1999-06-24 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 24, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
ROBERT VOLLARO
SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-So, the regular meetings are July 20 and the 27, and Site Visits are the 15.
ththth
MR. STARK-Anymore meetings, special meetings?
MR. VOLLARO-Just two that month is there?
MR. MAC EWAN-We probably won’t know until the end of the month, end of this month.
MR. VOSS-It looks like probably just two, but you never know.
MR. MAC EWAN-And, you know what, I have next Thursday penciled in as a, no, wrong day, the
30. Yes. We have with The Great Escape.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Definitely, and that’s going to be here, right? Okay.
MR. RINGER-And that’s still a combined meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Is that now the ZBA, Town and us?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, just the Town Board.
MR. RINGER-The ZBA is off of that? Because I read an article that the ZBA was on there, too.
MR. PALING-Is this a Planning Board workshop, or what is it, now?
MR. BREWER-That’s what it was supposed to be, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-It was supposed to have been a Planning Board workshop, and somehow the
Town Board has gotten involved in it, at the request of the applicant, or I should say The Great
Escape.
MR. PALING-How about the ZBA?
MR. MAC EWAN-The ZBA never was invited and never was involved. That was just a misnomer
in the paper.
MR. PALING-I wish there were a Planning Board workshop, only. I feel that they don’t know,
some of them don’t think we know what we’re doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think the reasoning behind it, and I’m not sure, other than one of the
things I’m hearing is that because of some of the plans that they have for expansion of the Park,
requires things that only the Town Board can do.
MR. BREWER-Such as?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing extension of the sewer. That’s what I’m hearing. Don’t know if it’s
true. Can’t substantiate it.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. PALING-Extension of the sewer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they want sewer up there.
MR. BREWER-That’s quite a ways to go, isn’t it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Three-quarters of a mile.
MR. BREWER-To Zayres.
MR. RINGER-Zayres is where it ends, Wal-Mart is where it ends?
MR. BREWER-I think so.
MR. PALING-It ends at Wal-Mart.
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, it’s before that, Tim. It ends right about.
MR. BREWER-Where Ray Supply.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where the billboard is. Because I think there was a right-of-way that Wal-Mart
was trying to secure for tie in.
MR. RINGER-Yes, through that Glen Acres area there, when they were building.
MR. BREWER-It’s in that general area.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at a mile up the road.
MR. RINGER-That’s a long way. The way they’re spending money, though, it doesn’t seem like it’s
a big issue to them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding this archeological, have you found anymore?
MR. VOSS-I put a call in to the State, and the advice I got was they won’t release any information
unless it’s through a form request of the Phase IA Report, in the form of a Phase IA request. So, in
other words, it’s within the Board’s discretion to require the applicant to have a Phase IA
archeological study done, which is what that document is for the other site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they’ve already done the parking lot. I mean, they’ve already disturbed all
of that surfacing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone familiar with this? This was brought to my attention this afternoon,
and this is an archeological sensitivity assessment that was done in part, this is part of the application
for Everest Enterprises, for the motel, and in this thing, they identify area of sites of either historic or
archeological significance, and one of the sites they list is the Animal Land site.
MR. STARK-Archeological?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It says prehistoric (lost words).
MR. STARK-They’re saying there were Indian tribes up there or something?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know what they’re saying.
MR. BREWER-I’ll bet you that’s what it is, though, because of the water up there. I’ll bet you they
were right across, you know what I mean, similar to Hudson Pointe.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my guess, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Once you’ve disturbed one of these sites, these people, not that they’re no longer
interested, but whatever they go looking for has already been disturbed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chuck, could you pick this up and run with it? This was made part of the
application of the Everest for the motel thing?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. VOSS-When Everest first came in, on the other parcel that’s supposed to be subdivided out,
back off Montray Road, there’s a site called Blind Rock, and locally it has some historical significance,
as a site of Indian tortures or things like that going, you know, it’s speculative.
MR. STARK-Why would they be looking at Animal Land when their site’s down the road a half a
mile?
MR VOSS-Because typically when an archeological firm is contracted to do a Phase IA Report, it’s a
literature report. They go back and they check literature references to see if they can find any links to
the site. With this, what they typically do is they do kind of a, you know, a spread out pattern, too,
and they look for proximity of other sites that may be significant to a specific site.
MR. STARK-Why didn’t they look at Halfway Brook or down by Fort Amherst Road? I mean,
there’s all kinds of archeological sites.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, they’ve identified six sites in here, that are like within, I’d say like a five
mile radius of this motel. Seven Mile Post, Fox Farm site, and Fort Amherst.
MR. VOSS-That’s typically how it’s done for any site.
MR. STARK-What, an archeological study? If somebody wants to build something they’ve got to
have an archeological study?
MR. VOSS-No. We requested an archeological, Phase I Study like that for the Montray site, the
Everest site, simply because of the existence of the Blind Rock historical site. We wanted to see if it
was listed anywhere in State Archives as being a historically significant site.
MR. STARK-Blind Rock?
MR. VOSS-Yes, because it had a local lore attached to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right out there behind there. Have you ever gone and seen the Rock?
MR. STARK-From the Ponderosa?
MR. VOSS-Yes, it’s behind Ponderosa, basically, down in the woods.
MR. STARK-No, I haven’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits next month, we’ll go look at it.
MR. STARK-I never heard of it.
MR. VOSS-George, just to answer your question, it is standard procedure for any archeological
report on any site, anywhere, usually, is to kind of do a little spread pattern out around it to see what
else is around the site, not that it has any significance, and it was purely by chance that that happened
to get included, I think.
MR. STARK-When the light industrial area on Carey Road there and everything, that should have
archeological sites on it, also. Was a study ever done for that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Specific sites were done, because they brought in the lady who did
the.
MR. STARK-I know, at Native Textiles, and they identified sites, but I’m just wondering that whole
area, then. If it was there, why wasn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-That goes one step beyond what this thing is. That’s the next step.
MR. STARK-They didn’t find anything on their site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where, Native?
MR. STARK-No, I’m talking about on Ponderosa.
MR. BREWER-If I’m right, I think they just do a research study by a computer or whatever, records,
and say that there’s a site here. There possibly could be one there. That’s what they did. They don’t
physically go out on site.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a data research. Search through archives, history books.
MR. STARK-There’s outfits that do this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. The State does it. The State does this, right?
MR. VOSS-The State can do it, but there’s all sorts of private contractors that do that.
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s actually a State approved list of qualified historical, archeological
consultants.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that lady who did, she came up here and did the diggings over here at the
cemetery.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s one of the firms.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Quaker Cemetery.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, Jeannette Collymer is her name.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Indians brought their captives to Blind Rock to torture them.
MR. STARK-Really?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know what to do.
MR. BREWER-Go into the thing, and if we have any questions, table them.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. The first item on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 34-99 TYPE II MARGARET BOLEN OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-
42A, APA, CEA LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD, SOUTH OF WILLIAMSONS STORE,
WHITE FARMHOUSE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 5’ X 17’ +/-
COMBINATION LAUNDRY, BATH AND SECOND ENTRY. EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1999 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 9.89 ACRES SECTION: 179-13
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-99, Margaret Bolen, Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 “Description
of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 94 square foot enclosed addition. Planning Board
review and approval is required as per Section 179-79, Nonconforming structures. An Area Variance
was received for setback relief for the proposed project. Staff Notes: The proposed project is
considered an expansion of a nonconforming use in a Critical Environmental Area. The addition will
be used for a laundry, bathroom and second entryway. The expansion is minimal relative to the size
of the parcel and the existing structure. Staff recommends approval of the site plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-And the County?
