Mart and whatever, we fenced the property line, and
we’ve got buffers. I can tell you 50 properties I’ve been through, but I heard somebody ask a
question, and I want to be sure that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wal-Mart had a ton of variances, too.
MR. O’CONNOR-They didn’t have a variance to put a fence in the buffer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know how it fit in. I don’t recall that site plan.
MR. O’CONNOR-I do. I represented them. I’m just telling you, this fence, when you asked me to
detail the fence, the fence runs along the property line. I don’t think property line fences violate the
buffer.
MR. ROUND-No. The purpose of the buffer is to provide screening, like a fence (lost words)
screening. On the plan here you don’t identify it that it’s along that property line.
MR. VOLLARO-It isn’t along that line. I was out there yesterday. There is no fence.
MR. ROUND-Right. As a part of the previous approvals, they’ve had a board on board fence
proposed.
MR. O’CONNOR-I stand corrected. This is not a complete fence. The fence goes from here to
the property line, and from the building over here, back to the property line. That area in the back
which is wooded is not fenced.
MR. VOLLARO-Is not fenced. That’s correct, but I noticed that a lot of the material that you’ve
got laying around is over that property line. Some of it’s into your neighbor’s area there. I saw the
woods, but I saw the small shed back there as well. They have a small shed, and some of the stuff
is over the line.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. You asked about showing the 50 foot buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’d have to make that to scale, because that drawing’s not scaled right.
MR. BARBER-With the exception of one dimension.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BARBER-The 110.
MR. VOLLARO-The 110, that’s correct.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We can change the direction, but we would stipulate that we would not
violate the buffer. I don’t know what else you’d need on that particular thing, that’s required. Do
you want me to answer the other Staff comments or?
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we covered them all.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t know if I did, Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MAC EWAN-You were referencing the letter, and the last thing was the Area Variance and
Use Variance.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on the 50 foot buffer itself. What are they going to do with it?
In looking at it now, it’s full of equipment. They take all the equipment out. They’ve got a 50 foot
buffer. Are they going to do plantings in there? What are they going to do to separate their
operation from the residential property?
MR. MAC EWAN-If we entertain an approval, that would be part of a condition of our approval
as to what goes in that buffer and how much goes into it.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d ask you guys to give up the table for a minute, and we’ll open up
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BILL DUELL
MR. DUELL-My name’s Bill Duell. I live at 69 Queensbury Avenue. I’m three houses up from
the location. I came a couple of years ago and supported Tim with what he was going to do with
the construction company, and I guess I still support him, but I have some reservations. They did a
fine job with the building. They did nothing on the back of the building for the neighborhood, as
they were supposed to. There was supposed to be an eight foot board fence on the northernmost
corner, up in the parking lot area. There was supposed to be shrubbery around, all over the place.
None of that’s been done, as you’ve said. The new proposed sign is in direct conflict of what we
went through in the last approval, of the sight, line of sight view of the people pulling out of
Queensbury Avenue on to Dix Avenue. The sign was right in the line. They agreed last time to
move the sign further west, so that it wouldn’t interfere with the intersection. As you know, that is
a terrible intersection down there. I also represent the fire department for traffic flow. I just don’t
want to see this, and I want to go on the record, it was not you people, but the previous Planning
Boards and Town Boards, let Scott McLaughlin get away with a ridiculous thing down there.
They limited it to 15 pieces of equipment down there, and when he left, he had 65 pieces of
equipment on the property. The Town Board did nothing about it. I do not want to see this turn
into another Scott McLaughlin, and if they’re limited to mini loaders and stuff like that, I don’t see
a problem, but having that whole place, I can just see it, all covered with equipment, if we don’t
limit it. I don’t want to see it turn into another McLaughlin area, and the parking places, I don’t
believe where the proposed sign is right now, I can’t see him putting parking places there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’m with you.
MR. DUELL-Okay. I can picture, with that open area and the sign removed, a nice utility van
pulling in there, and there goes your line of sight view. So I think something has to be addressed
there, on that corner where the new sign is proposed.
MR. STARK-Would you point to where you want the sign, or where you think it would be a good
idea?
MR. DUELL-Yes, and correct me I’m wrong, Tim, the last time we were up here, we agreed that
the sign would be right up here, inside the fenced area.
MR. BARBER-I don’t remember exactly, but I do remember you and I had a discussion at the
time.
MR. DUELL-Yes. It was up in this area up here, which is more visible, and they even put a sign
up there. You’re sign is there, or has been there. It’s more visible from the cars coming down Dix
Avenue and up Dix Avenue in this location than it would be down here.
MR. STARK-Okay, and you’re also saying that this whole, where the sign is proposed now, you
don’t want anything kept there, like a loader or anything else.
MR. DUELL-No, because when you come down here with your car, and you look up this street,
there’s people constantly running this light, and I mean constantly. Our fire department goes to an
average of seven calls there a year, and I can produce proof for that if you need it.
MR. STARK-So you’re saying just keep that whole area?
