2002-05-16 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 16, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 19, 2002: NONE
March 21, 2002: NONE
March 26, 2002: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2002, MARCH 21, 2002, AND
MARCH 26, 2002, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP, INC.
PROJECT
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY
STATUS FOR THE GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Whereas, Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc. has submitted applications to the Queensbury Town Planning office
and the applications have been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff, and
Whereas, the project is an allowed use in the Professional Office Zone and requires the review and approval
of the Queensbury Planning Board, and
Whereas, the project applicant has submitted application materials and completed a Long Environmental
Assessment Form to allow for evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency
for purpose of SEQRA review of this project and directs the Zoning Administrator’s Office to notify any
other involved agencies for the following:
APPLICATION OF: Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
TAX MAP NOS. 60.-7-3.4, 2.2 (old)
296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15 (new)
PROPERTY LOCATION: Adjacent to and south of Church of the King property (685 Bay
Rd.) opposite Adirondack Community College (ACC) north
entrance
APPLICATION FOR: Three lot subdivision and Phased Development for a Senior
Independent Living Facility.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2001 TYPE II MODIFICATION IWO – RAMADA INN PROPERTY
OWNER: GLENS FALLS INN ASSOCIATES AGENT: MARGARET SMITH, PYRAMID
NETWORK SERVICES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1 ABBEY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUEST IS
TO INCLUDE AMERICAN FLAG, THE NECESSARY RIGGING TO RAISE AND LOWER
THE FLAG AND TWO 1000-WATT LIGHTS AT THE BASE OF THE FLAGPOLE ON THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
CODE COMPLIANCE LETTER DATED 2/11/02 TAX MAP NO. 97-2-6 LOT SIZE: 5.11
ACRES SECTION: 179-73.1
MARGARET SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-There shouldn’t be a public hearing scheduled.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For a modification. You’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2001, Modification, IWO – Ramada Inn, Meeting Date: May 16, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes to modify the existing approval for a stealth telecommunication tower by adding two (2)
one thousand (1000) watt lights and a 234 square foot flag to the tower.
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 approved project, telecommunications tower was issued a Use Variance by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, as such uses are restricted, generally, to industrial zoned properties. The display of flag and
the lighting, thereof, are not prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance.
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?
The proposed use, the display of a flag and the nighttime lighting thereof, would not appear to
present an increase to the burden on supporting public services.
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?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
It is not anticipated that the proposed use will generate public hazards with regards to
traffic. Minimal public opposition was noted during the previous review of this project.
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?
Aside from the additional nighttime lighting associated with this project, it does not appear as though
this project presents significant undue adverse impacts related to these matters.
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 two 1000 watt lights proposed in this modification are to be directed upward, at the flag. The lights are
proposed to be within a stockade fence enclosure surrounding the tower.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
No impacts or changes are anticipated to these conditions.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
No changes are planned or necessary.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Not applicable.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Not applicable.
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.
No additional landscaping is proposed with this modification.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
No changes are anticipated.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
No changes are anticipated.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Use Variance 12-01: Resolved 2/28/01 - 100 ft telecom. tower.
Site Plan Review 12-01: Resolved 7/17/01 - 100 ft telecom. tower. Approved w/ conditions.
Staff comments:
No public opposition to this proposal has been noted to date. No public opposition was noted during the 6
months in which the flag was being displayed prior to this modification request. The concept of a stealth
telecommunications tower is to disguise the tower in such a way that it does not appear to be an antennae
tower. As such, the previous approval was granted with the conditions that the tower not display a flag and
that the tower be inconspicuously painted “to blend with the sky background.”
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ROUND-For background, the Planning Board approved the telecommunications tower, and the
applicant had discussed installation of flag and lighting, and agreed not to install a flag. Requested a zoning
verification letter. They couldn’t issue that verification letter because of the installation, they’re back here to
seek that modification to do so. We have no further comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think this is really that big of an issue for any of us, I think. I just know that
there’s one comment regarding the wattage that you propose to use for the pole. I think one of the members
has some concerns with the amount of wattage. Maybe we could tone it down.