MR. VOSS-Warren County Planning Board, No County Impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STARK-Craig, this is the one that’s already built.
MR. RINGER-The one that’s already built. Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOSS-It’s under construction.
MR. STARK-The siding isn’t on, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well underway. How about we leave it at that, well underway. Is anyone here
from the applicant? Any questions from the Board?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. PALING-Yes, I've got some questions. I think they’re for Staff. Land Conservation says
you’ve got to have 42 acres, and this is less than a 10-acre lot. That’s an existing condition which
we’re not going to? Is that grandfathered in or what?
MR. VOSS-Yes, pre-existing, nonconforming structure or nonconforming parcel size.
MR. PALING-Okay, and I've got two other questions. You’re saying that this is a 94 square foot
addition, and yet five by seventeen is an 85 square foot addition. In addition to that, it says that
there’s going to be a 71 square foot addition right off from where this is going to be. That just
shows vacant space on the print.
MR. VOLLARO-We're only approving the laundry and bath and entry tonight, or we’re only
discussing it, not approving it.
MR. PALING-Well, I think they ought to clarify all three questions raised, or that could come back
and bite us some day. Did you ever look at the site development data? Item A, it says the proposed
addition is 94 square feet. Yet, the agenda says it’s 85 square feet. Which is it?
MR. RINGER-I think the agenda says plus or minus, doesn’t it?
MR. VOLLARO-It says plus or minus.
MR. RINGER-Staff Notes say plus or minus.
MR. VOSS-No, I think the agenda is probably a misprint. The Staff Notes would be, as far as I
know, the correct dimensions.
MR. PALING-Is 94? All right. Then how about Item E? That I think refers to something that’s
not going to be, isn’t it? It says old porch area, nothing there now.
MR. VOLLARO-Does that five and a half by x come out to be 71 square feet?
MR. PALING-I’m not sure.
MR. VOLLARO-It says old porch.
MR. BREWER-It says in the variance it was the footprint of an old porch.
MR. PALING-But why should they include it in the addition of square feet?
MR. BREWER-Because it wasn’t there. It was just the footprint.
MR. STARK-You don’t count porches in square footage.
MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t enough information here to even answer Bob’s question.
MR. VOSS-I think what it was was the applicant was somewhat confused, because the old front
porch area probably was close to the five and a half by seventeen feet, which does compute out to
almost 93 and a half, 94 square feet. Why they had the 71 feet listed, I think he’s referring to what he
perceived as the existing old porch area, and he may not have incorporated, you know, another
portion of that deck, or he may have computed incorrectly. I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-That probably ought to be all zeros in there.
MR. VOSS-Yes, because clearly the proposed addition, it’s going to be 94 square feet, enclosed. It’s
not going to be a porch or a deck, and that was clarified in the Zoning Board meeting last week as
well, that I attended. So I do have some firsthand knowledge of where he was going with it. There
was to be no additional porch area or deck area or anything like that.
MR. RINGER-They were at the ZBA meeting.
MR. PALING-Then they should take the 71 square feet out.
MR. VOSS-Technically, yes, that would clarify everything. Clearly, he is going for a 94 square foot
enclosed porch area, over the existing footprint of a 94 +/- square foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Bob?
MR. PALING-Yes, that’s all I had.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. STARK-Just as an aside, what happens, seriously, I build something, okay, and it’s all up, and a
neighbor complains and I go and I've got to get a site plan, okay, and the Town doesn’t approve it,
for some reason.
MR. MAC EWAN-It comes down.
MR. STARK-Has that ever happened?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It has.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if it’s happened here, but in a couple of the courses.
MR. STARK-Seriously. Tim, you’ve been on the longest. Has it ever happened here?
MR. BREWER-What?
MR. STARK-I did something, you know, I didn’t know I needed a site plan for some reason or
other, I go through site plan, and it gets turned down. Does the building ever come down? Has
anything ever happened? Have you ever heard of anything happening?
MR. BREWER-I don’t remember one ever happening, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought there was one up in Cleverdale, about a year ago, when the guy actually
built an addition on his porch that was in the Town right-of-way?
MR. BREWER-A porch, I’m thinking of one, there was a screened-in porch, and the guy made it
into a living room, or part of his room, and the ZBA turned him down, but I don’t know if they ever
made him take it down.
MR. VOLLARO-In one of the courses I went to, when Harris Willis was teaching, they made
somebody take an apartment building down.
MR. STARK-Just a question, that’s all.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That’s a New York City building, the top five floors. It actually didn’t
come down. The court said it had to come down. They cut a last minute deal with the group that
was opposing them, but I’ll give you a very simple answer to your question. The answer is that if
push comes to shove, yes, buildings have been forced to come down. I have been involved in court
cases in Warren County where the Warren County Supreme Court required buildings that were
already built to be taken down, and we enforced those decisions, and it happened.
MR. BREWER-No kidding? I don’t remember this Board ever turning one down, since I've been on
the Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-The cases I’m thinking of happened not to be in Queensbury, but they are in
Warren County.
MR. BREWER-I suppose it could happen.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m telling you it does.
MR. VOSS-Yes. I've seen it happen in the City of Albany, with porches and decks and additions.
MR. BREWER-What happened with the New York City? I thought they had to take five floors off
or something?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what everybody thinks. They cut a last minute deal with the group that
was opposing them. The courts did say, even though this was like the top five floors of a large,
many, many square foot footprint, and the court said, the highest court in the State, Second Appeals,
said.
MR. STARK-What do you want to do with this, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. RINGER-I really don’t see any problem with this, even though she may not be here. I mean,
we’d approve it either way.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-99 MARGARET BOLEN, Introduced by
Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
As per Staff prepared motion.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 34-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application w/3 maps
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/24/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/16/99 – ZBA resolution
3.
6/3/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
4.
6/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
5.
6/3/99 - Meeting Notice
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/24/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
34-99 for Margaret Bolen.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Site Plan No. 30-99 is off the agenda. The public hearing was scheduled
tonight, but I don’t want to open up the public hearing. I would like to have it re-advertised and
come back.
MR. BREWER-It’s going to be a new application?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He didn’t get his variance.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. BREWER-Does that mean he has to have a whole new everything here? Why should we make
him do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you read your Staff Notes, Staff is encouraging him to re-design his project,
and he didn’t get his variances, or his septic variance, I should say. So he probably will be re-
designing it in one form or another.
MR. SCHACHNER-He submitted a new application to the Town Board yesterday, and the Town
Board today has scheduled a public hearing on the septic variance for July 19.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Site Plan No. 31-99 has been tabled by the applicant. That’s for Premier
Parks, for the parking area in Animal Land. That one, as well, I don’t want to open up the public
hearing on, but I’d like to have that one re-advertised. Only because it’s going to have a lot of public
interest. I think it’s a reasonable thing to do.