MR. DUELL-Just keep this what we agreed to before, and you can correct me if I’m wrong. This
shrubbery was going to be less than three foot over here, right along, and that’s Queensbury
Avenue, by the way, not County Line Road. That’s why you couldn’t find it. It’s Queensbury
Avenue. It has been for years, but we agreed to keep a three foot shrub right there, and nothing out
here, just for the line of sight.
MR. STARK-Okay, now point to where the fence was supposed to be.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. DUELL-The eight foot fence was right here. I think my neighbor has a plan we can show you
where it was supposed to be, start up in the northwest corner, and extends all the way down to
here. It was an eight foot fence.
MR. PALING-A wooden fence.
MR. DUELL-I’ll get the print and show you.
MR. STARK-Thank you.
MR. DUELL-Here’s what we proposed two years ago, or what they proposed. There’s an eight
foot board on board fence extending from here, start a chain link fence, it goes that way. Board on
board fence was to continue right down here, to this point right here. That’s where it says start of
eight foot board on board fence.
MR. STARK-Okay. So you’re saying it makes a jag here and comes right to here.
MR. DUELL-Right there, and that’s where it says start of six foot chain link fence, and that goes
and over to their, they were going to have a main yard gate. This is the old site review. This was
all going to be eight foot high board fence, to give you a nice buffer, and that was the only reason
that they got the 35 foot buffer variance.
MR. STARK-And you want the sign down here.
MR. DUELL-The sign was proposed to be right here.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Bill, would you rather have the sign where it originally was proposed?
MR. VOLLARO-He wants it inside the fence.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s where it should be, right?
MR. DUELL-This is where it should be. This was an old one. It wasn’t revised after the. Again,
I don’t have any objections to Tim opening up this new venture of his, as long as it’s made, it isn’t
another Scotty McLaughlin thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, I also have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
JIM SHANNON
MR. SHANNON-My name is Jim Shannon and I live at 57 Queensbury Avenue, which is the
house right next to the rear of this property, and I have several concerns. Most of them you’ve
already talked about. I have no objection to the kind of business he wants to run, that’s fine, and
the building does look real nice. They fixed that up, but there was supposed to have been that
board on board fence. If that’s addressed, then I’ll be happy there, and the septic system on these
new plans, I had some real doubts about it. From what I could read of it, it was pretty tough to
read, it said that there was three test holes dug. One of them was three foot, two of them were
three foot, and one of them was two foot, and he’s got them right here, and the note’s on this side.
th
It says that there was no water observed. Well, this was drawn on May 25, somewhere
thereabouts, two years ago, and maybe when they dug those test holes, there was no water. If they
go there right now, they’re not going to get six inches without finding water. In addition, my house
has a well behind it. They list this as being 100 feet, which it very well may be, but it’s no more
than 100 feet, and the lines for my septic system are right down here in this low lying area. Right
now, the basement’s full of water. I mean, the water coming in from this side has brown streaks in
it, which I’m starting to wonder about. So my question is, is this one little area which is low lying
to begin with been overloaded now? He shows three septic lines there coming from I think a 15, I
can’t read this very well, but a 1500 gallon tank. I don’t think that the test pits that were dug were
sufficient. It says he has perc rates there from 0 to 5 minutes. It doesn’t say when the perc tests
were done. I don’t know if these are DEC they’re going by or by State Board of Health. So I’d
like to know a little bit more about the septic system. If they’re going to have a wash type, most of
these type businesses that I’ve seen have had steam cleaning operations. If they’re going to have a
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
steam cleaning operation or any kind of operation where they’ll be cleaning their equipment as it’s
returned, where will that be located? Where is the wastewater going to? And oil drums, waste oil,
everything that goes with heavy equipment. I have some concerns about where that’s going to end
up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some good points.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Good points.
MR. SHANNON-Hours of operation. What are the proposed hours of operation? Do we know
that?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re going to find out for you. Did you give a copy of this letter
to Staff?
MR. SHANNON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else did you have? I didn’t mean to usher you away from the table.
MR. SHANNON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SHANNON-Are you going to move those Softco trucks out of there, Tim, those storage
units?
MR. BARBER-(Lost words) yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You may as well come back up.
MS. NOWICKI-I have a letter as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Thank you. I forgot about it.
MS. NOWICKI-This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board, “In regards to Nu Tech
Reality, L.L.C., we are not satisfied with the appearance of the construction fence as well as the up
keep of the property. On the proposal to utilize the property with more construction equipment
concerns us on the future upkeep of this property. Sincerely, Richard E. Cunningham 19
Courtney Lane”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that the only letter you had?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes, it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Some questions came up.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. On the issue of sign, the sign that’s proposed is an 18 foot high sign on
a single pole, probably six inch pole.
MR. BARBER-Yes, six inch. It’s no longer a ground stand.
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s not a ground stand, and it will be 50 square foot freestanding sign each
side. The bottom of that sign has got to be at least 14 feet off the ground. I don’t know how the
placement of the sign would actually affect visibility in any significant manner where it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it kind of a neon sign or something like that, lit up sign?
MR. O’CONNOR-Internal lit.