MS. SMITH-I don’t see any problem with that. It’s currently proposed at 1,000 watts per light, and I believe
that it could be reduced. I’m not quite sure exactly to what. The Federal regulations require that there be
reasonable lighting. So we’d just have to review that, if we could possibly leave that to further review with the
building inspector.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any questions, issues with it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Remember that woman who came in, who was concerned about
having it maybe interfere with her back yard. She lived down in Dixon Heights?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think she’s far enough away that I just don’t see how that’s going to be an issue.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that was before we had any lights put on, but I don’t, has she expressed any
concern, or anybody else?
MR. ROUND-We haven’t received any comments on this.
MR. STROUGH-The original draft drawn up by their engineers called for four 400 watt fixtures. Can we just
condition it to limit it to 1600 watts as it was originally proposed, then?
MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense to me.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2001 IWO – RAMADA
INN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 12-2001 Applicant: IWO – Ramada Inn
Type II Property Owner: Glens Falls Inn Associates
Agent: Margaret Smith, Pyramid Network Services
MODIFICATION Zone: HC-1A
Location: 1 Abbey Lane
Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Modification request is to include American Flag, the
necessary rigging to raise and lower the flag and two 1000-watt lights at the base of the flagpole on the
telecommunications equipment. Any modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review
and approval.
Cross Reference: Code Compliance Letter dated 2/11/02
Tax Map No. 97-2-6
Lot size: 5.11 acres
Section: 179-73.1
Public Hearing: May 16, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/10/02:
5/16 Staff Notes
5/9 Notice of Public Hearing (mailed 5/8)
5/1 Meeting Notice
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May l6, 2002; 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
We find the following:
The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The total wattage for lighting the lamp pole and flag not exceed 1600 watts.
2. 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 5/16/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MS. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE
JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB PROPERTY OWNER: MELANIE SCHWAB ZONE:
SR-1A LOCATION: 573 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 2.84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.645 AC. AND 1.056 ACRES. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 3-2002, SB 2-2002 DEC WETLANDS TAX MAP NO. 123-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.84
AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, James Marto, Melanie Schwab,
Meeting Date: May 16, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision originating from a 2.7 acre parcel. The property is zoned Suburban
Residential, SR-1A with a minimum lot size requirement of 1 acre.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision would create one building lot.
Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed
contours.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system and will be serviced
by on site sanitary disposal systems.
Drainage: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed site
grading.
Lot sizes: Lot 1 is proposed at 1.056 acres. Lot 2 is proposed at 1.645 acres.
Future development: No future development is outlined in this request.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a long form
Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood Three.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 3-2002 resolved 1/16/02: Relief for less than the required lot width. Approved
Subdivision 2-2002 resolved 2/26/02: Two lot residential subdivision
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision would create an additional building lot on West Mountain Road. Such a new lot is
required, per §179-30, C.; to have two times the permitted lot width as the proposed lot would front on a
local arterial road. The intent of such a requirement is to limit, as much as possible, the number of access
point onto arterial and collector roads. While relief from such a dimensional requirement lies with the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the final approval of such a subdivision layout lies with this Board. It appears as
though the alternative of a shared driveway exists and is relatively feasible.
The revised map identifies the Braeside subdivision; upon review of the Braeside Subdivision 7-1998 map
there is a stream identified on the property proposed to be subdivided. The plans should be revised showing
the stream.
This application is before the Board as, apparently, the applicant was unable to file the subdivision plat at the
Warren County Clerks office within the 60 day filing limit. The applicant will, presumably, be seeking an
approval granting an extension to the 60 day time limit for filing.”
MS. SCHWAB-Good evening. I’m Melanie Schwab.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Staff notes, please.
MR. BROWN-Yes. The application before you is basically a re-do of what you’ve seen before. The
applicant, apparently, was unable to file the subdivision plat within the required time period of 60 days, time
limit. We originally thought that the applicant might be requesting an extension to that 62 day time frame.
That’s not a good idea by both the Town Code and the Town law. So I think it’s appropriate just to re-
approve the subdivision. There’s no changes, just limit it to the standard 62 day filing limit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that you or your husband had some conversation with Staff regarding
possibly wanting an extension on this longer than the 62 days?