MR. BREWER-You want this re-advertised, Premier Parks?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Why?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I just stated the reasons why. Because I think there’s going to be a lot of
public interest in it, and I think it’s the right thing to do.
MR. BREWER-Can’t we table it and have them re-advertise it, or are they going to have to have a
whole new application?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We're tabling it, but we’re going to re-advertise the meeting. Everest
Enterprises, LLC, Subdivision 10-1999, that is being tabled as well. This one we’ll open up the
public hearing and leave it open.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER: D & C MANAGEMENT
ASSOC., INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 43 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN 82 UNIT
SLEEP INN HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-
1999, SP 32-99 TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2 LOT SIZE: 7.03 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-They didn’t do their 500 foot notifications. Which brings us to the next site plan.
MR. RINGER-Going back to the other one, have we decided he needs a new site plan for that
subdivision, for Everest Enterprises?
MR. MAC EWAN-For the one we’re going to do the two lot?
MR. RINGER-We don’t have a site plan for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He needs to submit a site plan drawing, subdivision drawing.
MR. RINGER-No sense having him come in next month and then tell him he needs something.
Tell him ahead of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I forgot about that.
MR. BREWER-And to request any waivers if he wants any, too.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then we’re going to do 32-99?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
SITE PLAN NO. 32-99 TYPE: UNLISTED EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER:
D & C MANAGEMENT ASSOC., INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 43 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 82 UNIT SLEEP INN
HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. HOTEL IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW
USE IN THE HC ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 10-1999, AV 57-1999 BEAUTIFICATION
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
COMM.: 6/7/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2 LOT SIZE:
7.03 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
JAY KAPOOR & PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have everyone here that’s going to be with you here tonight?
MR. KAPOOR-No, but I can, it doesn’t matter. I can answer any questions you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll move on with it. We had an awful lot of items taken off the agenda
tonight, which is kind of speeding things up.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-99, Everest Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: June 24, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes an 82 unit hotel. The proposed project requires
site plan review and approval in the highway commercial zone. The applicant has received an area
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff Notes: The proposed project meets the code
requirements for parking, use, access, and landscaping. The proposed use is compatible with the
existing uses. The Beautification Committee recommended the tree size be increased to 3-3 ½”
caliper and the dumpster be appropriately screened. Staff spoke with the applicant in regards to
parking location and stormwater information. The applicant has indicated the location of the parking
would serve the patrons more efficiently out front than relocating the parking to the back. The
Town code requires a 50 year storm plan for retention and detention basins according to Section
183-27 Storm Drainage. The applicant has indicated an emergency overflow would accommodate a
100 year storm, Storm Water Management Report page 2. Recommendation: Staff recommends
approval of the site plan with the removal of the five parking spaces located between the
interconnection with Ponderosa and the main entrance of the hotel. There may be a conflict with
vehicles parking and driving through.”
MR. MAC EWAN-You have County stuff too, right? I believe you did, anyway.
MR. VOSS-The County Planning Board Recommendations: “Approve With Stipulation that
lighting, ingress/egress points, colors and signage be applied to project as presented in drawings
provided to Board.”
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it, right?
MR. VOSS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. KAPOOR-Sure. My name is Jay Kapoor. I’m a principle of Everest Enterprises, LLC, the
Project Manager on the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the project, please.
MR. KAPOOR-Sure. It looks like it’s going to be hopefully a 79-unit Sleep Inn. It says 80 on that.
We were just moving some stuff around inside. Indoor pool, exercise room, splittable meeting room,
basically to serve a pretty broad range of the market. We have 12 suites in there for the upper
echelon. Then we have, the balance will be regular rooms in different configurations, Queen, King,
that kind of thing, three stories, continental breakfast served, every morning, free. I don’t know
anything else you want to know. We did get a variance for the height of the tower.
MR. MAC EWAN-We noticed that.
MR. STARK-I was surprised they got the height variance, because they’ve turned them down in the
past, such as at The Great Escape. That was a big controversy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two things maybe we can start with is this, how does Staff, is Staff satisfied with
the stormwater report?
MR. VOSS-Yes. Actually, there’s been some correspondence back and forth between the applicant’s
architect, Continental, and Rist-Frost Associates, and we just received a fax this afternoon, late this
afternoon, from Rist-Frost, basically accepting all the approved recommendations that they have
previously made of the applicant for stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has their plan been revised to be a 50-year storm?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. VOSS-Yes. If you’d like, I can read that Rist-Frost letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you, please?
MR. VOSS-This was received at 4:38 this afternoon. To Mr. Chris Round, Regarding Site Plan No.
32-99 Everest Enterprises “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the supplemental information and
details dated June 24, 1999, submitted in response to our comment letter dated June 18, 1999. The
additional information and details are acceptable subject to the submission of calculations
demonstrating: 1. The proposed 50-year storm flow should be less than or equal to the existing site
50-year storm flow. 2. The dry well storm management system shall meet the requirements for the
50-year storm conditions. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST
ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas R. Center, Jr. Project Engineer”
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question. I thought maybe you were going to address it, but if you get
to Rist-Frost’s 18 June letter, their Number Five in that letter. It says “Per my conversation with
th
Peter Loyola, Continental Landscape Architecture & Planning, P.C., the three (3) area drains to the
west of the new building will be eliminated from the site plan, and roof drains will be added and
connected to the Stormwater Management Plan.” Well, I couldn’t find that anywhere in the
Stormwater Management Plan, even in the inserts in the back. They provided two drawing inserts
with the plan, and I don’t see where they’ve changed the original drawing at all to show the roof
drains. I don’t see them.
MR. VOSS-If you’d like, I've got another letter from Peter Loyola to Tom Center of Rist-Frost,
which is also dated today, which I think might address that, at least in the applicant’s terms.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. VOSS-To Mr. Thomas Center, Rist-Frost Associates, Regarding the Queensbury Sleep Inn,
“Dear Mr. Center: Based on our phone discussion today, I have enclosed a summary of storm
calculations for a 50 year storm event as requested. Our proposed storm water design does in fact
meet and exceed requirements for the 50-year storm event. Also enclosed is a detail of the drywells
we are proposing for the lawn area west of the new building (we will add the detail to the grading
plan). As a matter of clarification, no roof drains are proposed. All other items mentioned in your
letter are underway including NYS DOT curb cut and work permit, sanitary sewer district extension,
sewer and water approvals, and Town Highway curb cut approval. Also, a note has been added to
the drawing indicating that all work will comply with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to call. Please
forward your review and final comments to Chris Round for approval. Thanks for your immediate
attention. Sincerely, CONTINENTAL Landscape Architecture & Planning, P.C. Peter Loyola,
ASLA Principal” Just as a note, this letter was received prior to the Rist-Frost letter that I just read
into the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and so that means that Rist-Frost does approve of not having roof drains? I
mean, the roof drain thing is still hanging.
MR. VOSS-Yes. It’s my understanding, based on Rist-Frost’s letter of late this afternoon that
obviously they were in possession of Peter Loyola’s comments regarding the roof drains, and they
had no additional comments, and they did not include it in this final letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Since he said we weren’t going to provide them, they didn’t counter, which in your
estimation means they’ve accepted them. Is that correct?
