2002-03-19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
JOHN STROUGH
ANTHONY METIVIER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 8, 2002: NONE
January 15, 2002: NONE
January 22, 2002: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JANUARY 8, 15, AND 22, 2002, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENG. ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING A PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE, THE DIET CENTER, AND IS PROPOSING SUBLEASE OF 300 SQ. FT. FOR
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE (NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME). NEW USES IN MR-5
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PURSUANT TO
SECTION 179-18 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-01, AV 65-01,
SV 66-01 WARREN PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 LOT SIZE: 8,398 SQ. FT.
SECTION: 179-18
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHERIE LUKE, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was back in September 2001, and the past two, on January 15
th
and February 28 of this year were tabled.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke, Meeting Date: March 19, 2002 “Project
Description
The applicant is currently operating a Professional Office, The Diet Center and is proposing a sublease for
the remaining 300 square feet office space. This project required an Area Variance due to limiting site
conditions and the unavailability to construct the required parking spaces on the site.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The project was granted an Area Variance for parking spaces and separation distance between access
points. A professional office use is an allowable use in the MR-5 zoning district.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
Associated with the area variance is the need, according to the applicant, to develop parking areas
within the County right of way for Bay Road. The applicant has been granted a work permit from
the County for the construction and use of parking areas within the right of way. See work permit
02-01.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
An additional, albeit, low intensity access point onto a Regional Arterial highway is discouraged,
given the closeness ( less than 40 feet in both directions ) to other access points. The proposed
layout will allow patrons the availability to turn around and exit the site without backing up onto Bay
Road.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
No adverse impacts are anticipated with regards to these features.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
Aside from the required handicap ramp, no new construction is planned. No additional lighting is depicted
on the project plan.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
See above notes regarding Area Variance.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
See above notes regarding Area Variance.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Aside from the required handicap ramp, no new pedestrian conveniences are proposed.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Although the proposed development should not alter any existing drainage patterns, stormwater management
has not addressed.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
No changes in the water or sanitary facilities are anticipated with this project.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
The applicant proposes to plant grass between the “new parking” area and Bay Road. No further plantings
are shown on the project plan.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The project site appears to be adequately accessible, for emergency vehicles, from Bay Road.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
Not addressed.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 65-2001 resolved 11/15/01, Parking spaces and access drive separation distance
Petition for Zone Change: PZ- 5-2000 resolved 6/26/01 from NC-1A to MR-5
No certificate of occupancy, no sign permit
Staff comments:
The Diet Center is located in an existing building and is using 712 square feet of the building. The owners
intend to lease out the 300 square feet to another professional office use, (no tenant is known at this time).
Consideration may be given to further review in the future in order to insure such a use would be
complimentary, as the site is undersized. The existing sign location is shown on the project plan.
The revised parking layout only addresses one option for a rear parking lot. Perhaps a reorientation of the
parking lot and narrower, one way drives might be a better option when the property connects to the
municipal sanitary system. It is unclear as to the status of the proposal for a shared driveway with an
adjoining property owner. 12 plantings have been added to the plan.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted short form submitted
Site Statistic Confirmation:
Building Footprint 1,372 square feet; proposed permeable is unknown”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering. With me is Cherie Luke, the
applicant. We have two revised plans in front of you. One is for the original proposal with parking in front.
The only change to that plan is that we have added, as we discussed at the last meeting, we’ve added
landscaping to the grassed area between the sidewalk and Bay Road. Also, as promised, I have given you a
layout, which is really the only feasible layout for putting any parking in the rear, and as you can see from that,
there are four parking spaces at the rear that I’ve shown. I’m still utilizing two parking places up beside the
existing garage, and in front of the existing garage. However, the four spaces in back actually overlap onto
adjoining land by twelve and a half feet. So it is just not feasible. Rearranging those spaces, and I’ve played
with it ten different ways to Sunday, rearranging those spaces in any different orientation makes them
inaccessible. So it is not, in my estimation, feasible to put the parking in the rear.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tom?
MR. NACE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good evening. So you’re saying Site Plan 4733-2-2 is not feasible?
MR. NACE-Well, it shows overlapping, to get those four spaces in, to make a total of six for the property,
shows those spaces overlapped onto the adjoining property twelve and a half feet. So that one is not feasible.
MR. STROUGH-And the parking spaces are currently in a north/south orientation?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And that wouldn’t have worked on an east/west orientation?
MR. NACE-Between the turning radius in for a car and having enough space, you’ve got to have a 20 foot
long space, and to access that space, you can’t have just a one way driveway. You’ve got to have another 20
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
feet to be able to get enough maneuvering room to get into a parking space. So it requires 40 feet, and it’s
just not there.
MR. STROUGH-Now on the right hand side, between the structure, the house, and the property line is how
many feet, on the north side?
MR. NACE-Approximately 25. However, beyond where we’ve shown that existing, or that proposed parking
space, to the north of that is wet, and I know the adjoining property has Corps of Engineer wetland on it. I
would suspect that wetland comes right into about where the edge of that parking space is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I went by again yesterday, and I’m assuming that the wetland starts where the
vegetation starts, in the north?
MR. NACE-Approximately, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now, how much, what’s the distance, do you know offhand, between the structure and the
vegetation?
MR. NACE-I haven’t taken a tape out there, but I would guess that it’s somewhere between 15 and 20 feet at
the most, probably closer to 15.
MR. STROUGH-Which would be enough for a driveway to go toward the rear.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And that would possibly eliminate the need for a second curb cut.
MR. NACE-Well, you’d still have the problem of maneuvering into and out of the spaces and getting the
spaces oriented. You cannot orient the spaces on the east/west direction, okay. There’s just not enough
room between the house and rear property line to do that.
MR. STROUGH-Who owns the property directly to the west?
MR. NACE-I think that’s probably still the, I believe it’s the orthopedic physicians.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. NACE-Remember we had a site plan a couple of years back to the property to the north of this, that
wrapped around behind this as well.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, now I notice it’s mostly vegetated right now. Has the applicant inquired into
purchasing part of that property at all?
MR. NACE-No, it’s not really an option at this point.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-However, well, one thing I didn’t add, if you don’t mind me interrupting.
MR. STROUGH-Go ahead.
MR. NACE-The applicant has talked to the next door neighbor to the south, regarding the possibility of
shared access and shared parking, and I’ll let her tell you what.
MRS. LUKE-Well, he had no interest in doing that, and he has his own ideas of enlarging his own parking
lot. He thinks that the sewer people are going to come in take out his old trees and stubs and pave way. So,
when I asked him about sharing, he didn’t want to do that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not happy with the removal of the sidewalk.
MR. NACE-We are not removing the sidewalk. The sidewalk stays and we’re simply putting some
landscaping material, we’re creating some green space in that island around the sidewalk, and we’re putting
some landscape material in front of the sidewalk, between the sidewalk and the road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s good, but is the need for the additional parking spaces because the applicant
also would like to rent out the 200 square feet of office space?
MR. NACE-That’s correct. The building is not fully, in order to utilize the building as an office space, the
entire building, the Town has told the applicant they need six spaces.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STROUGH-So if you were not to rent out the 200 square feet, then she would need how many less
spaces, how many fewer spaces?
MR. NACE-We would need a total of four spaces.
MR. STROUGH-A total of four?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So if we just had one use here, and maybe that’s all this, I mean, given what we have to
work with, and we’ve twisted and turned it and everything else, and I know a lot of people are not happy with
two curb cuts. Maybe it’s just a one use building, and I just have a problem with the front. As I said prior, I
said what I’d like to see is one curb cut. I think we could do something with parking in the rear, even if we
extended that about 12, 13 more feet from your neighbor toward the west. I mean, I just think other
arrangements and other alternatives do exist. So, well, I’m not really comfortable with this, but let’s see what
the other Planning Board members say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I looked at it again, just today, and reached similar conclusions that Mr. Strough did.
What size is this lot, in terms of, as a percent of an acre?
MR. NACE-This entire lot?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It’s .19.
MR. SANFORD-That’s less than a fifth of an acre, and the house is about, what, 900 square feet?
MR. NACE-I believe it’s 750.
MR. SANFORD-Seven hundred and fifty?
MR. NACE-Square feet.
MR. SANFORD-Being used for the Diet Center, plus the other space that you’re hoping to rent, in total.
MR. STROUGH-It’s 1,372.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it’s 1300 square feet.
MR. NACE-You’re right.
MR. SANFORD-I can appreciate everybody who wants to, you know, develop their property to fit their
business, but I think that if we add 10 or 15 more situations running right up Bay Road like this, and they all
came in front of this Board and they all came in front of this Board and wanted to do something like you’re
doing, it wouldn’t make any sense at all to do that, and so when I looked at it and evaluated it, I said maybe
you just have to come to terms with what you have, and live within that, and maybe keep it as a single use
small business, rather than try to expand it to accommodate what you call additional space. So, I have to say
that, at this point in time, if you can’t make due with some parking in the rear, I certainly don’t like the idea of
having the parking in the front. Again, we discussed this last time you were here, and nothing’s really
changed. So, I’m interested in hearing what my fellow members have to say, but that’s my comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s really too bad to think that you can’t, that there’s always so much red tape, and
there’s always an obstacle, and you’ll have to do something. There’s always things that stand in our way, but
when you take a look at this, the size of the building in proportion to how much lot you have, how much land
you have, you’re dealing with almost around 25% of the piece of land just being taken up by the building, too.
So, that ratio is pretty high. I just don’t understand why we, Tom has worked pretty hard trying to come up
with some mixed, you know, shucking and jiving here, and doesn’t seem to be working too good. I don’t
really have anything to say except maybe you could keep thinking about it, and can you come up with
anything else, Tom?
MR. NACE-No. As far as the parking, we’ve explored pretty much anything that’s available.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can you take anything out that’s there, like the sidewalk?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. NACE-The only thing would be if, you know, your Code requires them to have six spaces, okay. The
applicant, I believe, the applicant said that you really don’t need a total of six spaces, okay, for the type of use
they anticipate.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you get a variance? Could you stop this application at this point and then go
back and get a variance to not have as many?
MR. NACE-I believe they’ve already been here for a variance for, not for the parking.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve already done that, yes, but to change the number of parking spots. That’s
what I’m saying.
MR. NACE-The variance was, that was before I was involved.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m saying if there’s something that you could do to get a variance to not have to
have the number of parking spots, if you don’t think you need them, but the Code says you do. Can you go
that avenue? I mean, I’m just trying to come up with something that’ll make it work for you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I, personally, don’t have any problems with this one. I go by this every day and I
watch this piece of property operate and it seems to, in its current state, it’s marginal. I think this is an
improvement over the current state. Now, I know that there’s all septic systems in the back. There was a
prior drawing that showed that. I think this is, from all the pushing and shoving we’ve done on this, this is
probably the best you’re going to get out of this particular piece, in terms of trying to make it work along a
main road like Bay Road. So I don’t really have any problems with it. I wanted to know whether a CO was
ever issued to this. Did we issue a CO to this?
MRS. LUKE-Not yet. We’re working on the handicap accessibility of it.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no CO yet.
MR. NACE-I think this parking needs to be resolved before they can determine the configuration of the
handicap ramp.
MRS. LUKE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then one other thing I notice in Staff notes it says proposed permeability is
unknown, but I think it is known. Isn’t it 63%, Tom, based on Isn’t it 63%, Tom, based on your numbers?
There’s a site data sheet which shows how much of it is non-permeable. So we can make the quick deduction
on permeability from that. You have percent non-permeable at 37%. So I’m going to make the assumption
that we’ve got 63% of it, yes. So, other than that, I don’t have a problem with this, and I don’t see why we
should try to limit what they can do with this piece of property, in terms of if they can rent it off the other
piece. I just don’t think that’s applicable. So I’m going to go along with this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-What’s the current status of the garage? Is it usable?
MRS. LUKE-It’s just empty.
MR. METIVIER-Do you use it to park?
MRS. LUKE-We just have our lawnmower in there, snow blower.
MR. METIVIER-I’m just thinking, I mean, if you could use that for employee parking, that’s one more space
that you’d have.
MRS. LUKE-Right. Yes, I could easily park in there.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if that’s allowed. I would think it would be, but I would have to agree with
Bob. You are limited.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. NACE-If that were allowed, we could move that one employee space into the garage, yes, but we still
need the driveway as wide as it is to have a space to back out, so that people aren’t backing out onto Bay
Road, and that’s the big advantage to doing something here other than just leaving it the way it is, is for traffic
safety
MR. METIVIER-Can you put an apron on the side of the house, on the north side?
MR. NACE-Say that again?
MR. METIVIER-Put an apron on the north side of the house?
MR. NACE-For backing into?
MR. METIVIER-No, for parking.
MR. NACE-That’s what we have shown. That’s where this, on our proposed plan, Parking Space Number
Six is on the north side of the house.
MR. METIVIER-Going right up to the back of the lot?
MR. NACE-No, just going to the back of the house.
MR. METIVIER-That’s what I meant.
MR. NACE-Just alongside the garage. There’s, the problem is trying to maneuver to get stuff around the
back of the house, by the time you get turning radiuses and work out maneuvering the parking spaces, the
back is really unusable.
MR. METIVIER-I have no other solutions. I just don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I kind of agree with a lot of what’s already been said. I appreciate the additional
plantings that you’ve put in since the last meeting, and I kind of feel like we’ve done about all we can in terms
of looking at other options and alternatives. I do think the proposed is better than the existing layout with
cars backing right out onto Bay Road, and I guess the other comment that I would make is even though the
applicant is looking to rent out 300 square feet, if you were to use that additional space yourself, it would still
require six spaces. So it really is not an issue of whether you’re renting out part of the building or using it
yourself. You’re still going to need that many spaces to fully utilize the property. So, I guess sort of the
bottom line is I would agree with Tony and Bob. It’s really the best solution for the site. I don’t have any
other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an inkling of another tenant that you’re thinking about putting in here?
MRS. LUKE-I, personally, would not care about having a tenant. It really is my husband, I think, so we
could utilize that part of the building. I’m very happy being by myself. So, I’m kind of hoping nobody wants
to rent it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the concerns that I have with this right now is that the parking that we have here is
like maxed out, and I don’t think that the parking that you’ve illustrated is going to work well with this site,
and my concerns that I have, if you did, indeed, rent out that extra space to somebody that was going to have
somewhat of a decent traffic pattern coming in and out of there, I could see you’d have all sorts of parking
problems on your site if you had someone who had a busy business, that had a lot of traffic flow through
there.
MRS. LUKE-But that small area, I don’t see how anyone with a lot of clientele could even utilize it. I mean,
it’s just two little back bedrooms, and it’s very small. So anyone that would use that would be someone that
strictly wanted a little office by themselves, I would think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, the parking requirements is based on the square footage of the house?
MR. BROWN-The office use, yes, correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have some latitude if we put a condition on not using that extra 200 space, or not
subleasing to any other tenant? We could knock down a parking space?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think, as the Planning Board, you have the ability to grant relief from the parking
requirements, as far as the number goes. You can certainly give them relief to not install them at this time, if
the condition is that that extra rental space isn’t utilized.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. METIVIER-You don’t live in this house, do you? This is just an office for you, right?
MRS. LUKE-Right.
MR. METIVIER-Would you ever consider taking the garage down?
MR. NACE-Craig, I have a proposal that might serve something. What if we were to keep the south
entrance in the south side, the south three parking spaces, as reserve area?
MR. MAC EWAN-Which plan are you looking at, two?
MR. NACE-I’m looking at one.
MR. MAC EWAN-One, okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. The spaces numbered one, two and five, keep those in reserve, in grass for now, okay,
locate one of the employee spaces in the garage, have the second employee space what is now number six,
and then have two customer spaces as three and four. That would cut to the existing driveway, give us, we’d
have to make space number three a handicap accessible space, so it would go over to the west as far as space
number one presently goes, and we would just keep that, the southern area, in reserve if we ever needed it,
and put a stipulation that only so many square feet of the house be utilized. I don’t know. Would the
Building Department, would that, making that stipulation work?
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, that’s being bounced to you.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure if I’m in the position to answer a building code question. I don’t know, are
you asking a building code question, Tom?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think I’d have to defer that to.
MR. NACE-No, actually it’s a zoning question, whether you can, you know, as far as parking requirements,
whether we could make a stipulation that only the equivalent of four parking spaces in square feet of the
building be utilized.
MR. BROWN-Is that something that’s going to work for you?
MR. NACE-With the existing tenant. It obviously wouldn’t work with another tenant in there, but the
existing use it would.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if the numbers work. I mean, this is kind of new. I haven’t crunched the numbers to see
if the square footage equates to the number of parking spaces, but that’s feasible, sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-What if we just limit the site plan to one tenant and one tenant only?
MR. BROWN-And one drive access? Is that what I just heard you offer, the northern drive and not the
southern drive?
MR. NACE-Just the existing drive to the north. The spaces we’ve laid it out there to the south be kept in
green reserve, you know, if parking is ever needed.
MR. BROWN-So no use of one, two and five. Three and four would be used. Six would be used, and
another employee would be in the garage.
MR. NACE-And one in the garage.
MR. STROUGH-Couldn’t you even, Tom, add another parking space, if you needed to, to the north of what
is labeled as employee parking? Because I think we guessed about 12 feet between there and the vegetation.
MR. NACE-Between the, I’m not sure, if we have enough between there and the wetland, yes.
MR. STROUGH-I would think that you might be able to squeeze another space in there.
MR. NACE-But if we use the garage, we wouldn’t need it.
MR. STROUGH-It works for me.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-What about the one tenant situation, if we went that route?
MRS. LUKE-Yes, I’m very willing to have just one tenant.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would your husband feel about that?
MRS. LUKE-Well, he doesn’t have a choice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Recap the parking. You’re demonstrating on the plan that parking spaces one, two, and
five will work, but you’re going to leave them green? We’re going to limit ourselves to a sole tenant in there.
You’re not going to sublet, sub-rent for any other purposes, right?
MRS. LUKE-Right.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, we’ve got one, two and five staying green. Now what’s the status of three and four?
MR. NACE-Okay. Three will be turned into a handicap space. Four will remain, six will remain, and an
additional space will be added either in the garage or, if feasible, to the north of space six.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have room, Tom, to put in a handicap ramp if you make three a handicapped
accessible parking spot?
MR. NACE-Yes. We’ll have to go out. It’ll have to turn back on itself, out in the area which is now handicap
and shaded area of space one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the garage could be turned into an additional space?
MR. NACE-The garage, it’ll be turned, there’ll be a fourth space which’ll either be the garage or if feasible to
the north of space labeled number six on the current plan, and I will prepare a revised plan for the Planning
Department.
MR. VOLLARO-And what will that revised plan, that will be 47332-2.
MR. NACE-Dash One, with the new revision date.
MR. VOLLARO-Dash One modified?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Just so I understand, this new proposal will eliminate this southern curb cut and entrance?
MR. NACE-It’ll show them dotted, to be kept green, okay, just to demonstrate that we can provide all six
spaces if we ever need to.
MR. STROUGH-But you’re not going to proceed with that at this time?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then that means, how many spaces do we have right now?
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s required. He’s got them all but he’s just not going to develop them all. He’s
demonstrating, I mean, it’s typical. We’ve done it on many site plans in the past. We demonstrate that the
parking is there, can be there, and if it should ever get to that threshold, then you can demonstrate that you
can develop it on the lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, have you got something penciled up there?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 36-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke,
Applicant is currently operating a Professional Office, The Diet Center, and is proposing sublease of 300 sq.
ft. for professional office space (not known at this time). New uses in MR-5 zones require Planning Board
review and approval pursuant to Section 179-18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Cross Reference: PZ 5-2001, AV
65 -2001, SV 66-2001 Warren County Planning: 9/12/01. Tax Map No. 61-1-43. Lot size: 8,398 sq. ft.
Section: 179-18, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 3/15/ 02:
2002
3/19 Staff Notes
3/6 New Info received
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
2/26 Planning Board resolution - Tabled
2/26 Staff Notes
2/25 Copy of final Highway Permit
2/13 Fax to C. Luke from L. Moore – re: site dev. Sheet
2/4 Copy of Co. DPW work permit for applicant signature
1/15 Planning Board resolution - tabled
1/15 Staff Notes
1/14 C. Brown from T. Nace – requesting to be tabled
1/3 Meeting Notice
2001
12/26 Revised Information received
11/15 ZBA resolution - Approved
9/25 Staff Notes
9/19 ZBA resolution – Sign Variance, Approved
9/19 ZBA resolution – Area Variance, Tabled
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing
9/12 Warren Co. PB recommendation - Approved
9/6 Meeting Notice
9/4 K. & C. Luke from D. Hatin
8/20 K. & C. Luke from C. Brown
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01, 1/15/02, 3/19/02 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 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 the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved based on the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Building will have limited use to a single tenant only, and
2. Referencing Drawing No. 47332-1, dated March 6, 2002, spaces now shown as one, two,
and five on that drawing will remain green, and
3. Space No. 3 will be turned into a handicap parking space, and,
4. Space No. 4 will remain as it is, and
5. The Garage or Space No. 6 will remain as shown, and
6. An additional space will be added either in the garage or to the north of Space Six if feasible,
and
7. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 3/19/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. VOLLARO- Referencing Drawing No. 47332-1, dated March 6, 2002, spaces now shown as one, two,
and five on that drawing will remain green. Space Number Three will be turned into a handicap parking
space. Space Number Four will remain as it is, and then the garage or Space Number Six will be in reserve
for additional parking at some later date.
MR. NACE-No, Bob, for clarification there, the garage, Space Number Six will remain as shown.
MR. VOLLARO-Six will remain?
MR. NACE-Will remain. An additional space will be added either in the garage or to the north of Space Six,
if feasible.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can what Mr. Nace put on the record, can that stay into the motion?
MR. BROWN-It’s up to you. It’s your motion.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just insert what he said into the motion.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 2-2002 RECOMMENDATION BENYAMINI
ENTERPRISES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES CULLINAN, G. CASS, SR. TRUSTEE,
ROBYN TRUST AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONE: SFR-20 PROPOSED
ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EVERTS AVENUE, SOUTH OF QUAKER
APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF THREE PARCELS ALONG AVENUE FROM SFR-
20 TO HC-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 3-1999, UV 62-1993, SV 63-1993, P1-99, SP 11-99, AV 20-
1999, SP 13-99, P3-98, SV 77-1999 TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION: 92,2002, 1/28/02 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-34.1, 29.3, 29.1 LOT SIZE: 11.22 AC., 0.48 AC.,
AND 2.14 AC. SECTION: 179-74
JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on March 26 was tabled, and there is one this evening.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MRS. RYBA-Just a minor correction. The public hearing was continued from, or actually re-opened from
February 26.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 2-2002, Recommendation, Benyamini Enterprises, Inc.,
Meeting Date: March 19, 2002 “Staff Notes: Previous Planning Board Meeting: Applicants were asked
to provide a conceptual plan of possible activities as allowed under proposed zoning. To be shown are the
most significant impacts for the 5.3 acres proposed to be rezoned from SFR-20 to HC-1A, in addition to the
most intensive possible activities allowed on adjacent HC-1A acreage for which Mr. Benyamini has an option
(10.9 acres). Concerns voiced by the public deal with noise, lights, visual impacts, and traffic. The Public
Hearing was re-opened. All property owners within 500 ft. of the properties to be rezoned were provided an
individual notice of the next Planning Board meeting date during which this application was to be reviewed.
?
New Information: Applicants submitted: A concept plan map, “Rezoning Request for Portion of Tax
?
Map 302.08” Scale 1 in. = 50 ft., dated March 1, 2002; and An “Aerial photo of Project Site with outline of
Parcel Boundary and conceptual building site.” As per the applicant’s transmittal, the date of the photo is
2/25/02 with outline data added 3/4/02. Review Process: The Town Board has asked the Planning Board
for a recommendation on this rezoning. This is the second meeting to be held to consider the application.
Although the applicant has provided a concept plan to cover the entire area that could be re-developed under
HC-1A zoning, it is important to remember that the actual rezoning request is for only the 5.3 acre portion,
and this is the area to which zoning amendment considerations apply. Petition for Zone Change/Zoning
Amendment Considerations: The proposed rezoning needs to be consistent with criteria used to evaluate
?
re-zonings. Is there a benefit to the entire community if rezoned? The benefit to the entire community would be
additional commercial opportunities screened and buffered from the adjoining residential zone by wetlands.