MS. SCHWAB-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But State statute doesn’t allow us to do that, so for some reason, if you can’t file your plat
within the 62 days, you will need to make another application and come back in front of us again.
MS. SCHWAB-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, that’s the way the law is written.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MS. SCHWAB-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MS. SCHWAB-So when is that meeting next?
MR. BROWN-Well, presumably it’s going to be re-approved tonight, so from tonight’s date, you’d have 62
days to file the map. If you can’t get it filed within that time period, you’d be back through this same process
again.
MS. SCHWAB-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So I have the map tonight. If you could sign that and send them away with it, so they’ll be
able to have it and file it when ready.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Anybody have any comments on this, because this application hasn’t changed
at all.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I would like to do, as part of this, to kind of expedite this a little bit, I talked to
Counsel before the meeting, the SEQRA hasn’t changed on this at all, our findings. So I’d just make it part
of our resolution, if we move this, that the original SEQRA findings are intact. We haven’t changed them.
There’s a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2002
JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 9-2002 Applicant: James Marto, Melanie Schwab
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Melanie Schwab
FINAL STAGE Zone: SR-1A
Type: Unlisted Location: 573 West Mountain Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.84 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.645 ac. and 1.056 acres.
Cross Reference: AV 3-2002, SB 2-2002
DEC Wetlands
Tax Map No. 123-1-9
Lot size: 2.84 ac.
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 16, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/24/02:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 5/10/02; and
5/16 Staff Notes
5/9 Notice of Public Hearing (sent 5/8)
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10, D of the Code
of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 16, 2002; 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
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
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
We find the following: The application for Preliminary / Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance
with the resolution as it’s prepared by Staff with the note that the SEQRA determination will be the
same as the previous approval.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MS. SCHWAB-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED JOE STRAUSS PROPERTY OWNER: MARTIN
SEELYE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN, PLLC ZONE: CI-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD
& HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A POWDER METALLURGY
OPERATION IN THE BUILDING FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY SEELYE’S AUCTION
HOUSE. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USES IN CI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 69-1991, UV 92-1990 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 110-5-2 LOT SIZE: 2.85 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE STRAUSS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-2002, Joe Strauss, Meeting Date: May 16, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes a Powder Metallurgy research and development facility in the former Seelye’s Auction
house.
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?
A research and development facility is an allowable use within the Commercial Industrial zone.
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?
The proposed use does not appear to present an undue increase to the burden on supporting public
services.
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?
While the proposed facility and site improvements may offer an improvement with
regards to access management, there appear to be areas on the site that could be upgraded.
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,
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
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?
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will present undue adverse impacts relative to these
matters.”
MR. BROWN-For this one I have a few concerns. Basically, the proposed use of the property appears to be
an improvement over the existing conditions there, and I’d just suggest if you could go through the bullet
items in the notes, it would probably be best, to address the Staff comments, rather than just read them off.
If the applicant, I’m sure the applicant has a copy of the notes. If we could just go through those, it might
suffice at least what we have, and then obviously what you guys have. As part of their presentation they
could address those items.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to go through them?
MR. BROWN-Well, we could go through them one by one, or the applicant could try and hit them in their
presentation.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll go that route, Tom. I’ll turn it over to you.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. For the record, Tom Jarrett, agent for Joe Strauss, the applicant. Joe is with me
tonight. Joe is proposing to purchase the Seelye property on Quaker Road and turn it into a light industrial
use. There are no changes proposed to the exterior portions of the site. There are changes proposed interior,
and that has been reviewed with Staff and the Town. I believe that’s been approved. We’re prepared to
address Staff comments. In those comments, or in our application, we requested a waiver from the
stormwater management plan, and we’ve provided a description of the site use, as well as the parking
proposed on the site. I guess at this point, since we’re not proposing any changes to the exterior of the site, I
guess we’ll dive right into Staff comments or questions from the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you asking for a waiver from the stormwater management report?
MR. JARRETT-There’s no changes proposed to the site at all. We reviewed, my firm reviewed, the drainage
conditions on the property, and I don’t see any conditions that create off site nuisances.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you have to support that?
MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry?
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you have to support that?
MR. JARRETT-Only my visual observations. Since there are no changes proposed to the site, I went out and
looked at the site, and I did not see any nuisances created by stormwater runoff on the property currently. So
that’s why I requested the waiver.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good evening. What does, can you explain the process of what’s going in there?
I’m not real clear what metallurgy is all about.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. I’ll let Joe do that.
MR. STRAUSS-(Lost word) metallurgy is just another manufacturing technology. Most of you are probably
familiar with machine (lost words), you can easily make gears, connecting rods, or whatever, from metal
powder. Our company develops powdered metal technology. We operate small scale operations, and then
we sell the technology to large manufacturers who then carry it out in production scale. Essentially, we take
powdered metal, consolidate it into a shape, heat it up. All the little powder particles bond together and make
a fully dense and strong part.
MR. STROUGH-Is it a polluting industry or?
MR. STRAUSS-On our scale, no. Once it gets out to the main stream, yes. Not heavily. I mean, it’s no
worse than a, certainly a lot better than a foundry or a casein, but our operation is very small, and we have
everything pretty much contained.
MR. STROUGH-Does it exhaust anything that might be detrimental to the environment?
MR. STRAUSS-No. Generally not. Most of the gases we use are inert. We do have furnaces that will burn
off some organics, but it’s no worse than candle wax.
MR. STROUGH-Are there New York State Codes that regulate your industry?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STRAUSS-Every time we’ve approached New York State to see what we need, they say, you’re too small
an operation to bother we. We are a very pilot scale or lab scale operation. We’re a research facility. We do
make some equipment and we do process some materials, but it’s all on a small scale.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now Mr. Seelye is, I understand it, going to be your tenant.
MR. STRAUSS-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And he’s going to have a furniture refinishing business?
MR. STRAUSS-In the existing building that he’s already occupying.
MR. STROUGH-Where he currently is running a furniture refinishing business.
MR. STRAUSS-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-I was just verifying it, and you’re going to be using the 90 by 60 out back metal sided
warehouse as just a storage area?
MR. STRAUSS-Pretty much dead storage.
MR. STROUGH-Now does that have water to it?
MR. STRAUSS-No.
MR. STROUGH-But it does have power, I assume, for lighting and things like that?
MR. STRAUSS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now, do you have clearance from Niagara Mohawk to go over their lands for? I’m going
to assume you’re going to have to walk and/or drive in that area, and Staff brought up that concern, and so
we’ll address that.
MR. JARRETT-Martin Seelye was consulted regarding that and he does not have any written permission to
use those lands. However, Niagara Mohawk reviewed that with him when he first built that warehouse some
30 years ago. Martin is here tonight, and we can ask him to come to the microphone if you wish. Apparently
Niagara Mohawk cleared that use, but did not put it in writing at that time. I have since contacted Niagara
Mohawk myself, and they, essentially, they’re going to review the situation and get back to me. They don’t
see a problem with that use as long as there’s no permanent structures constructed on their property, but they
felt that the continued use in its current condition was not going to be a problem.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re expecting an affirmation from Niagara Mohawk and obtain a right of way?
MR. JARRETT-The gentlemen I spoke with said he would go through the site, drive by the site and then get
back to me.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Seelye, anything you wanted to add?
MARTIN SEELYE
MR. SEELYE-Yes. Martin Seelye. For further clarification, in 1972 we built those buildings. In 1973, we
were filling in the cattail marsh land, what now would be considered wetland, but we were filling it in, and fell
on a car, a NiMo car stopped and said, what are you doing, and I said, filling this in. Whoa, whoa, hold it,
stop. We’ve got to check this, you’re under our lines, and I said, okay, and two or three days later he came
back with a smaller NiMo truck and another man and they made measurements, calculations, and then came
to me and said, you’re fine. Go ahead, and since that time, they have been on there, replaced two of the poles
on that property, and a couple of guide wires over the years, and have never said one way or another anything
about not using it, whatever, but we have parked and driven under and parked hundreds of cars on a weekly
basis there since 1974.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it would be nice for the new owner just to have the security of having a NiMo
affirmation that he could use that as right of way, too.