MR. VOSS-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else. I couldn’t find where they talked about the
dumpster being appropriately screened. Damned if I can find a dumpster on here.
MR. BREWER-It’s screened.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s screened, yes. It’s screened so well I can’t find it.
MR. KAPOOR-I can show you, if it’s not on there, approximately where it is. Would you like me
to?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. KAPOOR-It’s going to be right here.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is where it’s going to be?
MR. KAPOOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And they want to screen that in.
MR. KAPOOR-Yes. They actually showed us some pictures. We're going to do it with a chain link
fence with the slats down through it. It’s like permanent.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Typical screening for a dumpster.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll have to revise your plans to indicate that’s the location, just for the record.
He’s indicated a screened in dumpster area to the north of the farthest back parking areas on the site
plan. How’s that? Right underneath the note where it says the “Proposed Lot 1, 2.9 plus or minus
acres”. Anything else?
MR. RINGER-The Staff Notes recommend you taking out those five parking spots next to the
Ponderosa. Is that a problem?
MR. KAPOOR-If it doesn’t interfere with the number of parking spaces that we are required to have
by the Town of Queensbury, it’s not a problem with us.
MR. RINGER-Okay. When you were here last month, we talked about the parking, and it seemed
like it was close, if you had enough or not.
MR. KAPOOR-Well, we do have the ability to add more if there isn’t, of if you want to move a
couple to a different location, or you’re not happy with where they are. We do have some room in
the back.
MR. LOYOLA-Hi. I’m Peter Loyola, Landscape Architect with Continental Landscape
Architecture.
MR. RINGER-Chuck, when you asked for the five parking, did you count the number of parking
spaces they had in relation to what they needed?
MR. VOSS-Yes. Basically on the plan, 82 spaces are required for the site, and they are providing 93,
with five handicapped. So a net reduction of five isn’t going to have much influence as far as the
Code’s required.
MR. RINGER-Can we base the 82 on the number of square footage?
MR. VOSS-I believe it was based on the rooms.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOSS-I’d have to look at the Code again, but I believe that’s.
MR. LOYOLA-One space per unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think Staff raises a good point, though, of removing those five parking spots,
just because of the interconnect between the two parcels. Okay.
MR. BREWER-This is going to be connected to the sewer district?
MR. KAPOOR-Yes.
MR. BREWER-It is.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the sewer line out there.
MR. BREWER-What are you going to do, go under the road?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. We're going to do a directional bore under Route 9. We're in the process of
that, too.
MR. BREWER-Is the Ponderosa going to jump on, too.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. BREWER-They are? That’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, considering that septic system that’s behind Ponderosa on this drawing. It
looks like a footprint from a UFO landed there.
MR. BREWER-Staff also mentions putting the parking out back, and moving the building near, and
you said it accommodates your customers more, or better, with the parking out front. Can you
maybe elaborate on that, why you don’t want to put the parking out back?
MR. KAPOOR-I don’t think any business would like to have less parking out front than out back. I
mean, if you show that your parking lot is full of cars, that gives a good impression of a good place to
go. If you just have one row of parking with a few cars out there, I don’t think that gives a good
impression. We made that mistake in Amsterdam with a Ponderosa down there. We put all the
parking in back. It doesn’t look right.
MR. RINGER-That’s a marketing concept I've heard before, and it is true.
MR. LOYOLA-Also in terms of circulation, with a hotel, the easier it is to get in and check in and
then get to the parking spaces, the better.
MR. BREWER-Do you have any pictures of what this is going to look like? I wasn’t here last
month.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they had a rendering.
MR. LOYOLA-I have a rendering that I could show you.
MR VOLLARO-When you mentioned the number of rooms, when you started out, you mentioned
something less than 82, one less than 82. What is the right number?
MR. KAPOOR-Of rooms? 79.
MR. VOLLARO-Seventy-nine. So that will sort of alter, the five spaces would even be less
requirement, now.
MR. KAPOOR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So 79 is the correct number, not 82.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’d like to do for a second, if we could, is just jump back to Warren
County’s approvals, and their approval that they mentioned in there, let me read it to you,
“Approved with stipulation that lighting, ingress/egress points, colors and signage be applied to the
project as presented in the drawings provided to their Board.” Do you have copies for our Board of
the drawings that you supplied Warren County so we can see what your colors are and so on and so
forth?
MR. LOYOLA-We never had any color renderings that we submitted to the County. We just
basically, the standard colors are cream color, stucco, with a, I believe it’s a Hunter Green roof, and
then the typical Sleep Inn sign and logo is kind of a bronze, dark brown color on the outside, with
kind of a multi-color on the interior for the actual logo, and the lettering, I believe, is yellow.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the color scheme that you plan on using on this building as well?
Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s another thing. You have a traffic light shown on the drawing, you
know that it’s not there.
MR. LOYOLA-Not yet. You’re talking about the one at the intersection of Sweet Road?
MR. VOLLARO-Sweet Road and Route 9, yes.
MR. LOYOLA-Right. In talking with DOT, that traffic light is slated to be installed sometime this
summer, I believe. They’re almost completed with their project. The traffic signal box is in, and the
poles are up. I’m not sure exactly when their schedule is for installing the light, but as I said, I was
tempted to just put proposed traffic signal there, but in talking with Mark Kennedy, it was such a
done deal that I put on the drawing existing traffic light, but that is slated, I believe, for this summer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. PALING-What about the impact on traffic from this Hotel? I haven’t heard a comment from
anybody on the Board, or from Staff either, and I’m a little surprised, because of the intersection that
we’re involved with. The intersection that’s closest to this, Route 9 and 254, has been rated “D”,
close to failure, on an A to F rating, and they’re forecasting a 49% increase in traffic over the next 15
years, whatever the number is, and I think most of us have tried to use the intersection coming from
Aviation Mall down, headed east, and the worst turn you’ve got is when you turn left on Route 9 or
try to go north. You can wait two and three traffic lights easy there, and if this Hotel is going to
advertise and have people coming off the Northway, they’re going to aggravate the worst part of a
bad intersection, and I’m wondering why DOT or Staff or somebody hasn’t questioned this or
brought it up.
MR. BREWER-The only thing I found that they said was something about a traffic light. They
showed a traffic light at Sweet Road that’s not really there.
MR. PALING-That doesn’t, we keep loading down Route 9.
MR. BREWER-Was DOT or anybody contacted about this Hotel unit?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. I've talked with Mark Kennedy. We're coordinating with him the curb cut. In
our initial meeting, he was the one that suggested that, easily with the way that we have our
ingress/egress, that we only are allowed to do a right out, as an egress.
MR. VOLLARO-On Route 9?
MR. LOYOLA-Onto Route 9. By law we’re allowed a right in onto Route 9. Then the only
question remained any southbound traffic be allowed to turn left into the Hotel, as an ingress.
MR. VOLLARO-At the secondary access, that would be one way to come in and not make a left into
the Hotel, by coming up Sweet Road and using the secondary access.
