1998-11-24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
TIMOTHY BREWER
GEORGE STARK
ROBERT VOLLARO
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
PLANNER
-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL
-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER
-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH LEUCI OWNER: GUIDO
PASSARELLI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 & ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 56’ X 108’ BUILDING TO CONTINUE
AUTOMOBILE SALES AND TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND REPAIR. PER §
179-23 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP
14-97 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/12/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98
LOT SIZE: 5.59 ACRES SECTION 179-23
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was left open from October 27.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-98, Joseph Leuci, Meeting Date: November 24, 1998
“Description of Project The application was tabled at the October 27, 1998 Planning Board
meeting, pending requested information from Staff. Staff Notes The applicant submitted
requested information. The information was forwarded to Rist Frost for review and comment. The
site appears to accommodate the proposed use and structure. The applicant has complied with the
site plan review requirements. Staff has no additional comment.”
MRS. LA BOMBARD-From Rist-Frost, we have “Revised Drawing C-1, revised stormwater
management report and Nace Engineering’s letter of November 17, 1998 satisfactorily addressed
our comments in our November 11, 1998 letter.” Warren County denied the application. Do you
want me to continue and read the rest of it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it should be read into the record.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The County denied the application “as previous issues brought up by the
Board regarding storm water management, signage, lighting, on-site handling of waste, hours of
operation and estimated number of employees were not addressed.”
MR. MAC EWAN-So they basically denied it because they didn’t have all the information?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MRS. MOORE-For the Beautification Committee comments “The applicant did not appear.
Committee could not make any recommendations at the meeting”.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t read anything into the record from the tabled meeting back in
October, did we, do you remember?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about this memo from Craig Brown? Lets add that in too, please.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. From Craig Brown, dated October 7, 1998, Site Plan No. 14-97 “As a
result of an October 5, 1998 field inspection of the above-referenced project, I observed apparent
deviations and/or deficiencies of the approved Site Plan (File No. 14-97). Given the fact that Mr.
Leuci has presented a new Site Plan Review application for a substantial improvement to this
project, the following items need to be addressed prior to or as part of this new project approval.
Items needed to be addressed: * A condition of approval was that rye grass be planted in all areas
east of the parking; this has not been established. * The two drywells on the northern end of the
project could not be found. These drywells need to be cleaned out, inspected (rebuilt if necessary,
according to March 16, 1997 correspondence from Nace Engineering) and maintained. The
drywells are evidently filled and covered with sand, gravel, and silt caused by improper installation
of the stone lined swale and grass lined ditch. The area surrounding the drywells are to be
topsoiled, seeded, mulched and graded to allow runoff to enter drywells. * The grass lined ditch
leading from the stone lined swale to the catch basins has not been established, thus allowing
erosion to fill and cover the catch basins. This area needs to be topsoiled, seeded and mulched with
erosion control blankets to prevent this erosion. * The stone lined swale construction was not
completed, in that no 8” to 12” rip rap was placed on top of the smaller #3 stone to prevent
erosion. Additionally, no geotextile fabric was observed. * The banks of the drainage ditch to the
North of the parking area have been stabilized as per NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control. During an October 6, 1998 meeting with Mr. Leuci, we discussed the
possibilities of performing this site work simultaneously with the excavation for construction of the
proposed structure, if approved. Finally, the Beautification Committee requested that if this
project ever became permanent, which appears to be the case, that a formal landscape plan be
submitted for the project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. I am Matt Steves of Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent Mr.
Leuci. I’m standing in for Tom Nace who is on vacation in Florida. As far as the comments for
the stormwater management, that was, as Laura said, it was, a letter and stormwater management
th
plan was given to Rist Frost by Tom Nace on the 17, which was five days past the County
Planning Board meeting, so they did not have that information that is correct. As far as the other
issues that were brought up by the Board and by Rist Frost, I believe they’ve all been addressed.
The concerns, now, that Craig Brown has come up with, I’m willing to hear some comment from
the Board. I’m not sure when Mr. Leuci plans on construction on this, this spring. Maybe that is
something that these items have to be addressed prior to the issuance of the building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking specifically toward the landscaping?
MR. STEVES-Toward the grassed areas, the cleaning out of the drywells and establishing a grass
swale, that according to Mr. Brown are lacking from the previous approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess a question I’d have to ask is what’s gotten us to this point? That these
things, these were part of the original approvals?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why weren’t they ever done, does anyone know? And now your client’s
suggesting that he wants to do it in the spring?
MR. STEVES-I’ve have to ask the client that specifically, but he is stating that he would want to
start the construction on the building if approved in the spring, yes.
MR. BREWER-Maybe we could ask your client why it wasn’t done.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, actually I’d like to get that on the record, if I could.
MR. BREWER-And do we know, was there a permanent CO issued?
MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-When did we approve this, do you know, off hand?
JOESPH LEUCI
MR. LEUCI-Joseph Leuci.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us, Mr. Leuci, why some of this stuff hasn’t been completed to
date?
MR. LEUCI-Actually, most of it was. As far as the catch basins, they were cleaned out at the
time. They were inspected and cleaned out. Now it seems that they were silted over, but at the
time, it was all done and inspected.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who inspected them, do you know?
MR. LEUCI-I’d like to say Chris Round. I’m not sure.
MR. BREWER-Doesn’t this go back to when Guido subdivided that property, and all this stuff
was supposed to be done? Not to do with you, but Guido, when he originally put the trees in,
didn’t we make that part of conditions, that the swales had to be put in, do you recall that, Mark?
MR. LEUCI-Which they all were.
MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds real familiar.
MR. STEVES-My recollection of that, that’s correct, and when we came in, I believe it was in
April of ’97, with Mr. Leuci, and then it was a requirement of the Board to make sure that what
was in place by Mr. Passarelli was verified as in working condition, basically.
MR. PALING-I think the only big hang up we had on this was that we said that there should be
some plantings done, and the plantings were done but never maintained, and they didn’t look good,
and we tried to do something about it, or bring it up, and because we didn’t say “maintain” it was
left as it is, and it never has looked very good.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s standard requirement that they, isn’t standard in our procedures that
they’re to be maintained for a period of three years after approval?
MR. PALING-It’s on State property.
MR. BREWER-Not unless we put it in the motion, I don’t think.
MR. STARK-It seems to me we had a list or something some place of the things that were not
done.
MR. BREWER-Yes, that’s in Craig’s letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s in his memo right here, things that were missing.
MR. LEUCI-First of all, there was a lot of planting and maintaining done, all right. I did do a lot
of landscaping throughout there, putting in the berms in the front of the property, planting
shrubbery throughout, maintaining the trees that were there, and that’s what I was asked to do, and
that’s what I did do. Most of the complaints, or complaints of unsatisfied work that we’re
speaking of now, is all inadmissible. The State came in. They’re putting in sidewalks there.
They’ve back filled the whole ditch, and they’re putting sidewalks along the whole Route 9. Ninety
percent of what we’re talking about here is irrelevant to this point. The only thing we should talk
about is the catch basins, which I told him I will clean them out again, as I did the first time last
year.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. BREWER-I was there today, and the State was working on the corner today. I didn’t stay
and watch to see what they were doing, but they were working with fill and dirt and what not there
on that corner today.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it exactly you’re saying that should be irrelevant to this site plan,
everything that the State’s doing in the right-of-way that effects you?
MR. LEUCI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. BREWER-What about, rye grass be planted in all areas east of the parking, is that to do with
the State, too?
MR. STEVES-East of the parking would be the area that would basically be parallel behind the
building from Route 9. That’s, you know, heading toward Round Pond, basically.
MR. BREWER-That’s his first comment, aside from the drywells and what not, catch basins.
MR. STEVES-I believe that most of the drywells and catch basins he’s talking about are along that
drainage swale on the northwest corner, along the State right-of-way in there, and the State is doing
some work. I would anticipate that when they’re finished with, as you can see that sand swale that
they have produced in there, been cleaning up, I’m sure that they’ll clean up after themselves. Like
I say, there should be some kind of, also, a stipulation by the Board to make sure that that is
completed say prior to issuance of a permit. As far as the grass areas, that’s another issue that I
can’t address.
MR. VOLLARO-Where are the two drywells on the property?
MR. STEVES-Let me take a look. The two drywells are right here along Round Pond Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BREWER-And that’s just where they were working today, Bob.
MR. STEVES-That’s from that ditch they were talking about, the grass line from the stone, down
along Route 9, and around the corner heading east along Round Pond Road, into these two
drywells that are located on the road side ditch on the south side of Round Pond.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So are those two drywells out of this picture now? Is that what we’re
saying?
MR. STEVES-No, I’m saying that right here are my.
MR. VOLLARO-I see them. I know where they are now. I’ve got them on my drawing as well,
but are they part of the drainage package and the stormwater management?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff in agreement with this?
MRS. MOORE-You just said that they’re not part of this drainage package?
MR. STEVES-No, they are part of this drainage.
MRS. MOORE-When I talked to Tom Nace the other day, I specifically asked that question, and
he indicated to me that the way the set up was, that these two drywells were no longer a part of the
project itself. I mean, they may be subject to the Route 9 issue.
MR. STEVES-I don’t want to contradict Tom. As I say, I’m just standing in for him. If you’re
asking if they’re on the site, yes, they’re on our property. Whether or not they are involved in the
stormwater management of this site, that would be something that Tom could have answered.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Who installed the drywells? Did the State install the drywells, or did the
developers install them?
MR. BREWER-I think Guido did when he did that subdivision, Craig. That was part of our
approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then they’re the developer’s responsibility.
MR. BREWER-When he subdivided that property, as I recall it, there had to be a drainage ditch
the whole length of the front of it, then they wrapped around and went down to these drywells, to
maintain the water flow. Now, since the State’s come in, and I can understand what he’s saying.