MR. BARBER-It’s an internally lit sign, Craig, just like the plastic, yes. I don’t know how to
describe it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fluorescent sign, it’s got the tube lights inside of it?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-But if you’re talking about visibility for the cars coming out Queensbury
Avenue or County Line Road, and I’m confused. This has never been County Line Road, or was
once County Line Road?
MR. DUELL-County Line Road, is listed as starting from the big tree out across from the airport
proceeding north, (lost word) Avenue and then it’s Queensbury Avenue. People call it County Line
Road.
MR. O’CONNOR-All right. We’ve got it wrong on our map, whatever it is, but if you’re talking
about the visibility of people coming out, there’s a light here, too, and I’m not aware of people that
run that constantly. The sign was proposed in here. It was within the proper setback, and the
proper size, and you will not see the bottom of that sign, if you’re sitting in your car, or even if
you’re sitting up in a truck. I don’t know if that, and that’s different from the other sign that was
proposed.
MR. SHANNON-Possibly. What’s the base of this one?
MR. O’CONNOR-Just a pole.
MR. BARBER-Just a pole.
MR. SHANNON-That’s fine. I’m just saying that you agreed to put the sign up the hill, and now
we’re going back where we originally said you said you weren’t going to put it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we keep the conversation coming in this direction, please.
MR. SHANNON-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-If that’s an answer to the Board’s satisfaction, that’s our response, that we
don’t think it’ll affect visibility.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hours of operation?
MR. BARBER-Seven to five.
MR. MAC EWAN-Seven to five, what, seven days a week, five days a week?
MR. BARBER-Six days a week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Monday through Saturday, seven to five.
MR. O’CONNOR-The other issue was the height of the vegetation on the corner, that before it was
stipulated that not be so high. We do not have a problem with that. I don’t know if somebody said
30 inches.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along Queensbury Avenue side?
MR. O’CONNOR-Queensbury Avenue side, and Dix Avenue.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you, as far as landscaping goes, I’d be in the persuasion of sending you
back to the Beautification Committee, considering this is a whole new site plan application, and for
their input. Outdoor lighting was just brought up. Is there any outdoor lighting?
MR. BARBER-None.
MR. MAC EWAN-None. No security lighting or anything like that?
MR. BARBER-There’s presently a small, I don’t know what you, they kind of show the building,
soffit lighting. That’s all that we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-There’s no proposed change in lighting.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Fencing, the issue of fencing along the back property line was the eight
foot board type fence.
MR. O’CONNOR-There was an eight foot board fence in the prior approval. I’ve got a copy of
that map. I’m told that John Goralski at one time said it wasn’t necessary because the area was
totally treed. I would take that to be something that should have come back to you as an
amendment of the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, me, too.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t argue that. We have no problem with a fence, if that’s the Board’s
desire.
MR. PALING-You seem to have, at least the memory of some people is that you agreed to that,
especially with the adjacent property. It’s on here.
MR. O’CONNOR-This is the approved map.
MR. PALING-Well, I’ve got another one here. It says Nu Tech Industries, here.
MR. STARK-I know, but this is Mr. Shannon’s.
MR. O’CONNOR-This is one that, it was approved.
MR. PALING-This isn’t your print here?
MR. STARK-This is Mr. Shannon’s map.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on the same wavelength, though.
MR. PALING-Well, will you go for a board fence?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. I asked the neighbors, I think part of the idea of the eight foot board fence
was when there was a cut back of the buffer from 50 to 10 feet, particularly along the northerly
end of the property, which is apparently well treed. Is there some compromise that they would be
happy with, because we now are given the 50 foot buffer, as opposed to an eight foot high fence?
Is there some middle ground or not, or is there a middle ground that the Board would consider?
MR. MAC EWAN-Something we might consider, I don’t know. I just want to try to get all the
pieces of the puzzle here, before I get stuck on, to me, any one issue.
MR. O’CONNOR-We have no objection to doing an eight foot fence, if that’s a requirement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The issue regarding steam cleaning preparation, chemicals to be used.
MR. O’CONNOR-Any of that activity will be done in what would be called the repair bay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which was the old truck repair bay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, and there is a floor drain. It goes to a holding tank that is pumped out,
pursuant to a DEC permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that holding tank still useable, I guess?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BARBER-Craig, in the front of the facility, which we are renovating, there is currently drains
that were supposed to be abandoned by the Barretts, when they had the operation. They are
plugged, but the drains are still physically there. Our new proposal, we’re putting a new concrete
floor in there. So those will be definitely abandoned. In our back maintenance bay, we have a very
small drain, to where we wash the vehicles or whatnot, and there’s a holding tank that Clough
Harbor, or the other group there, pumps out, when need be. We, basically, don’t use that that
much, only the pressure washer and what not.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that holding tank in the building?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. BARBER-No. The holding tank is outside the building.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not marked on the drawing? I don’t see it on there.
MR. BARBER-No, the drains aren’t on the drawings either. It’s an existing.
MR. VOLLARO-What capacity is the tank?
MR. BARBER-It’s a 2,000 gallon tank.