MR. LOYOLA-Correct. Yes. What we’re interested in, in terms of circulation, is getting our
customers into the site as quickly as possible, and obviously a right in is very doable, and I think it’s
legal, or law that it be allowed on a State highway. So at least a right in. The question that we’re up
against with DOT and, we’ve talked about it a little bit, is the left into the Hotel. There is a turning
median there. We did so some initial traffic counts. Nothing formally, but just to see what kind of
traffic we’re getting onto Weeks Road, that’s using the median, northbound traffic onto Weeks Road
that uses the median, and right now there doesn’t seem to be a problem. As I say, once we get our
clients and customers into the property, the interconnections are so visible with traffic signals, that
we’re going to post a no left turn out. There’s going to be a right hand turn only out, a right out, and
I think because of the proximity of the two traffic signals our customers are going to find it much
easier to go southbound to use the Ponderosa light. So just internally, I think by not allowing the left
out, they’re going to easily find their way to the traffic signals.
MR. BREWER-How is that enforced?
MR. LOYOLA-Just with a note. We have a median on the egress, you can see that the way that it’s
configured, the boulevard entrance, it’s just for right turn out.
MR. BREWER-Has Glens Falls Transportation looked at this at all?
MR. LOYOLA-Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. BREWER-Can we have them look at it?
MR. PALING-Is there a reason for that, they haven’t looked at it?
MR. VOSS-No, not that I know of. It never came up as an issue. It was simply felt that they weren’t
a big enough traffic generator, continuous traffic generator, especially at peak times.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see traffic as a problem at their site. Where the traffic is a problem is where
Bob was talking, down on 254, trying to make that left, and how many extra people are going to
make that left hand turn (lost word) Sleep Inn we don’t know, and I don’t know if we’ll ever know,
and I don’t know if we can turn a project down because of what we will never know.
MR. BREWER-No, but when we did Wal-Mart, when we did all the other projects, we had the
transit look at it, make any suggestions. We did traffic studies. I don’t think this dictates a traffic
study because we’ve traffic studied that road to death, and we just know it’s busy, but my mind says
that we ought to have them look at it and see if there’s going to be any kind of an impact.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. RINGER-The traffic jam isn’t going to be at the site.
MR. BREWER-Understood.
MR. RINGER-The traffic jam is further down the road.
MR. BREWER-But this may cause that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, but before we opened the meeting, I was talking about taking a look at an
end to end study of Exit 19 and 20. I think eventually that’s got to happen. That would include this
Hotel and all the way up into, past The Great Escape. That whole corridor, from 19 to 20, really has
to be looked at as to where that, all the way including Route 9 to the west, up next to the walkway,
and anything else that DOT can come up with and conjure up as an alternate plan.
MR. BREWER-Even if his customers come out Sweet Road, they’re not going to be familiar with
the area. They’re going to come right back out to 9.
MR. RINGER-To the traffic light.
MR. BREWER-There’s no traffic light at Sweet Road.
MR. LOYOLA-As I say, there will be, and I believe it’s scheduled for this summer. Again, I don’t
know how the exact date when DOT is going to complete the project, but they’re, as I say.
MR. BREWER-I think we ought to get that information and give it to the transit, Joanna Brunso
used to be the head of it. I don’t know who it is now.
MR. SCHACHNER-Scott Sopczyk.
MR. VOSS-Adirondack/Glens Falls Regional Transportation Committee, yes, Scott Sopczyk.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-As far as, you know, the traffic generated, this is not what I would consider,
but I could be mistaken, a resort hotel. So, to me, people would probably be coming off the
Northway in the evening hours, six o’clock maybe, five to maybe even ten o’clock, which is not a
peak time, and they’d be leaving, businesspeople, would be leaving early in the morning, getting up
early, out of there at eight o’clock or sooner even.
MR. LOYOLA-Right. That’s absolutely correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I don’t think, and I don’t think you’re going to get this in and out influx of
traffic all day long, but wait a second here, and I’m not doing a site, a traffic study for the Hotel,
believe me. I probably don’t even know what I’m talking about here, but how many rooms, again,
did you say you had here?
MR. VOLLARO-Seventy-nine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Seventy-nine rooms. So, we’re talking every night 79 rooms, that would be
great, 79 cars.
MR. BREWER-What about the last two weeks of July and the four weeks of August with the
racetrack?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then you’d have probably every night 79 rooms, yes.
MR. LOYOLA-Which equates to more, I believe, and I don’t have the EAF in front of me, but the
traffic generation was something like .5 per unit in the a.m. hours, I believe, and .61 in the evening
hours, p.m. hours. So that equated to something like I think total 90 trips generated for the day at a
peak, which is very, to me, in my mind, it’s minimal.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have a question for my fellow members here. What is your object of
having a study done on this? I mean, lets face it, our major industry in the summertime is the tourist
industry and, yes, we’d like to have lots of traffic go up and down Route 9 because that’s our, you
know, that’s viable and it’s a positive thing for our area economically. So lets say you don’t like the
traffic study here. So what’s the next, what are you proposing?
MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, what I said is I don’t think you can look at this, any of the traffic studies
along Route 9, you can’t take them individually.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you can’t.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to start looking at that as a whole road system, from Exit 19 to Exit 20.
If you start playing games with just one, everybody will pass, but if you put them all in the mix, then
you’re going to see what the real traffic looks like.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the point is, and I've said this all along, this is what I've been saying for
years. It’s up to us to look at the whole, the picture as a whole, up and down Route 9, but it’s not up
to us to build roads.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely not. This would turn out to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe I can shed a little bit of light on this. As we speak, it’s my understanding
there’s a joint traffic study/count being undertaken, in part by Premier Parks, and the other half of
it’s being done by the Glens Falls Area Transportation Council.
MR. VOSS-I’m not aware of that, but it may be occurring.
MR. MAC EWAN-This came out of a meeting that was with Premier Parks and Supervisor
Champagne, Chris Round and myself, back in May, the beginning of May. When they first started
announcing, Premier Parks first started announcing that they were going to start acquiring these
properties, and Scott Sopczyk was at that meeting, and that’s when the two of those parties got
together and said that they would split up the corridor and start doing some traffic counts. So I
know there’s a step being taken here that will probably lend itself to something bigger and better
toward the Fall.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think anybody said that we should do a traffic study. All I said was let the
transit authority, I think awhile back we said any project with any significance, to let them know
about it, because like Bob said, it’s in a cumulative impact.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is cumulative, but didn’t Chuck just say that the traffic people in the area
didn’t think that?
MR. BREWER-They didn’t know about it, Cath.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They didn’t know about it.
MR. BREWER-That was my point, that they should know about it. We never submitted anything to
them.
MR. VOSS-Now when the application first came in, we submitted the applicants with traffic studies
for the Wal-Mart center across the street and other things. However, in looking at the project as a
whole, we simply felt, and in conjunction with the DOT improvements that it was not a significant
traffic generator. Therefore, we did not submit it to A/GFTC, but it’s something we certainly can
do.
MR. PALING-I think there’s something else that you’re overlooking, and that’s that the long range
plan gave us a very serious warning about the intersection we’re talking about, and we’re talking
about the worst part of the worst intersection being affected, when people come to this Hotel, and
maybe we’ll pass this, and maybe we should, but I think we should absolutely get comment from the
people who know something about it.
MR. BREWER-I would agree.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that would be the safest thing to do.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I don’t think they need to do a traffic study because we had.