The State’s come in and dug all this up. So if they filled them up, I mean, I don’t know how we
can hold him responsible for that.
MR. STEVES-Did you read the note here that Tom has placed on the site plan?
“Existing drainage improvements along Route 9 have been removed by New York State
Department of Transportation sidewalk work. The drainage tributary to these improvements was
mostly from the highway right-of-way. New York State DOT will be responsible for
reestablishing proper drainage”. So with that note, I would say that Tom has established that they
are not a part of this site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have some sort of letter or something that you know of or are aware of
that the State said that they’re going to take that responsibility of making those improvements?
MR. BREWER-I mean, I can go along with that part of it, as part of the grass and that stuff, but.
MR. VOLLARO-In the stormwater management report, there’s no mention of the two drywells,
and they’re not, they’re specifically omitted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there wouldn’t be if that note’s on the drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-That note talks about Route 9. These two are up on Round Pond Road. They’re
in a different spot.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that drainage swale is tied in to Route 9, or to Round Pond Road, because
that’s how they were diverting the runoff.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Nace is stating that he, I don’t see a letter from the State, but he is stating that
all the stormwater management that he is talking about in the development of this site is being
maintained on site, and does not require the use of those drywells. That was based upon, and
exclusively, basically, of the New York State DOT drainage system.
MR. STARK-Tommy’s not here, and Mr. Leuci isn’t going to be building until the spring anyway.
So there’s no great rush. I would like to see the landscape approved by Mary Lee, or the
Beautification Committee, in place. I would like to know what type of building it is, brick, metal,
wood, tin, whatever. We have no plans for that, and also, when Tommy comes back, then he can
come in and answer all these questions, perhaps. So we put it off another month, you know, then
everything could be answered.
MR. PALING-If I could just add to what George is saying, it should be reviewed by the County
and the Beautification Committee, and we’ve also seen nothing at all in regard to this disposal of
oil or gas or whatever you’re going to have as disposal liquids or what not from repair service.
MR. LEUCI-I can answer most of your questions that you’re asking right now, okay. I wasn’t
planning on doing anymore landscaping because I’m not effecting the land anymore. I’m just
putting up that one other building. I’ve done landscaping in the last year. Everything that the
Town required of me has all been done, and maintained, okay. As far as waste, you were asking
about waste oil.
MR. PALING-Or gas spillage or?
MR. LEUCI-Gas that we don’t use. I’m not in the full fledged repair business. I’m only going to
be repairing vehicles that I sell on my own. I’m not open to the public. I’m not looking to take in
outside business and extra business. I just want to do my own repairs. It’ll be a small repair shop,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
with just my own employees working for me, and most of the building is going to be a showroom
to display my cars.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall. Was the original approval for repairs? I thought it was just for
selling of vehicles only? The original approval, site plan.
MRS. MOORE-This is a whole new site plan. So this is added to it.
MR. LEUCI-A whole new site plan, and I believe I’m in proper zoning to do auto repairs also as
well as sales.
MR. MAC EWAN-You are in the proper zone, but being in the proper zone doesn’t mean that it is
necessarily a proper use for the zone, either. So just think about that as well.
MR. STARK-Craig, I still want to see a planting plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Are we all squared away on the septic system, or where are we standing
on that now?
MRS. MOORE-He’s installed a new septic. He’s hooked it up. I mean, I don’t know if it’s in
compliance, but I know it’s a Building Department issue now. I can’t tell you that it’s in
compliance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did Building and Codes inspect it?
MRS. MOORE-They can, but they haven’t yet because we don’t have an approved site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are your intentions to go back in front of Warren County?
MR. LEUCI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-When will you be doing that?
MR. LEUCI-Whenever the next meeting is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone kind of leaning toward George’s idea?
MR. BREWER-Lets be specific as to what we want, though.
MR. STARK-You put down exactly what you want, and we’ll all put down what we actually
want, and then go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Queensbury Beautification approval. We’re doing a laundry list right now,
what we want.
MRS. MOORE-Well, do you want him to present a new planting plan, because he claims that he’s
going to maintain the existing plantings. Do you want him to present new plantings?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think he’s expanding the use of the place. I think my personal opinion is I
think he can stand to have a little bit more beautification on it. I mean, you’re going from a very
small building as you originally had, wasn’t it?
MR. LEUCI-Originally, I was approved to put an office trailer up there, okay. I didn’t even go
ahead with an office trailer because I thought it would look too shabby, and I put up a small
building, is what I did.
MR. BREWER-Do you have an idea what type of building you’re going to put up, as far as a
butler building, or?
MR. LEUCI-It probably will be a metal building with probably a brick facade.
MR. BREWER-One pitch, or is it going to be gabled?
MR. LEUCI-It may be a flat roof. I’m not sure. I’m still in the planning stages of what building
I’m going to put up there.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. VOLLARO-Have you gotten any responses at all from people, are you going to put a pre-fab
type building up, like a butler building, like Tim said? A pre-fabricated steel building?
MR. BREWER-It’s a steel building.
MR. LEUCI-It’s possible. I’m going through, you know, getting prices, whether I should go with
a steel building or a completely old block building. So I can’t say yet what kind of building I’m
putting up.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LEUCI-But I can say when it’s done, it’s going to be very pretty, because it’s going to be a
display area and a showroom. So it’s not going to be just like a repair shop, no. I’m putting up a
display area for my cars. So it has to look pretty.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are you selling new cars now?
MR. LEUCI-Used cars.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you’re going to display used cars in the showroom?
MR. LEUCI-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a new concept, isn’t it, around here?
MR. LEUCI-More or less. I mean, all the new car dealers do it, and I would like to do it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m saying. I know new car dealers do it.
MR. LEUCI-It’s nice presentation.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask to have this listed, for me, I want to know who has responsibility
over those drywells, whether it’s going to end up being the State.
MR. PALING-I hope you realize that the Board can judge the building appearance as it fits into
the neighborhood, and if it were a white rectangular box, it might not be approved. I’m just
warning you.
MR. LEUCI-Which is understandable, but I assure you, I mean, you’ll see the plans when the
times come. I’m not putting up just a square box to have a shelter to work inside.
MR. MAC EWAN-When you come back in next month, you’ll have an elevation for us to look at,
and plans?
MR. LEUCI-Elevation, I was keeping the same elevation that I’m on.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-A rendering of the building.
MR. LEUCI-All right. If that’s what I need, I guess I’ll.
MR. STARK-Do you want the laundry list?
MR. MAC EWAN-Read what you’ve got so far, yes.
MR. STARK-Beautification, Warren County, the building plans, and Tommy to explain the
drainage and the drywell situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-And who has responsibility for that, whether it’s still your responsibility or will
it be the State’s responsibility. Does Staff have anything else that they want added to this?
MR. BREWER-I would ask Mr. Leuci get a copy of this letter, or maybe you do, go over it with
Tom and Matt and make sure everything, you have an answer for it, as far as the grass, the
drywells, banks of the drainage ditch, whatever’s on this list.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Also the septic system, to find out if it’s.
MR. LEUCI-That’s already been, if you take notice, we’re expanding the septic system.
MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t done it yet.
MR. LEUCI-I haven’t done it, no. There’s a septic system in there, and.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m trying to find out exactly where we’re standing on that. You’re
telling me that, I thought you said that they had one in already, but you didn’t know if it met Town
Code?
MRS. MOORE-I’m assuming it does meet Town Code. It has to meet Town Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, you weren’t sure, because I was going to ask you, did they have a
permit to put it in or whatever.
MRS. MOORE-I thought you meant the proposed septic system.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. The existing one.
MR. STEVES-The existing one was inspected at the time it was installed and approved by the
Building Department.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. PALING-I’ve got a couple of things to add to it. Maybe this is a question directed to Tom
Nace, and maybe I’m just having trouble with some of the descriptive words we’ve got here, but
flat ditch leaves me flat. I looked up the definition of “ditch” and there’s always some kind of
depression or narrowing, and when you tell me there’s a flat ditch involved, I think we’ve got a.
MR. STEVES-Whereabouts is a flat ditch referred to on the plans?
th
MR. PALING-November 17 letter from Tom Nace to Laura Moore. There’s one place, I believe
it’s referred to in other places, but that’s one specific place. I think you’ve got an oxymoron there.
Have you got that letter?
MR. STEVES-Yes. I’ve got a copy. I’m reading it. I’m just trying to figure out where that is.
MR. PALING-Right in the middle of Paragraph Two.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I found it. I’ll have to confer with Tom. Like I say, you can have a ditch
that’s stone lined, and it doesn’t have to have a swale to it to be able to infiltrate stormwater.
MR. PALING-Yes, well, it would have a shape, I would assume.
MR. STEVES-No, not if the grade is going into it. If you have a perfectly level stone trench that’s
cut in two feet deep, and the ground sloping to it is going to go into that filter bed.
MR. PALING-Yes, okay, that’s got some slope.
MR. STEVES-And that’s what he’s talking about coming off that berm. So I would anticipate
that’s what he’s talking about.
MR. PALING-Okay. I’d like to have that clarified, and you’re going to have a repair service?
You must wash the cars from time to time, and I would like to know what you’re going to do about
the disposal of any kind of waste fluids, water included, and in the previous approval, we asked
that there be no flags, balloons or banners from the area, from the cars, and I’d like to have that
repeated in this approval.