MR. VOLLARO-And strictly for holding water and it gets pumped?
MR. BARBER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Only water?
MR. BARBER-Water or oil. I mean, there’s an oil separator on it. There’s no oils that go down
it. Maybe when the Barretts did it, they had different uses for it, but we just use it for a draining
scenario. We wash our vehicles in there.
MR. VOLLARO-If you wash vehicles of that type, you’re going to get some oil in that wash
water. It’s going to drain into that drain, and into that pit, into that sump.
MR. BARBER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-How old is that sump?
MR. BARBER-No. There’s a separator on that. There’s an oil separator. The tank has a baffle
in it, which when the water flows through it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m familiar with the separators. I know what they look like.
MR. BARBER-And I guess that’s the reason why Clough Harbor’s the people that pump it. They
take care of the.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you know what that tank is made of, is it metal, plastic?
MR. BARBER-No, it’s concrete. It’s a single piece concrete tank.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions up here?
MR. STARK-Yes, noise level.
MR. MAC EWAN-Noise level.
MR. O’CONNOR-We’re going to have smaller equipment than we presently are permitted to have
there. I don’t know what type of noise level you have with rental type equipment. Probably the
most comparable is U-Rental, which is immediately adjacent to some residential property that’s
along LaFayette Street or Foster Avenue, and there are other compatible commercial places right
next to it. I don’t think there’s anything here that’s abnormal. The activities inside, all the
activities will be inside the building, as is proposed, the operation that is proposed now.
MR. PALING-What noise would you have on the outside of the building besides engine noise?
MR. O’CONNOR-Unloading of equipment. That’s basically it.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Hydraulics of unloading and stuff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. PALING-Well, are we making the final round on this?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no.
MR. PALING-Not right now. No.
MR. STARK-Mr. Shannon has a well on his property, over here. Now, Chris, doesn’t a well have
to be 150 feet, commercial property, away from a septic system, leachfield or drywell?
MR. ROUND-One hundred feet from a leach field. It’s 150 from a drywell, septic tank type
systems.
MR. O’CONNOR-This has already been installed.
MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s an existing system, too. That’s a good point.
MR. O’CONNOR-It was installed and approved by the Town.
MR. STARK-It used to be 100 feet, didn’t it, and then they upped it to 150?
MR. ROUND-Well, there’s two different, if it’s a drywell type of system, it’s 150 feet. It’s 100
feet for a tile field or a leach field, you know, a vertical line type system.
MR. STARK-They don’t have water going up Queensbury Avenue? That’s all wells?
MR. BARBER-No. They have water along Dix. I don’t know about Queensbury Avenue. We
have Town water.
MR. O’CONNOR-There’s hydrants up Queensbury. There’s a hydrant up by the veterinarian.
MR. BARBER-Excuse me. As a matter of fact, our water enters from Queensbury Avenue. It’s
marked off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? I guess my big concern I’m having right now is this thing with
the oil contamination, and, Staff, you weren’t aware of this at all or had any documentation?
MR. ROUND-Well, the ground water contamination problem? Yes. It did get raised, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, do you have copies of these reports from this Northeastern
Environmental Technologies Corp.?
MR. ROUND-We just got the most recent correspondence, on the part of Mr. O’Connor’s letter to
us. I called DEC to get an update on what the status, and how come there hasn’t been any
activity, and they haven’t returned my phone call.
MR. MAC EWAN-They haven’t. I guess I’d like to do two courses of action with that. Would
you pursue it with DEC and find out what’s going on with this thing, and, two, could you be so
kind as to give Staff a copy of this report, so we can refer it on to Rist Frost for their input?
MR. ROUND-For what purpose?
MR. O’CONNOR-DEC has jurisdiction of this, and the sole jurisdiction of it. Their problem, in
all honesty, is they apparently have two, as I talked to the fellow from Northeastern, they have two
spill crews that handle all of Region Five, and what they’ve seen here, and what he’s shown in his
report is a minor concern to them. Probably, and I’m just guessing, and this is an assumption on
my part, because it doesn’t affect anyone’s drinking supply, but there is Town water that’s
available there. I don’t think what we are proposing to do will affect it in any way. I did
specifically ask the fellow whether or not the excavation for the landscaping would get into
contaminated soil, and he told me, no, it would not.
MR. MAC EWAN-What fellow?
MR. O’CONNOR-The fellow from Northeastern.
MR. ROUND-Yes, Jeff Wink.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-Jeff Wink. That was the only possibility of what I could see, I was wondering,
is that one of the reasons that we didn’t do the planting because we didn’t want to dig down into
that soil, and he said, no, and he said the mapping would show it. The area is also blacktopped.
Now I’m not sure how DEC prioritizes these things. I went through living heck with DEC, up in
the industrial site, where there was a spill from a vehicle that was parked there, that had a leaky
transmission. It was going into Mill Creek Pond or Mill Creek Stream or something like that, that
had a farm on it about two miles down the road, over on Vaughn Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there some sort of response that you can get from DEC that says, you know,
this isn’t a priority item to us and we don’t foresee any?