?
Does the pattern of existing zoning regulations (size, nature and use) have a relationship to the subject area? Existing
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
zoning regulations allow Highway Commercial (HC-1A) to the north and immediately to the west Light
Industrial (LI-1A). The industrial parcels each contain 4 to 6 acres. These lands could be more intensively
developed. Lands to the south and east are zoned Single Family Residential (SFR-20). The residential land
directly to the south and east consists primarily of a 15 plus acre parcel containing wooded areas and
wetlands. There is a distance of approximately 350 ft. from the southern boundary of the proposed zone to
residential lands north and south of Patton Drive. Patton Drive to the south contains intensively developed
residential lands. The closest residential property boundary to the easternmost corner of land proposed to be
rezoned to HC-1A is 200 ft. Currently, the subject area contains residential property that does not have any
buffer from the HC-1A lands to the north. If zoned HC-1A, wetland buffers would provide protection to
residential property to the south as well as to the east. Uses allowed in HC-1A include retail, offices,
restaurants, day care centers, greenhouses/nurseries, motel, auto body/service, health facility, gas stations,
?
public parking garage, and commercial boat storage. Is the existing character of the area impacted by the zone change
request? The existing character of the area to the north is commercial, to the west is industrial and offices, to
the south wooded land and residential, and to the east is wooded area and wetlands. The zone change would
impact the character of the area by removal of several existing residences and new commercial development
?
resulting in some wooded area being lost. Is the planned character of the area impacted by the zone change request?
The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) does not provide for any specific zoning changes. The
general character of the area as per the CLUP is considered industrial to the City of Glens Falls boundary,
which is close to Patton Drive. A purpose of HC-1A zones is to keep intensive commercial development
confined to this zone, and allow further commercial development here through infill development.
Conclusions: The Planning Board needs to address each one of the Petition for Zone Change questions
when considering their recommendation to the Town Board. Please refer to your previous set of Staff notes
regarding this project for staff review of the application. These questions are listed again for your
convenience. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? 2. What existing zones, if any, can
meet the stated need? 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with the adjacent zones? 4. What physical characteristics of the
site are suitable to the proposed zone? 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? 6. Why is the current zone
classification not appropriate for the property in question? 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? 8.
How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? 9. How are the wider
interests of the Community being served by this proposal?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dennis MacElroy, and Mr. Benyamini is here
also to any questions. Since the last meeting, and I guess I’d like to recap a little bit, because there were two
Planning Board members who weren’t here for the last meeting, but we’ll have Dennis go through the plans
to do that. Since the last meeting, Mr. Sanford asked us to do what I would characterize as a realistic worst
case or maximum build out development on this site, and I think that that’s helpful, not only for the Planning
Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board, but also for the neighbors to see that what we’re
talking about here is actually less development on the five acre piece in the back that’s proposed for rezoning.
That land is not suitable, both in terms of size and shape, but also because of the proximity to the wetland
and the buffer requirement, it’s not suitable for the construction of a building. We’re not proposing that. As
you can see in the plan, it’s hard to see where the line is, only a few feet of the back of the building, if it were
a 136,000 square foot building, and I assume that whatever gets built there would ultimately be less than 136,
but we wanted to show a worst case, largest building. Very little of that is on this land. So what we envision,
and can certainly talk about stipulating about, is that we’d have five homes that are there now that are going
to be removed, and for the most part that would be used as green space for stormwater management for the
site, and the commercial development would take place in the, primarily in the existing commercial zone,
Highway Commercial zone, in the front. Where we are on Quaker Road in the front here is the, obviously
the main commercial corridor of the Town, and the only way that the commercial corridor gets improved is
through redevelopment of these stale, older developments, and certainly the car dealership that’s now the
Hewitts Garden Center, does not meet the requirements of a site plan that this Board would approve, in
terms of green space, landscaping, site design, access, etc. That was basically cobbing up a prior use, keeping
the building, and turning it into a different use, but obviously, it wasn’t done as you would require if it was a
clean slate and that’s what we’re envisioning here. The Planning Staff pointed out that this would allow
opportunities for combing driveway curb cuts, access management, and I’m aware, from reading in the
newspaper, that the neighbors sent out letters to 200 people. That’s what they told the newspaper, but I
presume that the neighbors, that many of the people that are here tonight, have not seen the site plan yet, that
they did not all avail themselves of the opportunity to come in to the Planning Department and take a look at
what we have as a conceptual site plan, and I think that, looking at this shows that what we’re really talking
about is less development than what’s there now. Looking at this, the question that’s before you for
rezoning, what we’re talking about is what’s the appropriate use of these parcels, and I think that it’s easy to
argue that the five houses that are there, only three of which we’re talking about because two of them are
already zoned commercial, but the three that we’re talking about for rezoning, are not an appropriate
residential area, with Duke Concrete across the street and all of the other industrial and commercial uses. It’s
apparent that these houses have not been upgraded or even maintained as other houses in Town have been,
and I think that the reason for that is that the owners know that they’re going to have a hard or impossible
time selling these properties because of their location for residential use. What’s also very significant about
this proposal is that we have this large wetland buffer, which is a natural buffer, between the residential uses
to the south in Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls, and this parcel, and for that reason, these three
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
houses are somewhat isolated because you’ve got the wetland and then they’ve got, their surrounded by
commercial and industrial. I think that this is an appropriate rezoning, for no other reason that the three
parcels that are under contract because they’re in a bad situation in terms of residential use, and I don’t think
the residential use is appropriate, and I hope that you will agree. I’d like to ask Dennis to walk through the
conceptual site plan.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, and for the
purposes of orienting you, I’d refer you to map one, or drawing one, in your package, which is the proposed
rezoning plan, shown in this configuration. The area in blue represents the parcels and portion of parcel that
is currently zoned Single Family Residential 20, and again, let me orient you, Quaker Road to the north,
Everts Avenue to the west, current zone line follows this dark, dashed line down, jogs in, comes south, jogs
west, and south, and west again until it meets Everts Avenue. The area in blue, the three parcels we’re talking
about and requesting for the rezoning, consists of 5.3 acres, two lots in their entirety and a portion of the
Hewitts lot, parcel 66.1. That total lot is 11.2 acres. The rezoning request, that 2.72 acres, be changed to the
Highway Commercial that it shares with the remainder of the lot. Again, to orient you the other uses, we
have Hewitts, an auto service, Northway Car Care to the north, Mack the Knife, East Coast Tire,
Meadowbrook Plaza. To the west, there’s Duke Concrete Products property to the west, radio station
property, and then a series of other commercial type use, offices, chiropractor, Cool Beans restaurant up on
the corner. To the south of the property in question is a large, 15 acre residentially zoned property that
supports one residence. Houses along Cline Avenue, and then further south on Everts additional residential
property. As Jon had mentioned, what I’m going to do is still refer to this map, sheet one, but what we’ve
done is added the area that represents wetland GF 19 as per the New York State DEC wetland mapping,
which gives you an understanding, at least conceptually, of where the wetlands exist, south of the property
that we’re requesting the rezoning. Within that 15 acre residential lot that exists between the property in
question and the other residential lots, approximately seven acres of that is occupied by wetlands. It doesn’t
take into consideration buffer off of that wetlands, but the wetlands themselves, about seven acres of that
15.3 acre parcel. Again, the natural buffer that exists. I suppose in zoning, when this area was first zoned, it
probably became residential because residences existed there. If you took it from scratch today, that natural
buffer of the wetland that exists may become, might be the logical location for that zone boundary. That tells
you where we’ve been. I’d show you now the plan that we were requested to prepare, the concept plan,
which is titled concept site plan, as part of your package, and this, at a larger scale, 50 scale, again, Quaker
Road to the north, Everts Avenue to the west. The existing zone line represented by the dark, dashed line,
and the area subject to our request includes this area here. The existing zone line, down through here, the
property line of the parcels in question, 5.3 acres. The wetland in the darker green, the 150 foot buffer
associated with the wetland shown in the lighter green, and as you can see, that wetland boundary is within
the residential lot, and then it comes right over, flips a little edge of that corner, and then on, and obviously
the 100 foot buffer extends on to the parcels in question. We’ve done a conceptual site plan as requested.
We’ve used sort of a generic building. We don’t have a tenant. We don’t have any particular prototype to
use. We’ve used basically the size of a retail structure that may be typical of that type of use. That’s
represented by the brown. The gray, shaded area represents that area associated with parking, circulation
necessary to get around parking, and green space. You don’t see any green there, but there would be naturally
green space within that parking area and then adjacent to it. That property, that area extends throughout. We
have highlighted here the front section, the 75 foot Travel Corridor that’s required on Quaker Road, shown
in red here, that really effectively becomes a building setback. Normally there’s a 50 foot front setback. The
Travel corridor requires 75 foot. As you can see here it’s not really an issue because of the positioning of the
building. The building, as positioned, would be typical of this, again, concept plan positions the building in
this location by about 25 feet extending over the existing zone line, the remaining area of the 5.3 acres in
question would be perhaps used parking, stormwater management, and then the 100 foot buffer takes up a
certain amount of that area as well. Again, a key point, as Jon made, there is the wetland that exists, that
delineation will determine the extent of the occupation of the wetland on the parcel, 100 foot buffer
associated with that would limit use of that land as well, but still area that would be necessary for the
development of the site like this, a use like this, and that’s why the additional property is sought, and the 5.3
acres would be needed to support the infrastructure that would be necessary for that development. I want to
go back to this zoning plan which shows all the different parcels, and maybe refer also to the photo which
Craig has up on the screen. In this, from an aerial photo, we’ve scanned this into the computer and then
dropped onto it the area of the building, and the outline of the parcel, and the existing zoning line. While this
is at a slight angle, there’s a little distortion. We put that building on there as best we could. I think it’s a
good representation. It’s a good tool to use to help people understand where that would be, and what
distances might be between the developed area, the building location, and other existing residences. I’ll point
out again, if you can transfer in your mind somewhat the area of the wetland that exists, and the houses, the
properties you may see to the south, the houses along Cline Avenue, this particular property has a 1.7 acre
parcel that extends out into here, the closest distance from the point of the lot to the point of the parcels in
question is approximately 200 feet. The distance from where the house is to that is approximately 400 feet,
and the distance between this house and the location of a conceptual plan for the retail structure is about 800
feet, and again, I would point out that this is the boundary line. So naturally nothing in this area would be
disturbed, representing a good buffer area between residences and any development, and there is also a 100
foot setback, a 100 foot buffer, I should say, off of the wetland, which would further encroach within the
parcels in question. I guess that covers my summary.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, we’ll start with you.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you, very much. I’ll start. I’d prefer not to repeat a lot of what we covered last
month, but you may recall that my main objection was almost philosophical. Okay. My main issue was the
lack of a future use, and still is. We took a look at the site, Saturday, and I would certainly like to reserve
judgment after I hear what people have to say, but my knee-jerk reaction is that it may very well make sense
for an appropriate commercial development of some sort, but my issue has been, and still is, it doesn’t make a
lot of sense for us to approve hypothetical projects. At the last meeting we asked for you to come back with
a worst case scenario, and what you came back with is a big box store which many people could argue isn’t a
worst case at all. It’s a highly desirable project, after all, if it’s done right it could be environmentally sound
and could generate considerable sales tax revenue for the Town.
MR. LAPPER-Just on that point, not to interrupt you, we think that’s a realistic worst case, although that’s
probably larger than what would really be applied for you.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Let me give you my hypothetical worst case is we rezone, and you make all good
efforts to put an appropriate project in place, but it doesn’t happen. Whoever you’re approaching decides to
go elsewhere. So now we have a big commercially zoned site, and some of the businesses have been
purchased, an they’re closed down, maybe demolished, maybe they’re just boarded up, and there’s no market
for the site at all. The applicant goes back to Long Island, and we have a vacant lot that’s not developed, not
generating sales tax. That is one possible worst case scenario, that we entertain that risk, again, by approving
or rezoning or recommending a rezoning without a future use. Let me ask you this.
MS. RADNER-You can’t require this applicant to tell you a future use. When you’re rezoning it, it is
appropriate to consider all of the possible future uses in the zone to which it will be changed, whether it’s a
single tenant coming in and using it for the purposes allowed or more than one tenant using it for the
purposes allowed, but you do not want to key the rezoning of the parcel to a single predicted use because that
use can change, and there is no way you can require this applicant to commit themselves to sticking with any
intended use because once it’s rezoned it could still fall apart, the applicants could end up in bankruptcy.
Things can change. So you want to consider all of those possible worst case scenarios in the zone to which
you are rezoning it.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but isn’t it well within our rights to basically not entertain an application unless it has
a future use?
MS. RADNER-No, it’s not. You have to consider whether what they’re asking for is reasonable and
appropriate considering the surrounding zones and what it could be used for. If you think that changing the
zone is inappropriate for reasons based upon your Zoning Ordinance, that’s reasonable. If you think it’s
appropriate based upon the surrounding uses and it’s potential uses, that’s appropriate, too.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That clarifies it a bit.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d like to respond, only, I think to sort of address your concerns. We see that the use
of the piece in the back, that is an ancillary use to the building in the front, and as a condition, I mean, we
could stipulate, and the Town Board could impose it as a condition certainly under SEQRA, that the uses in
the back would be stormwater management, access and 25 feet of building or something like that, to make it
a condition. What we’re saying, that it wouldn’t be used for a building because it’s just not feasible for
building because of the wetlands, because of the shape and size of that parcel, and it’s not needed for a
building, but in terms of the concept of the rezoning, the practical answer is that, in order for Mr. Benyamini
and his company to come and to do a project, he has to get purchase contracts on all of these various parcels,
the existing commercial ones as well as the houses, and that’s something that’s he’s been able to accomplish
now, but at the time that a tenant deal is ready, in six months or whenever it is, these parcels may not all be
available. So the fact that we’re here now because if he can get the rezoning, he can go out and try and
market this thing to an appropriate tenant and come back for site plan review, and I think the very important
control that this Board has is when it comes to site plan review, and certainly the way that you’ve handled it in
the last few years and the way the Ordinance has been changed and is proposed to continue to change, you
have a lot of control as to what’s going to be on the site and where it’s going to be, and that’s where you get
the say. So when you say the approval and the recommendation, this is really no different than the
recommendation of the whole new zoning code which addresses rezoning of many, many parcels in Town t
that don’t have proposed uses. We’re just talking about, you know, not projects. We’re talking about use.
MR. SANFORD-Jon, didn’t the applicant condition the purchase of some of these properties based upon a
rezoning?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because it’s not worth it for the applicant to own somewhat dilapidated residential real
estate.
MR. SANFORD-So, my question to the applicant, perhaps more rather than even to you is, wouldn’t it be
basically appropriate, or is it inappropriate, for the applicant to assume the same kind of condition when the
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
applicant seeks a purchaser of this plot of land to really condition it the same way? In other words, give you a
hypothetical. There’s these residential houses, and some businesses, and the applicant’s saying to them, I’ll
buy them from you provided I get a rezoning. Then the applicant could perhaps at the same time go to a
Target, for instance, and say I’ll sell you this property, and provided I get the rezoning. It’s basically imposing
upon the applicant the same exact condition of the sale that he is, in fact, asking other people to accept in this
exact case.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, in this case, the applicant feels that because the commercial site in front cannot
support the development that he would expect and hope to put on the property, that he can’t, it’s not in a
position now to go market it to that tenant without having the rezoning to know that there’s a suitable size
parcel available that can handle the development, and that’s why we’re here, but I guess you can also just take
a step back, very simply, and look at those three residential lots and say, separate and apart from what we’re
doing here, and this is totally appropriate to be looking at this, but totally separate and apart from that, to say,
gee, should those three lots be residential, and I think that’s a fairly straightforward answer, that that’s not a
good place for anyone to be living, across from Duke Concrete Products where it is.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Again, I’m not even 100% clear, after Counsel shot in there, just what are our,
what’s appropriate from the legal point of view in terms of the criteria that we have to utilize, but if I
understand some of what you’re saying, if we consider the whole range of possibilities, then we could be
approving a rezoning that could ultimately result in a used RV sales lot.
MS. RADNER-If that’s what’s allowed in the zone, you may be correct. You have to consider all of the uses
for the rezoning that’s proposed.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MS. RADNER-And remember, you’re making a recommendation here. Ultimately, it will be the Town
Board that determines it. You’re just recommending at this point. You’re not rezoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-And keep in mind, whatever steps that would happen, if, ultimately, we made a
recommendation and the Town Board approved the rezoning change, anything that happens on that site
comes back in front of this Board, and because it’s listed in the Zoning Ordinance as an allowed use, it may
not necessarily be a good use for that parcel, and we have a lot of latitude, as a Board, to design something
and approve something that would work in that site.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I may have further questions later, but I’ll pass it on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that Craig summed it up pretty well there as far as the different, I’ve been
going through the different uses that would be allowed on HC-1, and that doesn’t necessarily mean the worst
case scenario that comes before us would eventually, ultimately come back before us and we would be able to
make modifications, do a lot of mitigating measures. That doesn’t mean that the worst thing would end up
happening there, because we would have a check on that. I was concerned about the distance, and I was glad,
Dennis, that you gave us the distances between those houses that are at the end of those cul de sacs to not
only the building that you have proposed there, but to the boundary line, and I’m also thinking that fencing
could be put up where you wouldn’t see the fencing if you were in a residential area, but yet it would even add
to more of a buffer.
MR. LAPPER-We would expect you would want a serious vegetative buffer of trees and fencing as well.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m looking forward to hearing what the people have to say, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, before I get into what I want to say, Dennis, the house that’s sitting I guess somewhat
to the east of the house you’ve talked about, what’s the distance of that house from the line. Not there, up
further. Right there. I got about 300, but I scaled it off roughly.
MR. MAC ELROY-To the property line, it appears to be about 300 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, that’s what I got.
MR. MAC ELROY-And to the building line another 200, to make it probably 500 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Going along on the same tack as some other people have gone off, I’m looking at all of
these Type II things that are allowed in the site plan review, and I see a thing called mobile home sales. Now,
I think the Chairman has said that we’ve got the ability, and Catherine has said we’ve got the ability to look,
during site plan review, at correcting a lot of those things or even rejecting one if it doesn’t meet the
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
standards. That’s not always very easy to do, as you people know. So I’m not looking at this necessarily as
retail. I could see a mobile home sales operation being put there. There’s a thing called a social club and a
fraternal organization that could go in there. There’s a lot of other uses that can go in there.
MR. LAPPER-But I guess, Bob, whatever those uses are, the worst case that we could assume, those could
go, right now, on the part that’s zoned Highway Commercial, and we’re only asking for the piece in the back
to be rezoned to support that use, in terms of the stormwater management and access.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m wondering if that so called retail building, 135,000 I guess it is, 136,000 square
foot building, could that be moved just a little further north?
MR. LAPPER-Those would be site plan issues, but certainly that’s a possibility.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m saying be moved further north without this rezone recommendation?
MR. LAPPER-No, because then, we’ve gone through this with Craig Brown, in order to have the stormwater
management to support a commercial use and the access, it has to be zoned commercial.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a stormwater management study to support that? Has that been done?
MR. LAPPER-No, because we’re not at site plan, but that would be the logical place, and the only really
possible use of.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re saying that that piece of property has got to be set in place specifically for stormwater
management, but we really don’t have a technical management report, stormwater, to support that thesis.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking just from a zoning standpoint.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I understand that. I’m just trying to, in my own mind, see, I have some of
the same concerns that Mr. Sanford has. We rezone this piece. A tenant can’t be found in time, or can’t be
found at all, not necessarily the retail but any tenant, to occupy that, and that property sits vacant for X
period of time, until the highest bidder comes in, and that’s one of the things that concerns me. We’ve got,
now, a large piece of property sitting there, without being used, without collecting sales tax or anything else,
and I know we’re on the border, I heard Counsel’s position on you can’t come up and zone based on
something that’s going to be there. One of the things I’m thinking in my own mind here is that if nothing
happens on this property at the end of an 18 month period, some period, then very similar to what we did
with Home Depot, that the property will revert to its original zoning status.
MR. LAPPER-That would certainly be acceptable to Mr. Benyamini.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’ll just pass to another Board member, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-What’s the fate of Hewitts?
MR. LAPPER-These properties were not for sale. These properties were not listed for sale and were not
offered for sale. Mr. Benyamini came to these people because he had an idea that this would be an
appropriate parcel for redevelopment, and presented them with contracts and negotiated and has all this land
under contract. So it wasn’t that Hewitts was looking to leave the market. It was that Mr. Benyamini made
them an offer that they didn’t refuse.
MR. METIVIER-So if it’s ultimately rezoned, the property is sold, what is going to happen with that
building?
MR. LAPPER-That would be demolished for a redevelopment.
MR. METIVIER-Like how fast?
MR. LAPPER-Well, what Bob had proposed as possibly an 18 month sunset on the rezoning, Mr. Benyamini
just acknowledged to me that that would be acceptable. I mean, some period of time to put a deal together,
but he feels that 18 months would be suitable.
MR. METIVIER-Right. I mean, the building right now, in all due respect, of Hewitts is a disgrace.
MR. LAPPER-I did the site plan for them and I’m disappointed with the condition of it as well.
MR. METIVIER-And certainly anything that would go in its place to clean up that corner, to clean up that
corridor right there, because the rest of Quaker Road actually is improving immensely. That piece of
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
property is a mess, and I guess my feeling is, if, you know, the property is sold, Hewitts leaves, what do we
have left behind for 18 months? What kind of guarantees would we have that it gets cleaned up prior to
them vacating the premises?
MR. LAPPER-Well, this is many millions of dollars to buy all this property, and Mr. Benyamini is not going
to close without having a deal in hand. He’s not going to just buy it and sit on it. So he would have, we
would be back here with a site plan with approval.
MR. METIVIER-And you could, ultimately, move that building up further to the north?
MR. LAPPER-Depending upon the requirements of the specific tenant, but if it was 136,000 square feet,
which I would guess it would probably not be that big, it may require the 25 feet on to this property, that
Dennis has proposed.
MR. METIVIER-I just, again, I would have concerns about doing this and not knowing what the ultimate
outcome of those buildings would be. I mean, we, you know, regardless of what happens, it needs to be
cleaned up. We just need a guarantee of some kind that it would be.
MR. LAPPER-This is just part of a process to get this whole corner cleaned up and the rezoning is a very
important part to attract a tenant and sign a deal, and then we’ll be back before you.
MR. METIVIER-I think that’s the thinking in my head, I mean, we have to take the worst case scenario, but
think about is, this is a couple million dollar piece of property. What’s the realistic nature of having an RV
park there? I mean, it just wouldn’t be economically feasible to do.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-Really the ultimate outcome could be positive. It’s just, you know, to me it seems like
almost a gamble.
MR. LAPPER-Again, we’re just talking about use, and the question is, should these three parcels be
recommended for commercial, and they’re across the street from industrial, surrounded by wetland as a
buffer, and that’s our argument, and the plan is Mr. Benyamini is not here to waste everybody’s time and his
own time. The plan is to put something together, but that needs this process to happen first.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I differ with some of my colleagues because I really don’t have a problem in
considering a zone change without a known end user. Because to me that’s really what planning is all about is
trying to be a little proactive in planning the future of the community. One of the things that I did want to
comment on, though. At the last meeting we heard a lot of comments from the neighbors regarding
concerns with noise, lights, visual impacts, traffic and things like that, and I guess in my mind, all those issues
are certainly legitimate concerns that, by enlarge, we can mitigate through site plan review. I had the same
thoughts on this worst case scenario drawing. First of all, I don’t necessarily see a large big box retailer as
worst case scenario, but I think given the economy of this particular site, that’s probably the ultimate end
user. You’re not going to see some of these lesser money generating uses that are allowed within the zone,
that might be more objectionable. My other gut feeling, too, was on the siting of the particular building that
you showed us. My preference would be to see the building move further north, but again, without seeing
traffic patterns and parking lots and green spaces, I don’t know how feasible that is.
MR. LAPPER-That may be possible, and that would be a site plan issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess that’s really all I had to add to the discussion right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So 136,000 square foot, and we’re going to assume a retail use.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that would be 1,360 parking spaces.
MR. LAPPER-No, five per thousand, now, with four and a half, and under the proposed code.