MR. LEUCI-I don’t recall ever hearing that or asking me of that. The Town came to me and they
said they wanted a certain, they don’t want a particular type of pennant, but it’s okay to advertise
with American flags, and that’s all I put up there was American flags. They said they don’t want
pennants up there, and I haven’t put any up.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. PALING-Well, this was also called to your attention by the Beautification Committee, on
th
October 8, no flags, balloons or attachments to the cars for sale.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could Staff mail him a copy of the original approval?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Leuci, I know that you’re quite adamant about all the work that
you’ve done, as far as not wanting to do any more work because you have complied with
everything that was in the original proposal. Have I missed something here, and I’m not directing
it just to you, but how come, then, when I go by this property, the whole frontage looks horrible? I
would just like an answer to that, and, I mean, we addressed this at the beginning of this, opening
up this whole site but I still don’t know why, you know what’s going to happen is, spring’s going
to come, and Mr. Leuci has done all his part of the deal, but yet I’m going to drive by here, and it’s
still going to look unkempt in the front. Now who’s responsibility is that? And is there a way to
make it look any better?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something they’ll need to address next month, or whenever he comes
back in.
MR. BREWER-How far back on this plan does the right-of-way go, Matt?
MR. STEVES-That’s that dark line that’s parallel to the edge of the pavement. It looks to me
about 16 feet or so, back behind the edge of the road, behind the curb line.
MR. BREWER-So it doesn’t go back into the bank or anything?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. BREWER-And that’s where you’re talking about, Cathy, where the line of trees is?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STEVES-In what manner are you speaking, as far as, just not ground cover or what are you
looking for there? A mowed grass area?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, sometimes it’s mowed. I mean, the last time I went by was when we
went on site visits two weeks ago, and, you know, where the old trees that died pulled out, I know
there were lots of them that died that turned brown. So I think they were pulled out, but then how
come they weren’t replaced, and it’s not really grass. It’s more like hay. It’s just, it just doesn’t
look very attractive, compared to, lets say, the frontage in front of the dentist’s office, okay, or in
front of the motels that are next door, you know, on the other side of Round Pond Road. That’s
my whole thing, and, you know, this was quite a controversial thing from the initial site review
here, and it just got by by, I can remember, by one vote and then all of a sudden around us, around
this property, all the other merchants, you know, said, my gosh, you know, we didn’t know, you
know, and nobody showed up, and we said, well, that’s probably why it got passed, because
nobody showed up. Well, tonight, again, I don’t see anybody else here either. I guess that right
now I can assume that everybody’s been made aware of what’s going on here, and it doesn’t seem
to bother any of your neighboring merchants.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t draw that conclusion right yet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why? They’re not here.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing’s been left open since October. I think it would be a good
point. I think maybe what we should do is re-notice the neighbors, the next meeting we have, re-
advertise I mean, I’m sorry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I’d even like to have somebody come in and speak in favor of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not like a subdivision, though, Cathy, where people 500 feet away are
getting notified. They aren’t. Anything else?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do, but it might take a little bit. I wanted to get into the original Rist
th
Frost reply on November 11. The stormwater management report considers the existing and
proposed gravel roadways and parking surfaces as permeable areas. This is Tom Nace’s original
report. This is not in conformance with Queensbury’s standard practice, and so Tom Nace got this
letter and had to get into gear and change his stormwater management report, and he did, and yet,
in there it says the existing drives and parking display areas on the side of gravel surface. This
surface, when combined with the sandy well drained soils provides a permeable surface which
allows rainfall to filter into the ground. Well, it sounds like, you know, he never changed that
existing condition’s paragraph.
MR. STEVES-I’ll have to confer with Tom, but I believe what he’s stating is that the area that is
needed for areas that are nonpermeable, what it left permeable is sufficient to take care of that
problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he goes on further to say that this was approved, this was previously
approved, and he says stormwater infiltration trenches have been added at the low edges of the
parking areas to accommodate the runoff from these surfaces. The existing gravel drive and
parking areas are part of a previous site plan, reviewed and approved in the spring of 1997. I read
that as saying, hey, because it was previously approved, that it doesn’t apply, and yet what Rist-
Frost is saying is that (lost words).
MR. STEVES-Rist-Frost’s new letter says they have no problem. So, you know, I’m not the
engineer here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. What we’re going to need to get clarified is that, was there a
new stormwater management plan submitted with this application?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was it reviewed by Rist-Frost?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was it accepted by Rist-Frost?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine. I’ll talk to you about that later, but whether it’s approved by Rist-Frost or
not, and I might have to take exception to that, whether it’s approved or not, when there’s
conflicting statements in the engineering things, I’m used to looking at those, and I think I have a
right to ask that question.
MR. STEVES-I’m not denying that at all.
MR. VOLLARO-No, but what you’re saying is, really, once Rist-Frost puts their stamp on it,
that’s it, and I don’t exactly see it that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what I’m saying.
MR. STEVES-I’m just saying that Mr. Nace and Rist-Frost have reviewed and concurred, and
they’re both happy, and I would say that, you know, we should get a response from one if not both
of them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. That’s it. I just would like these pieces of paper to hang together,
so that I can understand what they’re saying.
MR. STEVES-Understood. Just so I can go through, you want to go back to Beautification
Committee, back to Warren County.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-When we get ready to do our motion, we’ll read you off everything we want
you to do.
MR. STEVES-Okay. One quick question is that, when you’re asking for Beautification, are you
specifically asking for a new landscape plan, or not?
MR. BREWER-Maybe you could show us what’s there.
MR. STARK-Something written down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. If this is a new site plan, if you haven’t submitted us a
beautification plan, you need to do one. You can’t tie the old with the new, because this is a new
site plan.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. BREWER-But if he’s not going to do any, Craig, he could show us what’s there, and if that’s
acceptable, then fine. If it’s not, then we can hash that out that night.
MR. STEVES-We’ll come up with a plan of what’s existing and what’s proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go.
MR. PALING-And run it by the Beautification Committee, I hope you mean.
MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Read off your list there, George.
MR. STARK-Beautification Committee, Warren County, building plans for the building addition,
explain the drainage, the ditch clarified that Bob had a question about.
MR. STEVES-The flat ditch, yes.
MR. STARK-Okay, wash water goes where? Okay. The original approval, well, we need the
Staff to mail a copy to Mr. Leuci, mail a copy of minutes of the original approval, and then get
into the permeability, have Tom just look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of what you were asking for, not only wash water, but storage
of chemicals, greases, oils and antifreeze, what conditions are going to be done.
MR. STEVES-Storage and disposal of automotive.
MR. BREWER-Isn’t there a HazMat sheet you have to fill out? I know there used to be. Didn’t
there used to be, Jim?
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Maybe you should ask Chris about that. There used to be a form that, if you were
going to use any particular chemicals or whatever, it was listed, just in case of fire, for whatever
reason, that the fire company could have it on file.
MR. MARTIN-The Fire Marshal has it.
MR. BREWER-The Fire Marshal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have anything you want to add?
MRS. MOORE-No. I have a question about when you want the information submitted. Because
the deadline for December is tomorrow.
MR. BREWER-We’ll give him until Thursday.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MRS. MOORE-Well, turkey day. If you’re going to re-refer them to the County, their deadline is
th
that Monday, which is the 30.
MR. STEVES-If you’re submission is, there’s no way without Tom here, because most of these
are going to have to go through Tom, and he doesn’t get back until Tuesday. I’ll have to say we’re
looking for the January submission.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s something that, you know, time is of the essence.
MR. STEVES-I do not expect it before January.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll leave it at that. Okay. Do I have a motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI
, Introduced by George Stark
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Until the January meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. SCHACHNER-What are you going to do with the public hearing? Are you going to keep the
public hearing open?
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing’s been left open, yes.
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 63-98 TYPE: II EDWARD ZIBRO OWNER: ANGELA JOYCE
ZIBRO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD NORTH #8 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. SITE
PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN WR-1A ZONE AND A CEA. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98
TAX MAP NO. 16-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
EDWARD ZIBRO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 63-98, Edward Zibro, Meeting Date: November 24, 1998
“Description of Project The applicant proposes to expand a garage in a WR-1A zone and a
Critical Environmental Area. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the site plan review
requirements for the proposed addition. The addition will allow for usage for the garage for
vehicles. Staff has no additional comments.”
MRS. MOORE-The project for the County had No County Impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it, all you have?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. ZIBRO-Good evening. I’m Edward Zibro.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Zibro, could you tell us a little bit about your project.
MR. ZIBRO-We want to put an eight foot extension to the front of the garage to make it usable.
The way it was designed, it’s wider than it is deep, and you can’t even put a suburban in there, and
it’s got about a seven by eight garage door, so you can hardly even put today’s vehicles in there
with the mirrors on them. So we want to come out forward eight feet across the front of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. ZIBRO-We’re going to blacktop the driveway and we’re going to put a concrete floor in the
garage. There’s a dirt floor.
MR. STARK-I think it’ll be a nice improvement.
MR. ZIBRO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to come up and address this
application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. Zibro?
MR. ZIBRO-No, sir, that’s about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-98 EDWARD ZIBRO
, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
In accordance with Van Dusen and Steve’s drawing dated July 20, 1998.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. ZIBRO-Thank you.
MR. STARK-Thank you.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 3-98 TYPE: UNLISTED EVERGREEN
NATIONAL BANK OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EVERETTS
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE TWO PARCELS FROM SFR-20 TO
HC-1A. PETITION FOR REZONES ARE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING:
11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-31, 108-1-32 LOT SIZE: 4.98 ACRES SECTION: 179-94
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition For Change of Zone No. P3-98, Evergreen National Bank, Meeting
Date: November 24, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a zone change for two
parcels on Everts Avenue from SFR-20 to HC-1A. Staff Notes The applicant would like to utilize
the properties for commercial development. Currently, one property is utilized for residential
purposes, the other property is vacant. There are residential uses on Everts Avenue but it is not the
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
predominant use. The area proposed for rezoning is located near and has access to other
commercial businesses. There are no foreseeable impacts on the environment, traffic, or
neighborhood character. Staff would suggest the Planning Board recommend the rezoning of the
two parcels.”