MR. SEELYE-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Seelye.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. SEELYE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Now the exit going to Quaker Road, now Staff suggested to close it, and you countered by
offering a one way exit to Quaker Road. Is that accurate?
MR. STRAUSS-Yes. That entrance/exit area is essentially our only access to the truck high loading dock for
the building. You can access the loading dock with a tractor trailer from the other entrance, but when you
leave, that’s really the only way to get out. Otherwise you have to back all the way down the hill. You can
come up the hill and back into the space. When you pull back out, it’s most easy to leave out that first
driveway. So we figured if we made it one way out only, two signs, made it very clear, hopefully that would
cut down on some of the truck moving in there.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So you’re comfortable with exit only?
MR. STRAUSS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-One of your notes, though, says that, well, this is from Mr. Jarrett, Staff and clients are
expected to enter primarily from the Quaker Road. How can they enter from the Quaker Road if it’s no
entry?
MR. JARRETT-Well, what I meant is Quaker Road onto Highland.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-I was not referring to the exit that Joe’s talking about in front of that loading dock.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks for that clarification, and you’ve said that you have no problem changing
plastic chain to steel chain.
MR. STRAUSS-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I shouldn’t say NiMo property. I probably should say National Grid property.
Right? And you don’t mind conditioning it so that landscaping and painting the building are proposals that
you offered, and you’re saying that they’ll be realized within 18 months of the closing of the property?
MR. STRAUSS-Excuse me?
MR. STROUGH-You’ve said that you’re going to do some landscaping some clearing, nothing extravagant,
but you’ve said you’re going to clean it up.
MR. STRAUSS-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to paint the building.
MR. STRAUSS-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And you’ve said that you’ll probably do that within 18 months after closing.
MR. STRAUSS-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So do you have a problem if we just condition it that that be done 18 months prior to the
end of the closing?
MR. STRAUSS-Correct. That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s too far a stretch, but let me go through the rest of the Board on this.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll go through them. I’m just going through my list. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think John covered most of the, some of the big questions. There were also some
comments about angled parking along Highland Ave., as opposed to the straight on parking. Is that
something that was agreeable?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. JARRETT-I recommended against the angled parking because I felt that, and this is the question that
came up just a second ago, I think much of the traffic will be entering from Quaker Road onto Highland
Avenue, and I think the angled parking spaces in the other direction would create a hazard, and people will
park incorrectly. There is enough space to back out without entering Highland Avenue. So I don’t feel
there’s a hazard there, and I still would recommend the straight in parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I know part of the comment on parking that close to the road is that, you know,
there’s plenty of room on the site for parking. So that was part of the suggestions.
MR. JARRETT-That was one of the reasons that we cut down the parking there and put up the bollards and
chain, and cut it down to six spaces there, because there is parking elsewhere, but some of the clients that will
be visiting that building, that’s the most convenient spot for them to park.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only other comment that I had, well, actually, I was kind of surprised to read in your
letter that metallurgy was the fastest growing manufacturing operation. I had no idea.
MR. STRAUSS-Of the manufacturing processing, powder metallurgy. It’s been that way for 50 years,
though, so, there isn’t much else out there. I can’t take credit for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t think you could. There’s a comment in the letter regarding exterior lighting,
and the comment says that exterior building lighting will entail upgrades of the existing system to
accommodate a 277 vc system. Is that really the only change? I mean, the existing fixtures will remain
basically the same, just changing the voltage?
MR. STRAUSS-No. At the time, you know, I didn’t have actually hardware data with the lighting. I have
some, a typical type hardware, like to see what we have. Essentially, my thought was, you have codes to
abide by, and there’s a lumen law or whatever, and we will abide by that, and get the fixtures to do so, but we
weren’t planning any additional. At the time, the thought was that we would abide by whatever rules were
there. We had no plans for increasing the amount of lighting on the building, with the exception of just
making sure all the doorways were covered, and there are some unlit doorways at this time, but they require
somewhere in the 35 to 70 watt area, and the fixtures that I’ve passed out there put a very small footprint on
the ground. We’re not lighting whole parking areas or lighting walls of the building. We’ve got plenty of
light coming over from K-Mart.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there wouldn’t be any spillage past your property line?