MR. STROUGH-Four and a half under the proposed code.
MR. LAPPER-That would be 600. It’s on the plan.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC ELROY-612, based on 136,000, and 4.5 per 1,000.
MR. STROUGH-Is that per the new code?
MR. MAC ELROY-As proposed, correct.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What would ITE say for peak hour vehicle trip generate for a retail?
MR. LAPPER-What we did, and Dennis could answer that, but what we did with the Environmental
Assessment Form was to show the maximum peak hour for the five acres proposed for the rezoning, because
that would be the incremental difference, because we’re talking about the zoning, now, and not site plan, the
incremental difference from the land that already could be redeveloped as Highway Commercial, and I think
that number was 83.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s get back to the basic question, because that didn’t answer it. What does
ITE, Institute of Traffic Engineers, suggest is the average peak hour vehicle trip generated? Usually it’s done
in a 1,000 square foot, you know, basis. Do you know, offhand, what it is, like for residential area it’s 1.1? So
we don’t know what the total vehicle trip generate would be for this proposal. Jon, I know what you’re
suggesting is that you should consider, and I think you should, well, how many trips are being generated by
the businesses that are currently there, and I think that’s a fair note, but, you know, it still doesn’t answer my
question. So I don’t know how many vehicle trips would be generated by something.
MR. LAPPER-And the reason why we didn’t include that is because it’s not a site plan application. We’re
just talking about the rezoning, but in order to be comprehensive, we’re trying to show, to address Mr.
Sanford’s issue from last month, we’re trying to show what the build out could be, if it was maxed out.
MR. STROUGH-And in our consideration of rezoning, we have to consider the impacts on the community
and the environment.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but my main point there is that the land that’s already zoned Highway Commercial
could be redeveloped with more intense use than what’s there now, in terms of the worst case, without a zone
change. That would be a site plan issue, and so we’re talking about the incremental difference of the 80 cars
from the five acres additional, and that’s the number that we’ve included in the assessment form.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I understand, and that’s a significant point. That’s a good point that you make. Now
the one house with the cul de sac driveway in front of it, that comes off of Meadowbrook. Now, Mr.
MacElroy said that it was 300 feet to the property line and 500 feet to the building, approximately?
MR. MAC ELROY-350 and 500.
MR. STROUGH-Now doesn’t their property line abut this proposal?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So it would be zero.
MR. LAPPER-No, but he said from the building rather than from the property line.
MR. STROUGH-From the building, not from the property line.
MR. LAPPER-They have a 15 acre parcel.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I misunderstood. Thank you. Now what percent of this proposal, if you looked at
the circumference, the boundary line circumference, what percent would be residential versus commercial?
Offhand I’m looking at it, I’m guessing 50%. It’s an offhand guess.
MR. LAPPER-Right, everything here is.
MR. STROUGH-Is all residential.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the wetland buffer, so it’s residential, but it’s not that there’s residential use. This is the
wetland in that whole area here, which would not likely be developed residentially because it’s a wetland, and
the rest here, this is industrial, and commercial here and commercial on Quaker and commercial there.
MR. STROUGH-So maybe 40%, offhand?
MR. LAPPER-Offhand.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now we keep using the wetland as a buffer, and it is a distance buffer, but it’s not
going to be a very good noise attenuator.
MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of noise, Duke Concrete Products is there making block and whatever else they
do there. I don’t know if that’s a noise issue, but in terms of the noise generators, and again, that’s site plan
as well as zoning, this building itself would likely block the noise somewhat from the traffic. The most noise
would probably be truck traffic driving at 45, 50 miles an hour on Quaker Road, and what a retail store,
unlike a restaurant or food store, a retail store would have tractor trailers pulling up to a loading dock, and
that’s not a large noise generator.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s where we ran into a little bit of problems, I think, on the megastore.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-The tractor trailers would probably be loading in the rear, do their shipping delivery in the
rear of the building, I’m going to assume?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but unlike a supermarket, it’s not stuff that happens in the middle of the night.
MR. STROUGH-Right. If it was a retail industry, yes, that’s right, there would probably not be that delivery
loading at night.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But it could be a food store.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not what Mr. Benyamini intends, anticipates.
MR. STROUGH-No, but we’ve got to anticipate the worst.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and if that were the case, then there would be noise issues.
MR. STROUGH-Then there would be tractor trailers during the night.
MR. LAPPER-But those would be noise issues that would have to be addressed in site plan and it may be,
you know, requiring the traffic that has to happen at certain times of the day, all those issues could be
mitigated, or certainly addressed and maybe they couldn’t be mitigated.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we want to make sure they can be mitigated and that’s why we we’re asking the
questions. I’m so sure if a wetland mitigates sound. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t to any significant degree.
Distance does.
MR. LAPPER-But again, because you could redevelop the site with a building, if the zone line changes the
way it is now, you’d have a 50 foot setback between a zone line, and that’s not very much different than what
we’ve proposed, and that’s why I don’t think that this is such a significant application because you could
already put a much larger building, redevelop what’s already zoned Highway Commercial on that lot and it
would just be slightly north of what we’re talking about.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I did pay attention to the distances, and I think we’re talking about 800 feet from one
structure and 500 feet to another structure, and distance is, itself, a noise attenuator. I don’t know how
much, offhand, but certainly something, you know, I’m trying to way everything here.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-And I am concerned, back on that traffic, the one thing I am concerned about, if any, you
know, sizeable operation being located here, might be the impact on Everts Avenue and traffic flow coming,
you know, using this as a destination point. For example, if this is a Target, or if it was, as an example, it’s
certainly going to be a destination point for the people in Glens Falls. I mean, if I was in the City of Glens
Falls, I would take a look at Wal-Mart, having to go through that Route 9/Aviation Road intersection, drive
up the hill, and where I just drive down Everts Avenue, I’ll be at a Target, and for all practical purposes
they’re almost indistinguishable. So I’m worried about the effect of traffic on Everts Avenue.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s certainly a legitimate area of inquiry, and I think you’ve gone pretty far in terms of
the what if’s, and I guess, looking at that in terms of where the traffic would come from and how you’d do a
traffic distribution model, Quaker Road would probably be, east and west would probably be where most of
the traffic would be, and people coming from Glens Falls would probably be primarily coming up Ridge to
Meadowbrook or coming up Bay Road, and certainly some percentage of this traffic would go down Everts.
My daughter’s in the day care on Homer, and I drive down Everts and use it as a shortcut, and I know that
other people do.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But the answer, in terms of a site plan analysis, is that if there were traffic impacts because of
level of service concerns, they would have to be mitigated either through traffic devices such as a traffic light
and maybe changing the road to one way if that was necessary, or it couldn’t be built if there were going to be
traffic impacts that were too significant, but those would all be site plan issues rather than zoning issues.
MR. STROUGH-You’re right, and you’re right, there are alternate access points from the City to this site.
Bay Road would be a main one, but I do think that Everts Avenue would turn into a significant access site for
an operation that would be attractive, such as a retail industry such as Target, if that was the case. That’s my
concerns.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess also Quaker Road is one of the main commercial corridors of the Town,
obviously, and one of the corridors that the Comprehensive Plan calls for as appropriate for commercial use,
and in all of the streets that are perpendicular to Quaker, I’m thinking of Country Club, Meadowbrook,
Quaker, these are all streets that residents use to get to the main travel corridor, and Everts is one as well, and
at some point if this pass by traffic on these streets, cut through traffic, what have you, gets to a level where
the next project in requires mitigation, then it’s going to have to be mitigated, but that’s just fairly normal
based upon the design of Quaker Road as an east/west corridor with all of these smaller roads coming off of
it. So I don’t think that that’s, at all, inappropriate to be looking at. I just think this is what would happen
during site plan and we’d be talking about mitigation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I think that’s what Mr. Sanford was trying to get at, is that if this were, let’s say, a
furniture store, I mean, I’ve been to plenty of furniture stores. They’re just not a big draw.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. STROUGH-Not a big traffic issue. Then I would be more at ease knowing it was a furniture store than
knowing something that’s going to be a big traffic trip generator. I think that’s where Mr. Sanford was
coming from, and I sympathize with that point of view. Let me go through my checklist. The tractor trailer
deliveries being in the rear, we could potentially put them, move them in site plan review, we could move
them towards the Light Industrial side. There are things we probably could do.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s jump back to your parking, calculations per minute. Did you figure out calculations
based on the current zoning?
MR. LAPPER-The current zoning would be five per thousand, and the proposed zoning is four and a half
per thousand.
MR. MAC EWAN-So how many more are you picking up, under the current zoning, assuming the worst case
scenario that we don’t approve a new Zoning Ordinance?
MR. MAC ELROY-The total, based on five per thousand, for 136,000 square foot retail, would be 680. So
another 62.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s not much of a difference, then, is it? Typically some of the big box concepts we’ve
seen in recent months in front of our Board have been roughly around a 90,000 square foot store, give or
take. If it was, indeed, like a 90,000 square foot store, it would appear, by your conceptual plan, you’ve got
still plenty of room to move it more toward Quaker Road and pulling it away from the wetland area, Everts
Avenue area?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure we’ll have some comments after the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Take a seat for about an hour, I would guess.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to do so. I’ll just point to you and ask you to give us your name and address
when you come up and address any comments or questions you have to the Board and we’ll try to get them
answered for you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KERRY GIRARD
MR. GIRARD-Hi. My name’s Kerry Girard. I’m a resident of 3 Cline Avenue, Queensbury, New York.
Can we have the visual put up here that describes the property with trees that are showing, the building,
where the building is set on the lot? I think it’s the initial one.
MRS. RYBA-I’m not sure where Craig put it in here.
MR. GIRARD-Okay. Well, while she’s trying to get that up, I think I can narrate. I guess I want to retract a
little, in the sense that we’re talking about a zoning change here, a zoning change of a residential to a Highway
Commercial, and I think as a Board, Planning Board, Town Board, whichever one gets final say or whoever’s
involved in this, needs to find somewhat of an undue hardship or a strong reason, legally, that would allow
you to vote in favor of taking a residential area and changing it to Highway Commercial. It’s not your job, as
a Board, to solve people’s problem selling their house. That comes up all the time. There’s many reasons
why they can’t sell. Yes, part of the reason is probably because of what’s going on around them, but, if you
take care of a problem here, or you think you’re doing two parties a favor here, a business that generates sales
tax and real estate tax, and you’re solving a problem for a homeowner who’s having difficulty selling his
house because of possibly what’s been allowed by other Planning Board members before yourselves, that
Duke Concrete has, let’s say, spoiled the residential nature across the street. Let’s say that happens. Now
let’s take a step into the future. You solve this problem, you’ve allowed this problem. This has all been
cleared. This is now commercial. They call this the leap frog effect. Now you’ve got a problem up here,
with these residences. What are you going to do for them, when they can’t sell their homes, or the value of
their home has gone down? Are you going to step in and solve that problem, too, when another commercial
suitor says, yes, I’d like to buy the front of your property, but I need zoning change. So now they’re back up
here. What are you going to do up here, when he sees you’ve allowed this zoning change to residential. He
says, boy, my property just became more valuable, didn’t it? If I can come before the Board and get a zoning
change down in here, I could probably sell this property for a lot more value, couldn’t I? I could get a bigger
commercial project in here. So now you’re encroaching, I call this the snowball effect. You’ve allowed this.
How are you going to say no to that, and now we’re encroaching on these homes here. I think you get my
point. We’ll go back to Mr. Sanford’s point about, you know, we don’t know what’s going to come here. If
we knew maybe we’d feel different about it. Yes. That’s exactly right. You’d have a little bit more control
over where it’s going to set on the lot, and what type of restrictions you’re going to put on it, but it’s hard to
do a zoning, issue a recommendation for a zoning change without being, I don’t think you’re in a position
that you can put these restrictions on, because the Town Board has the final say. Am I correct in that logic?
MS. RADNER-If they have a question, they can ask me. You’re supposed to direct your comments and
they’ll let me know if they want any.
MR. GIRARD-Well, let’s do the triangle, then. I’ll ask you, and you ask her, okay. So we’ll leave the
question, then, for later. I can tell we’re getting legal here. Okay. The other point that’s been brought out
tonight, and they did a good job, that worst case scenario. That’s a massive building, 136,000 square foot,
and I would assume you had to set it back so far because of, you know, the parking requirement? Okay. So I
would hope it’s not intentional. It basically abuts the trees. You’ve got the corner of the building right in the
existing trees. Am I seeing that right?
MR. LAPPER-That’s the buffer also.
MR. GIRARD-Right. So the parking, in one of the other photos, which was shaded in gray, was in the back
here, and I’m sure that’s for the trucks, for unloading. A good point came out from Mr. Strough as to what
time would he be unloading, and that’s another concern of any residence. Tractor trailers coming before
nine, after nine in the evening. You know, picture a summer night when your windows are open. You try
and go to sleep, and a tractor trailer pulls in in the back here and now all these trees are gone. Well, if these
trees were that gray shaded area for a parking lot, I don’t think that we’re going to have trees in a parking lot.
Are we?
MR. LAPPER-It was green space as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask not to have this exchange going back and forth. If could just present your ideas
and thoughts to us.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. GIRARD-But, what I see was the green shaded parking area. So I’m going to assume that there’s got to
be, there has to be some leveling of trees, which act as a noise, and a sight buffer. Driving up on Bay Road
tonight, you go by Lowe’s. Take a look behind that building. Those lights have to be 35 feet in the air, if not
40. That’s pretty tall, you know, compared to the foliage that’s there now as well. Okay. So the larger the
project, the larger the lighting, the larger the parking area, and the more the runoff. That leads me to my next
point. You may be entertaining here tonight the rezoning of a parcel of land that none of you on this Board
knows and the question came up, somebody touched on it, you don’t even know if this property could
sustain itself as a watershed because it is a wetland. Don’t you have to look at the percolation rate? Water
sits on property, and it has to be able to percolate fast enough not to create a health hazard, and we know we
have a health hazard with mosquitoes as it is. So if this water won’t percolate fast enough, and it sits there,
creating its own ponds, not the intentional retention ponds, we all have a problem here. That’s taking it all
the way to the point of approval, but you may be sitting here tonight giving a stamp of approval for rezoning
to your Town Board. Eventually this all has to go to the State of New York. So we all may be jumping
through a lot of hoops and a lot of time here, but we have the cart a little bit before the horse. Shouldn’t the
State have been brought in on this, Alan Koechlien, and asked if this is even a feasible project to use, in this
sector, this personal residential sector, to be used as a watershed? What if his answer to you was, no, the
percolation rate is too slow, I’m sorry. This is a massive project. The roof creates a lot of runoff. The
parking lot creates runoff. They’re going to pitch it that way. They’ve stated that’s going to be the watershed.
You have to look at the volume of the land, and you’ve got blacktop and pollution issues. I’m sure the State
will have those issues about that, but that point has to be addressed now, just take that into thought. Correct
me if I’m wrong, but I would think that’s the logical approach, and one of the members on the Board
brought that point up to the potential developers, you know, have you checked on these things? So the
whole thing could be denied by the State, and, you know, we developed this area, and in coming to the Board,
we had to go to the State of New York. We had to do all those things first. This was a Class II Wetlands. It
was a sanctuary. That’s basically how it’s treated. Not to be disturbed, percolation of anything, from my
recollection, 11 years ago, within 200 feet. They need 200 feet of soil to filter the water that flows into a
wetlands, outside of it. It could be more now, it could be less. I’m not sure, but all these points were taken
up with the State of New York before we got our, we didn’t have to go for zoning, but we had to go for
building permits, okay. So all that legwork was done before. Yes, you have a problem with resale down here,
created, yes, by some commercial and there’s a value problem as to how much they can sell it for, but you
know there’s substantial investments here as well, and those have to be protected as a Board as well. Okay.
This is a large project. All these trees here, there’s quite a mass of them, this building is abutting, and it’s a
genuine concern how many of those are going to come down. One of my other main points I want to make
is this. I think we can all agree this is a commercial project, that a big box store is probably going to be a
good use for this site. It’s good for the Town of Queensbury. It’s good for sales tax. It’s good for real estate
tax, but you know you already have a commercial site here, and you already have more commercial property
to offer them, don’t you? Why aren’t the developers looking to buy this property? Why do they come down
here and want to buy residential? Price? Cost? You have the frontage, State highway, it can handle the
traffic. You have the zoning. There’s no issues up here. It’s another, I’m not going to call it an eyesore, but
it’s not one of your best pieces of property up there, is it? Can you sit here tonight and say that you’re really
happy with that whole corridor from Meadowbrook Road to Everts Avenue? That whole section could use a
face lift, couldn’t it? I don’t know why we’re all ignoring it. You don’t have to give them anything tonight.
He has alternatives right there. He can do the same thing. He can approach those people. None of these
people, it was stated tonight, had their property for sale. Nor might this property be for sale, but Mr.
Benyamini and his brother went in and made an offer. He can do the same thing right there, and he doesn’t
need zoning. These are the main points you need to keep in mind, you know, what’s it going to look like,
what’s it going to be. I think your legal counsel has consulted you on that. You’ve got those problems today.
Hewitts could go out of business, put plywood on his windows, and you’ve got a problem. It’s already zoned
commercial up here. I don’t think that’s the direction to go. He’s not going to be, in fairness to a
businessman, he’s not going to be able to tell you what’s going to be here and where is it exactly going to be.
He’s done this depiction tonight, but that’s his best worst case scenario. He’s done his job for you. In my
eyes, he’s done the worst case scenario. He’s got this about as close as he can get to this development. He’s
got this about as far down Everts Avenue as you can get to create traffic problems and noise problems and
runoff problems for all the homes remaining in Everts Avenue going into the City of Glens Falls. Okay.
Now go back to the point, if you allow this project to get this zoning, how are you going to handle the rest of
Quaker Road? Every developer is going to know you did this. They’re going to be in here doing the same
thing, and you have other residential developments along Quaker Road, on the north and south side. So
you’re going to create the snowball effect on yourselves, and again, I’ll sum back on to my point, is there a
hardship down here on the commercial developer that allows you to give him the rezoning. The people in
the residential area haven’t come to you for a rezoning. It’s the commercial developer that’s come to you for
this rezoning. Does he have the hardship that requires you to allow him to have that rezoning, in order to
put a commercial project in there that is feasible, and acceptable to the Town of Queensbury. I think what
we’re seeing here tonight is a project that’s grossly too large for this parcel. We presently co-exist with our
commercial surroundings as they are. We do hear Duke at five and four in the morning. We do see the
lights. This is pretty thin right through here. We can all see the lights in the parking lot now. We can hear
traffic and whatnot. It would be hard to fathom this getting thinned out at all. It would be hard to fathom
the effect on Mr. Fitzgerald right there. He spent a lot of money on that home. It’s worth a lot of money to
him now. The damage you would do to that property is almost next to a sin, if you allow this building, or any
building to encroach that close and start leveling the trees that are there. If you look at the, well, you have.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
You did, we asked you to go to the parcel, and it sounds like you did. There’s plenty of clear space here, and
again, I’ll point back to you, you have more space up there. Okay. We are presently co-existing, especially
the people on Everts Avenue, they are co-existing with Community Workshop, I think an engineering office
here, Duke, you know, and then the residences are on both sides of Everts Avenue. Everts Avenue is still a
residential street. To change the zoning, you’re damaging Everts Avenue all the more from being a residential
street. Part of that residential street is in Glens Falls. Part of it is in Queensbury. Queensbury, by changing
the zoning, is doing damage to the remaining residential homes on that road, and that’s a fact. Again, I’ll go
back to, it’s the leap frog effect. You clear that part out, now you devalue the homes going up the street.
Well, we’ve all talked about lighting, and I think I’ll close with this. I would hope, and I know it’s not your
final decision, because it’s the Town’s final decision, but I would just hope the sales tax dollar and the real
estate dollar is not the driving decision making here tonight, or whenever the decision is made. Okay.
Granted, this is a big retail depiction, could bring in tremendous amount of retail sales tax dollars for our
community. It could be assessed a tremendous amount of real estate taxes. At 136,000 square feet, one
could only imagine, after so many years have gone by, how much real estate taxes are going to be paid. I
would think, as a Planning Board, when you’re issuing a recommendation, you want to consider the impact
on your Town, and the impact on your residences as well, and I would hope that weighs equally in your
minds when you make your decision on a project like this, or any project that comes in to you. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
PETER MC DEVITT
MR. MC DEVITT-Good evening. My name is Peter McDevitt. I live at 50 Hunter Street in Glens Falls.
I’m a member of the City Council in the City of Glens Falls in Ward 2. A number of my constituents have
approached me about what they consider to be highly negative traffic impacts as it relates to this project. I
would project huge increases in traffic on Patton, MacArthur, Mt. View, Halsey, Graves, and on Lexington.
When people buy homes in beautiful subdivisions such as this, it seems to me they assume a certain
confidence level, that the general quality of life in these areas will remain reasonably consistent. Children
walk to school in the City of Glens Falls. The children in these areas walk to Jackson Heights elementary
school. I would view this as a safety issue. Do these residential areas now become a speedway for consumers
trying to find another big box store? I would pose a question to you. Do neighboring communities have a
responsibility to seriously listen to the concerns of Glens Falls residents and how this rezoning will negatively
impact their communities and their quality of life? Big box stores come and big box stores go. When they
encroach on high quality residential areas and become a gateway for significantly greater traffic through our
neighborhoods, our quality of life suffers. Rezoning of residential to commercial zoning classification should
only be granted when the impact to our residential zones is minimal or close to non-existent. This project
hardly qualifies. In the final analysis, this developer will live with the current zoning classification. They will
find a way to make this project profitably to work, based on its current zoning classification. In the final
analysis, the major issue for me is traffic, and the significant negative impacts it will have on the residents as
they approach the City of Glens Falls. People always look for a shortcut when it comes to traffic. A lot of
people today don’t recognize that shortcut, but, trust me, if a big box store arrives, many more people will
discover it. So, again, I’ll pose the question that I asked you before, and I ask this question very seriously. I
would hope you would view your decision more on a regional basis, and not through the, you might say the
narrow periscope of how it only impacts Queensbury, and I would ask for that consideration. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MONICA DUFFY
MS. DUFFY-My name is Monica Duffy, and I’m an attorney with the law firm of Judge and Duffy. Our
offices are located at One Broad Street Plaza in Glens Falls. I’m here tonight representing Mr. William
Fitzgerald, the owner of the cul de sac driveway property that’s on the aerial photo, and I’d like to start off
this evening by letting you know that I do agree with a lot of the comments that were made by Kerry Girard
earlier this evening, and also to let you know that Mr. Fitzgerald, the owner of that property, is not in favor of
the proposed application for the zoning change. My understanding is that, for a zone change to be legal, two
things must occur. There has to be a SEQRA review process, which ultimately shows that there’s no
significant adverse impact which will occur in the area because of the change in zoning. It’s my
understanding, in looking through the Town file, that the SEQRA determination is going to be made by the
Town Board, as opposed to the Planning Board. So I’ll go to basically the second thing that must occur,
which is basically the applicant has to demonstrate that the zoning change is consistent with the Town’s
Master Plan. The applicant has to demonstrate that the change is consistent with, and the question, I think,
and I know you’re only making a recommendation to the Town Board, and ultimately the Town Board has to
make the ultimate decision, but I would hope that the Town Board, in whatever recommendation you make,
is going to take that for what it’s worth. So, even though the Town’s making the ultimate decision, I think
this Planning Board has to look at whether or not this application is consistent with the Town’s Master Plan,
and based on what I’ve read in the record, what I’ve read at the minutes of the meeting in February, and what
I’ve heard tonight, it does not appear that this proposed change is consistent with the Master Plan, and one of
the reasons, one of the significant reasons why it’s not is because right now there’s a proposed change to the
zoning plan, the Master Plan for Queensbury, and you went through, the Town’s gone through this very
thorough review process, and there was, in this review process, there was no recommendation to change this
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
area of zoning from Residential to Highway Commercial, and if it wasn’t in, throughout that process, if there
was no recommended change, I think you really have to ask yourself the question, has the applicant
demonstrated to this Board, and to the Town Board, that this is a worthwhile and legal proposed change that
is consistent with the Town’s Master Plan. If it wasn’t recommended for a change when you did the overall
review of the Master Plan, how could it be, now, a good change or a change that should be made to the
overall Master Plan? And I do point out that it was my understanding from the file that on November 2,
2001, when Jon Lapper, on behalf of the applicant, sends a letter to Chris Round with this proposed rezoning
of Everts Avenue and Quaker Road, in his letter said the benefit, rather than submit a petition for rezoning,
since the Town Board is close to amending the Zoning Ordinance, it may be simpler to request that this
zoning be included in the Town wide rezoning. Now I’m assuming, because we’re here, that that request was
not made part of the Town wide rezoning, and there had to be a reason why it wasn’t and why they were
required to file an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and I think that’s something that this
Planning Board should consider. There’s been a lot of discussion tonight about not having basically, an idea,
and at the February meeting, from reading the minutes, as to who the specific tenant is going to be for this
space, and I don’t think it really matters if this is going to be Target, Home Depot, Macy’s, whatever it’s going
to be, or if it’s going to be, I think under the proposed uses you can have a day care center there, as to what it
is, but I think the significance of that, of not knowing what the tenant is, and you’re really not supposed to be
making your decision based on, per se, a specific tenant, but I think for this Board, it creates, it makes it even
more difficult to make a decision because you don’t know what the proposed plan is, and what Mr. Lapper
referred to tonight was that the five acre parcel they’re talking about rezoning is really ancillary, and I think,
just from what we’ve heard tonight, there is the potential that you could have a person come in and occupy
this existing commercial space and not even need this five acre parcel, and the concern that Mr. Fitzgerald has
is why would you be making a decision to rezone when, ultimately, there may not be a need for that rezoning,
I mean, if a commercial applicant can come in and set up shop, and not even need the five acres. So that’s
something else that I think you should consider. The other thing is, there seems to be, at least in my reading
of the minutes from the last meeting, and even tonight there’s been some discussion that the underlying
reason for this change, although the applicant says that it’s really to better the area of the homes on the east
side of Everts Avenue, to make it better for them, okay, and also to clean up this space, and that’ll be better
for the Town, and it’ll be better for the homeowners on Everts Avenue. I think if you really kind of listen to
what’s been said tonight, what we’re really talking about or what the applicant is really posing to this Board is
that if you allow this zoning change, this makes it easier for him to market this land, and that’s really what
we’re talking about here. If you listen to what the applicant has said, what the applicant is saying is if you
allow me to rezone this, this makes it easier for me, the Long Island developer, to market this property so I
can get a better dollar, okay, I can make more money with respect to this piece of property, and I think what
this Board has to consider, and what the Town Board has to consider, is you’re almost being asked to balance
some interests here, to balance the interests of an out of town developer to help him better market his
property by allowing this zoning change, and then look at the interests of these people, Mr. Fitzgerald and the
people that live on Cline Avenue, okay. Where are their interests? How are their interests being weighed in
this? Okay. I mean, if that ends up being a zone change, okay, you’re going to be favoring, I believe, the
interests of the developer from Long Island, versus the interests of these homeowners whom I’m going to
assume have spent lots of money on their houses. They’ve improved their houses. They maintain their
houses, and if it’s a choice between favoring somebody out of the town and somebody in the town, I would
hope the Town would favor the interests of the people that are already there, that already live there and
already have an investment in the Town. Continuing with the position that the applicant has taken that he
needs this property, and there’s been some talk about this tonight, that he needs this property in order to get
the appropriate tenant into this piece of property, I don’t think that, nothing, at this point, as you sit here
tonight, nothing prevents this applicant, now, first of all, back up. He said that he had to go to these people
and make offers. These houses weren’t for sale. This land wasn’t for sale. He went to them. Okay.