MRS. MOORE-The County, they approved “with the condition that the former power transmission
corridor is left as a greenway”.
MR. MAC EWAN-The former what, now?
MRS. MOORE-It’s called a power transmission. It’s the NiMo property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Read that last part again.
MRS. MOORE-It says “Approved with the condition that former power transmission corridor is
left as a greenway”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Former. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, on behalf of Evergreen
Bank. Matt Steves would be with me, except he’s still out consoling his client on the last one. The
former, and now vacant, Queensbury Motors property is cut by the zone line, so that part of the
property is residential and part of it is commercial. Because of its location in the area and I had
Matt do a map that showed what all of the adjacent uses are. It’s surrounded by commercial and
industrial. So we see this as having really no impact on the neighbors, and in fact the residential
zone for half of the property just makes it harder to sell, and is really inappropriate. When I talked
to the Bank about the application, we discussed whether or not the parcel in the back should be
included in the rezoning, and decided not to include it in the application, and that’s what the
County was just referring to. We had discussions with the County about this, when they approved
it. The entire parcel is about 12 and a half acres, and it includes the parcels up front where the
buildings are, which includes a large paved area. The two parcels that are currently in residential
use and residential zone that are proposed to be rezoned which each have a house on them, one is
rented and one is vacant, and then this long dog leg parcel in the back that connects back to Everts
Avenue. Part of the reason why I’m stating that there’s no impact on the neighborhood is that
there’s a DEC State mapped wetland in the back. It’s wooded but it’s wet, and that encompasses
part of this parcel. So it just seemed that, we have a natural buffer area protecting the residences
in the City and along Meadowbrook Road anyway, and if we leave this parcel zoned residential, it
would just enhance the buffer between the existing residential, the wetland, and then what’s
proposed to be zoned to commercial. The only thing that’s in the application is just what’s cross
hatched here, to be rezoned to residential.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you proposing any kind of a buffer between the back portion of your lot
and that very first residence there, of the Myhrbergs?
MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot vegetative buffer that can’t even be
paved, and Evergreen is not going to be the developer of this site, no matter what. They’re trying
to market it so that somebody would come in. It seems an appropriate site for a commercial use,
based upon what’s been developed on Quaker Road. The site itself, along the road, has very little
green space. It’s sort of a fifties development, all paved up to the road, so that anything that had to
come in now and comply with the Town standards would have to have, and because you wouldn’t
let them do anything else, there would have to be green area along Everts and along Quaker. There
would be a green area, then, along the back that would be 50 feet.
MR. BREWER-Is there a contract for purchase of this now, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-It’s been on the market since August, and there’ve been a number of developers that
the Bank has talked to, including in the last month since we’ve submitted the application to the
Town Board. There is not a contract signed. There have been discussions, but nobody has a
tenant in mind. It’s not that somebody’s come in and said, you know, I want to build a big box
here. It’s just that it’s what’s left of the 12 acre site, it’s about 10 acres, would be appropriate for
a commercial type development.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No, I think that pretty much covers it.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess we’ll open up the public comment. Does anyone want to come up and
address this application?
PUBLIC COMMENTOPEN
MRS. MOORE-I have a written public comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-“The two lots next to mine on Everts Avenue are coming up for a petition for
Zone Change to rezone from SFR-20 to HC-1A. I would like to change my two lots next to these
from SFR-20 to HC-1A due to hardship conditions. I am a retiree of Finch Pruyn & Co. of 23
years and have a pension of $122.00 a month and my social security pension. My tax lot #’s are
108-1-29.2 and 108-1-30. I have lived here and paid Queensbury taxes for about 34 years. I am
mostly surrounded by commercial and have had an offer on my lot and possibly my house too. The
zoning change would help me and that would protect the change of zoning. Thank you. Gustav H.
Myhrberg 88 Everts Ave., Queensbury, NY”
MR. LAPPER-Chris Round discussed that letter with me today. Because the parcel that we’re
leaving residential is outside of Mr. Myhrberg’s parcel, it doesn’t surprise me that anybody that’s
across the street from Duke Concrete and the Bradmark building might want to be included in this.
That seems just as appropriate as what we’re doing, and everybody in the back would still be
protected. So Chris and I talked about, procedurally, they would have to submit a petition for
change of zone, just like Evergreen did, but that’s something that the Town Board, and then you
could consider as well. It seems appropriate to us.
MR. VOLLARO-What we’d be talking about is the Lands of Vincent and Virginia Borgos is one?
MR. LAPPER-When he said he’s referring to two, we’d have to check the tax map, which I do
have with me.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to see his name on that long, thin slice.
MR. LAPPER-It’s probably the one up in front, that’s also across from Bradmark and Duke,
because.
MR. VOLLARO-That says residence?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because there’s no other name associated with that. So it’s probably both of
those.
MRS. MOORE-Bob Vollaro, I do have a copy of it, if you want to look for his lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the procedure on that?
MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the question?
MR. MAC EWAN-George is asking, if we were to make a recommendation, could we make a
recommendation to the Town to include these other parcels as well in their rezoning, or do we have
to wait until a formal application is put forth?
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. Both, you can add that into your recommendation at this time if you
wish. That will not further that process any further, for that other property owner, because, as Mr.
Lapper correctly points out, the other property owner would also have to submit a petition for
rezone, which would then be forwarded to this Board for its recommendation, but there’s no harm
in adding that in your recommendation if you feel that’s appropriate. You can certainly do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The former NiMo right-of-way is owned by the Bank all the way along their
parcel and all the way over to Everts?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-They own that whole parcel?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I was told, since I described it as a NiMo right-of-way to the County Planning
Board in my application, that years ago that was actually a former railroad right-of-way. It just
appeared as a NiMo right-of-way, long and skinny, bu has been not used for many years.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that the only comment you have? Does anyone from the public want
to come up and comment on this application? Okay. We’ll close the public comment period.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
MR. PALING-Just one other question. That has nothing to do with the bike trail?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from anybody? Does someone want to make a
recommendation?
MR. STARK-Well, I have a question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STARK-In the recommendation, you want to put a little co-recommendation that if it comes
up in the future, that those other two parcels maybe should be Highway Commercial? Not that, it
has nothing to do with this.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would suggest that, not just those two parcels, but the three parcels on this
side of that right-of-way, all be considered.
MR. BREWER-All parcels inside that dog leg.
MR. VOLLARO-If we had the parcel numbers, we could put them in the motion.
MR. STARK-You might want to talk to this guy, and say, when it comes up, do it at that time.
Are you the gentleman? Come on up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to come up and make a comment?
GUSTAV MYHRBERG
MR. MYHRBERG-No, that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MYHRBERG-I’d like to say just one thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come right on up and put it on the record if you would, please, just so we’ve
got you on tape.
MR. MYHRBERG-Gustav Myhrberg. Several years ago, I inquired about changing my property,
and they told me that, seeing as how I was surrounded by commercial all the way around, it was
the wrong designation, the Single Family Residential. It just hadn’t, at that time, changed, and it
would be changed in the future, but the future never came. So, everybody on the street I’ve talked
to, if I want to do something different, I mean, not a car garage or something, but just something, if
I want to sell it as something else, I’d be in a better position to sell it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MYHRBERG-And I’m glad you’re changing it. I think it’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MOTION TO RECOMMMEND TO APPROVE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
P3-98 EVERGREEN NATIONAL BANK FROM SFR-20 TO HC-1A FOR PARCELS
INDICATED ON THE MAP. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOMMEND THE TOWN
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
TAKE A FURTHER LOOK AT PARCELS NO. 108-1-30, 108-1-29.2, 108-1-29.3 WITH
THIS RE-ZONING.
, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by
George Stark:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 62-98 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS, INC. d/b/a THE
GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-42/RC-15 LOCATION: ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT “THE NIGHTMARE RIDE”, AN
ENCLOSED ROLLER COASTER RIDE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR
AMUSEMENT CENTER WITHIN RC-15 ZONING. CROSS REFERENCE: SP14-90,
SP26-98, WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 LOT SIZE: 248.96 ACRES SECTION:
179-23
JIM MARTIN, JON LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-As far as the public hearing goes, this is a discussion item only, pending
ZBA review and decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to open the public hearing and leave it open.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-98, Premier Parks, Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape, Meeting Date:
November 24, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes “The Nightmare” a roller
coaster enclosed in a structure. Staff Notes The application is to be tabled pending the ZBA’s
area variance review. Staff would suggest to the Board to request any additional information at
this time so the applicant can prepare it prior to the Site Plan review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, nothing else?
MRS. MOORE-No, I have some County comments. “Approve with conditions that discussed
screening issues are addressed, a discussion regarding pedestrian and traffic flow with DOT take
place and that Warren Co. Planning Board is kept informed regarding these areas of discussion.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LEMERY-Good evening. John Lemery, Lemery & Reid, Counsel to Premier Parks.
MR. MARTIN-Jim Martin, LA Group.
MR. COLLINS-John Collins, Vice President and General Manager of The Great Escape.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We understand this to be a discussion item, pending the variance
application. What I thought I would do is just take the Board through some of the aspects of the
site plan, the technical aspects, orientation and so on, and just see if you had any questions early on
as a discussion item that we can address prior to you taking this up at a future meeting. What we
have here is a section of, essentially, the north end of the Park, a section of the overall survey, and I
thought I’d use this to start, and just show you where the ride is to be located. This is Route 9
here, at the top edge of the map. The parking area on what would be the east side of Route 9, and
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
then here we have the Screamin’ Demon ride that I think most are familiar with as you can see it
from the road, and set behind that is Ghost Town, somewhat up on the hill. The area of the ride, if
you’re at all familiar with the site, there’s a mounded hill here that’s essentially inside of the
existing loop which is shown here for the flume ride, and then also the railway, which takes a wider
loop through this section. The area of the ride is to be right in this section, tucked into the back
side of that hill, so to speak. So this is a building about 17,000 square feet in size, approximately
110 feet wide, 160 feet long, 62 feet high at the peak, with our proposal, and 58 feet at the eaves.