MR. STRAUSS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see that they have cutoffs.
MR. STRAUSS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many do you have employed here, Joe?
MR. STRAUSS-Currently there’s two of us. We have plans for two more.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this powdered metal, how do you ship it in? How does it come to you, in what
kind of containers? Like is it big metal?
MR. STRAUSS-We ship it out. We make.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you said that?
MR. STRAUSS-We do both. We make machines and make metal powder. There isn’t a big market for them.
So we try to make technologies that make powder that people need our machine for. It’s a really bad
business plan, but that’s the way I’m operating.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you don’t have any acids, any use for any acids in your business?
MR. STRAUSS-No. We do operate a small chemistry lab, but it’s nothing worse than you’d find in a high
school chemistry lab.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because I was just wondering about, you know, as far as that powdered metal,
as far as its proximity to the acids.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STRAUSS-Usually a distance. We have acid cabinets. All that is pretty much secured on an industrial
basis.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you must have to have OSHA come in, and, even though you’re a small business.
MR. STRAUSS-We have had an OSHA inspection by the State of New York. We passed it with pretty much
flying colors. We try to keep a fairly clean operation. There are hazards with powdered metal, especially large
amounts of it. For instance, a typical industrial operation might involve thousands of pounds, or a machine
that makes one thousand pounds an hour. Our machines make a pound a minute maybe. So we’re really
talking a very small scale.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we come and visit?
MR. STRAUSS-Certainly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I want to ask a couple of questions. On this storage of nitrogen and hydrogen, in that
little storage facility alongside the existing block. How are those two stored?
MR. STRAUSS-The nitrogen and hydrogen, and whatever other gases we use usually come in either
compressed bottles or liquid tanks. All those have their own code, and the storage facility out there is actually
per recommended by NFPA, whatever the New York fire protection agency code, or NFPA 50 says they
should be outside tied up along a wall, special light fixtures. We’ve accounted for all of that. That’s all in our
basic build plan.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’re secured in there for safety reasons. Somebody can’t come and grab them and
take them out.
MR. STRAUSS-No. They will be on what is now an open loading dock. There will be a door, a fence, it has
to be a strong chicken wire fence door, or an open type facility, but it will be locked during, when we’re not
trying to access the bottles.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see where we have the one way exit sign only, and I can understand, you explained
that to Mr. Strough. Now, where is the entrance to this building, to this north lot, where do you come in? I
see a small curb cut. I thought there was a small curb cut right here on Quaker, but I guess it really isn’t a
curb cut.
MR. STRAUSS-Clarify. Do you mean for trucks or cars?
MR. VOLLARO-For me coming into the site. How do you get in there?
MR. STRAUSS-Normally, if a vehicle, an automobile were coming to the site, if I were coming to work, for
instance, I would come in Highland Avenue, one way or another, and park somewhere around where it says
those six parking spaces. The entrance to the door is further north, where it says pedestrian pass door.
That’s the main entrance of the building. So the parking spaces, we’re trying to get as close to that entrance
as possible. If you’re coming in from, UPS truck or FedEx truck, you may try the same route. However, you
will have to exit, you will have to continue around the building, unless you could turn around and come back
out Highland Avenue.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I noticed that between the property line and those spaces you’ve got only 15 feet
there. That’s pretty narrow if you want to get a big truck to go past there, particularly if those spaces are all
occupied.
MR. STRAUSS-Big trucks won’t be going past there. The other, the two cuts on Quaker, the second one,
which is closer to the furniture shop, that would be an entrance for, assumed for anything larger than a
pickup truck. They would come in, come up a, sort of alongside the building, and then back into the loading
dock area, and then once they’re there, they’re situated to point straight out on Quaker again, and that’s the
way they would leave.
MR. VOLLARO-So that isn’t an entrance off Quaker Road there, just to the, I guess it’s.
MR. STRAUSS-It’s the second cut.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the second cut on Quaker, just below the one way exit sign.