Nothing prevents this applicant from closing on the offers that he made to these people and buying this
property. What you do tonight, if you make a recommendation not to change, and the Town Board doesn’t
change, there’s nothing that prevents this person from buying these properties. He could buy, the applicant
can buy the properties and let them be, just buy them and not do anything with them, and then once he gets a
tenant, okay, he can then come back to the Planning Board, or whatever Board he has to go to, and basically
say, now I have a tenant, and they want to do the following thing, and now I also have, I own currently, in
addition to the Highway Commercial, I also own the resident vacant land, and I want to put up whatever it is,
retail shop or whatever it’s going to be, store, and now I have this property that I’ve already bought, I own,
and it’s zoned residential. Now, based on my proposed plan, whatever that may be, okay, I need, I have to,
revert this to Highway Commercial in order for this tenant to come here, okay, because this is the plan the
tenant has. My point to you is, there’s nothing that prevents him from buying those properties now, and
from razing those houses, he can raze them, and in that sense, clean up the property, what he’s talking about,
at no expense to the residences, Mr. Fitzgerald’s property or the residents that live on Cline Avenue, and at
no expense to this Town. He can go in and do that tomorrow. There is nothing that’s preventing him from
buying those properties, razing them, and leaving them green at this point, until he finds some tenant or some
actual proposed use for the property that he knows about, and that’s something, and he can demonstrate to
this Board that that land that’s proposed for the zoning change is actually needed, and what they’re asking this
Board to do is to really make a zoning change based on pure speculation. I mean, that’s really what’s before
you this evening. I mean, I understand that they’ve blown this out as the most possible largest use of the
property, but what we’re all talking about tonight is really pure speculation by this applicant. There’s been a
lot of talk about buffer zone, and I’m not quite sure, and this may not be the proper place. I mean, that
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
might be site plan review, but there’s been a lot of talk about a buffer zone with respect to the properties, Mr.
Fitzgerald’s properties and the properties on Cline Avenue, and where I’m a little bit confused is that it
appears to me that that residential area that they’re proposing to change is, right now, a natural buffer for
Highway Commercial, I mean, that’s a buffer in and of itself. I mean, once you make that change, the Town
is going to be deleting or voiding a natural buffer, and I’m not quite sure the logic behind doing that. I don’t
think they’ve demonstrated, I don’t think the applicant has demonstrated the need to destroy a natural buffer
in the zoning that you already have in existence, and obviously, if this changes the buffer, in a sense, between
Mr. Fitzgerald’s property and the boundary of the commercial obviously becomes a lot less because of that,
and in my calculations in going through, I think they were saying it was something like 350 feet to the
property line and 200 to the house. Now my calculations must be a little bit off, because when I measured,
based on one of the maps that I picked up from the Town file, and came from the north to the south,
basically, my, and I only went to the property line. I didn’t go to the house because I didn’t have the house
mapped out, distance wise, on the map or the one map that I was looking at. I saw anywhere that that buffer
zone goes from 125 feet to almost 425 feet, and that’s up to the boundary line. That’s not even considering
the house. So if they’re going to do the rezoning, we’re talking about giving up, Mr. Fitzgerald’s going to give
up 425 feet at some points, because of the change in zoning. I think it’s imperative, I think, to a certain
extent I think the Planning Board is at somewhat of a disadvantage in being asked to make a recommendation
this evening, or whenever the recommendation’s going to be made, not having an environmental impact
study, and/or traffic study, before there’s any recommendation or before the Town ultimately votes with
respect to this rezoning. I used to live on Hunter Street in Glens Falls. I now live in Queensbury, but I agree
with the gentleman from Ward 2 Councilperson that there is no question in my mind that there will be an
increased traffic on Everts Avenue, and Meadowbrook if some large retail change establishes themselves
here. I mean, I’ve lived on Hunter Street. The getaway to Quaker was always down Everts Avenue, the
shortcut. No one took Meadowbrook. It was just faster to go through Everts Avenue, and I think that’s
something that’s definitely going to happen. I’m a little bit confused, also, another point that I want to bring
out with respect to the trees, because after reading the minutes and looking at the maps from the February
meeting, it was my understanding that some of those trees that you see on the aerial photo were going to
have to be cut down, in order to do whatever the plan was with respect to this property, and I’m very
concerned, and so is Mr. Fitzgerald, with respect to the cutting of any trees in that area. I mean, sheet trees in
commercial areas, or close to commercial areas in the Town of Queensbury, are scarce, as we sit here. The
idea of cutting down trees, which would appear to residents, Mr. Fitzgerald, the residents on Cline Avenue,
which they themselves create a natural buffer, and you’re going to allow, if they were allowed, if the applicant
was allowed to cut down those trees, I mean, that makes absolutely no sense. You’ve got a natural buffer
with trees. Any idea of cutting down trees and then replacing them with something that’s not natural as a
form of a tree I really don’t understand, or the number of trees. I mean, even looking at the aerial
photograph there, you can see that we’re not just talking about a couple of trees. I mean, we’re talking about
a lot of trees there, and the idea of allowing the applicant to cut the trees down to then put up some type of
non natural buffer would appear to not make any sense with respect to that area.
MR. SANFORD-Excuse me just for a moment. Your remark about an environmental study, to me, is
somewhat problematic, because the applicant doesn’t have a use. So what kind of environmental study, on
any possible use of the property?
MS. DUFFY-It would have to be. I mean, you’re making a decision tonight based on any possible use of the
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re entertaining a recommendation only.
MS. DUFFY-I’m sorry. I understand. You’re making a recommendation. I misspoke. You’re making a
recommendation tonight on a zone change that involves any possible use within a Highway Commercial
zoned space, and that’s what you’re doing tonight.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MS. DUFFY-At some point.
MR. SANFORD-Anything goes. Okay.
MS. DUFFY-But consistent with that, if you’re also looking at blowing this thing out as the biggest possible
thing, then I think you would have to look at that same, as an environmental impact, the same thing. You’re
looking at, the bigger it is, someone would assume that the environmental impact is going to be worse as the
project gets bigger, and another idea, and I don’t know if this has been thrown around. I don’t even know if
it’s possible, but if, and maybe, Mr. Lapper may have addressed this earlier this evening, is, I don’t know if
there’s a way where you could keep the zoning the same with respect to the parcel in question, and then if, in
fact, with some proposed specific plan as to the use of that property, whether it be retail, a day care center,
somebody mentioned something about RV sales center or something like that, at that point, why the
applicant couldn’t then, at that point, go to the Town Board or Planning Board, whatever appropriate Board
there is, and ask for a variance, or a special use permit with respect to that area of the property, and then at
least you would have a more definitive need at that time, as to what exactly has to be done with the property
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
because of the specific use that’s being proposed for the property, and I don’t know if that’s something that
can be considered by the Planning Board and just leave the zoning intact at this point until you have more
definitive plans before you or more definitive proposed use of the property, and then somehow, like I said,
seek a variance with respect to that much of that area that may be necessary or a special use permit with
respect to that area. The other thing I think you should consider in your deliberations tonight is that there’s
been an argument made tonight by the applicant that we’re talking about only five acres of land as if five acres
of land, residential land, is really nothing in the Town of Queensbury. Five acres of land in the Town of
Queensbury where this is located is a significant amount of property, and I would suggest to you that that
argument clearly cuts both ways. I mean, the applicant’s going to take the position that it’s only five acres,
that’s not a lot. When you look at these people with their homes and where they are, five acres being turned
from residential into Highway Commercial is a lot of property, and it shouldn’t be considered by this Board
as being some minimal amount of property because five acres where it’s located is a significant amount of
property. I guess the last point I want to leave with you tonight is that if some type of retail were to come in
to the property, without the zoning being changed, whether it be a Home Depot, another Home Depot,
Target, whatever, a big retail establishment were to use that space, that would be a significant change, in and
of itself, okay, to those residential areas there, to Mr. Fitzgerald’s property and to the neighbors on Cline
Avenue and the other streets in that area. The fact that there would be some type of retail store would be a
significant change to that area. If the Town were to change and recommend, or if you recommend to the
Town and the Town ultimately makes the zoning change, decides to make the zoning change, that will be
another significant change to that residential area, and the way that we see it is that you would really be
compounding the change to that area. I would think, based on what’s there now, they’re dealing with it, and I
think somebody spoke of it earlier tonight, that they’re co-existing, and I think that’s accurate, and they’re co-
existing with what’s there. If some retail chain comes and establishes a store there, there will be a significant
change to that area, but if you recommend that they change this zoning from residential to Highway
Commercial and add a retail store there, you are talking about a compounded significant change to those
residents, Mr. Fitzgerald and the people around on Cline Avenue, and I’m here on behalf of Mr. Fitzgerald
tonight to ask that you make a recommendation not approve the requested zoning change. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MICKY ROWELL
MR. ROWELL-Good evening. My name is Micky Rowell, and I am a resident of 7 Cline Avenue. I’ve
recently moved there from Glens Falls, and I do consider myself a Glens Falls native, and I look at a couple
of names on the Board, and I’ve got a funny feeling that a few of you are also from Glens Falls. This isn’t
necessarily a Glens Falls issue, but I did live on Lexington Avenue for a number of years before moving to
Cline Avenue, and one of the issues that prompted me to move to that little development was the issue of
traffic on Lexington Avenue as it is today. I think what you’re proposing or what the applicant is proposing
is going to certainly do nothing more but to damage that area as well as Everts Avenue. I have family here
tonight that are actually involved, partially, in this project, and I would like nothing better but to see them
benefit from it because I know they’re real good people. However, I think, taking into consideration, and I
think a number of people have touched on this already, by taking into consideration your neighbors, the
Glens Falls folks, that you will be impacting on. There are a number of schools, I think there are five
elementary schools in Glens Falls that do have children that walk to school. A number of years ago, there
was a serious accident on the corner of Meadowbrook and Ridge Road that prompted some other issues and
the resolutions to try to help make that area a safer place for children to walk. I think by approving or at least
recommending this proposal, you would start now, instead of having our elementary children walking to
school, and they’re not all Glens Falls students, by the way. There are some Queensbury residents that do
still go to Glens Falls school system. My family is one of them. They’ll no longer be able to walk on the
residential streets, but they will certainly be walking on highway streets. I do hope that you would consider
certainly not just the Queensbury, but your neighbors in Glens Falls as well. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
TRISTA GAIOTTI
MS. GAIOTTI-My name is Trista Gaiotti. I live on 20 Meadowbrook Road, and I’ll speak tonight to
represent those of us that have to suffer from the economic development north of us, and Lowe’s. Between
the hours of four and six you take your life into your hands backing out of your driveway, because we have
Mayflower trucks, Pepsi trucks, Mountain Dew trucks, the dump trucks from Mr. Schermerhorn’s building
projects north of us who aren’t even supposed to be there because there’s a weight ton limit. Somebody’s
going to get hurt. It’s not safe to walk, and that is still the Glens Falls City School District, and in fact one of
the gentlemen who moved, just north of us moved from Queens to escape the wonderful economic
development of Long Island, and can’t believe that he still has to drive his children to school because they are
unsafe. If you don’t think that building a retail box store is going to affect traffic, you are very wrong. It is
dangerous for us, and since Queensbury doesn’t fund sidewalks, what are you going to do? You have to walk
in the road. It’s dangerous to pull out of the road, and you really need to take a look at some kind of traffic
study. It’s a problem, and I know all of us that have lived on that road have called numerous times, nobody
does anything, and I fear that nothing will be done until somebody is seriously hurt or injured. There are
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
about 25 kids that live in the Cline Avenue area/Meadowbrook Road area, and that’s where they play in the
summer. There was an accident this summer, someone trying to pull out of Cline and people come cruising
down through there, and this poor old man was sideswiped, and our sheriff kind of laughed it off, and I just
think if you’re going to have these big economic development projects come in, you really do need to start to
consider the people that live here. It’s not fair. We pay taxes, and I really agree with what Mr. Girard said,
that I would hope the almighty dollar is not what is driving us in this instance. Someone my age, you hear a
lot about, no one wants to move back, and I stayed, and I live around here, and quite frankly I’m disgusted at
the lack of foresight and lack of care that we give into building our communities, making them a nice place to
live, a safe place to live, a place where we want to raise a family, and Meadowbrook Road is becoming more
and more a place where you wouldn’t want to raise your family, because of Lowe’s, because of Della, because
of those kinds of places, and I would like to think, it was my understanding looked at how we can make our
communities better places to live, and I’ve heard comments from people on the Board tonight that sound
more like economic development to me than making this community a better place to live. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
BRUCE CARR
MR. CARR-Good evening. Bruce Carr. I’m here representing Mr. Cass who is one of the homeowners who
has a contract with Mr. Benyamini. Last month I brought up most of the points that I wanted to bring up. I
would just like to redirect the Board’s attention to what is being asked here tonight, and that’s for you to take
a look at the current situation and to weigh all the factors about, you know, people who have supported the
project, people who are opposed to the project, I think to a person has said no one really wants to live across
from Duke Concrete. Well, no kidding, you know. That’s exactly where Mr. Cass lives. They’re talking
about five homes as being a residential cluster. Well, the Town has already taken two of those homes and
made it Highway Commercial. So now the cluster of five is a cluster of three people who are stranded
between a wetlands, between Duke Concrete, and between Highway Commercial. It’s a triangular piece. It
should be zoned Highway Commercial, it always should have been zoned Highway Commercial. I know Mr.
Cass, you know, is anxious to get rid of his property. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. It’s not a residential
property to him, or to those two other people living there. They are left there, you know, dealing with the
Highway Commercial zone to their north and Duke Concrete to the west, and I’d like the Board just to
refocus on the request that’s before you, and that deals with, are the parcels in question properly zoned
residential, or should they be Highway Commercial. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MARILYN TALLON
MRS. TALLON-My name is Marilyn Tallon and I live on Meadowbrook Road, and while I do feel bad for
this gentleman, Mr. Cass, I believe, that you were just speaking about, it is important to remember that this is
a mistake that happened long ago when he was probably a very single, maybe solitary person, perhaps on
Everts Avenue, when Duke probably put the bid in to put their industrial park at that time in that place. So
he didn’t have enough backing like all of the neighbors do right here. I just want you to take a moment and
think, why do we live in Queensbury? Well, it’s a relatively safe place with a bit more scenery and there is a
lot of wildlife. It is close to the Adirondack mountains. We have good water, and we are nicely located, four
hours from New York City, three hours from Montreal, and only about four and a half hours to the ocean.
We are part of the Adirondack Foothills, and so many, in recent times, have moved to this vicinity, just as our
neighbor that we mentioned before on Meadowbrook Road, to get away from the maddening crowd, traffic
congestion, air and noise pollution, yet this Board is still under the impression that Queensbury must develop
further to increase it’s tax base. Please reflect on why we live here. Could we please allow our dear earth a
rest perhaps? Let nature catch up to our ever expanding civilization sprawl. The properties we are presently
discussing have been wetlands, and it was, just about 10 years ago, I was before this Board to reflect on a
similar thing, I can’t remember exactly what it was at this time, but, the Board is all new faces now I see, and
you have to keep in mind that a lot has changed. Lowe’s, their parking lot, Applebee’s, and consider how silly
it is to have a parking lot as big as this when we, right now, we never see Lowe’s fully in place. You never see
Lowe’s fully with cars in it. It’s just never full, very seldom are there more than maybe 20% full. A major
development of the northern end of Meadowbrook Road and that’s such a big change for us here. It has
created so much more traffic on our Meadowbrook Road, and has anyone noticed the color and the quality
of the water appearance of Halfway Brook? It’s very murky. It’s been that way for like the last three years. It
has not gotten clearer after Lowe’s was put up. I’m not sure if it’s coming from Lowe’s, but it is very murky
water, and it’s just that you have to keep in mind that our natural resources, our natural beauty of this Town
and our quality of life will be given up just to have more commercial development, and I also would just like
to mention, in the future, you really need to have your microphones speaking up a lot louder. Thank you
very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
LISA CHURCHILL
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MS. CHURCHILL-Lisa Churchill, 11 Cline Avenue. I did speak briefly last month, and I really can’t add
anything more intelligent than what’s already been said here tonight, but it does, I feel, come down to fitting
100 pounds of flour into a coffee can. This project is just too large for this space. Two hundred feet is too
close to situate this to a residential area. I strongly urge you to keep the Quaker Road development on
Quaker Road and not invading into the residential areas. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
TERRY WHITE
MR. WHITE-Our names are Terry and Larry White. We live on 11 Homer Avenue in Queensbury, and I
guess we’re feeling a little left out because no mention has been made of our street. Perhaps it was at the
previous meeting, we weren’t here for that. Do you want to go first?
LARRY WHITE
MR. WHITE-The biggest problem is going to be, Number One, is going to be traffic. Right now Homer
Avenue has more traffic than Everts Avenue. If you get there in the morning or at night, everybody takes
that as a shortcut. You can’t get out onto Bay Road. The traffic will back up 10, 15 cars, and you’ll sit there
for 10 minutes or more trying to get out. If you go ahead with this project, you’ll end up putting a red light at
each end of Homer Avenue and traffic will be backed up the full length of it.
MRS. WHITE-We’ve only lived on this street for two years, and we’ve spoken to other residents on the street
who’ve lived there for many more years than we have, and they said that the increase in traffic has been
incredibly notable over the past 10 years. I think everybody here who’s a resident, who’s concerned about
this project, will agree that most drivers look for shortcuts, and most of the people, most of the people
driving on Homer Avenue are people who are taking a shortcut off of Quaker. There are, even though our
road is small, there are a lot of residents on that street. There are a lot of houses, despite the fact that there
are a couple of businesses, and they don’t generate a great amount of traffic. I can only imagine what it’ll be
like if an undertaking like this is approved. A lot of the traffic that we see isn’t just passenger cars. We see an
ever increasing number of trucks, commercial vehicles, even tractor trailers from time to time, and I don’t
know if that’s legal on our street or not. I haven’t investigated that. We’re also very concerned about lights
and noise pollution, as well as litter, because no matter how cautious you are about having wastebaskets and
trash receptacles, people litter in parking lots of this size, and it blows down our street all the time, even from
smaller buildings down the road that are office buildings or perhaps the YMCA dance center. We get trash
blowing down our street all the time. People who drive up and down the street throw things out their
windows, and while I realize you don’t have any control over that, it just has a greater and greater impact on
where we live. I guess I’m just concerned that the Town doesn’t really look at the big picture, and instead of
reiterating or repeating what’s been said by other speakers, I would just like to agree with what they’ve said
about their concerns, and I would hope that we could look at the big picture for our Town and the entire
surrounding community, not just this parcel, and one other thing I wanted to mention, and perhaps it’s really
not that important to you, but, two and a half years ago, I had to meet, or had to come before the Town
Board, the Zoning Board as well as the Planning Board, because I was asking permission to have a small,
home based business in my house, and, thankfully, it did meet with approval, but at that time, some of the
questions that were posed to me were questions about traffic. They wanted to know what my hours of
operation would be. Heaven forbid that I’d be open late at night. Please don’t generate more than a couple
of cars in a half a day, and once I explained to them that I would probably only have three or four vehicles
per day coming to my business, that seemed to quiet their concerns. So I guess I’m just a little perplexed that
such serious questions were posed to me, and made me feel like I had to be really, really cautious about the
impact I was going to have on my neighbors, that something like this could be approved. Anyway, thank you
for the opportunity to speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. WHITE-And the way this project is set right now, where’s the first place the cars are going to come out
of? Right down Homer Avenue. If it stays in the position it’s in, if it gets passed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
JANE GOULD
MRS. GOULD-My name is Jane Gould, and I live on the corner of Wilson and Cline. As Mr. Rowell had
spoken earlier, I also used to live and be a resident of the City of Glens Falls, on 34 Lexington Avenue. I
moved from 34 Lexington Avenue so that I could raise my children, who are twins, who currently go to
Jackson Heights, and they continue to go to Jackson Heights, even though my home is located in
Queensbury. I would like us to be able to continue our way of life, and the quality that I was hoping that we
would still have, living in the cul de sac that is right near the property that is in question that you feel that you
have to consider rezoning. I’m strongly opposed to the consideration of rezoning this from residential to
commercial, and I believe that this room is filled with very many people that believe the same. Thank you.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
TINA BAPP
MRS. BAPP-Hi. My name is Tina Bapp, and I own 2.2 acres of the five acres in question tonight on 72
Everts Avenue. Previous to Mr. Benyamini approaching me, and let me say this first off. I love my home. If
you don’t approve of him, I’m fine. I’m out my home. I only bought it two years ago. I intended to be there
for the rest of my life, but previous to you, him even approaching me, I had spoken with Mr. Brown this
summer about coming and asking you about making this Highway Commercial, as my husband and I are
both self-employed and it only makes sense because it’s just me and Mr. Cass, and an empty lot in that tiny
little corner that’s not commercial, and that’s about all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
GARY SMITH
MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name’s Gary Smith. I live on 6 Cherokee Lane in Queensbury, which is up
near West Mountain, and I know there’s a lot of emotion in the room tonight as far as the people that live in
the neighborhood, but what I would like to do is just speak to maybe somebody that doesn’t live within a
block of this project, and give you some of my feelings of what I think about it. A lot of stuff has been
brought up tonight by the people that have come up to talk. The first thing that comes to my mind when I
look at this property is aesthetics right now. It looks terrible along Quaker Road. So, from the aesthetics
standpoint, to have a big box store or any new commercial property be built there would certainly be an
improvement to what’s there now. The second thing is that we do have the ability to have the property make
more money, from a tax standpoint. The third thing that I really want to talk about is stimulating the small
businesses around. Now, things like Cool Beans, businesses such as Della auto group, Midas, Nemer Ford,
those people are small businesses in the Town of Queensbury. Those people would be positively effected by
a good, well run big box store in the area, and to carry that point just a little bit further, I would also submit
that, with the recent demise of K-Mart, even though this store is not going down yet, if we don’t allow some
of these projects to go forward, what we’re going to end up doing is having a situation where we need to
drive to Wilton to go shopping because Wal-Mart’s the only game in town, other than K-Mart. Well, again,
I’m not looking at it from a standpoint of being in your neighborhood, and I guess my voice counts just as
well as all those who sit in the room. Now currently, from a noise standpoint, Quaker Road has a certain
amount of commercial traffic on it right now, at night, for example, the Della auto group does have nighttime
parts deliveries brought to the dealerships. Lowe’s obviously has nighttime deliveries, and it would be my
opinion, it’s not going to be, you know, it’s not a situation where we’re living on a hill here and we have Jake
breaks coming down from the tractor trailers. I don’t know that it’s going to be a huge issue with noise,
except for possibly one or two of the houses up right behind where the proposed building would go. The
other thing that I’d like to bring to the table here is that, you know, aside of the neighborhood issue, towns, I
originally come from Cape Code in Massachusetts, where it’s hugely impossible to get any commercial
development done, and that’s one of the reasons I moved away from there, because our tax base went up so
high because we couldn’t get anything into town, that it was a huge concern. The schools were starting to be
effected, and a number of different issues were effected. So the fourth thing I’d like to bring to the table is
that a retail facility such as this, kind of like the ones that were built down in Wilton, also bring a certain
amount of jobs and economic stimulus to the area. As far as the people that spoke earlier, I don’t not
sympathize with you on the neighborhood thing, but it’s been my experience, looking at these things, that
there are traffic things that can be done to minimize speedy traffic on Everts Ave. The exits and entries,
that’s all part of the site planning process, where they can accommodate a neighborhood such as this, if
something of this nature comes to pass, but basically I guess my biggest concern is, you know, as a Town,
aside of the people in the room on any given issue, whether it’s tonight or another night, everybody
complains about jobs and the economy, but yet, we work hard at putting these things away, and I just,
personally, think that it would not be a bad idea to move forward with this, see what comes up on the table
for a proposal, and then go ahead with the normal site planning process, and investigate whether we can do
something or not. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
CHRISTOPHER GLENN
MR. GLENN-My name’s Christopher Glenn. I live at 16 Sargent Street, which is right around the corner
from Cline. If you look here, it’s the street that runs perpendicular to Cline. My fiancé and I purchased the
house there two years ago and we are absolutely thrilled with it. Now if you look at what currently exists
between Quaker Road and our neighborhood, I’d like to know how many feet it is from this corner to Mr.