So this is the location in here, set into that hill. Now, a more closer view shows the building here.
This is the remnants of the buildings here for the flume ride, frame buildings here, and again we’re
set into this hill here. The flume ride will be altered somewhat, as shown here in blue, so it will
pass through one end of the building, like under cover here, and that’ll be integrated into the
experience of the flume ride. This is a totally enclosed ride. We checked with other locations
where this is currently in operation. There is no measurable noise outside of the building from the
ride. That was a question that was addressed to us by the ZBA. I wanted to pass that along to
you. So there is no measurable noise. This being a fully enclosed ride, there is no measurable
noise outside of the structure. Now, as you can see here, there was a considerable amount of
grading that had to be undertaken to accommodate the pad for the building. We’re in an elevation
of I believe 100 feet here, and the peak elevation of this hill remaining is approximately 145 feet.
So we’re going to have 45 feet of cover around this area of the building, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height of the finished floor of the building itself?
MR. MARTIN-The finished floor grade will be at an elevation 100, okay, and the hill, the peak of
the hill, will have an elevation of about 145 feet, but we’re going to be approximately 17 feet or so
just from the raw exposure of the building against the grade. Now, as you can see here, we have
quite an extensive planting plan proposed of coniferous trees, primarily, to further screen the ride,
as you might see it from Route 9, or even potentially the Northway. So these trees will grow very
rapidly. We have a rendering here I can pass around that shows approximately a second or third
year growth, and what that might look like. It will continue to be seen. Probably this section of the
building here will be seen. This is the front facade here. That will continue to be seen, probably,
for several years until the trees reach a more mature height. The loading area, these small
buildings you see here are the existing train ride loading area. You’ll pass under the flume and exit
at the same side of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, where is the pond that’s used for the Desperado Plunge?
MR. MARTIN-The pond is right here, this oval shape here, okay, and then I do have a grading
plan. I passed a copy of that along to Laura tonight for her purposes, and this has already been
looked at by Rist-Frost. The grading and drainage plan has been signed off on. They did have one
initial comment, and that was the addition of another drywell, a sixth drywell. That is located here
on the north end of the building. We’ve added that, and have since gotten their comment back that
they have signed off on it from a technical engineering point of view, and this shows the proposed
grading here. The peak of the hill remains here, and our planting plan, as you noticed, is
essentially following that ridge line that will remain after the grading is completed. To stabilize the
bank, we’re proposing a mixture of Crown Vetch seed, and in an application like this it’s very
useful and will work to hold those soils in. The soils we encountered are very sandy in nature,
excellent for an infiltration based system as we proposed here. We’re fully aware of the proximity
of this ride to the wetland here further to the east, the grading is such that the drainage will
basically be away from the wetland in this direction to the south and west. So any surface water,
as it does collect, will flow in this direction and be infiltrated into these wetland basins, or I mean
the drainage basins, and filtered into the ground, as naturally occurs today. You’ll see they’re
concentrated around the eaves of the building. The peak runs in this orientation here, so the water
will shed off in these directions and be collected at these locations. That was just some background
on it. I don’t know if you had particular questions at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. As a point of reference, where the Condor is, when I was
standing on the top of that hill, siting level toward the Condor, trying to get an estimate of how
high this building is going to be, I was trying to determine where the peak of that building, on a
level bubble, would hit the contour.
MR. MARTIN-What I can do, this may help you out some, Bob. This was supplied with the
variance application, and you can pass this around.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got it here, but it’s not as.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MARTIN-Yes, it’s a little more clear in the color. There’s the Condor there.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re about in the middle of that.
MR. MARTIN-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is the building facade going to be, is it going to be in the motif of Ghost
Town, with the board and batten siding?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It’s basically going to be like a mining, you know, it’s meant to be like a
ghost mine type of an appearance. They are proposing, we didn’t have time to render it there, but
we’re going to do that for the Zoning Board. They specifically asked for it. It’s like a mine shaft
on one side, a hill, and even a skull and cross bones like in the center front part of the building, and
then the rest of it we’re proposing an earth tone or a grayish color, something of that nature.
We’re going to talk about that more in depth with the Zoning Board. Really looking to fulfill any
thought they might have on that, but that was our thought going in, if we could get a, there are
colors available from the manufacturers, I understand, that can further hide the building, so given
the mountain background we have behind the building, and blend with that color. So that’s going
to, we’re going to attempt to do that. That speaks to like a grayish color there. We did try to show
some camouflage or coloring of the building, and the effect of the planting plan.
MR. PALING-Jim, I’ve got six different heights referred to. Did one of them say 17 foot above
the hill top? Did I hear you say that?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, and that’s basically.
MR. PALING-From Route 9?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, reflected here. You see, there’s the hill top right here, at the tip of my finger,
and you can see there is still a piece of the building that will be above that?
MR. PALING-What’s the 71 feet?
MR. MARTIN-71 feet? Okay. I’ll go through it again. The finished floor will be at a 100 foot
elevation. The building will be 62 feet in height at the peak, 58 feet at the eaves. There was some
confusion earlier on about a 70 foot height. It is 62 feet high to where the elevation will be 162.
MR. PALING-Okay. The next comment I’ve got doesn’t have to do, really, with what we’re
talking about here, but something that I ended the last submittal with when you were in, and I’m
going to do it again. The more rides, the more attractive you make this Park, the more people
you’re going to draw in, and I won’t be swayed from that, but I think there was a parking problem
then. There’s a parking problem now, and it’s going to get worse. You park cars all up the
Coachman’s lawn. People are here complaining about getting customer cars, they’re going to park
back in the gravel pit or whatever they call it, and I’ve noticed the people waiting for the lights
jump across, try to walk across Route 9 getting out of the parking lot, and I think that there’s a
problem with parking and traffic that should be addressed now. It should have been addressed last
year, and I think it should be addressed now. That’s going beyond what we’re talking about here,
but I do feel that should be part of this approval.
MR. BREWER-What could we do, Bob?
MR. PALING-Well, first of all, you could get more parking, so they don’t have to park up the hill
going to the Coachman. They don’t have to park in a dust bowl. That would be the first thing I’d
do, and then I’d address the pedestrian traffic on Route 9. I don’t know what you can do about
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s going to improve automatically because of the efforts the State’s
doing with the sidewalk program they’re putting up through there now.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but they’ve still got to get from one side to the other.
MR. PALING-That doesn’t help the parking, though.
MR. BREWER-The parking is mentioned, excuse me, in the sheets that we have about Animal
Land.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. PALING-I don’t think they used Animal Land last year, to any great extent. They started to,
but then stopped. Looking at it from Martha’s, I didn’t see it used very much.
MR. BREWER-Is there a particular place where employees park?
MR. COLLINS-On weekends, we can use the Bavarian Palace parking lot, to get them out of the
front lot, yes.
MR. BREWER-Just on the weekends?
MR. COLLINS-Just on weekends, you’re talking Saturdays, is when we run into situations with
parking. So it’s on weekends.
MR. PALING-Well, maybe I’m alone, but I said it last year, and I’ll say it again, I still think it’s a
problem that should be addressed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think where Bob’s coming from, too, is when we went to see if we
could get into The Great Escape, the day we did site visits, and I had mentioned to him how, a
couple of years ago, when I went in to see my daughter diving, she was one of the high divers, I
wanted to catch the show, and I thought maybe I could just go into somebody’s parking spot that
maybe somebody had left early, and I ended up parking way, way up there by the Trading Post,
and I mean, I could not believe the, I don’t care about walking because I run all the time, but it was
so dusty, and by the time I got to The Great Escape to see the show, because I missed the trolley, I
felt like I ought to dive in the water, too, and clean off, and I had mentioned that to Bob when we
were out on site visits, but apparently the people don’t, it doesn’t seem to bother them. They keep
coming back.
MR. LEMERY-Well, The Great Escape acquired the Animal Land site for excess parking. They
haven’t had to use that site but a few times in the last summer that they, after they acquired it, and
put it in shape so that it could be used, and so that they could cue people over there, and so that
they could bring the buses over there to bring the buses over to The Great Escape at those times
when they needed it. So I don’t think they experienced the kind of parking problem you’re
suggesting exists. I don’t think the facts have been such that they’ve had a problem with it.
MR. COLLINS-As far as parking on the hill, that is something our guests do, and we do tow
whatever cars we can, if we can get to them. It’s obviously an unsafe situation to try to tow off a
side of a hill, but those are not parked there by our people. They’re people who come into the lot
and will not go where you’re directed. So we do the best to keep that area open, but they do park
there by themselves. They’ll pull right off the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing adjacent to the Coachman?
MR. COLLILNS-Up by the Coachman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would it help the situation if you put up a fence of some kind?
MR. COLLINS-We can look at that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know, John, speaking of safety, though, when you miss the trolley,
and you have to walk, and start walking from way up there by the sand pits, all the way back, you
know, there is traffic that does go through there, and there is really no specified walk area. You’re
just kind of walking through this, and people are just driving through, too, but, you know, and the
people walk and they move out of the way, you know, and I don’t want to make a big issue out of
this, but I think it was bothering Bob, and I think he has a little valid point there, too.
MR. RINGER-I think it is an issue of the parking, and I was under the impression, or I was told,
that you actually shut down twice last year, or stopped taking because your parking lot was filled?