MR. ROUND-A lot of times it’s really difficult to extract commitment or, you know, you might
get verbal information from one of the spill engineers, and it could take a considerable amount of
time, and I wouldn’t delay this action on this just, as an impact to that site.
MR. O’CONNOR-Jeff Wink has been told, as of yesterday, to push them, and he’s the fellow here,
and get something so that it gets resolved and it gets to closure. We don’t know where it’s going to
go. We may end up putting an aerator in there.
MR. ROUND-Yes. It may be soil removal. It may be ground water extraction, maybe aeration,
but typically they won’t effect the structural integrity of a building, through a soil removal action,
and like I say, they do typically, they base their priorities on risk to human health, and if there is
public water and there’s no private drinking water wells, they don’t identify it as a priority and
they’ll take a slower course of action in this, but I’m surprised. Two years have gone by and they
either haven’t closed the spill or designated a remediation activity for the project, but nothing’s
unusual with the State, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STARK-Nothing right now.
MR. DUELL-Craig, a couple of years ago, they did take the dirt out and they put it up in the
northwest corner and covered it as a precaution. I think they’ve done a lot to this. Like he says,
the DEC, I don’t think it’s a big deal with them anymore, because they did work out there, gee,
they were there for weeks. That was before Tim bought it. That was quite a while ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Craig, are there any db level, noise specs, that the Town uses for noise?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, not really. It’s kind of like a judgment call. If it’s a real high profile
project that potentially could create a lot of noise, like when we did the roller coaster at the Great
Escape or something like that. Something like this, I don’t see it having a significant impact on
noises. There was a question raised regarding the test pits, and the information pertaining for
them.
MR. O’CONNOR-That was done under Town supervision, installed and signed off by the Town.
You’re talking about the septic system?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s all done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There was a question regarding the depth. I’m looking at it right here,
and I see test pit one was three feet and test pit two was two feet and test pit three was three feet.
Don’t they normally go deeper than that?
MR. ROUND-Typically six to eight feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would this be different, and why would the Town sign off on it?
MR. ROUND-I can’t answer that.
MR. BARBER-Correction on that, Chris. A test pit is to be dug to where the useable area of the
saturation or the evaporation of the moisture is going to be. In a drywell application, you’re right.
You’re going to go six to eight feet, depending on the depth of your drywell. On a tile field or a
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
leach field system, you go to the bottom of your trench. Those are the soils that you’re concerned
with.
MR. ROUND-For perc test purposes, that’s what you want. You want to determine what the perc
rate is at the bottom of your trench, of your field, but typically, I guess this is all kind of moot. I
mean, the system’s in, but typically what you do want to do is you want to explore the upper
surface. You want to explore six to eight feet, or if you’re capable, you want to determine where
high groundwater is as a part of a soil test program. So if you have back hoe that’s capable of
digging six to eight feet, there’s no reason why you would just scratch the surface of the site. You
don’t want to dig 12 inches and then find bedrock’s at three feet. Because then the system is not
going to function according to the way it’s designed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a set depth? I mean, you know, we usually are talking about drywells
that you have to go down six or eight feet to do your test pit, but when you’re talking with a leach
field.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know what the Ordinance says, but just as a practical measure, I’ve been
involved with site evaluations. Typically, you go six to eight feet. I mean, that’s just a practical
matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, is there a set depth of a minimum depth that you would have to go
down to lay a leach field or a tile field?
MR. ROUND-I can’t speak authoritatively on that, but again, the system’s in and they’ve got a
permit for it, and I don’t know how we can re-examine that. They do have a valid, I would assume
they got a valid permit as part of this previous approval process.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, we also have to look, though, at potential failure of these systems. You
know, they have to keep an eye out. Because the system has been set and signed off on doesn’t
mean that it lives forever. If there’s a potential failure, and somebody uncovers it, it’s got to be
looked at, and systems do fail.
MR. BARBER-We designed that system for six office personnel, which would have required 88
feet of trench. Because we had the room out there and because it really wasn’t much more work to
install more than that, we installed almost double. We installed 150 feet of leach line. We had the
area out there, and, basically, the system, you know, at 88 feet, was so small, but that was a
required amount of trench, engineering wise. We installed 150.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed yesterday, when I went out there, I guess your snow plow had pushed a
lot of snow back, right over that area. That’s all, the ground is exposed there.
MR. BARBER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I went to put my car in there, because I didn’t know that I was driving over
the top of a leach field, but boy it’s soft, and wet.
MR. BARBER-The only thing I could attribute that to is, you know, with the snow and the recent
two or three inches of frost we just had, and if you were there in the afternoon, which I believe you
were, you’re going to have that, in any ground. That’s typically not a wet area. There’s a fault
line that runs just kitty corner to the northeast corner of our property. Where our septic tank is
located, it’s all clay, right down the ledge. Every bit of the material is clay, below where it is.
Over to the east of that, where our leach field is, every bit of that material is sand.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that in-f ill? Did somebody bring it in?
MR. BARBER-No. That’s all virgin material. There’s a fault line right through there of the two
materials. We didn’t know that until we dug through it.