MR. PALING-And this is not going to be solved until we do look at the whole thing, from 19 to 20,
and we’re going to get into trouble time after time after time, until something is done. I don’t see
anything being done short-range, and if they bring something like this in, I think we’ve got to take a
close look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-Had the applicant done any in-house look at this?
MR. LOYOLA-The only thing we did was with regard to Weeks Road, and just did an informal
traffic count, for I believe, Jay, you actually counted cars in the morning and then in the afternoon,
jus to see what type of build-up we were getting onto Weeks Road, because that’s where we saw that
there may be some conflicts with our left hand turn into the Hotel, and what we found was, basically,
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
cars stacking themselves two and three at certain times during the morning, and two and three at
certain times during the evening hours, and there didn’t appear to be that there would be any
conflict. In terms of short-term improvements, just to address your comment, I think they are
making some short-term improvements just by putting the light there. I realize that Sweet Road, that
intersection was considered a bad intersection, and I think one of the stop gap measures is to put
that traffic signal there, which is going to improve the situation, I think, tremendously.
MR. PALING-Are they putting that in without realigning the road?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. There’s no realignment, not right now.
MR. KAPOOR-Although they were talking about it at Warren County, that they were looking into
that realignment.
MR. LOYOLA-Well, I think maybe the traffic signal is the first step to that, just to slow down traffic
at that intersection. I felt that it was a bonus to our project that the traffic light was actually put in,
because it really is going to slow down the traffic, and we can’t really ask for a better situation than to
have an ingress/egress between two fairly close traffic signals. We're going to make use by the
interconnections of both traffic signals out, and as customers continue to come back, if there’s a
back log of traffic at the traffic signal, lets say at the Ponderosa or on Sweet Road, knowing that
there’s some ingress/egress secondary access to the site, I think they’re going to make use of that.
Everything is all within, I think, clear visibility, all three, both the traffic signals and the entranceway
that, again, I don’t really think that the conflicts are going to create an impact.
MR. STARK-Craig, the Ponderosa probably does, I don’t know, how many cars a night, three, four
hundred cars a night going in and out? This time of years.
MR. KAPOOR-It depends, yes.
MR. STARK-A ton of cars going in and out of there, and there’s really not any back up there. Once
in a while you’re coming up, a guy’s taking a right.
MR. RINGER-If they put the light in, it’s not a problem.
MR. STARK-Yes. Here you’re talking 100 cars maximum, during the day. I mean, it’s not like 100
cars between five and six. I mean, people are going to be checking in from noon time until nine, ten
o’clock at night or whatever. Hopefully they’ll fill up. It’s not like you’ve got, I think you would
have more of a problem exiting, in the morning, but like you say, you’ve got both lights to exit in the
morning. Everybody’s going to leave, eight, nine o’clock, ten o’clock. Nobody’s going to stay until
check out time probably, very few. So they’re going to be exiting.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re absolutely right, George. When you look at this independently right here,
it’s not a traffic generator, but when you put it in the mix, from 19 to 20, it contributes.
MR. STARK-Granted, no problem, and what Tim says, you know, they should look at it as a whole,
but it’s not incumbent upon them to.
MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering if they had done in-house, when I mean in-house studies, you
know.
MR. STARK-Well, he did. He came up with a .5 or a .6 or something like that, trips generated per
unit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you haven’t really taken a look at what could happen on the whole Route
9 corridor. That’s what I really meant.
MR. LOYOLA-No.
MR. VOLLARO-As to how it would effect your traffic flow.
MR. LOYOLA-I tried to read, kind of bathroom reading, the traffic study that was generated for
Wal-Mart. There’s a lot of information there, and it was actually, didn’t really effect, I think, our site,
and our business.
DAVE KAPOOR
MR. D. KAPOOR-(Lost words) traffic lights from the Wal-Mart time, never have we had any line
there or anything, very smooth, in, out. No jam. Since the Wal-Mart has come up, you never see any
lines.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. STARK-This isn’t the forum for it, but in the future, maybe the Queensbury Planning
Department get together with Mark Kennedy and Glens Falls Transportation, you know, to do a
study on this whole corridor.
MR. RINGER-They’re going to be doing something on that.
MR. BREWER-I don’t see what the big problem is if we submit this to A/GFTC. Let them tell us
there’s not a problem. We're not the experts.
MR. STARK-There’s no problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what if they tell us there is a problem?
MR. BREWER-Then maybe we do something. I don’t know. That’s why I say let the people that
know what they’re talking about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But then if they tell us there is a problem, then we could say, okay, then some
place that’s already been established, well, we’ll just get rid of them and put these guys in. Because
you’re singling out each person again, each little establishment.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-When a project comes in, if it’s 100 cars, say there’s 1,000 there now, now it’s 1100.
Now the next one comes in they add 100. Now it’s 1200.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Say there’s a problem. Then we figure out a way to mitigate it.
MR. BREWER-Absolutely, if we can.
MRS. LA BOMBRD-If we can.
MR. MAC EWAN-They may come back and offer suggestions that maybe we’re all missing here and
a different way to flow traffic, a different way to, maybe they say, well, we’re going to get with DOT
and we’re going to synchronize those lights so they’re working in a different mechanism to help track
it through.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Well, is it possible to go ahead and make a motion with that kind of
a stipulation?
MR. BREWER-No, I would like to have comment from them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. BREWER-That’s my opinion.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I can’t understand is a planning staff who has gone to college, that’s
been trained in this whole process, it never even caught their attention, the fact that there could be a
problem with this.
MR. RINGER-Well, they looked at it and said that they didn’t feel it was a problem. Chuck had said
they looked at it and said they didn’t feel that this was a problem, that much of a problem, I should
say. That’s what you said, didn’t you, Chuck?
MR. VOLLARO-Was that done with some consultation, Chuck?
MR. VOSS-In-house consultations and with discussions with the applicant
MR. LOYOLA-And we also are in discussion with DOT. They’re the primary player here, and I feel,
and although the Regional Transportation Council may offer some insight, I don’t believe they’re
going to add anything to this project that DOT can’t handle.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but DOT doesn’t look at cumulative impacts like the local
transportation council does. That’s why they’re here. That’s why they’re established, to look at the
urban impacts of traffic congestion, moving of traffic throughout the Greater Glens Falls area.
That’s why they’ve been established. So, I think that that organization has a better handle of what
the local traffic situation is, better than what DOT would have out of Albany.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. STARK-You ought to ask the applicant, I agree with Tim. We can let them look at it. Most
likely they’re not going to, I don’t think there’s a problem with the project, except for this supposed
traffic maybe problem. I don’t think you’re under the gun as far as construction goes.
MR. LOYOLA-We are.
MR. STARK-I don’t see a problem with the project. Maybe they could table, put them on the
schedule for the first week meeting in July, and you’ll have your comments by then. If they need a
special meeting, get the comments as soon as possible, and we’ll give them a special meeting the first
week in July. Whatever. They’ve got to come back in anyway for the subdivision.
MR. LOYOLA-I thought we were in the final stage for the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Did you not talk with Laura Moore today from the office, from here?
MR. LOYOLA-Briefly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did she not advise you that we had not received, the Town had not received your
return receipts for your 500 foot notices that you mailed out?
MR. LOYOLA-It was my understanding that since notices went out for site plan approval that.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not one in the same.