MR. COLLINS-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-So there are problems, at times, where you actually shut down, and I also
understand last year that you did park some of the cars down behind that dirt road that comes,
where the, in case of emergency, the fire equipment and stuff comes, there was stuff parked down
there, too?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. COLLINS-We spoke with the fire department about access, if that’s what you’re talking
about.
MR. RINGER-But there were cars parked down there last year, when you were overfilled. What I
would like to see, apparently, I think you need more parking there or better parking perhaps. I’d
like to see some kind of a study or something. I don’t know what it would be, as to the amount of
parking you have, I mean, and the number of cars that are there, buses, and see how it comes out.
MR. LEMERY-Well, they acquired the Park in December of ’96, and have operated it for two
seasons, and acquired Animal Land. So I think the long term plan is to develop more of that zoo
site for the excess parking, and I think that’s why they acquired it, and they’ve got to take part of
that bank out in the back and start to make more parking available, which they will do, and that’s
why they acquired that site, but, it’s sort of a situation where they’ve got to get a sense of what
they’ve got there, and then start to develop the parking to fit the changes they’re making to the
park. So I think that’s one of the reasons they acquired the zoo property, and there’s no sense that
they won’t continue to expand that to provide the additional parking. As far as Route 9 is
concerned, one of the things that we’ve looked at, the people have said why don’t you put a tunnel
under the road. Well, the water table’s right there, and you can’t tunnel under Route 9 at that point
because of the, you know, that’s the Meadow Run. The only thing you could do would be to put a
pedestrian bridge over there at some point, and those discussions, The Great Escape has agreed to
have with DOT at some point, to try to deal with that, but it’s a DOT issue. It’s a Martha’s issue,
because people are in and out of there creating parking problems down there. So we’re hopeful
that with the addition of the sidewalk this year, that will at least keep the traffic on the sidewalk,
keep the people who are walking back and forth out of the road, out of the State right-of-way, and
that’s about all The Great Escape can do at this point.
MR. RINGER-Well, couldn’t they expand the Animal Land so they could get more parking now?
MR. MARTIN-The Animal Land lot is proposed to be expanded somewhat.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, if that’s something you would like to see done for this year, I’d be willing to
look at doing that.
MR. LEMERY-We don’t want to make it a condition of this approval, though.
MR. RINGER-No, but I think it’s a concern that there is a problem with parking, and I think part
of the problem with parking is part of the people walking also coming up there, and I think you
should have some kind of a plan to handle it.
MR. MARTIN-I think something that’ll help a great deal in this regard is the State project.
There’s going to be dedicated sidewalks on both sides of Route 9, and one area of constriction
that’s historically been there has been the bridge over the Meadow Run stream. That is part of the
DOT project that’s to be widened, also, with dedicated sidewalks on either side. So I think that’ll
greatly improve pedestrian safety and capacity for people that walk along the road, you know, in a
safe manner.
MR. BREWER-Can I make a comment? It’s a positive comment. I’m glad that you’re busy and
glad that you’re full, but as I sit here today, since I’ve been on this Board, I can recall a number of
additions you’ve made to the Park, which are great, cannot recall any additional parking being
installed, and I think that’s the point that everybody’s trying to make, and I think, like you said,
Jim, the State with the sidewalks is going to help, but I think as you keep adding here, it’s kind of
tipping, and we’ve got to balance it out, in my mind.
MR. MARTIN-Well, the addition of the Animal Land parking location is an outright net gain
parking.
MR. BREWER-Right. Do you have any idea how much?
MR. MARTIN-I can’t recall the number. We’ve done that design work.
MR. STARK-177 it was.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, 175.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I was going to say, in that 170 range.
MR. BREWER-Well, that’s got to help some.
MR. STARK-I have a question for Jim. I wasn’t going to talk about the parking, but when you
put the sidewalks on the east side of Route 9, you’re going to lose the parking right there alongside
Route 9.
MR. MARTIN-You mean on?
MR. STARK-On the east side of Route 9, on the Park side of Route 9, that you’re going to have
the sidewalks there, and they go in about, what, 10 feet, you know. That’s where a whole row of
cars parks right up that side. You’re going to lose that whole side on that, but anyway, one of my
questions was to you, you have a 100 foot width building, and you’ve only got a four foot eaves. I
mean, is this going to be supported from the inside? It’s not going to be free on each side, it’s
going to be supported in the middle? I mean, you’re going to have a tremendous snow load on that
building.
MR. MARTIN-In order for us to get a building permit, it’s going to have to be stamped for snow
loads and seasonal conditions of this climate.
MR. STARK-I mean, that doesn’t seem like a very big peak, for runoff and everything.
MR. MARTIN-I don’t think it’s going to be a freestanding opening then, but I’m not the architect.
So I can’t speak to that.
MR. STARK-Okay. Another question, maybe to John. You hear rumors about the Coachman, for
a potential future parking. Can you comment on that at all, or no?
MR. LEMERY-The current lease expires in a few months, and it’s owned by Charles Wood, The
Coachman, and some discussions have taken place with Premier about that, so I can’t tell you what
might happen at this point. There’s no agreements with anybody to do anything, but certainly it’s
something that everybody’s looking at.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-I think there’s room, trying to answer Bob’s concerns, there is room to provide
additional parking at the zoo site, and the plan is to take a look at that, and deal with it at the point
where it looks like it needs to be done.
MR. PALING-You said there’s additional space for parking. Where is that, where is the space?
MR. MARTIN-A lot of the space is gained toward the north end of the site, in what used to be the,
I don’t know if you were ever there, Bob, when it was the Zoological Park, but there was a series
of cages there for I think it was where they had the apes and the baboons and things like that.
Those are going to, essentially, be taken out and there was, sizable parking occurs in that area,
right up next, as it buts up to the Martha’s property. That’s the largest area of parking that’s
available. I would say of the 170, probably 125 to 130 cars are occurring in that area of the site.
MR. PALING-That would seem to be a big help.
MR. STARK-You’re talking for future, you already had the approval for the 177 or 175. You’re
talking west of that, directly west of that.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, correct.
MR. COLLINS-We also could pick up, to the north of that, next to the miniature golf course, from
the ridge that you see from Route 9, it slopes a gradual slope back to where they had an old food
stand, which is kind of in the very center of the park. We could pick up, you know, another 150
cars there, easy, with some selective tree removal, without taking the trees along the front ridge.
The hill goes up, where you see where the fence line is, along Route 9, but from that ridge of the
hill back, it’s a gradual slope, and you could create another 150 to 200 spots right there, without
much problem.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. PALING-You’re talking about over 300 spaces that could be created with no real big
undertaking.
MR. COLLINS-No real investment, yes. Taking some trees down, and a lot of those trees need to
come down, they’re old.
MR. LEMERY-That’s why they acquired the Animal Land parcel.
MR. COLLINS-The building would remain, the front building would remain. We would have to
remove the former food stand, which is in the center of the park, and then there’s some small pole
building type barns that are no more than 10 by 20. We would take those out as well, and maybe
have to do something with the driveway. The driveway’s a little narrow. We may have to widen
that for two way traffic, which is the driveway that goes up alongside of the main building there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment
to this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-My name is Paul Derby. I live on 86 Ash Drive, Glen Lake.
LORRAINE STEIN
MS. STEIN-And my name’s Lorraine Stein, also I live at 86 Ash Drive.
MR. DERBY-I have a couple of questions and comments. Our big concern this year, every year
there seems to be a new ride coming in, and I’m very concerned about the cumulative effect of all
these rides, several of the things you talked about, such as traffic, parking. Some of our particular
problems are noise, the degradation of the environment, and the view. We talked about the view
from the front, from Route 9. What about the view from the back, from Glen Lake? The thing
that I would like to know about is the noise issue. I know they said it’s going to be an enclosed
building, not going to be noise. Last year was the first year that really, personally, we were
infringed upon by noise, when they put in the Bobsled ride, which turned out to be a, and we can
hear it all the time, day and night, well, it’s not on at night, but when it’s going, and it’s a nuisance
there, and actually, part of the reason I came here is to see if they could do anything to baffle that,
since we’re in public forum, but the other concerns, like I said, was the cumulative effect. I also
have a question of what, if they can answer it, what they’re going to do with what they’re
excavating or mining in the back, if that’s going to be parking, what you called the dust bowl, I
believe, that’s going to be parking. We permanently, we were actually told, I don’t know if it’s on
record some place or not, we were told by Charlie Wood years ago that it would never be parking
down there, because there were some concerns about being close to the wetlands, and I know that
they’ve maintained the buffer, but there’s been some questions about that.
MS. STEIN-With the ride, was that a water ride, or this roller coaster, was that a water roller
coaster, or no? Mainly, like what Paul had said, I’m concerned about the noise, because last year
was, that ride was terribly noise, and I know that a lot of other people have mentioned it to me also,
and I know that some calls were made to the Town. I was one of the people that called, too, but I
would like to know if it’s enclosed, is it insulated at all? What kind of structure is it? They just
sort of slid over the fact that it was going to be, the noise level wasn’t going to be that much, but
how is this structure going to be built, in order for it to accommodate that, so that there isn’t any,
you know, so it does not have very much noise coming from there.
MR. DERBY-And one last recommendation. Year after year the rides coming in. I don’t know if
it’s time to do another supplemental environmental impact statement or something, so we can, you
know, get a clear picture of where things are going and what’s happening now, because it is
beginning to infringe upon us in the back.