MR. SHANNON-Not to belabor the point, back to the septic system. It’s my understanding, what
I read was State stuff, was that if you’re putting in leaching fields that are two foot deep, the
reason you dig a six foot test pit, hole, is because two foot is where they start doing their work, as
far as the drainage goes. Your concern with where they’re going, as in where that water or effluent
is going, as it drains down through the earth. If you have a water table at four foot, and the
effluent goes from two foot to four foot, particularly in sand where it can move quickly, it doesn’t
get a chance to get clean before it gets into the water table. That’s the reason for the six foot test
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
hole. You need to be concerned with what is going to be beneath that two foot deep trench. That’s
why you’re supposed to dig those trenches, and the other thing was with the perc tests. Perc tests
are done at 24 to 30 inches, because that’s the bottom of the trench. You want to see how it’s
going to flow at the bottom of the trench, but you still need to be concerned with where it’s going
after it leaves the bottom of the trench. Now, where he is is a little bit higher, where that system is.
It’s a little bit higher, but where is it going after it gets down two and a half, three feet below the
trench line? That’s what I’m concerned about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. O’CONNOR-My answer in response to that would be is that we’re not applying for your
approval of a septic system, and in all honesty, if you think, and I say this to the neighbor, if he
thinks that there’s a problem with water, you ought to get it tested, and if there is a problem, that’s
got to be addressed. That is perhaps a question of failure, which somebody has said. I mean, I
agree that every system needs to be checked from time to time, and if there’s that issue, there’s that
issue. We’re not applying for a variance, here, saying that we won’t have a septic system or we
won’t have a septic system that’s in compliance. We think it is in compliance now. Basically,
we’re talking about changing this from a construction yard, or a construction office operation with
yard, to this rental type thing, and the impacts that we have are very insignificant. Although
there’s a lot of clouds caused by non fulfillment of the terms of the prior application, which I think
we hope that we’ve addressed here tonight, and again, I know of no notice of violation by anybody,
and people have been down there a number of times, but it looks like something has fallen through
the cracks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have any other questions?
MR. STARK-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-And we need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Short?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
C1. 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. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why?
MR. PALING-Well, you’ve got your runoff water during the washing and all of this equipment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Existing tanks. They’ve got existing tanks that they’re utilizing.
MR. PALING-All right. It’s mitigated. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a no.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We’re all set then? Was that a no or a yes?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a no.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It was a no. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other
natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Now we haven’t got an agreement with the applicant and the
Beautification Committee. There’s been a lot of issues raised here tonight about a wood fence,
shrubbery, and the location of the sign. I don’t think we’re there yet on that, no.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait, no. I think we’re interpreting that wrong.
MR. PALING-Well, you’re talking about the aesthetics of it, right? Isn’t that what you said?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-It goes with it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, isn’t that all going to be in the resolution? You’re right, it wasn’t, I
see what you’re saying.
MR. PALING-Well, let me just make a comment, to avoid this bickering back and forth. I’ll take
that word back. Let me just say this. I’m unwilling to go ahead with this until we get all of the
things that are going to be done documented, on a print or in writing. It’s got to include the
Beautification Committee. It’s got to include the location of the sign. It’s got to include the buffer
zone. It’s got to talk about the fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Parking spaces.
MR. PALING-Yes, it’s got to have all of this, and until, it’s too loose tonight for me to go ahead
with this at all. Because I’m not even sure on some of the things we’ve agreed to. I don’t know
where the sign’s located.
MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t agreed to anything yet.
MR. PALING-We haven’t agreed to anything, and I don’t know what it is we’d agreed to, but I’d
like to see it on a print or in writing.
MR. MAC EWAN-If this was a new application, why did it not go to Beautification?
MR. ROUND-They did not meet this month. Long story.
MR. PALING-Wait a minute. I thought that, it said that based on recent site inspection,
landscaping provisions have not been adequately addressed. There was an agreement, evidently,
about landscaping that wasn’t carried through.
MR. ROUND-I thought we addressed that. You got a new application in front of you. If you
want to incorporate landscaping provisions as a part of your approval here, you can do that
tonight.
MR. PALING-Well, we’re doing too much of that.
MR. O’CONNOR-The landscaping is shown on what’s presented, and we’re willing to install that
landscaping.
MR. PALING-Has that been through the Beautification Committee?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it has not.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. STARK-Yes, but if there’s no Committee, I mean, if there’s no Beautification Committee,
how can they go through it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because they weren’t asked to.
MR. STARK-What’s the long story that there wasn’t a Beautification?
MR. ROUND-There’s a personality problem.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll go so far as to say that we will subject ourselves to their next meeting, and
we will allow the incorporation of any recommendations that they make into the approval, over and
above what we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like this whole thing has just haphazardly been put together, here. I
mean, when the original application was submitted to us, we had a map that was, had a lot of
inaccuracies in it. Turn around last Friday, we get another map to look at. Now we’re finding that
this map has got inaccuracies on it.