Fitzgerald’s house, or to this house. It’s probably, what, 4,000 feet, would most people agree with that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to keep your comments directed toward the Board, or questions toward the
Board, please.
MR. GLENN-Okay. Would you say that this is approximately 4,000 feet?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. SANFORD-Less than that.
MR. GLENN-Less. What currently exists here, when you drive out Homer Avenue, is a lot of somewhat
open property, but it’s mostly wooded, treed area that buffers noise from Quaker Road, from Della. We can
hear, I know at Sargent Street, I can hear, in the summer, when someone’s paged at Della. So, noise is a
concern. You start opening up this land, here, for this building, and you’re going to hear more noise, from
Della, from the new Honda, Della Honda, from Ford, from Midas, Lowe’s. Has anybody driven behind
Lowe’s and seen where the trucks unload, and it’s littered with pallets, shrink wrap material, strapping
material, parts of pallets, all that from this store, or a store, is going to blow into this wetland area. What’s
that going to do to the wetland area? Is it going to litter it or is somebody going to go back there from this
store and clean it up on a daily basis? What’s the future hold for this wetland area? Is that going to get filled
with litter? Even if you put some sort of unnatural barrier between this building and that wooded area, it’ll
find it’s way through. Birds, fish, whatever is in there, will eat it, die, what impacts does that have on the
environment in that area? I’ve grown up in Queensbury. I see a lot of very familiar faces here, and I think
everybody has the same valid concerns that I do and my fiancé does, and she couldn’t make it tonight. I
think it’s a shame what they plan to propose to do to our neighborhood. Thank you.
MONICA MORAN-HOOD
MRS. MORAN-HOOD-My name is Monica Moran-Hood. I reside at 5 Geneva Drive in Queensbury which
is off of Upper Sherman road. While I don’t live right by where this is proposed, I do travel it twice a day to
drop my son at the day care center, A Child’s World, on Homer Avenue. Currently, the Child’s World will
take the kids out for walks in this large stroller that they have, and I would think that if a big box store went
in this area, that would pretty much be null and void. The owner of Child’s World could not be here tonight,
but she has her strong objections to this big box store also. My suggestion to the Board would be this. There
are a lot of other potential sites for a proposed store like this in the Town of Queensbury, and I think we
need to think about what we want in the Town of Queensbury. Do we really want to become a Wilton? It’s
a different situation. We have a lot of residential areas that would abut these types of projects. We have two
entrances to our Town, at 18 and 19 off the Northway, that are pretty sad at the moment, and need to be
refurbished. Maybe, and I’m not suggesting that it would be a solution, as this big box is being proposed, but
maybe something like that would be better suited for an area like that, or up by the Mall, but I think, traveling
15 minutes down the Northway to get to a Target is not the end of the world. I grew up in New Jersey, and
in an area that now, when I return to, after nine and a half years of living in the greater Queensbury area, is
foreign to me. Strip mall after strip mall, not one piece of open land anymore, and with that drives up the
property value to a point where I couldn’t even afford to live where my parents live currently. I just think we
need to look at an overall picture of what we want our town to be, and I strongly disagree with this proposal .
Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
GREG QUINN
MR. QUINN-My name is Greg Quinn. I live at 33 MacArthur Drive, Glens Falls, and it seems like
everything that is being done in the area now is more or less counterproductive. There’s a beautiful bike
path, not too far from where this is proposed, and I believe probably about a few months ago there was an
article in the Glens Falls, concerning the traffic on Bay Road, where it goes from, well, from Quaker Road it
narrows down, just where the bike path crosses Quaker Road, and it’s, a bike path is a beautiful thing, but
who wants to go on it? I’m sure there was quite a bit of money that was spent on the bike path, and a quality
of life, and I also live about 300 feet from Everts Avenue, and when I’m out there mowing my lawn, which
doesn’t take long, I can count probably five or six cars running a four way stop. The posted speed limit is 30
miles an hour, and that’s not realistic. So, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
TIA WILSON
MS. WILSON-My name is Tia Wilson, and I live on 12 Mt. View Road, and while I don’t oppose commerce
and growth in a community, I do oppose it when it infringes upon residential areas and children. I have a
child that will be attending Jackson Heights school, and he can’t walk yet, but I want him to walk there. The
other problem I see with this property, the environmental issue that was discussed, the abutting against the
wetlands, if that is concrete, which most likely it will be, because it will be a parking lot area, what’s going to
happen is the runoff, or the water, because this is a sloped property, it’s going to choke out some of the
existing wetlands and cause problems because of the compaction and the concrete area. So that buffer zone
will decrease because there will be a decrease in the growth of the trees. Also, as a community conscious
hauler of big trucks, we, I work for a hauling company, or a company that hauls big trucks. We go into
residential communities in the evening, at night when the children are not on the streets. So, those big stores
that you talk about, Home Depot and Target, that don’t haul in the evening, they do. They do haul in the
evening and overnight loads. So that was kind of just what I wanted to add.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Someone way in the back there had their hand up, right?
CHARLANN HURLEY
MS. HURLEY-My name is Charlann Hurley, and I live at 32 Patton Drive, which is directly behind the
proposed site, about 500 feet behind it, and there wasn’t really too much I wanted to add. I think everybody’s
covered the bases, but I have to tell you, I’m really worried about the drainage in that area. It’s a wet area
anyway. If you’re covering what used to be open land with concrete and a building, probably approximately
350,000 square feet, where is that water going to go? Is the wetland going to increase in size? Is that wetland
now going to be in my backyard, which is already wet anyway. I just think that these are concerns that really
need to be addressed before this project can move forward, and I hope that the Board will take that into
consideration. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Any other takers?
KRISTINE KARIG
MRS. KARIG-My name is Kristine Karig. I live at 44 Everts Avenue. My husband and I live at 44 Everts
Avenue. We just bought our house a little over a year ago, and there have been many good points made
tonight. Obviously, I’m strongly opposed to this proposal. We are, in fact, on the other side of the wetlands.
We’re on the same side of the proposed project, and, briefly, all I want to say is not only do I think it would
greatly depreciate the quality of life on Everts Avenue, I think it would depreciate the neighborhood
environment that I feel that so many people on Everts Avenue have tried to create over the years. I also feel
that the wetlands are no buffer for noise. Believe me when I tell you we can hear quite a bit of noise from
Quaker Road. So I just wanted to say I am strongly opposed to this. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? Mr. Lapper, do you want to come back up?
MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d just like to address what we’ve heard generally. It’s easy for us, as residents of
Queensbury and others, to say that we like trees rather than concrete, but you have to consider that Quaker
Road is one of the few commercial corridors in the Town, and Monica talked about the Comp Plan. The
Comp Plan addresses Quaker Road is the area where big boxes are proposed, and appropriate, and the
alternative is to say that we don’t want anymore commercial growth whatsoever, and I don’t think that that’s
what the Comp Plan calls for. It talks about putting it in the appropriate areas, and what is ironic here is that
the five acres that we’re talking about would be less developed than what you have now, if this project is built,
and it cleans up the area, and most of what everybody was talking about, in terms of potential impacts, and
mostly it was traffic and noise and lighting, which are all site plan issues that can be mitigated, a project can
be built and the property can be redeveloped in the front without the rezoning, but it won’t be this project,
and it won’t be now, and it would just stay the way it is for however long, until somebody else has the
initiative to try and tie the parcels up, or nobody will, and they’ll be separately developed, or they’ll stay the
way they are, but in terms of the proposal, you have to look at what it is for the residents that are there, and
those houses, and the idea of knocking them down and building detention basins is a lot more attractive than
what you have there, and that’s what we’re talking about, and if it’s a stipulation or a condition on a
recommendation, we have no problem with that because we don’t see that the land is suitable for any other
kind of building besides, specifically, Mr. Girard talked about hardship, and that would be the standard for a
Use Variance, which is another appropriate way that this homeowners could go if they, on their own, wanted
to have this zoned for commercial, but that would be what you’d do if you tried to turn your own lot into
commercial use rather than what we’re talking about, which is much better, to have this as stormwater
management area. He talked about the lights at Lowe’s, and those were 40 feet tall, and as this Board knows,
as a result of that project, the standards in Queensbury have now been changed, and now the 18 foot down
lights are proposed, and that’s what, obviously, you’ve been requiring and would continue to. Mr. Girard
acknowledged the resale problems with the existing homes and I appreciate that, and that a big box would be
a good use for the site. In terms of the traffic impacts, Mr. McDevitt talked about that. Traffic is clearly an
issue that has to be addressed with site plan, but again, because the majority of this site can be redeveloped
for commercial, it’s commercial property, and traffic always has to be addressed, and if that means traffic
lights or sidewalks or what have you, those are typical site plan issues that this Board is very experienced with.
Monica was talking about SEQRA, and the Town Board would be lead agency, but I just want to point out
that the Town Board, on the rezoning for the Town, is doing the same thing that we’re asking for here, on a
town wide basis, to look at parcels and say that they should be zoned something different, without knowing
what the use is going to be in the future. We are pretty sure what the use is going to be, but Mr. Benyamini
needs some time to put it together, but what we’re asking for is no different, in terms of a generic rezoning
that would allow the Highway Commercial use, but again, with the stipulation like we talked about with
Home Depot, both in terms of the 18 months would be acceptable, as well as the use of this site, that it
would be for stormwater management primarily with perhaps a little bit of building and parking lot, and
again, those are site plan issues. Primarily everybody else was talking about traffic. Noise and wetland. Retail
is not a big noise generator unless it’s like a Lowe’s and that’s, we already know where Lowe’s is, and we
know where Home Depot is going, and in terms of the wetland, any impacts on the wetland, those, of course,
are regulated, and anything, in terms of a stormwater detention, anything that would go into the wetland
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
would have to be filtered and would be better than what’s going in now, as part of the planning process.
Dennis?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I would just reiterate the technical issues that would be subject to site plan review.
Those are technical issues that you’re well versed in and at that time would be subject to mitigate measures,
that type of thing, that’s normal as part of the site plan process. Just some clarification of points that were
made regarding the buffer area, and also on the conceptual site plan, the gray shaded area. It’s not intended
that it is all parking. It is that combination of parking, circulation, and associated green space. There’s
perhaps 20% of that area would be associated green space. So it’s not one large parking area, in front, in
back, on the side, but again, those details would come out in the presentation of the project at the Planning
Board review through site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Robert, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the first question I want to ask is going to be directed to Dennis, and,
Dennis, on that 5.3 acres, it’s going to be used primarily as retention, stormwater retention capability. Do you
see that as either perc or evaporation, in terms of getting rid of the water that finally settles there?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s premature, at this point, as far as the technical review, but I would assume that there
would be some form of retention with potential recharge, first flush capabilities, prior to discharge, meeting
the standards that are required for DEC.
MR. VOLLARO-So, essentially, we’d be looking at mostly evaporation to get rid of water, rather than
percolation into the soil, because of the condition that exists there?
MR. MAC ELROY-It depends on, yes. It depends on that condition that’s documented and reviewed in the
field, but obviously it’s an area of probably shallow to groundwater. So that would have to be dealt with from
an engineering standpoint.
MR. VOLLARO-The next thing I see, that if we do any concrete work in there at all, or macadam work, any
impervious surface work, let’s call it that, we also reduce the capability of that 5.3 acres to do it’s stormwater
management job, but that’s an engineering job, and that has to be looked at. What I’ve come away with, from
all the discussion here, and because this is something that Mr. Benyamini himself has to look into, in the
property that lays to the east of Hewitts there, that’s a strip mall. I guess that’s what that property really is
there, is where the IRS in that, is that what that is in there?
MR. LAPPER-First there’s East Coast Tire. There’s a body shop, and there’s a transmission shop east of.
MR. VOLLARO-But the bigger building is the mall?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is sort of like a strip mall kind of place?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve roughly calculated out, based on the fact that, I believe my figures are right, before the
5.3, it’s 12 and a half acres. Is that correct? Or am I wrong there?
MR. MAC ELROY-It would be 10.9.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it 10.9?
MR. MAC ELROY-Because the total of the proposed area is 16.2.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If that frontal part that fronts right on Quaker could be tied into this lot, it would be
roughly 15 acres, I would guess, close to the 16 that are being looked at now, sort of like somewhere in there,
and that would give you the ability to develop much closer to the Bay Road, to the.
MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly true, Bob. The problem is that those parcels are developed with expensive
buildings. So it’s just cost prohibitive to buy a lot of commercial property and knock down buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s basically the risk the developer has to take.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s more than that, only because if you want to do a deal, it’s got to make financial sense.
You can only get so much rent from even a big box.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I don’t see this, everybody talks about a big box. This may not be a big box.
Unless your client knows that it’s a big box.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. LAPPER-I can tell you that he’s hoping that that’s what happens, but he doesn’t have a deal.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the next thing I see, I’m not convinced that enough study work has been done on
this 5.3 acres that allows it to do the stormwater management job it’s intended to do. We do not have any
sort of stormwater management report to justify the fact that this can be used for that purpose. It’s pretty
wet.
MR. LAPPER-Well, beyond that, it has to be used for green space, to support this, and it’s the wetland
buffer, 100 feet that can’t be touched anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the question is, will it be able to retain, adequately, the stormwater that’s runoff from
the 10.9 acres?
MR. LAPPER-From my discussion with Dennis, it may not be, all the stormwater management may not
happen on that. There may have to be underground infiltrators under the parking lot. It may a complex
stormwater plan, but that would certainly be part of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, one other question that was brought up by the attorney that talked to this is
why didn’t the new zoning law recommend the change to this property? I mean, I thought that was a good
question. Why didn’t the people who were taking a look, and I guess that’s on our side of the fence, here, but
I’m just asking myself that question, if this was so necessary to be rezoned, why didn’t the new zoning law
talk about that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the question is whether it’s appropriate to be rezoned and the fact that the committee
didn’t look at this parcel, I don’t think that’s persuasive one way or the other. I can answer the question. I
did go to Chris, because we were in the middle of the rezoning process, Comprehensive rezoning, and said is
it too late to just piggyback this on, and he said that because the committee had already met and ended its
recommendations, that it was procedurally too late, and that’s why we went with an individual, site specific
petition.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it seems to me in the rezoning process, when we’re changing the zoning, when we
look at a piece of property like this, somebody on that committee, and I wasn’t on it, and I can’t fault the
committee for that because there’s a million pieces of property that have to be looked at, but it seems to me
that one of the inhibitors to making that decision was driving that commercial property deeper and deeper
into the residential zones, may have been a reason why it wasn’t looked at.
MR. LAPPER-If the wetland wasn’t there, and there were houses immediately adjacent, you know, 50 feet,
100 feet, that would make sense, but here you’ve got the buffer, and you can’t ignore that we’ve got Duke
Concrete across the street, which is a real loud, busy, industrial use.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but he’s there now. It’s an existing situation, and I’m concerned about making an
existing situation even worse in terms of the residential properties.
MR. LAPPER-But if we take down the five houses, why would that be worse?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, because the houses that are there now, in the back on Cline and so on, are still going
to be relatively close to that 5.3 acre line.
MR. LAPPER-One of the gentlemen said that you’re then asking these five houses to act as buffers for the
other houses.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, what I’m trying to do, in my mind, is to keep the development as close to Quaker
as I can, or could be, and not having to touch that 5.3. Move everything up, and of course that’s highly
dependent on Mr. Benyamini taking a look at trying to make an offer on that piece at the east.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it may be possible to say that we draw the line where it is now and that the building will
not be on the 5.3 acres, but certainly this property needs to support that building.
MR. VOLLARO-In terms of stormwater management.
MR. LAPPER-Stormwater management and also circulation.
MR. VOLLARO-When you say also circulation, that talks about adding impervious land to the back of that,
macadam or whatever.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s a five plus acre parcel. So we’re not talking about a lot.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think I’ve really said it. I just want to say that if this recommendation, our
recommendation is an approved recommendation to our Town Board, I’d like to say that I would like that
recommendation to include an 18 month period for this to be resolved into some sort of an application, and
if it doesn’t hit the 18 month period, then this property reverts back to it’s original residential zone.
MR. LAPPER-And we would consent to that.
MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, may I interject with a clarification? In terms of the rezoning, and the process we
went through with that, there are many recommendations in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that were
considered, but not all of them were recommended for rezoning. Likewise, there are rezonings, actually 13
that have occurred in the past two years, which weren’t necessarily specifically identified in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. So this is a zoning amendment, and we’re really looking at more of a vision,
because when you consider right now there are thousands of acres in the Town of Queensbury that have not
yet been developed but are certainly zoned for certain portions of certain considerations and uses. So what I
just wanted to say was that we aren’t really looking a specific site plan considerations. We are looking at
zoning, and in terms of whether or not something is considered as being specific in the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, there are a list of questions that are asked in the Petition for Zone Change, and those have been
reviewed by legal counsel, and I would remind the Board that it would be helpful for them to look at those
questions when they come to their final recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MS. RADNER-Craig, before you go on, may I add something? I want to caution you against using this 18
month period fall back. There was some very good reasons why we did that, when you had the Home Depot
application before you, but bear in mind, you’re looking at whether or not it’s appropriate to rezone these
parcels of land, and if, in 18 months, this has fallen through, and the next applicant comes in and they, again,
ask this Board to rezone it, you’re going to be very hard pressed to explain why it was appropriate to rezone it
now, but it’s not in 18 months. So you want to consider any possible uses of it, and whether or not it’s
appropriate to rezone it, and make the determination for once and forever basically.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s becoming, on that basis, it becomes much more of a black and white issue, as I’m
beginning to view it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t know what to add. It’s so difficult to be up here and to make determinations based
on assumptions, and I think that a lot of this evening has been assumptions. We have no idea what’s going
here. We’ve done a worst case scenario, and there is probability that this land might not be needed for a use .
I don’t know. We are opening ourselves up to heavier use if we rezone, but at the same time, this lot, as it
stands now, could be developed as a huge big box store, and that’s basically, no matter what we say or do, the
fact remains this is a Highway Commercial lot. So I think we have to really look closely at the ultimate, most
positive outcome for this. We have to keep in mind this is a Highway Commercial lot, more than two thirds
of it is. So if somebody decides to come in here and develop this piece of property, are we doing an injustice
by not rezoning it, or do we say, look, this is what you have to work with, and, you know, do your best with
that, because it’s not going to be rezoned. So I just hope everybody understands that there’s a lot more
involved than just saying yes or no. You really have to look at the big picture, and do what’s best for
everybody here, for the Town, and for the people that live behind this piece of property, and keep in mind,
and I’ll be perfectly honest. Some comments were made about the economics of this Town, tonight, and I
don’t think there’s one person on this Board that has ever, ever made a decision based on what’s best,
economically, for this Town. We’re a Planning Board. We do what’s best for the land, and I just can’t say
that we have ever done anything to increase the tax base. So I just had to make that point, because we
commented, when somebody said that, I don’t think, in the whole time that I’ve been on here, have I ever
made a decision to increase the tax base of the Town. We do what’s best for you guys, and just please
understand that we’re in a situation here, too, that we have to decide what’s best for everybody, and it’s not
an easy thing to do, but just understand that, you know, this is a commercial lot. It’s going to be developed as
a commercial lot, whether you fight it or not. So just remember that you want to make sure that what we do
is right. It might not be what you agree with, but hopefully the ultimate outcome is that we did what was
right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Tony. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t really have anything new to add. I guess I just wanted to comment on some of
the comments from the neighbors. I think there were a lot of good issues that were brought up. Certainly a
lot of issues that we consider and think about all the time, at least I would like to think that we, as a Board,
think about them. I think the comment about, you know, some regional considerations, I think, is something
that we take to heart, when we look at some of the larger projects in particular. We frequently make
developers look at traffic issues that are not just on the site itself, but, you know, down to the next corner or
down to the next intersection, and certainly that would be the case here. I have to admit that I am one of
those people that cuts down Homer Avenue, and I do think there’s an easy solution, maybe for part of the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
traffic, but it is easier, and I live right in that neighborhood myself, on the other side of Quaker Road, and it
is easier than dealing with the red light at Quaker and Bay, but I can understand your concerns about that. I,
too, had commented, taken notes about what Tony mentioned about making a decision based on either sales
tax revenues or property tax revenues, and those simply are not issues, criteria that we consider when we
deliberate in site plan review or zone change. It is not part of the zoning book. It’s not listed as a criteria that
we can legally use for consideration. Again, I think many of the concerns that have been raised, maybe short
of property tax values, which I can be very sympathetic about, are issues that I think we can largely mitigate
during site plan review, and I think that is something, it’s the reason why I got on the Planning Board. The
end of the night, oftentimes somebody goes away angry, either the applicant or the residents, but once we get
into site plan review, specific concerns like noise and lights and visual impacts can be mitigated through the
site plan review process, and I would like to think that that’s something that this Board has done very well in
the past. That’s all I had to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. John?