MS. STEIN-Yes, and also, I do agree with Bob when he was talking about the parking. I have not
seen, even though they’ve staggered the hours of the Park, I, personally, because we live on Ash
Drive, I’m going Glen Lake to Route 9 a lot. I have not seen any kind of improvement in the
traffic, and also I do see the parking problem. They do park along the dirt road. They do park
behind, and of course, we take note of that, because we do live there, and we do, we’re involved in
the lake and what not. So we do keep an eye on things, when we drive by, and that kind of thing.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
So I do know they have been parking there, so that parking is a big issue, and when you continually
put in these rides, and drawing more people, which is fine for the community, but, you know,
you’ve got to draw a line somewhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. DERBY-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-Craig, I have a public comment, written.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-It says, “Dear Planning Board: In regard to Premier Parks, d/b/a The Great
Escape as to the construction of yet another nightmare ride at the park concerns me greatly. The
location of our Glen Lake waterfront property is about the closest to the park. The noise level
coming from the park can be heard and is extremely annoying at this otherwise peaceful and serene
lake front community. I oppose any further development at this site. Build these noisy, towering
rides between Route 9 and the Interstate Highway 87 where the noise of screaming patrons and
loud rides could be absorbed. Build on the old Animal Land property. Glen Lake has suffered
enough from the nearby over development. Premier Parks, Inc. has killed enough in the lake, lets
not kill the property values and quality of residential living, too. As of now you can not see the
development with the naked eye, any rides towering over the horizon to the lake will surely destroy
all hopes and dreams of those who own residential property around the lake. You can not see the
rides but the impact is destroying the local Adirondack quality. Lets have Premier Parks bring
back this quality. Lets have them bring back the spawning grounds which they have destroyed and
restock the lake with Walleye as it was before the Park opened. The water runoff from the park
dumps directly into Glen Lake. The quality of the water in Glen Lake is in the hands of the park
and they do not seem to care. They own plenty of property which does not have such a dramatic
impact upon the lake. Give the lake a chance. With all the money you earn at the park, give some
back in the form of consideration to the environment and the quality of life which is being taken
away by your park. The Glen Lake area is a place worth saving. Please help. Sincerely, Capt.
Michael Miller”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, is that the only one?
MRS. MOORE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to leave the public hearing open, obviously, because it’s a
pending application, and it certainly needs ZBA approval before we go on any further during our
review. If you gentlemen want to come back up, we’ll try to close it up here. Two buzz words
seem to abound here, parking and noise.
MR. COLLINS-Okay. First the noise issue. Just to answer the question on the building, it is a
metal pole building, however it is insulated. It will be insulated on the interior and the insulation
will be black, to keep it as dark as possible, so that’s what will keep the sound from going to the
outside. It is an insulated building, but the other thing is, we certainly understand we’re in a
community. That’s why we looked at a ride that would be indoors, that wouldn’t make noise, but
would be still enough to draw people to come back that came last year. The parking issue, as far
as the comment to the letter, we’ve done a lot. We’ve put in new septic systems. We’ve upgraded
the current septic systems to the tune of a quarter million dollars last year. So water quality is very
important to us. So we are doing those things. As far as the parking, as John said, we purchased
the zoo parking, to use as overflow parking. I go by the Park. I’m at the Park all the time. We are
looking at doing a pedestrian bridge. The problem with the pedestrian bridge, with the ADA
accessibility, they take up a lot of room, so then you lose parking spaces, but we’re reviewing that.
We’re going to do that with DOT, and update the community, Warren County, when that gets
done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could we ask you to possibly do at least a couple of items here, prior to
you coming back. Give us some supportive documentation regarding, I think, Jim, you had
mentioned the noise studies or whatever that was supporting the building. Maybe supply us with
some structural details of the building, as far as how it’s going to be insulated and structurally
made. Also, could you do maybe a conceptual plan for us so that we can see that you would have,
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
if it need be, the additional parking across the road, at the former Animal Land that you talked
about, the 150.
MR. LEMERY-Conceptual parking plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-Do it to the both places, though, where it added up to 300, yes.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. COLLINS-We can do that.
MR. LEMERY-The new proposed places, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have anything else to add?
MR. STARK-One thing. You are going to lose parking on the east and west of Route 9. I mean,
that’s a fact, with the sidewalks.
MR. MARTIN-I’ve not seen a detailed drawing.
MR. STARK-You’re going to lose 50, 60 spots.
MR. LEMERY-I don’t think they’re parking on the Route 9 right-of-way.
MR. COLLINS-We’re not parking on that, no. It is minimal. They are, the ones hat are going up
now, they are doing the sidewalks on the east side of the road, and we didn’t park that close to the
street anyway. So we didn’t lose any. We lost a little bit of land to State, but that was across the
Meadowbrook. So we didn’t park there either. If anywhere, it would be on the, it would be the
most southern west portion of the parking lot, where they’re widening that bridge.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Regarding Lorraine’s concerns for viewing the building from the Glen
Lake side, I mean, here we see the building.
MR. COLLINS-I don’t believe you can see it.
MR. MARTIN-And again, the entire building will, the painting scheme that I referred to will be
around the entire perimeter, not just on the facade.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you come back in with a little bit more detailed information from both
sides for us, just to appease the neighbors?
MR. MARTIN-We are preparing, right now, some additional materials that the Zoning Board
asked for, a cross section profile and all those things.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I don’t want to be redundant. If the material that you’re preparing for
them can be used by our Board.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-We’re also doing an actual rendering from a location, like if you were in Ghost
Town, how this will set into the existing architecture and buildings, that’ll be ready for the next
session.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a question. The building’s going to be 162 foot high?
MR. MARTIN-No, that was the elevation of the roof. The finished floor is at Elevation 100.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve got 62 foot to the peak?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-162 feet.
MR. MARTIN-Elevation 162.
MR. VOLLARO-Elevation 162, the height of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STARK-The height is only 62 feet.
MR. BREWER-The height of the building will be at Elevation 162.
MR. VOLLARO-The finished floor is 100.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-The building is 62. From zero, it’s 162 from zero up.
MR. STARK-The way you worded it, though, Bob, you said the height of the building is 162.
MR. MARTIN-I just want to make sure I was clear on the record.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 62 feet from finished floor, and finished floor is at 100. It’s 162 foot from
ground level.
MR. BREWER-From sea level.
MR. MARTIN-From sea level.
MR. VOLLARO-From whatever zero is. Now, how high is the Condor?
MR. COLLINS-It’s about 185 feet, if you count the 100 from sea level, it’s about 185 feet. The
ride’s about 85 feet.
MR. MARTIN-That’s in the Town records.
MR. COLLINS-Yes, we can look that up.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to see how you put the rendition in. Did you use the balloons to
get the rendition? Is that how you got this rendition, with height balloons?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-From an aesthetic point of view, has anybody looked into the cost differential,
your cost differential, to go into a sculpted building, as opposed to a standard steel building? Your
acoustical thing would go to zero if you had some sculpturing involved in it. Disney used it in the
Magic Mountain. They sculptured that ride. It would aesthetically give you, you wouldn’t have to
go through a lot of painting detail and so on, and you’d get an interesting concept when you did
that. It would blend in your mountain in the back.
MR. COLLINS-I believe that’s also a lot taller than 62 feet, because of that sculpturing.
MR. VOLLARO-It may not be.
MR. COLLINS-Well, the ride’s got a height of 45 feet. So you have to have clearance between
the ride and the ceiling. It’s a cost thing. You’re talking $10 million for a building like that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the cost differential is the package there.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. COLLINS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As far as the insulation is concerned, and I think Craig touched on that, is
you want to take a look, really, at what the acoustical insulation looks like, not just putting heat
insulation in and hoping that that bounces back. It’s got to be acoustically insulated. There’s a
difference, in order to get your noise level penetration down, and those are the only comments that I
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re all set and we know what we need to do.
MR. STARK-When are you coming back in?
MR. MARTIN-We’re anticipating your first meeting in December.
thth
MR. LEMERY-Which is the 15 or 16, maybe.
th
MR. MARTIN-We’re meeting with the ZBA December 9.
th
MRS. MOORE-It’s the 15 of December.
th
MR. LEMERY-So we would be back in the 15.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-We appreciate your comments.
MR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-98 PREMIER PARKS, INC.
, Introduced by
Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-We left that public hearing open. Is that it? Anything else? Did you want to
talk to us?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-You had indicated at the last meeting that you’d like to take another look at the
Takundewide development.
MR. MAC EWAN-We pulled the minutes. I have not talked with any member of this Board. I
had the minutes of the ZBA pulled, the minutes of our Planning Board pulled, and I’m totally
satisfied with the decisions that were made.
MR. BREWER-There was no comment from ZBA after the fact, was there?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-Isn’t that what we had the concern about?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I read the minutes that he’s talking about, and I read these things carefully,
and I talked to Craig a little bit before this meeting started, as to how I viewed those comments,
and I’ll tell you what my view is, and it may be wrong, but I don’t have enough background on
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I came up and talked with Staff the next day regarding the scenario of the
house being taken down off the foundation and what had happened was that they pulled the dormer
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
off and set it off to the side, the top of the roof, I should say, the pitch of the roof was pulled off to
the side. When they pulled it off, they found severe water damage within and around the chimney
area that had rotted the entire side of the house. They wouldn’t have known it until they pulled it
off. They had, both Craig Brown and one of the inspectors, I don’t know if was Dave that went
up or one of the other ones. They determined that it was a situation where it just couldn’t be
salvaged, which allowed him to go back from the footprint.
MR. SALVADOR-If I might, those kinds of water damage can be repaired.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not an issue for this Board, though, John. That’s an issue, if you don’t
feel that the Town had done the right thing, then you need to take that up with Building Codes or
the Town Board. That’s not under this Board’s review.
MR. SALVADOR-I prefaced my presentation last week with the fact that I had taken this up with
Staff, and I hadn’t received any answer from them. Okay. Now you folks.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t control the Staff. I mean, we can’t go in there and grab someone by
the nape of the neck and tell them to give you an answer.