MR. BREWER-They’ve got to be certified, is that what it is?
MR. SCHACHNER-Two different ballgames.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because you have, I can put it to you in an analogy like this. There may have
been people who might have vested interest in a subdivision action that they might be an adjacent
neighbor who wouldn’t be interested in what the site plan issue is facing Route 9.
MR. STARK-Go along with this. A couple of weeks isn’t going to, you know. If you need a special
meeting, no problem. I don’t see a problem with it.
MR. BREWER-I don’t either.
MR. STARK-Have them look at it. They say, fine. No problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s a consensus here on the Board to table this application pending
review by the Adirondack Transportation Council for their input.
MR. STARK-To ensure the speed, maybe poll the Board to see if there’s any other problems.
MR. BREWER-I have one other question. I don’t know if it’s a problem. I don’t think it’s a
problem. I just have a question. In the back, in the retention pond, does that lay level at 452 for
how far? Because it just shows it going down to 448. My question is, is that water going to sheet
back onto this back piece of property and just go into the ground?
MR. LOYOLA-Basically, we’re catching everything into the detention pond that’s coming off our
site. It currently flows over this piece of property, the back piece of property, and goes to the culvert
that’s under Montray Road, that crosses Montray Road.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LOYOLA-What my goal with the stormwater was to detain the water at a level that’s existing,
and we’re doing that. We're actually exceeding that for a 50 year storm.
MR. BREWER-I guess my question is I don’t see where it levels off. I see 452, and where you’ve got
the words “detention/retention pond”.
MR. VOLLARO-It goes all the way down to 450, 448.
MR. BREWER-Four forty-six, then it comes back up to. It’s like a ripple like.
MR. LOYOLA-Well, this is our basin that we’re creating, and there’s an out-fall here that’s a
controlled outlet, that at this point, we’re trying to control the runoff to this exact same levels as
what’s coming off there now. Right now there’s a big ravine in here that just kind of swales down
through and comes down over here.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. BREWER-Right now this isn’t all blacktop.
MR. LOYOLA-Exactly, and that’s why we have this detention pond in here. You can see that the
depth of this is about five and a half feet, six feet. Actually, it’s a little bit more. Then it comes back
up.
MR. BREWER-Then back down.
MR. LOYOLA-Right. So we’ve created, essentially, a basin where water is going to flow into here,
collect, and then at an invert be discharged to here at a slower rate. So all the increase in runoff is
coming off the building, we’re holding up in the detention pond, and then going out of the detention
pond.
MR. BREWER-Well, I don’t know what’s going to happen on this piece of property, but don’t you
think if you spread that flow out it would go back into the ground easier or faster, or not?
MR. LOYOLA-No, because the slopes here are so steep that we need to really control it with a
basin, and any of the increase in runoff, there’s just not enough room on our parcel. By law we need
to control our parcel, and there’s just not enough. If we had it sheet flow, there’s not enough room
to reduce the velocities, because of the grades. So we need to really control it with a detention.
MR. BREWER-And Rist-Frost is all right with this?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay. How is that controlled, that flow, by the size of the pipe of the outlet?
MR. LOYOLA-Correct, and the invert, you know, how high it is up in the pond, in the detention
area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chuck, I have a question for you. While that little discussion was going on, I was
kind of asking some questions back up, and as a question of curiosity more than anything else. If a
commercial enterprise is hooked into a municipal sewer system, does their stormwater management
go into that sewer system as well, or is that controlled in a different way?
MR. VOSS-Ideally, in most municipalities, there’s a stormwater separation ordinance. I know in the
City of Albany traditionally, stormwater and sewer went into the same system, creating major
problems during peak storm events. You’d have raw sewage blowing up through the drain, you
know, the storm drains and things like that, which was terrible. The City’s undertaking incredible
efforts to separate those two systems. Ideally, we prefer stormwater detention on site. You don’t
want to run it into the municipal sewer system because then you wind up overflowing the treatment
plant and everything else during major events. So, technically, and I’m not an engineer, a stormwater
engineer or a sewage engineer, but that’s been what I've seen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Queensbury have such an ordinance?
MR. VOSS-Not to my knowledge.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you research that for us?
MR. VOSS-Sure.
MR. STARK-I thought all projects, regardless of septic, all the stormwater has to be retained on the
site?
MR. BREWER-It does.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just a curious question.
MR. BREWER-I was just asking him how he was going to control that flow.
MR. STARK-If it went into the septic, that would be off the site. It has to be on the site.
MR. BREWER-It is.
MR. VOSS-I think if the Town had two separate systems, a sewage system and a stormwater system,
we would require them to tie into that stormwater system, but the Town doesn’t have it.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. BREWER-Actually, you’re pushing that water onto another lot. What if you sell that lot?
MR. LOYOLA-No. It is flowing through our property and going to the other lot. We're not
impacting that lot whatsoever because we’re actually reducing the rate of runoff that’s going through
that lot. The law states that, not that we retain all stormwater runoff on our site, but that we detain it
to the levels of existing condition. So, right now it’s a grassy field, some disturbed area, some
permeable, and it’s running off at a certain rate. In this case, for a 50 year storm, I believe it’s 2.4 cfs.
Not that the number means anything, but that’s the existing rate of runoff that’s leaving our
property. In developing a stormwater management plan, with the detention pond, any increase of
runoff that’s generated with the increased pavement and building, we have to come up with methods
to detain that runoff so that it leaves the site at the exact rate or less of existing conditions, and in
this case, with a 50 year storm, I think we’ve actually reduced it, and I have the exact number here for
the 50 year. I think it’s 1.89 that we’re reducing the rate of runoff.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s from the 252?
MR. LOYOLA-From 2.4 cfs to?
MR. VOLLARO-1.9 cfs?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, let me just get the exact number here, 2.09. So, we’re actually reducing the rate
of runoff.
MR. BREWER-But in a concentrated area.
MR. LOYOLA-Well, it’s actually at the same area that’s being discharged, because we have that
swale. Although it is a little bit more concentrated, it’s still going to the same direction, and it is
dispersing over the property to the back.
MR. BREWER-My only concern is if you do, well, is there access to that lot? Yes, on Montray. If
you do sell that, it doesn’t create a problem for somebody else that wants to build in the back, or in
the front and have whatever type of facility they want out there. As long as you’re keeping less water
going onto their property, or actually it’s your property now, who knows whose it’s going to be in the
future, that you don’t create a problem with the stormwater runoff.
MR. LOYOLA-Right, and that’s what we’re doing, and I think also, you know, one of the things, the
calculations are pretty conservative here. We really haven’t taken into consideration a lot of
infiltration from that pond. The soils are really sandy, and I think most, this is going to be a dry
pond. Until it rains, there’ll be a little bit of a backup of water there, standing water, but I think
because of the soil conditions, it’s going to be, essentially, a dry pond 90% of the time.
MR. VOLLARO-So you say it’s more retention than detention.
MR. LOYOLA-It’s more detention than retention.
MR. STARK-What was the perc test up there, 30 seconds, a minute?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, I’d say it was that. We didn’t do any perc tests because we’re not required to
because of the septic systems, but the soils are excessively drained. It’s a sandy, cobbly soil. So
anything that goes to the detention pond will most likely first infiltrate into the ground.