MR. O’CONNOR-The only inaccuracies of the original map was that one place in a note it said 12
parking spots. The other place in the application I think it said 14. It said the fence was around
the property. The buffer zone was not shown. Those were the inaccuracies, because I don’t think
Mr. Barber thought that the buffer zone was required, based upon the fact that he was doing no
construction back there. Those were the inaccuracies. He did not plan on doing a board fence,
because he has had no activity over there. He was under the impression from prior Staff people
that the board fence had been eliminated. Now there’s a lot of, there’s some problems here with
communication and what not.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Board’s having, I’m having a problem putting this whole thing
together in my mind as well.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with doing any narrative lists, like we’ve done
elsewhere, and specify with detail, with something that’s enforceable, each of the items to the
Board’s satisfaction. What we propose for landscaping is the landscaping as shown. We would
accept any additional landscaping required by the Planning Board, within the next month or so,
Beautification, I’m sorry, the Beautification Committee. As to the board fence, we are willing to
say that we will install the eight foot board fence.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to start with that and go on through the things we’ve talked about
tonight. Lets get a definitive list. Lets get the list done, so we can take a look at it and go from
there.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. That’s what I’d like to try to do.
MR. VOLLARO-And then lets get putting something together. Do you agree with that, so that we
can get something that we can look at?
MR. O’CONNOR-We would install eight foot board fence to be installed along northerly
boundary. Let me just get the map.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I had all this written down.
MR. STARK-Craig, we’re in the middle of doing a SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to bag the SEQRA for the time being, just for the time being. I know
where Bob’s coming from. That’s been going through my mind all night long here, and I’m
looking at this landscaping plan that you have submitted on the plan that we have tonight, which
th
has the 13 dated on it. I’m looking at the plan that you submitted tonight that was part of our
th
packet, which was submitted on the 13, which I think you just said was the original landscaping
plan, or close to it, or is that not what you said?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, that has it’s own landscaping plan on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it isn’t what was the original landscaping plan.
MR. O’CONNOR-No, it is not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-We have a different type of operation here.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, I think I would like you to revise this drawing to show exactly
what you want to do.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-This is what we want to do, and in the nature of landscaping, we want to install
the four trees immediately along that property line. Let me start, along the northerly boundary line.
We will install an eight foot board fence, from the northwest corner, along the northerly boundary
to the point where the chain link fence is, which I understand it is right between the two clumps.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your board fence, your original board fence, was going across the entire
property line, right here, an eight foot board fence, board on board fence, right there, black and
white.
MR. BARBER-I’m saying it starts there and it goes up here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. PALING-It starts here. This is chain link here, and the board fence will start there and go to
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, this is my observation. We’ve been down this road before, not
with this applicant, but with other applications where laundry list is made up, and things weren’t
really clear on drawings and maps and site plans.
MR. PALING-They could be on next Tuesday.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I could do a map. If you tell me what you want on the map, we can do a
map and bring it in.
MR. PALING-Okay. You need to show the eight foot board on board fence
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. PALING-You need to show all shrubbery, whatever plantings, I’m going to call it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re trying to get out of this is what was done, because you’re still
dealing with a buffer. Okay. What we want to do, what I would like to see, is the same plantings
that were done in the original site plan that was approved.
MR. BARBER-That’s what they are there, Craig.
MR. O’CONNOR-Here’s that original plan right here. This is the approved, right here, by Mary
Lee Gosline. That’s all the plantings that there were.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just looking at that, you’re already four shrubs shy. So this is not the same
plan. It’s different.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I know it’s different up front.
MR. PALING-All right. What we’re pointing toward is getting this thing summarized so they can
come back Tuesday, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. PALING-Does Staff have any observations for that approach?
MR. ROUND-I think Mr. O’Connor’s directing you, if you want to see a fence along the northerly
property line, direct them to include the fence. If you want to see additional plantings than what’s
shown on the plan in front of you, direct them to show those additional plantings.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m thinking along the lines of, because we’re still dealing with that
buffer in the back, the original drawing of May 23, 1996, which is the one you guys have on file,
that planting, that fence line is what I would be looking for. I don’t know what the rest of these
guys are looking for. We know that you’re going to change this around somewhat in front, but it
looks like you still have the same amount of shrubs in the front. I’m looking at what you’ve got on
your drawing.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. PALING-And it’s got to show the buffer on this print, also. Okay. We’ve got the buffer,
we’ve got the fence. Now, we’re not approving a sign, but all I’m asking, but I want to see where
you’re going to locate it.
MR. VOLLARO-But you’ve got to define that height, so that we know that it’s, well, you said 14
foot. Is that the bottom of the sign is 14 feet off the floor? Okay. Because I think the gentleman
has a good point. That’s a sight obstruction.
MR. O’CONNOR-Is a six inch pole okay there?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s subjective. You can see around a six inch pole.
MR. PALING-I’m concerned with the location and the size of the sign.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. That’s where we propose it, right there.
MR. PALING-Someone had mentioned, too, they wanted the holding tank shown on the plan?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did, and it’s not there. This concrete holding tank.
MR. MAC EWAN-Show where that is.