MR. SALVADOR-The only reason why I’m back here tonight is that, as a result of the discussion
last week, there were a couple of Board members here that were aghast to have heard what had
transpired.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to tell you. I’m a little upset by the way you went about doing things
last week, too, because you spoke in half truths and innuendoes, and that really bothers me.
MR. SALVADOR-Please specify.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because you made the comment that you were at the ZBA meeting and that the
owner or the developer had said, yes, they have a cess pool up there, but you didn’t also finish the
statement that, as part of his application, part of his approval, and getting a building permit, they
had to upgrade and put a new septic system in. You didn’t tell anybody that part. It’s right in the
same line.
MR. SALVADOR-My point, there are different criteria for approaching the repair of a system that
has failed.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not this Board’s review. We don’t get into jurisdiction of the criteria
in repairing a septic system.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, in any case, last week there were a couple of members of this Board that
were upset with the way that project had unfolded. Is there anything further?
MR. BREWER-I don’t know. I’m left in the dark. I thought we had a discussion that somebody
was going to tell us what happened, and I didn’t get told what happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of the minutes, the ZBA minutes and the Planning Board
minutes?
MR. BREWER-Yes, but after we approved it, I thought, the house was started. I didn’t read the
ZBA minutes that we got.
MR. MAC EWAN-They were given to you to read.
MR. BREWER-That’s fine, but nobody said, last week, that I’m going to give you ZBA minutes,
and it’s going to explain to you what happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I did. I said that I wanted Staff to send a copy of the ZBA minutes and
our Planning Board minutes for that site plan.
MR. BREWER-I was here when we approved it, Craig. I thought we were going to get an
explanation as to why the building was taken down. That’s what we said.
MR. STARK-We went into the explanation why it was.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. BREWER-Right. All you said was they went to take it down and there was, something
happened with damage to the building, and that was the last I heard of it.
MR. STARK-Then they’re building in the same footprint. That’s what I heard.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the problem? I don’t understand?
MR. BREWER-I just thought you were going to, or somebody was going to tell us exactly what
happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just did.
MR. BREWER-How could you have told me last week, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t. I just told you, we said we were going to talk about it tonight.
MR. BREWER-But you just said a minute ago you talked to Staff, and you were satisfied, but I
didn’t hear what you talked to Staff about.
MR. MAC EWAN-I went up and saw them the next day because I was curious about it. I said I’m
satisfied. I didn’t say the Board was satisfied. I said I’m satisfied.
MR. BREWER-Right, but that was, to me, the end of the discussion, like we wouldn’t get told
what you were told.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t implying that.
MR. BREWER-I’m not saying you have to tell John, but.
MR. SALVADOR-The basis for the ZBA’s approval was that it was a renovation. I think that’s
clear in the minutes. They were renovating a building, and that was the basis for the variances they
got from the ZBA. Even as that project was presented.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you, interject here. Have you been back to the ZBA since this
happened?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what have they told you?
MR. SALVADOR-They support Staff’s contention that nothing changed that would have effected
their decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re hoping that we’re going to say something different, or what? I
mean, are you here because you think we have jurisdiction over the ZBA or we can go back and
tell them that they’ve done wrong or Staff’s done wrong? I don’t know, what do you expect us to
do?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, to tell you that the project was billed as a renovation, okay. It was billed
as a renovation. Even if the project was undertaken, and the building didn’t have to be destroyed,
it doesn’t qualify as a renovation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then that’s something you need to take up with Building and Codes.
MR. SALVADOR-All right. Does that have any effect on a decision you might have made,
whether it was a renovation or a new project?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so.
MR. VOLLARO-I can say this, that I talked to Lew Stone today, and that he thinks that this might
have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It’s his opinion, because of the way the motion
was written, and I don’t want to supersede anything that the ZBA is going to do or say, so long as
you asked the question, Craig, did anybody go back, he’s concerned of the way the motion was
written, that this application proposes the construction.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. BREWER-What page are you on, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Sixteen of the ZBA meeting of 9/16/98. “This application proposes the
construction of a 556 square foot second story addition to an existing building”.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll interrupt you right there. Why are we discussing something
that’s going to have an impact, potentially, on a ZBA determination? That has nothing to do with
this Board, or doesn’t belong in the forum.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re right, but we were given this to read, Craig, and I diligently read the
damn thing, you know. Now, why did we get it in the packet? I looked at it and said, gee, why do
I have this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because it had to do with his comments that there was a cess pool there.
MR. BREWER-But don’t we predicate our, sometimes, our approvals on things that were done by
the ZBA? In other words, we didn’t do anything with The Great Escape tonight because they have
to go back to the ZBA.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you feel you did something wrong with the approval?
MR. BREWER-I didn’t read this. I didn’t say I.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then maybe you guys have got to take some time and read it. If you don’t feel
comfortable with what you’re reading, or you feel that it’s lacking from what you’re reading, you
need to contact.
MR. BREWER-The point is, Craig, we were going to talk about this tonight, and you’re doing
everything in your power to not talk about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m not.
MR. BREWER-Yes, you are.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you guys are putting in comments here that, you know, innuendoes that we
should have precedence over the ZBA or whatever.
MR. BREWER-No, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you asking, then?
MR. BREWER-I just simply asked, we were going to discuss this, as to about the building being
taken off the foundation and a new building put up, that’s not what we approved. We approved
restoration of that building, or addition to that building, and that was Bob’s point, when he went up
there to look at it, the building was gone. That’s where we left.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you need to ask Counsel if that violated the approval we gave.
MR. BREWER-It’s not a law thing. I said we were going to talk about, you said last Tuesday
when we left you were going to find out what happened, and we ask that Dave Hatin was going to
come in here, and then after the meeting, you said he didn’t need to because there was damage to
the building or something. I thought we were going to get an explanation tonight, and we’re getting
goose eggs, I am, anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to ask Counsel a question. When this was approved, by this
Board, it was approved based on a prior approval by the ZBA. That’s one of the ways that the
applicant gets here. He gets a ZBA approval. He got his ZBA approval based on restructuring an
existing nonconforming building. Scene Two, I feel, we’re into new construction, and it’s no
longer re-doing a nonconforming building. It’s now building a new building, regardless of why, it
fell down, the chimney’s bad, all of that. I understand what happened. I also understand that
people who have been building for a long time, and know what they’re doing, if they know, have a
pretty good idea if there’s internal damage. I get the feeling that I, anyway, I’m asking Counsel, I
guess this question. When we get to review something like that, and we pass it based on the fact
that it’s going to be a modification to an existing building, that’s what we approved. We did not
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
approve new construction. Neither did the ZBA, if I can just, based on what I read here, they
didn’t have a clue, based on this, that there was going to be a new building built, not a clue.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I haven’t heard a question yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the question is, when we approved the change of the building,
modifications to it, is our approval still valid? I guess that’s the question. Is our approval now
still valid against new construction? I guess that’s my question.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a very easy answer. Your approval is valid. Nothing that an
applicant does, or can do, invalidates this Board’s approval or any other Board’s approval. If an
applicant does not comply with this Board or some other Board’s approval, then that’s an issue to
be addressed in either of two ways. If the applicant wants to voluntarily, this is generic, by the
way. This has nothing to do with this particular applicant or this particular Board. If an applicant
knows that it’s violating or not complying with an approval that it has obtained from some Board,
it can seek to voluntarily come back before whatever Board is involved, and seek a different
approval, which we deal with all the time as modifications. If an applicant either doesn’t know that
it’s violating or failing to comply with an approval, or doesn’t care, and wishes to go forward and
goes forward anyway, then that’s an enforcement issue, which this Board has no authority or any
jurisdiction over.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-So I guess from my perspective as Counsel, I’m not aware of the applicant
coming back to this Board seeking any type of modified approval. So, as I said last week when
Mr. Salvador raised this issue, I didn’t hear any issue that had anything to do with this Planning
Board, and as I sit here tonight and hear the debate I’ve heard so far, I still don’t hear any issue
that has anything to do with this Planning Board, other than your general interest, and I don’t
discredit you for this, other than your general interest in seeing sort of, as a matter of observation,
being aware of the possibility that some applicant may not have complied with one of your
approvals, but if that’s true, or if you believe that to be true, then that’s an enforcement issue, and
you could certainly direct Staff to look into it, as an enforcement issue, but there’s nothing this
Board, or the Zoning Board, or any other Board, well, that’s not true. There’s nothing a Planning
Board or a Zoning Board can do, if an applicant does not comply with its approvals. That’s an
enforcement issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll ask another question. In your opinion, has this applicant complied?
MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea, for two reasons. I haven’t read anything from the
ZBA at all, and I know nothing about what the applicant actually did or didn’t do. From what I’ve
heard, there’s sort of two scenarios of this, one is that the applicant went and did renovate an
existing building, or started to, and then the building was disintegrated and it was left with nothing,
or I’ve heard that it never intended to do any renovation at all, and has tried to pull the wool over
our eyes and the ZBA’s eyes, and I have absolutely no idea which is true, and I have no basis for
forming an opinion on that.
MR. SALVADOR-The building did not disintegrate. There was some sign of, you know, maybe
some rot because of a leak, but believe me, if a roof is leaking, and you’re starting to get structural
rot, you’ve got other problems on that building that show first, but the reason I came here last
week, if you’ll recall, was that your approval was predicated on that septic system being built to
Town and Department of Health standards. You recall, Mr. MacEwan? My reason for coming
here last week had to do with the fact that your approval was predicated on the new septic system
meeting the Town and Department of Health standards, and I asked you what you meant by it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think Mr. Brewer answered that for you last week.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we’ll see what the Zoning Board of Appeals does.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I need a motion to adjourn.
MR. STARK-Motion to adjourn.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Second?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
32