MR. STRAUSS-Correct. That would be, it could be one way in or two way.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to just talk a little bit about those six parking spaces. I see where you’ve
got, in the rear, and I know this might, trying to get some of the spaces off the front of the building, if that’s
possible, and there’s storage trailers to be moved, that are right in the back here. I’m trying to look for a spot
where, and I can see now by the way you operate the building, that that may not be something you’d be
pleased with. Because I’m considering moving the parking to the back end, but this is primarily for
customers and visitors and stuff of that type? Is that what’s on your mind there mostly?
MR. STRAUSS-Yes, and the way I was planning on getting in the building, also.
MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t want to put them out in the back. See, where those stored trailers were to be
removed, I thought that might be a good spot for parking, get parking off of Highland, so we don’t have
close to the street parking in front of the building.
MR. STRAUSS-It is quite a distance to the entrance door at that point. In inclement weather, it could be an
inconvenience.
MR. JARRETT-If I could jump in. A maximum of six spaces is proposed along Highland Avenue. So if the
business expands in the future and hires more people, they would be parking elsewhere on the site,
presumably where you’re talking about, lower on the site.
MR. VOLLARO-When are those trailers going to be removed? I don’t see them talked about under the
notes. Yes, storage trailers. They’re talking about six months to remove that?
MR. STRAUSS-Six months after closing.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a long time. The painting is a long time, for 18 months. It seems to me that’s a
pretty extended period to get something done. You’re talking six months and eighteen months essentially. I
see where the D Box is located, and I see where the approximate location of the leach system is located.
Now where does the septic tank go between the D Box and the approximate location of the leach system?
MR. JARRETT-The septic tank, I believe, is just below or just south of the existing furniture shop. We
didn’t find that in our efforts. You’ve got two tanks, as I recall, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep the exchange going this way, please, because he’s not on the record.
MR. SEELYE-Martin Seelye. The 1,000 gallon septic tank is adjacent to the loading dock that faces Quaker.
It’s distant about six to seven feet in the space between the Quaker Road loading dock and the furniture
refinishing shop.
MR. VOLLARO-That probably ought to be on the plan.
MR. STRAUSS-I stand corrected, it’s just one tank.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. The south lot, is that entrance off the boulevard, is that, that cut, that curb cut
there, that’s where you go into the south?
MR. STRAUSS-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I’m asking about the septic tanks and the leach field is that there would be no
parking zones, essentially, over the top of those, or macadam or anything like that, cut spaces. As far as the
lighting is concerned, I think that I would, I know some of the lights that are on here were there already, I
guess, when you’re going to buy the building, but I would like, being that this is on the corner of Highland
and Quaker, I just want to make sure that there’s no light spillage or that it doesn’t light up like a candle, and
you’re talking about 75 to 50 watt incandescent bulbs. I don’t see that bothering you. This is, some of these
things are high pressure sodium. Is that what you’re going to use on the building?
MR. STRAUSS-That’s the plan. They’re pretty efficient, and most of these lights will be on, at least most of
the evening, but the lower level one is a 35 watt, I believe. It really doesn’t throw out an awful lot of light.
It’s just a footprint in front of the door.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you planning on using incandescents for those?
MR. STRAUSS-No. That’s the sodium vapor lamps.
MR. VOLLARO-I sure would like to see a small lighting plan submitted with this, only because of the
proximity of the building to an intersection off Quaker Road. I’d feel more comfortable if I could see
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
something like that, but we’ll see what the other Board members think about it. That’s all I’ve got, Mr.
Chairman, on this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Hi. How are you? I agree with Bob who just commented on the length of time that you’re
suggesting to clean up the site. First of all, let me go on record as saying I’m glad that the building’s going to
be occupied, and it looks like a nice, interesting business that you’re putting in there, but would you be
agreeable to accelerate this painting of the building and also the landscaping and removal of the storage
trailers, to a shorter period of time?