MR. STROUGH-In a perfect world, you don’t but Highway Commercial up with Residential. Queensbury is
a hodgepodge. It’s a difficult town to deal with. Ideally, you have Highway Commercial, then you have some
kind of transitional zoning with moderate impacts, and then you have your residential. You don’t usually plan
to have a Highway Commercial, an intensive use, but up against a Residential. It leads to all the potential
problems that were brought out in tonight’s public session. Looking back at it now, and I was on the zoning
committee, I would have looked at those three lots and considered them for rezoning, but probably not
Highway Commercial. I mean, I probably would have considered Neighborhood, some kind of a mixed use,
office professional, maybe even Light Industrial. I don’t think I would have recommended Highway
Commercial when we looked at it. I would have looked at it and I would have said that needs something
transitional, so that people that live there can get a little bit more value out of their property. They are kind
of stuck in between, and I’m sympathetic to that, but to abut Highway Commercial right up to Residential is
something that I do not favor. I think the parcel that is in question has certain land carrying capacity
limitations, namely its ability to carry off stormwater. The water table is between zero and two and a half feet
below the surface. That’s not a healthy situation. All the other, just to summarize, impacts that were brought
up, the potential negative impacts on a residential area and on what I’ll describe as a residential road could be
real. I mean, and the applicant could be correct. I sit up here and I really don’t know whether it’s fact or
fiction. There really is not a reasonably sufficient amount of evidence or information for me to be able to
make a justified determination, but if I’m going to be forced to, I’m going to not be in favor of the rezoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would kind of like to ask for a little bit of clarification, perhaps, from both Cathi and
Jon. As you know, I was the one who was beating on the drum saying I don’t like the idea of a rezoning
unless we have some high degree of certainty as to what’s going to happen. I’m kind of told, in one respect, I
have to sort of set aside that opinion, and I have to, the way I’m interpreting it, I have to look at every
possible use, and if that’s the case, rather than interpreting that as a restriction from my previous way of
looking at it, I think it’s a no-brainer. If I have to entertain every and any possible use for this land once it’s
zoned to Highway Commercial, I can’t support it.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. SANFORD-Having said that, all night long we’ve been talking about a big box store. I guess what I
really want to know is to what degree is there middle ground? I think Bob kind of was talking about there
doesn’t seem to be any middle ground. If we’re supposed to consider every possible use for Highway
Commercial, I’m not in favor of a rezone.
MR. LAPPER-I can make a recommendation. Last year I had a rezoning petition for the former Weller
property at the corner of 149 and Bay and in that case we were looking for boat sales, and the Town Board,
you made a recommendation and the Town Board passed a resolution (lost words) under SEQRA, because
of impact, that they eliminated the vast majority of the uses in the Highway Commercial zone, because we
were really only looking for one use, and they were afraid that there’d be all sorts of uses that would be
inappropriate, much like you’re saying here. This is very unique because we’re saying we don’t even want to
put a building on here, except for maybe 25 feet, which we could talk about, and maybe, you know, if that’s
what it comes down to, there doesn’t have to be 25 feet of a building on this site. So we’re very comfortable
with a rezoning that’s conditioned under the Town’s ability under SEQRA as SEQRA lead agency under the
Town Board, to say that this is going to be an ancillary zoning to support the zoning on the, to support the
construction on the already zoned parcel. So we don’t even need any of these uses, other than the retail, the
general retail that we’re talking about.
MR SANFORD-Cathi, do you have a comment?
MS. RADNER-Again, there may be good reasons for doing that, and from a SEQRA point of view it may
make sense, and it is possible that they could come in here with a big box and not be able to pass that
SEQRA when it got to, you know, that point. You don’t know, but to say well, we’ve developed a zone and
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
we’re calling it Highway Commercial and these are the zones or the uses we allow in it, but we’re going to
carve away five of them and not allow them for this parcel, you’re running a risk.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the Town Board did do that last year.
MS. RADNER-Yes, they have done it. I’m not saying they can’t do it.
MR. LAPPER-And they justified it under SEQRA, much like Mr. Strough is saying, that because this is a
transitional zone, it may be appropriate for stormwater management for a buffer and for ancillary parking and
circulation, but not for a business, and we’re not asking for it for a business.
MS. RADNER-Bear in mind, your Planning Staff have to be able to track this, too, and when somebody’s
looking, later on at a map, and they’re going to see that this is the Highway Commercial zone, by limiting it, a
condition, you’re creating almost a different zone for this. So just keep that in mind.
MR. LAPPER-The way you avoid spot zoning is it’s conditioned under SEQRA as an impact mitigation it’s
appropriate, and that’s what Mark Schachner recommended, and that’s what the Town Board did last year.
MS. RADNER-And that could be what develops down the road, but at this point you folks are considering
whether you’re recommending or not recommending the rezoning.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Let me just conclude by saying, you heard what I had to say. If I am going to be
contemplating any possible use, I’m not going to support it. If you want to be damn specific and put
something together, then you better do it, because, if my vote counts for anything, I just want to let you know
where I stand. Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I almost feel like I have to say something, but I have felt very strongly about this all
night, that Quaker Road is our major commercial corridor in this Town, and I certainly am sympathetic
toward the residents that live around there, but, you know, I’ve said this, I’ve been on this Board for almost
eight years, and I’ve made this comment before, and I’m not a vote getter, believe me, and the comment is
when I hear people that have just bought property with the proximity to Quaker Road, and then come up
here in front of me and complain about the noise, after they’ve lived there for five or six months, or how
many, or a couple of years, I’m like, where’s that old slogan, buyer beware. You knew what you were getting
into, and that just doesn’t cut it with me, and I know that, like I said, I’m not winning any fans right now by
making that comment, but after being on this Board for eight years, I don’t know everything, but I do feel
that the experience that many of us on here that have been on this Board for a long time, that there are issues,
such as the environmental issues, the technical issues, the aesthetic issues, the traffic issues, the size of a
building that would go up, the lighting, the architecture, the traffic patterns, which include ingresses and
egresses, even maybe where one road could only become a one way street, these are all very important things
that are dealt with under site plan review, and, again, you have to remember that this is a major, major
business corridor, and I think that whatever, I’m going to tell you right now, I’m in support of rezoning this
because I really believe that these other issues can be dealt with, and they can be mitigated to the point where
the people living in that area are probably going to find the quality of life may even better. Now you can
laugh at that. You can say what you want, but I listened to you, and I was very polite listening to you, and I
believe in a lot of the things you say. However, I walked that property, and I’m going to tell you something,
it’s a mess, and I just believe that it can be made better. I have my right to believe the way I feel, and to
express my feelings and I’m going to say them, and I’m telling you right now, and I would hope, and maybe
Counsel could direct me in this regard, that if we could, if I could support this rezoning with some conditions
that after Mr. Benyamini purchased the land, if there were certain things that he would have to do
immediately, for example retention basins to be built right after purchase, something like pavement can’t go
right up as close to the boundary of the wetlands as some people were concerned about.
MR. MAC EWAN-But those are site plan issues.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Those are site plan issues, but I’m just saying, even something that could be taken
care of right away, if there’s that much concern about the wetlands being able to support the added impact,
but the engineering and the stuff that we dealt with in eight years is so highly developed out from what it was
10 years ago, that I do believe that things can be dealt with in a very friendly environmental manner.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you want to add something?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think one of my main concerns about using this 5.3 acres as an ancillary piece, as Mr.
Lapper suggests, is that I’m not comfortable with the fact that that piece can fulfill its requirements as a water
retention and stormwater management area, without some study to say that, yes, that parcel of land can do
that, can take so many, can take a first flush, a 50 year storm first flush, and handle it well. There’s no
documentation in front of me now that allows me to determine that.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. LAPPER-Let me make that unnecessary. If you recommended approval of the rezoning with the
condition that a building, that no building was going to be on this five acre site, that would cover it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That was in my notes, too.
MR. VOLLARO-How? I don’t understand that.
MR. LAPPER-Because it could only be used for green space, for wetland buffer, if there wasn’t going to be a
building.
MR. VOLLARO-If you don’t put any building on it, that’s fine, but in itself, the 5.3 acres may not be capable
of absorbing a first flush from the other 10.9.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that all of the stormwater is going to be handled on that site, but part of that site
is certainly going to be used for stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-If it’s got that capability. My question in my mind is I haven’t seen documentation that says
that that piece of land is capable of doing that. That’s where I’m having the problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I keep looking at this plan, and I keep, from my standpoint, I keep looking
at going to this 5.3 acres, and I look at those two houses that are kind of like island out from everyone else,
and I look at the size of your maxed out store here, and how it’s situated on that lot currently, and then I go
back and I just look at the 10.9 acres that we’re dealing with here, as a separate site that’s already Highway
Commercial, and in my mind, because I’ve been sitting up here for many years now, I can envision all kinds
of stores fitting in there very nicely, whether it’s a long strip mall type store, without ever encroaching on that
5.3 acres. Through your own admission, you’ve told us that that big box is a worst case scenario of 136,000
square feet. Ideally, some of the other projects that this Board has entertained in the past and has heard from
developers usually are anywhere from 65,000 and 90,000 square feet, and the question I would ask of you,
would you be able to make a 65,000 to a 90,000 square foot store work on that 10.9 acres without ever having
to effect the 5.3?
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Benyamini has a development in mind that he doesn’t have a lease on, that he’s hoping to
pursue, and it’s a larger store than 65 to 90, but it is not 136,000 either.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, and that’s the part where I get very frustrated, and I’m kind of at a loss and I’m
kind of siding here with Mr. Sanford and Mr. Strough on this, that while he has a project in mind, he doesn’t
have a bonafide project in mind, and we’re dealing with what we have to deal with now, and the concerns that
I’m having with this is that these two parcels that you’re looking to get rezoned have been residential
properties for many years. If it is, indeed, a hardship for the people who own the properties, it would be in
their best interest to approach the Town Board and ask for their properties to be rezoned to a zone that’s
more appropriate to a commercial use, whether it’s a transitional zone or whether it’s a highway zone. I don’t
see, in my mind, a Highway Commercial zone infiltrating that far down Everts Avenue. I don’t see it
working.
MR. LAPPER-And if we were going to put a store there, I would agree with you if we were going to put a
store on that property, and we’re not. It’s just a technicality that it has to be zoned that way, much like the
Home Depot five acres in the back, for stormwater to support the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-But what I’m saying is that without having a bonafide plan, that we shouldn’t probably
even be considering the 5.3 acres into this whole scheme of things when you’ve got 10.9 to play with, to put
up any kind of commercial space in a Highway Commercial zone.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me for a minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see logistics from a traffic standpoint that I don’t know we could overcome by having
that big a site. I see things that could be done to work it, from a standpoint of having that 10.9 acres
developed, that you could really work with the traffic and keeping traffic off Everts Avenue, off Homer
Avenue. I just see that when you get into a big box store like that, they’re going to want to have extra access
off an arterial road to get in there, and with something of a smaller development on that 10.9, I think that
you’d be better suited to try to develop that parcel.
MR. LAPPER-What we hear from many members of the Board, we tried to address what Mr. Sanford said
last time by coming up with this conceptual site plan. It sounds like before you would be comfortable voting
on this, what you really want are more specifics than we’ve been able to present so far. So I guess what I’d
ask is to table this again for another month, and we will attempt to get those details and to bring this to the
next level and see if you’re comfortable with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, in my mind, that’s only belaboring it.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think Mr. Benyamini is going to try and push the tenant that he hopes that he’s going
to be able to get.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in my mind I think you’ve got to go to a Generic EIS, but that’s not my call. I think
the Town Board’s call. I think rather than waste your time here, you probably ought to go to the Town
Board, and because they’re going to make the difference.
MR. LAPPER-What Mr. Benyamini just said to me is that this whole process has been because he hasn’t
been able to come up with the detailed information, and that’s where we’ve run into trouble, because you’re
worrying about that it may be a lot worse than what he thinks it’s going to be, and he will try and push his
intended tenant to commit to the site, and if he can do that, we may be able to come back with a lot more
information than we’ve been able to present generically so far, and with that, I think you’d be comfortable if
you knew what it was that he’s hoping to do, and we could give you those details, you may be comfortable
voting on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you’re going to ask us what details we’re going to want to see, then the next thing
you know you’re going to ask us for a full blown site plan.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if it were possible to get that far, that he could get a commitment, we could come back
and re-do this as a site plan and a rezoning at the same application, but I don’t know if he’ll be able to do
that, but we can at least make an attempt at that.
MR. SANFORD-As frustrating as that might be for a lot of the people that showed up tonight, I certainly
would feel better with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. STROUGH-I’m in total agreement with that.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be acceptable. What I would like to see, though, if we were going to do that, is
that we take a look at what Mr. Benyamini has in mind and see if it works on the 10.9, and how does it work
with the addition of the 5.3?
MR. LAPPER-It won’t work on the 10.9, or we wouldn’t be wasting all your time here, but we’ll show you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s fine. I just wanted to make the point that I’d like to see the, then the picture
comes in focus.
MR. MAC EWAN-How long would it take you to put this information together?
MR. LAPPER-It depends on whether or not he can get this, he can push the tenant, his intended tenant to
commit to the site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So he doesn’t really have a bonafide deal with his proposed tenant yet, either, does
he?
MR. LAPPER-He has someone he’d like to get and he doesn’t have a.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I asked you.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, he doesn’t have a signed deal. No.
MR. MAC EWAN-That might be the deal killer for him right there. In the interest to everyone who attended
here tonight, what my concerns are, if we table this thing, making sure all these good people know when
we’re going to meet again, and I will tell you we’ll have a special meeting just for this, nothing else on the
agenda. I’m thinking, we’re almost into April. The deadline is next week, submittal deadline. So we’re more
like looking at probably doing something in May.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But, Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m always open to suggestions.
MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we just do a no action on this, and send it on to the Town Board, rather than,
they’re going to have to make a presentation to us, and then make a presentation to the Town Board. We’ve
got applications we don’t know what to do with, and I don’t know, why don’t we do a no action and let the
Town Board solve their problem?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. LAPPER-I guess, if I could address that, the same concerns that you voiced tonight would likely be the
concerns of the Town Board, because I think a lot of the neighbors’ concerns are that they don’t know
exactly what’s proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll take that one step farther in my mind, that’s ducking our responsibilities, and this
Board was asked to make a recommendation by the Town Board, and that’s what we’ll do. That’s part of the
function of this Board.
MR. STROUGH-Just a suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-So why don’t we do that. As far as submittals?
MR. BROWN-Well, I think if I heard Mr. Lapper say he’s really looking at a May meeting, I think the end of
April submittal time should be sufficient for everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-How will we notice these good people?
MR. BROWN-If you’re just looking for a May date, maybe we can pick it right now and let everybody know.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s provided he gets his information in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the Town has secured some X amount of square inches of space in the Post Star for
advertising for things just like this. Last night they did that.
MR. SANFORD-How about the Town website?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s always posted. With your consent, we’ll repost in the paper and charge you back?
MR. BROWN-We’ve got a tentative date of May 16.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Done, May 16. The 16, seven o’clock, right here, and we’ll notice it in the paper again.
thth
MR. BROWN-It’s a Thursday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s take a break here.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
MICHAEL TROMBLEY PROPERTY OWNER: JANET JENKINS AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: RR-3A & LC-10 LOCATION: ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 38.82 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 11.73 AC. AND 25.27
ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION A183 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY. APA TAX MAP NO. 28-1-11.1 LOT SIZE: 38.82 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-2002, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Meeting Date: March 19, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 38.82 acre lot into two lots of 11.73 acres and 25.27 acres.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The proposed lots are located at the end of Ellsworth Lane. Both lots have adequate
frontage on a public street as required by §179-70 of the zoning ordinance.
Topography: The proposed subdivision map appears to depict a 20 foot contour interval rather than the
required 2 foot interval. Based on these USGS contours, much of the site appears to have slopes in excess of
25%.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
Water Supply / Sewage Disposal: On site water and wastewater are proposed for lot 1. Lot 2 has an existing
home and existing facilities.
Drainage: With the exception of positive grading around the proposed structure, no changes in site grading are
proposed, therefore, no alterations to existing site drainage are anticipated.
Lot sizes: Lot 1 is proposed at 11.73 acres. Lot 2 is proposed at 25.27 acres.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this modification request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The proposed subdivision is an unlisted action. A short Environmental
Assessment Form has been submitted with the application.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None applicable
Staff comments:
The proposed two-lot subdivision will create one additional building lot. Apparently, the
applicant has discussed the matter of an easement to the Town for turn around purposes. This matter has
been discussed with the Town Highway Superintendent and is, apparently, preferable to extending the right
of way of Ellsworth Lane. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this subdivision. The final plat
will need to be revised to show a signature block and a note confirming compliance with the Town Zoning
Ordinance.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves, and do you have any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-The proposed building?
MR. STEVES-One, single family residential.
MR. METIVIER-And the other one already has a home on it I believe?
MR. STEVES-Yes, it does.
MR. METIVIER-Any further subdivision planned?
MR. STEVES-None.
MR. METIVIER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, the only comment that I had was from the Staff notes where it mentions the slopes
in excess of 25%, but I think those are all further up on the site, which would be developed anyway.
MR. STEVES-In addressing that, we have 13.76 acres that has slopes less than.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. STEVES-So is that okay? We’ve analyzed the entire site with a slope analysis map, and came up with a
13.76 usable area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-One very unusual request. I looked at the site. I have no problems whatsoever with the
site. I did notice there were some hot water heaters and old refrigerators and other appliances on the site,
and I was wondering if it was possible to have those cleared and removed.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
JANET JENKINS
MS. JENKINS-Yes, they will be.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m not saying anything. I’ve said enough tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not the approach to take. Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, and I guess maybe I’m just not reading this thing correctly and I
need some help from Mr. Steves here. Just lead me through how Lot Two closes, gets back to the point of
the beginning. I probably am not seeing it. So maybe my esteemed Chairman can.
MR. STEVES-Maybe I should come up there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that would be a good idea.
MR. STEVES-Lot Two borders the Town road, Ellsworth Road, right here, and runs around the entire
perimeter of the property, and back down to the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is the point of the beginning.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s how you’re looking at it?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I really couldn’t see that when I looked at it. I started the point of the beginning up
here, and tried to get back to it, and I couldn’t. I started from here, came around to here, came to here, came
to here, but now I see that I have to jump this little piece to get back to it.
MR. STEVES-Yes. That gives us the frontage on a Town road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I was missing. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Leon?
MR. STEVES-No, I think the map is pretty much self-explanatory.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments or questions from Board members? Staff?
MR. BROWN-Just if we could get a copy of that slope analysis, just to complete the file.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL TROMBLEY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2002 MICHAEL
TROMBLEY, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary and final stage application for SB 5-2002,
Michael Trombley. Owner: Janet Jenkins. Type: Unlisted. Applicant proposed subdivision of a 38.82 acre
parcel into 2 lots of 11.73 ac. and 25.27 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval in accordance with Section A183 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Tax Map No. 28-1-11.2,
and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/27/02;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 3/15/02;
3/19 Staff Notes
3/14 C.Brown from R. Missita regarding easement for a turn-around
3/14 APA to M. Trombley – Jurisdictional Determination J2002-106
3/12 Notice of Public Hearing
3/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/19/02 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
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 the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Preliminary Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution provided by Staff.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-Before we get a second on that, I just noticed on topography, the proposed subdivision
map appears to depict 20 foot contour intervals rather than 2. Was there a waiver asked for that? Did we get
a waiver on that?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think there was a waiver request for that.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it only has 20 foot contours now.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I thought there was a waiver, but I just wanted to bring it up. I didn’t know whether there
was or not.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct, there is a waiver.
MR. STEVES-In topography, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion for Final?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2002 MICHAEL TROMBLEY,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary and final stage application for SB 5-2002,
Michael Trombley. Owner: Janet Jenkins. Type: Unlisted. Applicant proposed subdivision of a 38.82 acre
parcel into 2 lots of 11.73 ac. and 25.27 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval in accordance with Section A183 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Tax Map No. 28-1-11.2,
and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 2/27/02;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 3/15/02;
3/19 Staff Notes
3/14 C. Brown from R. Missita regarding easement for a turn-around
3/14 APA to M. Trombley – Jurisdictional Determination J2002-106
3/12 Notice of Public Hearing
3/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/19/02 concerning the above project; and
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thanks.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
RICHARD & KIM BENDER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES
ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CARDINALE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 5.72 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 1.09 AC., 1.29 AC., 1.48 AC., AND 1.01 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION A 183 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1992, SB1-1993 TAX MAP NO. 119-6-34.3 LOT SIZE: 5.72 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2002, Richard & Kim Bender, Meeting Date: March 19, 2002 “Project
Description:
The applicant proposes a four-lot subdivision, which includes the construction of a 600-foot long road with a
cul-de-sac.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The proposed lots are to be created from lot three of a previously approved subdivision. All
lots are to have frontage on the subdivision road.
Topography: The proposed subdivision is comprised of rolling terrain, with the highest point located on lot 1.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: Municipal water supply and on site septic systems are proposed for this
development.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
Drainage: The stormwater management system proposed for this development encompassed the paved
roadway and drives.
Lot sizes: The proposed lot sizes are 1.01 ac, 1.09, 1.29 ac and 1.48 ac. The minimum lot size for this zoning
district is 1 acre.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The subdivision is an unlisted action and a Short Environmental
Assessment Form has been submitted with the application.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 58-1992 - Relief for the creation of lots not having the required lot width.
Withdrawn
Subdivision 1-1993 resolved 4/20/93: Three lot subdivision with common access drive.
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision appears to meet the minimum zoning requirements with regard to area, lot width,
road frontage and density. The proposed stormwater management plan appears to adequately address the
project needs. The proposed town road is preferred over a shared private right of way, as the maintenance
and availability to provide the necessary services may be more consistent.”
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves, representing the firm of Van Dusen & Steves,
representing Mr. and Mrs. Bender. Staff notes completely has taken away my thunder. So, I’ll just ask if
there’s any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-In the stormwater report, under proposed development, it says the lots average
approximately one half acre in size. I think that’s an error in the stormwater management report. It’s on
Page One under proposed development. These lots are all over one acre.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-It has to be changed.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I’ll talk to Tom about that tomorrow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I actually do have something. It so happens I know some people on the Woodmere
subdivision, and realized their lots are smaller than these, and was curious as to, because they’re such deep
lots, how much clearing is planned for any of these lots? Because technically what could happen, if they clear
the entire lot, in any one given area, they’re going to back up to other homes in Woodmere, and, I mean, back
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
right up to them, but because the lots are so deep, I was wondering if we could request any no cut zones on
those lots.
MR. STEVES-I don’t, personally, have a problem with that.
KIM BENDER
MRS. BENDER-May I say something, since I’m the owner?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would need to get you on the record.
MRS. BENDER-Kim Bender. Do you currently have that for other areas that abut?
MR. METIVIER-Absolutely. In most of the subdivisions that we’ve approved, at least since I’ve been on the
Board, there’s always been no cut zones. Indian Ridge, for one, the Peggy Ann subdivision has 50 to 100
foot no cut zones. It depends on where the area is. With Peggy Ann, The Grove has at least 50 foot on
either side of it, and in between the two lots.
MRS. BENDER-Because some of these lots back up to the City of Glens Falls.
MR. METIVIER-That’s correct, and I was more curious actually about lots one, two and three, because they
back up to other homes.
MRS. BENDER-Two’s already developed.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I know that, and it’s not cut all the way back.
MRS. BENDER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. Do you have any intentions of clear cutting 1.9 acres, or 1.48 acres, absolutely clear
cutting the entire thing?
MRS. BENDER-No, I don’t, not on Lot Two, and I don’t know, when we go to sell the lots, I don’t know
what the people intend to do when they purchase it. I just don’t want to put restrictions on them if we don’t
have to.
MR. METIVIER-I guess, but my point is that, you know, there’s other people that own these lots now.
MRS. BENDER-Pardon?
MR. METIVIER-There’s other people behind there that want some kind of privacy as well. I mean you have
to understand that, don’t you? That, you know, if they come in with bulldozers and clear cut the whole thing,
people that once enjoyed a nice, serene peaceful neighborhood now.
MRS. BENDER-I understand that, because that happened to some property I had on Lady Slipper Drive.
MR. METIVIER-Right. So you understand what I’m saying, as far as the no cut zone, 50 feet is not asking a
lot, but at least it’s some kind of buffer between you and the people behind you.