MR. D. KAPOOR-Permeability is very fast. We had it done for Ponderosa, when we installed our
septic systems.
MR. VOSS-Craig, I’m sorry. If I could just add one thing. I was looking through the Warren
County Planning Board, the Staff Notes, and typically under General Municipal 239, the reason why
we send referrals to the County, the County is looking for impacts on County and State
infrastructure. In other words, streets or County buildings, things like that. They’re not necessarily
concerned with how a site plan looks or anything along those lines, and the last sentence of the Staff
Notes to the County Planning Board members said, Staff is recommending discussion due to the
potential impacts on traffic patterns on Route 9. By that, I’m assuming that Staff raised that issue, as
far as traffic impacts on Route 9, which is a quasi-County-State facility, with the intention that the
County take a hard look at those traffic impacts, and again, it’s my understanding that had the
County and their traffic engineers come up with any significant impacts, they would have reflected
that in their recommendations. Just food for thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that Planning Board minutes or Staff Notes you’re reading?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. VOSS-This is County Planning Board Staff Notes to the County Planning Board members
themselves. So it’s my assumption that being one of the primary functions of the County Planning
Board to look at traffic impacts on their own infrastructure, i.e. Route 9, that had there been issues,
they would have come up through the County. So again, just going back to, you know, somebody
taking a closer look at that issue, the County, in my reading of this, did take a close look at that issue
and had no concerns with it.
MR. BREWER-I still feel the same way.
MR. VOSS-Again, yes, we can still send it to A/GFTC. However.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m getting the consensus I think the Board’s looking to move this thing
to have the Adirondack Transportation Council give this a look over, which I think is, in and of
itself, a very good idea. That’s what they’re there for. I want to go right down the Board, though,
and ask everyone. Bob, how do you feel about that?
MR. PALING-I think it should be clarified that there’s evidently a lot of work being done on the
study of the accesses, and perhaps a traffic light. The traffic itself is what we’re asking to be
addressed in this request.
MR. STARK-I don’t have any problem with the project. You get an okay from them, fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel the same way. I think that as long as they have to wait to do the other
part of the procedure for Preliminary subdivision, then we might as well make sure all the stones are
turned over.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I feel differently about it. I don’t feel that a traffic study or even a look along
here is going to do an awful lot of good. I guess I’m stuck on the idea of taking a look at the whole
corridor, and this small amount of traffic, the ingress/egress morning and night I don’t think is going
to really impact that much. If the rest of the Board is prone to do that, that’s fine, but I really don’t
see a need for it. What I do see is a need for a cumulative, end to end study of that whole corridor,
to really get this question, you know, you don’t do a system study here if you do a components part
study, which is really what we’re doing. We're never going to know how this whole system functions.
MR. STARK-That’s being done, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, not necessarily being done, no.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s just my feeling on it.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see where this particular project is having a heavy impact on traffic, either.
However, I feel like Bob, that we do need a traffic study of the whole corridor, not necessarily to
pass this, but if the Board feels that we need some more information from the Glens Falls
Transportation, then, if we can get it quickly, because the applicant has indicated they want to get
started on this, then I don’t have a problem, but I really don’t feel this is going to impact our decision
one way or the other.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tim, I think we know where you stand. You want to send it. So it looks like
we’ve got one, two, three, I’d like to send it off, too. So three of us, so am I hearing that four of you
really don’t want to send it?
MR. VOLLARO-No, there’s only two.
MR. BREWER-Two of us that don’t want to send it.
MR. VOLLARO-Just Larry and I.
MR. BREWER-Cathy and George said they.
MR. STARK-I could go either way. I really don’t think it’s an impact. If it’ll make you happy.
MR. BREWER-I don’t want you to do it to make me happy, George.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that it’s making anyone happy. I think it’s part of this Board’s duties, as
part of the planning process.
MR. RINGER-If we feel it’s a real problem.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. BREWER-Well, in my opinion I think any project on any major highway, such as Hewitt’s, this,
any other project on any other major highway should go to them automatically, and I think we’ve
stated that before, and that’s part of my reason for it. I don’t think it’s, it’s not going to effect my
opinion on whether we should approve this project or not, but I think, as protocol, it should have
gone there, and we should let them look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then that’s what we’ll do. Okay, folks. If you’re time constraints become
a burden for you, contact the Planning Staff and we might be able to accommodate you with a
special meeting earlier than our normally scheduled meetings of next month, which is the 20 and
th
the 27 are our two regular meetings for next month.
th
MR. J. KAPOOR-Is it too early for us to just (lost word) because we can’t wait that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Give Laura a call in the morning, Laura Moore, and ask her if maybe we can do
something here.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, we’ll do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s the consensus, then, we’re going to refer this to the Adirondack
Transportation Council for them to give their input to it.
MR. STARK-How fast can they go?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would imagine that they could probably turn something around here in a week
or so, I would think.
MR. VOSS-Yes. I don’t know what their workload is, but we could certainly get the application out
to them tomorrow. That’s not a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the other side of the coin, if we’re going to re-visit this application, and you
want to do your subdivision application in the same evening, there’s certain time restraints, legally,
for advertising and such, in order for your notices to be mailed and returned. So it’s not something
that we can just arbitrarily say we’re going to do it next Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday,
whatever. So that’s why it’s important to get a hold of Laura tomorrow and discuss it with her, and
she’ll give you the time line that it does need to be legally advertised.
MR. LOYOLA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would make sense to do them both in the same night.
MR. RINGER-Yes, unless time wise they couldn’t fit it in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, true.
MR. D. KAPOOR-Just one question. Can we start clean up on the land?
MR. MAC EWAN-Clean up as far as, what’s your definition of clean up?
MR. D. KAPOOR-Move the house and (lost words) and trees around?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would contact the Planning Office tomorrow and ask them, because there are
certain criteria which would constitute action on your site plan without approval that could be a
violation. So you need.
MR. BREWER-If he wanted to cut trees down, he could do that on his own land.
MR. MAC EWAN-There are certain things that would kick it. So, I would rather give him advice,
Tim, to tell him to contact Staff and find out for sure. I would contact, regarding that, probably
Dave Hatin, Dave Hatin, who’s the senior building inspector for the Town, and he would be able to
advise you as to what action you could pursue and what you can’t.
MR. D. KAPOOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LOYOLA-Are there any additional issues that need to be brought up?
MR. MAC EWAN-The only other issue that I saw that kind of was bantering around here was
regarding that retention pond, but I think everyone feels comfortable with it?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I think if Rist-Frost had a comment on that, based on the stormwater
management report, then they would have raised that issue, and it seems that all those issues have
been satisfied in your memorandum that had been read by Chuck, and what we have here. I did have
questions about that whole thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On that note, before I table it, I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-If anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, they’re welcome
to do so, but we’ll leave it open. Okay. Gentlemen, we’ll table that application, and you contact Staff
tomorrow and see what you can do about setting up a special meeting.
MR. J. KAPOOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site Plan No. 33-99 for the Town of Queensbury C & D Landfill has been
taken off the agenda, probably forever.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that was killed at the Town Board, wasn’t it?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not in that term, but yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other items in front of the Board? I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan Chairman
23