MR. PALING-And you’re going to show all the shrubbery and plantings. We agreed to that, yes,
okay. Then we talked about that you had specified an equipment limit.
MR. O’CONNOR-We have no limit. We gave you the nature of the equipment that we’re going to
sell.
MR. PALING-Okay. My question to you. Are you agreeing with the limits that he put on it by
referring to the magazine pages?
MR. BARBER-Sure, yes.
MR. PALING-All right. Then you agree to it?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. PALING-Because we get into this.
MR. VOLLARO-On the holding tank on the drawing, bring up to grade level, just tell me on the
drawing, up to grade level, that you’ve got a clean out or a pump out, so somebody, you know,
when the guy comes to pump it, there is a place at grade level to put the pump in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thursday, noon, it’s got to be to Staff.
MR. ROUND-Well, do you need to reiterate Staff Notes? They can get, the end of the day Friday.
If they’ve got everything on there by Friday, that’s going to go to you Friday.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s appropriate that you look it over, to make sure that it’s.
MR. ROUND-No, I realize that.
MR. MAC EWAN-You deliver Staff notes on Friday.
MR. O’CONNOR-The soil remediation issue is a DEC issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff concurred that.
MR. O’CONNOR-To some degree, we would like not to kick the sleeping dog too hard. They
could cost an inordinate amount of money, with no real benefit, and they seem to be going along
with the consultants we have, and what not. I say that very openly to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just make sure that when you turn in your drawings on Thursday, a copy of
that gets to them, so they make sure they have that for their files. Okay.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-I need that back, and I’ll make copies of it.
MR. PALING-Okay. Can we just read this list to Staff, if they’ve got anything else they think
should be on here. There’s going to be an eight foot fence, board on board, and they’re going to
show it’s location. They’re going to detail with all shrubbery plantings on this.
MR. ROUND-So have you requested additional plantings on the north property line?
MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re looking for, on the north property line, is the drawing to be revised
to indicate the planting schedule that was shown on the originally approved site plan.
MR. ROUND-Have you got a date on that?
rd
MR. O’CONNOR-May 23, I think it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-May 23, 1996.
MS. NOWICKI-Is that the entire site?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking for the buffering area, the landscaping plan for the buffering
area. I think the Board feels comfortable what shown as the landscaping on the front building on
the Dix Avenue side is adequate.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Does that eliminate the need of it going back to the Beautification Committee?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, they’re not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we might be able to help you out there.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I’m just asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think that would satisfy us.
MR. PALING-Okay. We want to know the location and the size of the sign. We’re looking at it
visually. We’re not trying to approve the signage.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess I don’t have a problem with that, and I think you’ve addressed the
public’s concern that it was going to effect distance, and since it’s on a pole and it’s going to be out
of the line of sight for any vehicles, with the exception of an eighteen wheeler or something that’s, I
don’t know how tall they are, but I think you can address that.
MR. O’CONNOR-We can do a depiction of the sign with the pylon and the face.
MR. PALING-They’re going to show a 50 foot buffer on the print, and they’re going to show the
location of the holding tank, as well as the access? Is that what you’re asking for?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. PALING-The location of the holding tank and access to same. Now, soil remediation? Let it
lie?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re not going to do anything with it.
MR. PALING-All right, then that’s the end of, and we’re letting the septic system stay by itself.
We’ll take another route there if there would ever be a problem. That’s the end of my list.
MR. STARK-Bob wanted the concrete holding tank shown.
MR. PALING-We’ve got that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-Anything else?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MS. NOWICKI-I can have a copy for the soil remediation, just for the files?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, a copy of the soil remediation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, coming Thursday.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s a Phase II plan.
MS. NOWICKI-That’s why, I just wanted to throw it in the file, so in the future (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Thursday noon, the drawings and your consultant’s report?
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll talk to my assistant, because I hope to be on Del Ray Beach Thursday at
noon. Ten copies, Laura?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-Of everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have your permission to table?
MR. ROUND-You’ve got to open the public hearing again
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes. I will re-open the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. You have my permission to table.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make a motion? We don’t need to do a motion if we have your permission.
Okay. Done.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Was SEQRA completed?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We did not finish the SEQRA.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. PALING-The public hearing is still open. So we don’t need to do about that.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Anything else?
MR. SHANNON-Have you got a due date, a pending date, on that project?
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re going to be back here next Tuesday, in front of us.
MR. O’CONNOR-When would be the date for completion of planning and installation of fence,
th
June 30?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we talked about. I don’t know if the Board said, we never really
got that far. Can we address that next week?
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-I’ve got a question for Chris. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, what’s the status there?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/17/98)
MR. ROUND-I, myself, haven’t been over to the site. Dave Hatin, that is a garage structure that’s
not allowed on the property, and auto washing, and we’re proceeding with an enforcement activity
against them.
MR. PALING-Are you going to tell them to take it down?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. STARK-They weren’t supposed to wash cars on the site.
MR. ROUND-They weren’t supposed to wash cars on the site, and they weren’t supposed to, they
couldn’t put a garage on their property without.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
52