MRS. BENDER-Right, and what I’m saying is, I just want to make sure that this is something that is in place
for everyone, every residential.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I can’t say everybody, but in any of the subdivisions that I’ve ever approved, there’s
always been no cut zones.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, how many have you dealt with over the years where we’ve had restrictions for
cutting to the edge of the property lines? I mean, it’s a pretty common occurrence.
MR. STEVES-More so now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, given the last seven years or so.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I’ve been retired for four. More recently, I would say. One of the first ones I’ve ever
encountered was Queensbury Forest where they had a buffer zone along Peggy Ann Road and no driveways
along it, which was a good idea, internalizing the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we offer something like a 20 or a 25 foot no cut on the back portion of those
property lines? It would still give you enough of an envelope to build a house in there.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STEVES-You have a 20 foot restriction now on setback anyway.
MRS. BENDER-Right. To me that’s more reasonable. I just don’t want to put a whole lot of restrictions,
because I don’t know, if we ever do sell these lots, you know, I don’t want to have more restrictions than we
need.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, and what Tony’s suggesting is not out of the norm for subdivisions that we’ve been
dealing with the last five years or so. I mean, when we’ve put these buffer areas in subdivisions, it’s to protect
future development of the parcels and adjoining property owners as well.
MR. STEVES-It’s beneficial for both sides.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, it’s got it’s pluses, it definitely does. Twenty foot, and that way it ties it in to
the setback. So it’s a very easy thing to monitor, I guess you could say. Okay. Doable?
MR. STEVES-You’re talking the south side of Lots One, Two, and Three?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, two she said is already buffered, right? It’s got a house on it.
MRS. BENDER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of hard to do at this point.
MRS. BENDER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-How far back did you clear? I’m just trying to get an idea. Do you have a nice big back
yard?
MR. HUNSINGER-She’s got a lot of woods back there.
MRS. BENDER-I didn’t clear it. I bought it.
MR. METIVIER-I’m not trying to say, no, you can only build a house there. That’s not the case. These are
very, very, very deep lots. I mean, if you still clear half of it, you have a huge back yard. So all we’re trying to
do is just basically offer up a no cut zone where you’ll have some kind of boundary line between you and your
neighbors behind you. I mean, it’s not uncommon, and the size of these lots it’s not asking a lot for 20 feet.
I mean, it’s really not.
MRS. BENDER-Yes, right. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re basically going to do it minus Lot Two, because Lot Two is already developed.
MRS. BENDER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be the north side of Lot Four and the south side of Lot Three and One.
MR. STEVES-Lot Four abuts the City of Glens Falls, watershed property.
MR. METIVIER-The City of Glens Falls, yes, so that’s kind of a moot point.
MR. VOLLARO-But we could make cut back zones coincident with setbacks.
MR. STEVES-Yes, but you’re just adding the 20 feet on to a couple hundred feet of woods already.
MR. MAC EWAN-You never know what the future holds, though.
MRS. RYBA-May I ask a question, please? I just have a question. I was wondering, on the EAF, it shows
that there were no other permits that are required, but did you look at Karner blue butterfly habitat? Because
there’s quite a bit along Peggy Ann Road. So, I was just wondering, because in that instance, the reason it’s
relevant is because in that instance, you may not necessarily want to have a landscaped area. You might want
to keep it clear. So I just wanted to ask that question.
MR. STEVES-None has been identified out here, to my knowledge.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Just double checking. I thought it might be helpful to the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, these lots are heavily wooded, right?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STEVES-No, I’d say maybe half or a third of the southerly portion of Lots One, Two, and Three
originally were heavily wooded. I haven’t visited the site, but from previous plans that have been submitted
to the Board, it shows the wood line at about the southerly third of Lots One, Two, and Three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And as you come by on Peggy Ann Road, you can see down through there, and see the houses
that have been developed in a row.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? All right. We’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TOM WALLACE
MR. WALLACE-Hi. My name is Tom Wallace. I live at 11 Lancestire Drive. First I’d like to commend the
Board on their stamina this evening. My wife Joann and I own and reside at the property at 11 Lancestire,
Tax Map reference 301.20-1-48. We have owned and resided at this property since 1997. At first we were
surprised to learn of this proposal. We just got it last night. Excuse my nerves.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing to be nervous about.
MR. WALLACE-It’s not your back yard, excuse me for saying so. Other than an annoying dog owned by a
previous neighbor, we’ve enjoyed and become a custom to the tranquil surroundings of our back yard. We’re
not against growth and development, but seek to advise the Planning Board of our concerns raised by this
proposal. Specifically Lot Three of the proposed subdivision abuts our property. To provide you with some
visual perspective, I’ve enclosed several photos which I’ll share with you later. Although we understand no
specific development proposals for the subdivision are included at this time, we are concerned about the
potential impact of future site plans for Lot Three. As the photos I’ll share with you show, Lot Three is now
dominated by very large and scenic pine trees, and we would like them and their natural beauty retained to the
fullest extent possible. Based on the proximity to Halfway Brook reservoir, this area is a sanctuary for various
forms of wildlife, such as deer, rabbits, woodchucks, and a lot of birds. We believe the subdivision proposal
should include siting review of future structures and the impact they would have both on the stand of pines,
along with the topography, given the rolling hill nature of the property under review. We are also requesting
consideration of an extended setback provision from the rear of our lot to preserve the privacy of our
property. In addition, we ask the Board to provide for a specific site approval of any future development of
proposed Lot Three. That will protect and maintain, to the fullest extent possible, the character of the
topography and the pines. Lastly, we understand the proposal includes a 600 foot roadway and cul de sac,
changing what is now a private lane to a Town road. As taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury, we urge you
to require a subdivision bond be obtained by the applicants to protect the Town and ensure all improvements
comply with local requirements. In the past, the taxpayers of Queensbury have born a burden when
problems arose requiring intervention by the Town on behalf of individuals that purchased lots in newly
subdivided property. The applicant and the ensurity should protect the Town from potential financial risk
associated with the proposed subdivision. Thank you for your consideration, and should I hand the photos
up to you all?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’d give them right to Staff, if you would, please. Just to back up on the road,
dedication of Town roads have to be done prior to a CO for new house construction, or a certain percentage
of the phase of the development. Is that how it goes?
MR. BROWN-Typically, before a building permit is issued, the road has to be dedicated. Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that should resolve your concerns regarding the road and it’s assurance.
MR. WALLACE-Okay. How about drainage issues?
MR. BROWN-Do you have a specific question?
MR. WALLACE-Well, right down the road from us, I can’t recall the name of the subdivision where we had
major drainage issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking about Queensbury Forest?
MR. WALLACE-Thank you. Who ended up paying for that?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. I’m not really sure I know there was a lawsuit revolving around
it, but I don’t know what the outcome was. The Town paid for it?
MR. WALLACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD & KIM BENDER, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments, questions from Board members? I’ll entertain a motion, please.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re just looking at these pictures.
MR. METIVIER-Let’s take a moment.
MR. VOLLARO-What are we looking at?
MR. MAC EWAN-The back yard toward that corner.
MR. STROUGH-Tony, how are you going to word your condition?
MR. HUNSINGER-All you said was that there would be a no cut zone.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. METIVIER-There would be a no cut zone.
MR. SANFORD-It’s Lot Three that buts up against the property, right?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. METIVIER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Is Tony asking for a no cut zone in accord with the setback on the sides and the rear of all
properties, or what properties, or what? I mean, I’m not clear.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lots One, Three, and Four.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, that’s correct. No, One, Two, and Three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two is already developed. You can’t do anything with it.
MR. METIVIER-All right, One, Three, and Four.
MR. MAC EWAN-One, Three, and Four.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re talking a no cut zone?
MR. METIVIER-On the rear of the property line.
MR. STROUGH-Not the sides?
MR. MAC EWAN-The rear.
MR. METIVIER-Well, what about the sides, why not? I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why I wanted to hear your wording.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four is awfully narrow. I mean, it’s not very deep.
MR. SANFORD-Four is narrow. You’re talking 129 feet at the.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, but on Four you’ve got the.
MR. METIVIER-The City watershed property.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Victoria’s Grant is on your west.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now is the time to hash it out.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The one thing that you have to understand is that when it’s time to cut your lot, when
you find a contractor to build your house, the more trees you cut down, he starts charging you a lot of extra
money. So usually most people don’t cut their lots because the cost is prohibitive, and they usually like to
have the privacy, too.
MRS. BENDER-Well, the thing I’m concerned about is limiting the type of house you’re going to build, if
you put, you know, of the cut setbacks or the clearance setbacks, you’re going to, especially like Number One
is a narrow lot. So you’re already limited. So if you put restriction, as far as cut back, on the sides and the
back.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re missing the point here. Twenty feet is the distance that your setback is
required in the Ordinance anyway. You couldn’t build in there to begin with. So if you had left it treed, it’s
not like you would be unable to touch it because you couldn’t build on there.
MR. VOLLARO-If you let your cut back zones be coincident with your setback zones, that would satisfy, I
think, the whole problem, and it wouldn’t bother the sale any, if that’s what you’re really worried about.
MRS. BENDER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s the part of the property that none of us can build on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you wouldn’t want them in the front, though, would you?
MR. VOLLARO-Right, just on the sides and the rear.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One and Three especially you could put a no cut area with no problem, because
they’re so long.
MRS. BENDER-Okay. I could see doing it on the back of One and Three, but is it really necessary on the
side?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it might be on Three and Four, where you’re abutting another subdivision.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, what are the requirements for that subdivision?
MR. STEVES-I can see it between neighbors, but I can’t see it between yourself and the lot and the wood lot.
Queen Victoria’s Grant is a Homeowners Association. I imagine that’s always going to remain forever wild.
The City of Glens Falls watershed property. That’s zoned park land recreational, 10 acre lots. It’s going to
be the same if not more restrictive than the new zoning. I don’t see any change there, and the City has gone
along with that, by the way. So I don’t see any changes there, to the north or to the west.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what are we down to here?
MR. METIVIER-Just One and Three the rear.
MR. HUNSINGER-The southern boundary.
MR. SANFORD-And the east.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone put a motion together, please.
MR. STROUGH-Wait a minute, whoever brings it up, and Tony brought it up.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2002 RICHARD &
KIM BENDER, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary and final stage application for SB 6-2002,
Richard & Kim Bender. Owner: Same. Type: Unlisted. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 5.72 acre
parcel into 4 lots of 1.09 ac., 1.29 ac., 1.48 ac, and 1.01 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board
review and approval in accordance with Section A183 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Tax Map
No. 119-6-34.2, Lot size: 5.72 acres, Section: SB Regulations. Cross Reference: AV 58-1992, SB 1-1993,
and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 1/27/02;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 3/15/02;
3/19 Staff Notes
3/12 Notice of Public Hearing
3/6 Meeting Notice
** Info from previous subdivision application
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/19/02 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Preliminary Stage approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the
following conditions:
1. The Stormwater Management report reflect the correction that the proposed development
should read lots average size of one acre, and
2. That there be a No Cut Zone that follows the setback zone of 20 feet in the rear of Lots
One and Three.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to have something inserted in there concerning the error in the stormwater
management report.
MR. METIVIER-My apologies.
MR. STEVES-You can do it at Final.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we shouldn’t. We should do it now.
MR. STEVES-I’d so stipulate it anyway. So that’s not a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be in the motion, there, the errors in the stormwater report. It should be one
acre versus the half acre.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Just one question about to the east. That’s the line that’s going to separate these houses. Is
there any interest on having a no cut zone there?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SANFORD-No? Okay. Fine.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I have a motion for Final, please.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could, I know the gentleman from the public asked for this photo to stay
up. I didn’t know if you had a comment that you may want to hear before you do a Final. Is there something
that you wanted to pass on?
MR. WALLACE-Tom Wallace again. I just wanted to point out to the Board these three pines. They’re Jack
Pines. The base of those trees is probably about four feet in diameter, not circumference. They’re huge.
They’ve got to be about 70 years old. Obviously, we don’t have a lot of those in our part of the world, and t
that’s part of the beauty that we’re looking to preserve in our back yard. I’d like to ask the Board to
reconsider before you move to a Final Stage. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion for Final, please.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t understand what he was just asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t want us to approve the subdivision, I’m gathering.
MR. METIVIER-If those trees are in the 20 feet. May I ask?
MR. MAC EWAN-With a lot of latitude, I’ve closed the public hearing already.
MR. WALLACE-I’m sorry, one other point that was made earlier by Ms. LaBombard, about the cost of
removing trees. If you look around residential lots in this part of the world, you will see very few Jack Pines
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
like that on them because they drop a lot of needles. So most homeowners don’t want them because they’re
really a nuisance.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have them.
MR. WALLACE-You’re an exception, and so consequently it is fairly inexpensive to have them taken out and
chopped up. I’ve had it done at a previous lot over in Bedford Close. So, I just wanted to add that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know approximately where those trees are located on the lot? Do you have any
idea at all?
MR. WALLACE-If I can give you a rough idea?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. WALLACE-They are almost on a plain directly across from the existing two story home on Lot Two.
So, cul de sac is here, the existing home is here, right around here, and it kind of sits on a knoll, and that’s
also why I expressed the concern about the topography. Thank you. I appreciate the latitude.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I’ll entertain a motion, or discussion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing as how they’re in the middle of the lot, it’s going to be a problem.
MR. METIVIER-It’s going to be a problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could say to the extent possible that they should be maintained, but that
doesn’t have any teeth.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s stretching it to ask, to put that kind of restriction on someone else’s
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s a practical condition, either. It’s impossible to enforce.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2002 RICHARD & KIM
BENDER, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary and final stage application for SB 6-2002,
Richard & Kim Bender. Owner: Same. Type: Unlisted. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 5.72 acre
parcel into 4 lots of 1.09 ac., 1.29 ac., 1.48 ac, and 1.01 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board
review and approval in accordance with Section A183 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Tax Map
No. 119-6-34.2, Lot size: 5.72 acres, Section: SB Regulations. Cross Reference: AV 58-1992, SB 1-1993,
and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 1/27/02;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 3/15/02;
3/19 Staff Notes
3/12 Notice of Public Hearing
3/6 Meeting Notice
** Info from previous subdivision application
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/19/02 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for Final Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 49-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. AGENT: MARTIN AUFFREDOU ZONE: CR-
15 LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
BUSINESS COMPLEX AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3816 SF CONVENIENCE STORE, A 3840
SF GASOLINE ISLAND CANOPY AND A SEPARATE 2000 SF FREESTANDING RETAIL
SPACE. NEW COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 179, SECTION 179-24 OF THE CODE OF
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 94-2001, SV 95-2001 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 11/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-31 LOT SIZE: 1.87 ACRES SECTION: 179-24
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: March 19, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes demolition of existing business complex and construction of a 3816 sf convenience store,
a 3840 sf gasoline island canopy and a separate 2000 sf freestanding retail space. New commercial/retail use
requires Planning Board review and approval in accordance with Chapter 179, Section 179-24 of the Code of
the Town of Queensbury.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the current zoning ordinance. Certain design
elements of the proposed ordinance have been incorporated and necessary relief from the ordinance
for building setback and driveway separation have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
(resolution attached).
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
The project is a replacement of existing facilities and no increased burden is anticipated.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
Traffic volumes are anticipated to remain consistent with current volumes. Adequate parking
facilities are proposed. Access management measures have been incorporated.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
None anticipated.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The location of Cumberland Farms building generally complies with proposed Main Street Design
Guidelines. Changes to architectural design are suggested to improve pedestrian scale. Lighting
levels are consistent with proposed guidelines. Ornamental fixtures proposed along Main Street do
not conform to suggested standards.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The current site has two (2) full movement access points to Main Street. The proposed arrangement
represents an improvement over existing conditions.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Parking and loading facilities are adequate and properly located.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Adequate facilities are proposed.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
A stormwater management plan has been prepared and has been reviewed by C.T. Male Associates.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Municipal water is proposed. Temporary on site wastewater disposal facilities have been proposed.
C.T. Male Associates has reviewed the design report. Provisions for connection to the proposed
municipal wastewater system have been incorporated.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
Landscaping features generally conform to proposed town guidelines. Additional vegetative
screening may be considered along street faces and adjoining property.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Adequate facilities are provided.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Limited to no potential for ponding/flooding. Appropriate measures for erosion control are
provided on project plans.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Cross Reference: AV 94-2001, SV 95-2001
Staff comments:
Staff provided comments to the applicant on the project plans in correspondence dated November 21, 2001.
Several comments have not been satisfactorily addressed. They include:
- Lighting
The lighting plan generally conforms to accepted guidelines. The street-side ornamental fixtures are
not consistent with suggested fixture type.
- Building Appearance
We had suggested several minor changes to the Ryan Avenue façade to improve pedestrian
scale. They include modification of the block pattern, roof gable end, and uplighting of the
building.
- Landscaping/Fencing
No detail was provided of the proposed fencing. Additional streetscape landscaping and/or
ornamental fencing should be considered.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes, please.
MR. BROWN-Just generally, this application has been through, I guess you could call it a lengthy variance
process that dealt with drive separations, on-site access. It got into a lot of site plan issues, as far as turning
movements on the site, accessibility, but we’ve kind of narrowed it down to three things that are, I guess if
you want to call them outstanding, to deal with at site plan, among the things you want to deal with at site
plan. Lighting. The plan generally conforms with the accepted guidelines. The street-side ornamental
fixtures don’t appear to be consistent with the suggested fixture type in the proposed Zoning Ordinance for
Main Street. Building appearance. We’d suggested several minor changes to the Ryan Avenue façade to
improve the pedestrian scale. They include modification of the block pattern, roof gable end, uplighting,
those types of things, as far as aesthetics. Landscaping and Fencing. No detail was provided with the
application for the proposed fencing along Main Street or along the adjoining property lines. Additional
streetscape landscaping and/or ornamental fencing should be considered, and the SEQRA status is in error
on the Staff notes. It should be an Unlisted Action.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. AUFFREDOU-My name is Martin Auffredou. I’m an attorney with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart & Rhodes. We represent the applicant. To my left is Rob Spiak from Bohler Engineering. We also
have a number of representatives here from Cumberland Farms. This is Steve Knopftl, Brian VanBuren, and
Pat Ovitt. Steve and Brian are regional representatives of Cumberland Farms, and Pat is the Store Manager,
current Store Manager, from Main Street, and will continue as the Store Manager for the new store as well.
So she’s obviously got a lot of interest in getting this project approved. We’ve been through quite a process
with the Zoning Board, and a lengthy but thorough review. We obtained a number of variances, and the
project itself is part of an overall comprehensive updating that Cumberland Farms is doing for a number of
its stores. You may recall we were here earlier this year for the store at Quaker and Ridge, and that’s for a
renovation, and that is now under construction. This is even a more expansive and detailed renovation of a
site for Cumberland Farms, and what I think I’m going to do at this point is, given the hour and what we
view as sort of the narrow issues that are left for review, at least in our view, I think I’ll just turn it over to
Rob Spiak, and he’ll tell you a little bit about the site, what it is that’s there and what it is that we’re proposing
to do.
ROB SPIAK
MR. SPIAK-Good evening. I think all the members of the Board and everyone here is aware of the existing
condition of the site here. It’s basically a strip type center that basically comprises of this area of the
property. There are a couple of gas dispensers out in front the existing Cumberland Farms store right now.
There is also an existing Subway shop in the building right now which will be maintained as part of the new
development here, but basically the proposal is to totally scrap the site, as it exists today, and construct two
new freestanding buildings, one for the Cumberland Farms convenient store, one for the Subway shop, and
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
also enhance the fuel offering that’s at that site right now. As has been stated already, we’ve been through
numerous review and a lengthy review with Staff and the Zoning Board to satisfy issues of site circulation,
pedestrian access and overall site layout here. There’s basically three curb cuts proposed for the facility. The
curb cuts on Main Street are designated for entry only, exit only. The Ryan street curb cut is a two way curb
cut access. The site is going to be on septic system, has public water at this point. We’re making provisions
to tie into the public sewer as it becomes available. The streetscape you see out here right now is sort of the
future condition when Main Street is improved there, to show the center turning lane, the sidewalks, and
we’ve made all the provisions for storm sewer here that are compliant, and we actually just received a permit
today from Warren County for this connections and the curb cuts on this property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. SPIAK-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just following some of the comments in Staff notes, did you bring any cuts on the
ornamental fencing, and/or are you willing to change the lighting to the similar lighting that’s being proposed
for the balance of Main Street.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Take fencing first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Obviously, as I recall, we’re going to be providing some fencing back here for screening
for the residential area. More particularly focused is the fencing along here. I don’t think we’re necessarily
strongly opposed to fencing, per se. I know that Chris has talked about perhaps like a wrought iron fence or
something along those lines. We’re not necessarily sure that that works for our property, in that if there
should be some type of a, we feel that fencing really needs to be sort of inviting. Wrought iron may not
necessarily be inviting for our type of use. It may fit within the, what the Town is trying to achieve there,
through a downtown, colonial type setting, but we have to remember that this is, after all, a convenience store
with gas service and a Subway shop as well. The concern is that the fence, a wrought iron fence may say,
you’re not invited here, and that’s our concern, although we’re not necessarily opposed to fencing per se, but
a wrought iron fence, we don’t think, really works for us at this point. What we have proposed here is
landscaping with irrigation along the front. We think that does a couple of things. Number One, it will,
obviously, keep this area fresh and alive. You don’t have to worry about things, you know, things dying, etc.,
and it would also serve sort of as a precedent in the area. We think, obviously, the project itself serves as a
precedent for the area, and hopefully a catalyst for other properties in the vicinity, other convenient stores
and gas stations to improve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, that’s what we hope, too.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We think it will invite that, but we think that landscaping here as proposed, and there’s a
lot of detail in our maps on landscaping, along with the irrigation, will hopefully take care of those
streetscape, landscape concerns right along Main Street, but we don’t have any particulars proposed for
fencing at this particular time. With respect to lighting, I’m.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m confused, then. I guess I was under the impression that there was going to
be some fencing, and you were just debating over the style.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We have talked about fencing. As I understand, there’s fencing here now, which is in
real tough shape. We’re going to replace that fencing to protect the residential buffer, obviously. The fencing
along Main Street is, again, in our view, really not necessary, and what we’re proposing there is landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-As far as the lighting goes, I’m going to turn that over to Rob for the lighting.
MR. SPIAK-Basically on the plans we have here, we have a proposal for an ornamental light on there, and I
believe at the time possibly when we proposed this, there wasn’t a true, defined fixture that the Town was
looking at. We’re happy to provide and comply and match up and come up with something very similar, if
not the exact fixture as to what the Town is looking for today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. That’s all I had for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. What kind of, we’re on the fencing. What kind of fencing are you going to replace
the stockade fence with, and I’ll agree with you, it’s in tough shape.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. AUFFREDOU-It’s terrible. It’s terrible. I mean, the property is going to undergo a complete and total
revision. It’s not going to look anything like the way it looks now, 5400 square foot building is out. It’s old,
it’s tired. The new building’s coming in. Rob, was it a new stockade fence in the back?
MR. SPIAK-Yes. Basically, we were going to propose just a new, six foot high, we call it on the site plan a
privacy fence, generally speaking probably a stockade type fence.
MR. STROUGH-Now, currently, that stockade is primed, or excuse me, stained. Are you going to be
painting or staining that fence to kind of coordinate that with the rest of the site?
MR. SPIAK-Yes, I believe we certainly could coordinate that with the rest of the colors you’ve seen with the
building to make it blend with the rest of the site aesthetics.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, what percent of the project is non-permeable?
MR. SPIAK-The total percentage of the lot area that is, will be open space or landscaping, or permeable
space, I guess it would be 53.6% of the site, which leaves approximately 47% as pavement, buildings, etc.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that’s what I thought, too, 46%, because you’ve got 70% on the site development
data, so I just didn’t know which one was accurate. So the one on the plans is the accurate one?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, go with the engineer’s plans.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the lighting issue, I didn’t hear a resolution of that.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t think there is a resolution to that. I think that what we’re suggesting here
tonight is that we’ve made a proposal. I don’t know that Staff is terribly crazy about our proposal, but we’ve
made a proposal on lighting that’s in our plans. We’re willing to do that. It’s ornamental in nature. We think
it works for our property. We think it works for the downtown, again, setting that you’re trying to create
there. If there’s some other proposal which is reasonable in scope, we’re willing to entertain it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that Staff suggested an ornamental type of lighting. They even gave the
specific name. It’s in that pile some place. So you have no problem with going with Staff’s suggestion?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I’m sorry, what was Staff’s suggestion?
MR. ROUND-Sturnberg is the manufacturer. It’s a fixture that the City is using, similar to Saratoga.
MR. SPIAK-And that’s fine.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re very, within reason.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fine. That sounds good. The turning radius (lost words) is 15 feet radius? That
can’t be right, I mean, visually, it doesn’t even look right, in your entry ways, you see them noted on site plan,
Sheet Number Three?
MR. SPIAK-Yes. That’s what’s proposed for the interim condition, it’s pavement striping. Eventually, when
the Main Street project comes through there, there will be curbing provided along the edges, but we’re just
proposing some striping, at this point, to delineate those entrances.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Where will the curbing radii be?
MR. SPIAK-The curbing radii now is, we’ve taken the dashed pattern that you see below there with the
curbs, that’s the current proposal that is floating around for Main Street right now. Those radiuses are
approximately 10 feet, 7 to 10 feet.
MR. STROUGH-That’s not especially good for getting trucks in and out.
MR. SPIAK-Again, our tanker truck circulation does work in the future condition. We have no control over
the design that’s occurring on Main Street right now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve gone with 32. Any time there’s going to be trucks, we’ve gone with a 32 radius.
MR. SPIAK-We’d be happy to go with 32.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, specifically, I don’t know what the Main Street plan calls for, but I know that we’ve
run into problems with Lowe’s and other areas where the turning radii was not sufficient.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. SPIAK-I think what helps us here, too, also is the curb cuts on Main Street are directional. That 24 foot
throat there is on the, what would be the western curb cut is totally for vehicles coming into the site. You
won’t have another car opposing you for somebody to try and get in there, but based on that fact also, I
believe the radiuses will be sufficient. We have run tanker truck models and box van models through this
site.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s an excellent point you make, yes. Okay, and I see that you’ve got the proposed
access, the shared access for the parking might go adjacent to there.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Could I just touch on that for a second?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, sure.
MR. AUFFREDOU-On the future shared access, it doesn’t show, it shows on your maps, it doesn’t show on
here. This is something that we worked with Staff on and should access to the property ever become
available, through joined access with what is now U-Haul, we’ve committed to allowing that to occur,
generally at this location, and probably this entry here would close, at that particular time. So access to the
property would be through this location, which would be shared with U-Haul, and that’s something that Staff
and the Zoning Board, we spent a lot of time talking to them about. It’s very important to them, in order to
decrease the amount of access points or complex points, as Chris refers to them. So we consented to that,
should the U-Haul option every become available, that works for us, and hopefully it’ll work for U-Haul
some day. The idea here is that the traffic would be able to utilize this property and our property, and would
be able to gain access to Main Street without accessing any of these points along Main Street here. So if
somebody were here at U-Haul, they would be able to go from U-Haul to Cumberland Farms, onto Ryan
street, and then onto Main Street. Likewise, Cumberland Farms users, or Subway users, could access the U-
Haul property, whether it’s U-Haul or whether it’s some other use in the future, without having to go onto
Main Street. So that was something that we agreed to do. That works for us. Hopefully it’ll work for U-
Haul.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well you see where you’ve got it shown on here, right?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, sir. We’re going to do some fine tuning of that with Staff, and with your attorneys,
and probably provide something that would be in recordable form. We’ll do a metes and bounds description,
and then obviously have that memorialized so that it runs with the land.
MR. STROUGH-Well, do you plan on us finishing up tonight?
MR. AUFFREDOU-My position is that that’s not anything that the Planning Board should have to look at or
approve. I think you could make that as a condition, and simply, if it’s acceptable to Staff and your Counsel,
obviously, it’s going to be acceptable to us.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. We can make it a condition. You’re right. Let’s go right to landscaping. All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was my question to John.
MR. STROUGH-What?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If you had any special conditions for landscaping.
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to do my homework here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know, but I was curious.
MR. STROUGH-And I’ve got the, here, Cathy, you’d be interested. Rhododendron, PJM, that’s what it
looks like. That’s nice.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s the typical hardy Rhododendrons.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ve got some abbots wood sink foils. They look nice, too.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are they hardy in this environment?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I got this from Alaska. They sell them up in Alaska.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you going with this?
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s pretty nice landscaping.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re flowers. They’re deciduous.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. STROUGH-Now, the only comment that I have is there is a beautiful stand of spruce trees, very mature
spruce trees, and you plan on leaving four of them up, because they’re on adjacent property, and existing
spruce to be removed. Do we have to?
MR. SPIAK-No. We could bring our fence around that tree.
MR. STROUGH-That’s good. Now, the only other thing is white pines. Now, I don’t know what family or
genus those spruces are, and I don’t like white pines. Can we put the same genus and family of spruce that
are currently there now, instead of the white pines, so it kind of is an orderly progression? I know they’re
going to be smaller. We’re going to make them three inch calipers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you could always ask them to plant the same caliper that’s there now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s about 12 inches. No, I’m willing to go with three inch caliper if you’re willing
to go with a similar, same kind of spruce that’s already there. So you keep some harmony going around this,
the outside, rather than put those ugly white pines in.
MR. SPIAK-That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Great.
MR. SANFORD-I know where there’s some Jack Pines you can transplant.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now the only other thing is, I’m reading the stormwater, I’m just wondering if
this was a mistake. They used a rational method, that’s fine, but they used as their storm calculation, they
used a 50 year one hour storm of 2.2 inches, and most times, I’ve never seen it, and you might be able to
explain it to me, most of the time we use a 50 year storm event, okay, at 4.8 inches, which is a 24 hour
occurrence. So you’ve got a one hour occurrence. How would that differ in the calculations? How would
that make the calculations different?
MR. SPIAK-The end result is typically the same. It’s just you’re analyzing, the one hour storm you’re
analyzing the instantaneous peak, versus the storm spread out over the 24 hour period. Due to this storm
design system here, where it’s all basically drywells, we believe it’s more relevant to look at how much water
in the peak condition is rushing to these structures and do these structures that we’re proposing have the
capacity to hold that peak volume versus the whole storm spread out. We know we’ve got some good sandy
soils out there. That was the intent behind that.
MR. STROUGH-So the end result would be the same?
MR. SPIAK-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. That worked well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just, the Store Manager you said is here?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Hopefully, when the new store is built, you’ll resume your Manager’s Special $2.50 16 oz.
Miller, Ice House and Red Dog beer?
PAT OVITT
MR. OVITT-I’ll do my very best.
MR. SANFORD-Very good. No further questions.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I only have two questions. What did you guys resolve with John with the lighting?
What did you decide on with the lighting, and what was it?
MR. SPIAK-We’re going to use the ornamental fixture as described, as the Town had asked.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right.
MR. ROUND-Yes. Chris Round. We just indicated it’s a Sturnberg. If I might, just a couple of items, just
to reiterate. We’d like you to make sure that you include any of these things as part of your motion, as a
condition. I know you’re well versed in that. The lighting fixtures, I think that we’re just looking for a fixture
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
that’s similar with the street lighting fixture that the City of Glens Falls uses. I think we’re going to actually
spec that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The one you’ve identified in your November 21 letter?
st
MR. ROUND-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you’re looking for.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they won’t be the lights that are over the, I mean, they’re going to be around the
property.
MR. ROUND-No, these are just the lights that are along the street.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not the ones that are over the gas bay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-They’re going to be along the street.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. They’re really nice. They’re very nice.
MR. ROUND-There’s three or four.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I wanted to make a comment how you thought maybe the wrought iron railing
would not be very inviting, but I’ve noticed around that people are starting to put this wrought iron railing
around their pools and it’s not really wrought iron but it looks like it. It’s a plastic of some sort. It is so, I
think it’s just the opposite. It is so elegant looking and very inviting, but I mean, I’m just saying that’s just my
opinion. Of course I’ve been very opinionated this evening, but now my next thing is, would you explain
those elevations? Is that all the main building there, is that the floor elevations of the main Cumberland
Farms building?
MR. SPIAK-Yes. The rendering that’s before you right here is the Cumberland Farms convenient store with,
this elevation would be the front elevation of the store, the rear elevation facing Ryan street. This is the side
elevation. That would be facing Main Street, and this would be the opposite side that would be facing the.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So that one on the upper right is the same one that’s projected on the screen
now?
MR. SPIAK-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now what about the Subway store, do you have a drawing of that?
MR. SPIAK-Yes, I do. This building obviously, too, is, both buildings look very similar, for the obvious
reasons, to make the site consistent in its architectural appeal. Front elevation of the Subway building, this
one here would be the rear elevation. This side elevation would be facing U-Haul, and this side elevation
would be facing towards Ryan street.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s very nice. Thanks. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to go over my notes quickly. I see all the required setbacks were granted by
the ZBA. That’s all been done. I’ll just quickly go along with my notes on the drawing, this 60 foot relief
between the two curb cuts, so I’ll get right to the thing that I want to discuss a little bit, and I think John
touched on it, but what is really the status of this shared driveway? This is still to be a negotiated thing with
the U-Haul property. Is that where we are with it?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Mr. Vollaro, that’s right. I think that what we’re saying is that, should it ever
become available, okay, we’re a willing participant. We will partner with U-Haul, should it ever become
available. How would it become available? It would seem to me that if they ever have a project, if U-Haul,
its owner or future owner or prospective owner ever has a project where they want to come before the
Planning Board to get some type of approval, you can then say, well, did you know that Cumberland Farms
agreed, as part of their site plan approval, to have shared access, and we think it’s a good idea, and we’re
going to require that that shared access be fulfilled, and I think the opportunity is, for us, is to do that now
and is for you to require us to do that now, and we’re willing to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So right now the drawing only indicates under the easement note, there’s nothing to
portray on this drawing that says, if indeed that becomes a reality, this is how the interconnection will look.
Do you plan to do that?
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t think that we plan to do that specifically. I don’t think that you can plan to do
that specifically. I think we can get from you tonight an estimated location. I think we can get from you
tonight an estimated width, but I don’t think that we, as the applicant or the owner of the property, can
commit, in perpetuity that this is what is going to be forever. I think that the opportunity for us tonight, and
what we’re volunteering tonight, is to say, we’re willing to set aside a certain area for a future shared access.
We’re willing to commit to that. I think it’s unfair to ask us to be any more specific than that, Mr. Vollaro.
MS. RADNER-If I can just clarify. Remember that the U-Haul people aren’t here before you. They’re not
an applicant and you have no jurisdiction over them. So what the Planning Board is trying to do here, or
what the Staff is trying to do, rather, is to look into the future and say, well, someday it’s likely that U-Haul
will come forward, or that somebody’s going to want to use that site for another purpose. So we’re creating
the opportunity now, by having these folks that are before us, and that we can place reasonable conditions
upon, to grant an easement or a condition now, saying that, down the road, they’ll have shared access with U-
Haul. So that when U-Haul’s here, in 10 years or 15 years, U-Haul can’t say, well, we can’t do shared access
because we have no jurisdiction over Cumberland Farms. Cumberland Farms will have already been here,
given us a shared access, so that we have that possibility in the future, though it may never come to fruition,
because they may never come forward with an application.
MR. VOLLARO-So the reason for my question was to try to, in my mind, get words for the motion that
would describe this.
MS. RADNER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So that the motion carries a description of what we intend to agree to in the future.
MS. RADNER-Just word your motion so that it doesn’t bind an applicant that’s not before you, is where I’m
coming from.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t it enough to have it on the site plan?
MS. RADNER-You can have their half of it on the site plan, but you can’t have the U-Haul half of it on the
site plan because you can’t condition U-Haul when they’re not before you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No.
MR. VOLLARO-So do you think that the easement note, as it’s currently written, is satisfactory?
MR. ROUND-Well, I guess what we’re looking for is that you would request that the applicant provide an
easement description, metes and bounds description, satisfactory to Staff and Counsel’s review, as a
condition, and I think they have identified it on the plat. We would like it on the plat. If it’s filed on the plat,
that’s also helpful when you go back to try to recreate this. So I think we’re looking, I don’t know what it
scales on there, but it’s like, it’s 15 feet wide, 30 feet deep in the front, and then the other one, they’re
typically going to be 20 or 24 feet wide and long enough to get into the site.
MR. SPIAK-If we gave you a 30 by 30 here, and either a 20 by a 50.
MR. ROUND-Yes. So those are sufficient as scaled on the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-While you have that microphone in your hand, could you go back to your thinking of this
ornamental fence along, I’m just thinking where you’re trying to go with it?
MR. ROUND-Sure. The one, we didn’t see a cut sheet on the stockade fence. So this is new for the Board,
this attention to detail, and so all we’re looking for is for you to provide that so that you can provide some
feedback, and there wasn’t a spec on a stockade fence. A stockade fences come in eleven different flavors.
We don’t want something that’s a dog-eared fence, which is a style of fence. I think you want something
that’s really going to set a tone, quality. So that was one aspect. The second aspect is, ornamentally, we’re
going to look to install a fence along the cemetery that is going to be wrought iron, with a brick pilaster,
which is a brick monument type of fence, and it may or may not be appropriate to mirror that on this site,
and so we asked, earlier on, is there a possibility that you can place wrought iron and this similar type of
fixture on this property, and it may not be the most appropriate location. We offered it as a suggestion.
There may be an opportunity, one of the things that we did do is bring the building out, an we do have a
street tree on Main Street, and it’s where you don’t have a building at the street line, you look to put a fence, a
brick fence, or landscaping. So this site really doesn’t fit the perfect prototype for Main Street, and we
recognize that. So we realize we’re not going to be able to impose every aspect of our design guidelines on an
automotive service type of use, so it’s a struggle. So, you know, we don’t want to make a mistake out of the
gate, but we don’t want to impose something that doesn’t work, either. So those were the thoughts on that.
Lighting, we’ve worked on that, and if I could just comment on architecture. The photo that’s up in front of
you doesn’t show, you know, this is a building from a different facility, different location. It doesn’t show a
Main Street entrance. I think their elevation, they do show a door on Main Street, and I’ll just, I’ll walk over
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
here. We say the front of the store, they’re referring to this elevation. The front of the store actually faces
the inside of the site. When we’re talking about the front of the store, we’re talking about Main Street,
because this is, hopefully we have a sidewalk along here with the construction of the highway improvements,
and that this is going to be the front door, and we realize that automotive use, they need a lot of visibility for
the pumps, so we said, we’ll let you have this as a primary entrance, but we would like an entrance on Main
Street. Their elevation does show a Main Street entrance, but if you’re looking at that, would you suspect that
that’s the front of the store when you’re looking at it from Main Street, and you wouldn’t. So what we
suggested in our notes and previous communications is there are opportunities to do some things, design
wise, to maybe make this look a little more like your front door. We talked about some treatments to this
gable end, you know, I’m not an architect. We don’t have an architect on staff, but we experimented. Maybe
there’s an opportunity for something cosmetic like they typically call them like eyebrow windows or eyebrow
dormer type of fixture on there, just to present some false façade, possibly doing some things vertically on the
brick face, in order to make it look like something more ornamental, just to dress up that entrance. It’s
difficult at this stage because we really aren’t, this isn’t the front door today, but we hope that five years from
now, when we have a series of these type of projects, we’re going to have those kind of treatments. Other
things, pedestrian scale what we refer to, is things that are going to attract, they’re going to attract the eye,
that are going to be things that you might walk up to, inviting stuff. If you’re walking up to the entrance,
maybe there’s an opportunity for a community bulletin board, or we can do things with building lighting, so
that you’re not lighting it, from a distance maybe you’re uplighting so that it is an attractive entrance. Those
are the issues. We have to compliment the applicant. They have worked with us from the get go. A lot of
what you see here was volunteer. A lot of it has come through collaborative process, and so we just don’t
want, we want to make sure you’re paying attention to that level of detail, because this is going to set the tone
for the rest of the corridor.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is that photo that’s up on the screen, is that an existing store?
MR. ROUND-This is an existing store, and there are some, there’s some minor detail changes, but that’s
basically what it’s going to look like. So what we have on ours, we have an entrance here, an entrance, an
actual entrance on Main Street. The other thing is this is, rear elevation, this is the Ryan street entrance. This
is, you know, there potentially will be a sidewalk on Ryan street. We don’t expect a lot of pedestrian traffic to
walk up on to Ryan street. So we just want to make sure, you don’t want your dumpster out back. You don’t
want, you know, utility equipment out back, and they’ve done that. They’ve removed some things from that
area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me look. You defined pedestrian scale. I lost it with that. I had no idea what you
were talking about.
MR. ROUND-When we do adopt the Ordinance in April, we will present you with greater detail, what
exactly are the design guidelines. We’ll be conducting a couple of workshops to show you what exactly are
we looking for on Main Street, and it’s a project in development. So it’s going to take some time for you to
get adjusted to that.
MR. VOLLARO-Just looking at the drawing, the proposed 2.5 wide grass strip, where would you put this
fence you’re talking about anyway? There doesn’t seem to be any room here to put an ornamental fence in
the front of this property, even if we all agreed to do it. I don’t see, where would you put it? You start off
with a sidewalk that’s five feet wide, then there’s four and a half foot of grass, then you’ve got a proposed
curb at seven inches. Just where in that milieu would you stick a fence?
MR. ROUND-Right at the curb line, at the sidewalk line. It’s a good point. There’s not a lot, on this
particular site, to invite that. So we want to plant that seed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess, in my view, the fence doesn’t play in this particular site plan.
MR. ROUND-I think there’s more of an option, if you’re looking at a single access point to Main Street.
That’s our primary focus, and with that that would provide a greater opportunity for location of treatments
like that.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is just sort of a precursor to let us, this is your first shot out of the box on this thing.
Other than that, I don’t have any questions. I do have one question that I had written down here. When
Warren County gave their approval or gave their comments out here, there was an attached resolution
attached to that, and sometimes it’s helpful for us to see what Warren County had in the attached resolution.
It wasn’t attached to this at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-I noticed that, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Did you?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll talk to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got?
MR. VOLLARO-Just a question on the 2,000 square foot building. Do we have any idea what’s going to go
in there?
MR. SPIAK-That’s Subway.
MR. AUFFREDOU-But, Bob, it may not always be Subway, and I think that’s why, you know, we’ve
designed it the way that it is. I mean, it could be anything. Subway’s obviously a tenant. Tenants can go
away, as we know, and we think that the architecture there, as designed, is such that it would be inviting for
some other commercial tenant at some future date, perhaps.
MR. MAC EWAN-That whole store is going to be dedicated to the Subway?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not like a couple of businesses in there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, that’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, we knew that was a Subway yesterday?
MR. VOLLARO-Yesterday?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, about eight minutes ago. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing further. I certainly wish you the best. I’m anxious to see it. I just
hope you know you are the seed for the future of that road. Just do a good job, because there’s going to be a
lot of people looking at you, and I’m sure you will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you respond to some of Chris’ comments about maybe doing some ornamental
detail to the building, to spruce up the Main Street entrance portion of it, maybe something we could do to
enhance that a little bit?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Have we talked about that in any specific detail, Rob?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I kind of like the way it looks now. I like it plain. Some nice shrubs in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that an issue with everybody?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s another thing. I didn’t know at what point in time, because you’re reading
some of these things, and they’ve made some changes, and so I looked on the site elevation, and I can see
where they’ve done some decorative brickwork. So I’m thinking, well, alright, they’ve already taken care of
that. So I don’t know if they were asking for more or that was the result of their discussion. Maybe Chris
can enlighten us.
MR. ROUND-I think that was the first cut. One of the opportunities you can do is you look to have glass in
that area, and I know that may conflict with what is actually on the inside of the property, so maybe that’s the
middle ground, see if there is an opportunity for some storefront glasswork in that area, that would open the
building up. You want it to be inviting, and blank walls are not inviting. Ornamentally it looks nice, and it
may look, you know, pleasing architecturally, but with the exception of the entrance, it still looks like a side
entrance. You can see the front of the store is all glass. So maybe we can look into adding some glass in that
area.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at Number Two side elevation, and it does have the glass windows and a
side door, and it does have the decorative brickwork, and I didn’t know if that was the result of you working
with the applicant already.
MR. ROUND-It is. This was, I think, their first concession. That wasn’t response to our notes. That was a
response to initial communications. So maybe there is a possibility to add glass in this half of the building to
bring some symmetry to the building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-But what’s the interior of the store? I mean, have they got a walk-in cooler in that area?
Is that whole wall filled with reach-ins?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I know, I asked Steve what’s there, and I’m not sure we exactly know what’s there,
but overall we’ve made quite a number of concessions as we’ve gone through this process, and this is, as we
indicated earlier by Mr. Metivier, you know, we’re the, we’re sort of going to be the focal point here. We
made an attempt, with Staff, to meet a lot of these design guidelines, even though they’re not, as we
understand them, in the law in place at this point in time, and in reality it just so happened that with what we
were trying to do, those guidelines worked very well for us. I’ll be candid with you about that. So it isn’t as if
we had to make some huge concessions there, but the building is obviously close to the road. That has to do
with the lot configuration and also where it’s desired for us to put the store. We’ve made a tremendous
amount of concessions throughout this process, and I think putting the door there, there is glass there, there
is access to that. There’s going to be landscaping along that side. We’re hoping that you would see that we’ve
done enough at that particular location.
MR. STROUGH-And that would further reduce the shelf space. I see you’re using it for show and display.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I guess that’s what’s designed. That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-John, trying to make it look like something it’s not is always not a very good idea. I mean, I
happen to agree with Cathy on this one. I think the way it looks now is.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I was just getting at.
MR. VOLLARO-You were trying to get a position of where did that come from.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Was that an original position or was that a compromise that they came to. I understand.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything you guys wanted to add? All right. We’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Unlisted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 49-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Mr. Vollaro’s got a motion already underway down here.
MR. STROUGH-So do I. Is yours longer than mine?
MR. MAC EWAN-Length is not the issue here.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, here’s what I have, and, Bob, why don’t you check and see what you have.
First of all, let’s talk about the trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-All we want to know is about the trees. Tell us about the trees.
MR. STROUGH-The five white pines on the south property line will be replaced with spruce of similar
genus and species as current located there, and will be a minimum of three inch caliper.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-The spruce on the inside corner of the lot, noted as to be removed, will remain.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-John, while I’m doing the motion, if I do, you just read those off at the end for me, okay?
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 49-2001 Cumberland Farms, Owner:
V.S. H. Realty. Applicant proposes demolition of existing business complex and construction of a 3816 sf
convenience store, a 3840 sq gasoline island canopy and a separate 2000 sf freestanding retail space. New
commercial/retail use requires Planning Board review and approval in accordance with Chapter 179, Section
179-24 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Cross Reference: AV 94-2001, SV 95-2001. Tax Map No.
134-6-31. Lot size: 1.87 acres. Section: 179-24.
WHEREAS, the application was received 1/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 3/15/02:
2002
3/19 Staff Notes
3/12 Notice of Public Hearing:
3/11 CT Male engineering comment
3/6 Meeting Notice
2/20 ZBA resolution – AV 94-2001, SV 95-2001
2001
12/26 New Info submitted
12/10 ZBA from CR – Re: access
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
12/10 CR from Barton & Loguidice, re: control of access
11/21 W. Goebel, Bohler Eng. from CR, meeting notes
11/27 ZBA resolution – AV 94-2001, SV 95-2001
11/20 CT Male Eng. comments
11/14 Warren Co. Planning Board - Approved
11/6 CT Male from LM
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 3/19/02 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 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 the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. All ornamental light fixtures will conform to the November 21 letter from Christopher Round, and
st
2. Paint the privacy fence to coordinate with the rest of the site, and
3. Metes and bounds will be provided describing future access for shared access with adjoining parcel,
and
4. Five (5) white pines on the south property line will be replaced with spruce of similar genus and
species as currently located there and will be a minimum of three inch caliper, and
5. The spruce on the inside corner of the lot lines noted as to be removed will remain, and
6. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 3/19/02 by the Planning Board of
the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
a.
Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-On behalf of the Town, good luck, and thank you very much for working very hard with
us and making a very nice site plan.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. I appreciate that. We’d like to thank Staff for a very thorough and helpful
review as well.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
68
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/02)
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
69