MR. STRAUSS-The timeframe put on the painting was basically to fit into a budget. That was not
anticipated at the time we were looking at the building. It is not a minor cost, and I thought it would be a
very safe thing to say 18 months. Personally, it will be done quicker, but I can’t tell you exactly how quick or
how soon it will be done. Interior painting would begin as soon as we purchase the building, and then the
first stretch of good weather after we get situated within the building, which may not be until next spring, and
that’s the main thing. You can’t paint the building in the winter. We’re going to be pretty much
overwhelmed moving in the building. We don’t anticipate closing until some time in the summer. It’s a
couple of months to get the interior done.
MR. SANFORD-Could you accelerate it to a year, rather than 18 months, is that unreasonable? Again, the
thinking is it’s not an attractive site. It served a function, and we’d like to see it, I think, cleaned up, as soon
as possible, and 18 months is a bit long. From my standard, the way I’m looking at it.
MR. STRAUSS-A year from the closing?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. That would work for me. I don’t know about the rest of the Board, but I’d like to see
some speed up on it, and the same with the removal of the trailers. If that could be done sooner than six
months, that would be also preferred.
MR. STRAUSS-Yes. Is four months a better time?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we get to that point, as a Board, we’ll come up with something that we think is
doable and reasonable.
MR. STRAUSS-All right. Yes, we will definitely bargain on those time points.
MR. SANFORD-Well, thank you, and good luck. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I guess my only concern is that, based on, from what I hear in the success of your business,
this might be the last time this building comes up in front of us, and it bothers me and it surprises me a little
bit that more hasn’t been addressed about landscaping. I would love to see this corner cleaned up a little bit
because I think that, over the years, it has been kind of forgotten, and this is a perfect opportunity for us to
maybe spruce it up a little bit. I don’t know what you had in mind for landscaping, but I certainly would like
to see some kind of plan that we could follow and, you know, at least review, based on the fact that we don’t
have a beautification committee anymore, to review the applications. It really is up to the Planning Board to,
you know, take this into consideration, and I would like to see something in writing, and not just a word that,
yes, I’m going to plant some trees or something, because obviously, trees might not be what that site is
conducive to.
MR. STRAUSS-Again, no real landscaping was anticipated when we put a bid on the building. So, you know,
it’s part of the big bucket of money that all this comes from. Essentially, our main plan was to do more of
grounds upkeep and keep a handle on that. Once we get it down into control, no, this is probably not the last
time you’ll see me here. I intend to be here for a long time, and there will be improvements some time in the
more distant future. So it’s in my best interest to do the best I can to keep the grounds up so that, in the
future, I can be considered for other upgrades, but if you need, I mean, essentially, we weren’t planning on
shrubbery or trees. It was basically take down what’s there, keep it under control. I’m not much of a
landscape person. I don’t know what effect throwing grass seed around would do. If it grew, it would be
great, but we have a lawn mower.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, because it does surprise me, though, because
in the past on applications we’ve stressed and have withheld applications based on landscaping plans, and I
hear no mention of it, really, whatsoever, and this is a perfect opportunity for us to.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you, Tony.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. METIVIER-Thank you, and that’s really all I have. I wish you the best of luck. It seems very
interesting, and I certainly hope that you come back because you need more parking for employees. I think
that would be great.
MR. STRAUSS-That’s what we’re trying to do.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. STRAUSS-No.
MR. JARRETT-Not at this point, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Well, just a couple. For one thing, there’s at least one reference to a sign, 40 feet in length,
8 feet in width and 10 feet in height. Where’s that going to go?
MR. STRAUSS-The existing one that’s on the property at the lower right corner of the?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the NiMo property there.
MR. STROUGH-It’s on the NiMo property. Okay. I didn’t look there. Well, for one thing to address
Tony’s concern is that, you know, that we wish you all the success in the world, and if you are successful and
you’re going to grow, that no doubt you’ll be back, and one reference to being back to have some kind of an
improved expanded parking plan seems to assure me that you will be back, and at that time, and I agree with
Tony on this, and I would expect an enhanced landscaping plan at that time, but at this time you getting
started, considering the shape of the property that it’s in, that what you’re proposing is an upgrade, but we
might expect more in the future. That’s the way I see it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel the same way, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I think that, the fact that you’re a small business, just starting out, and you
weren’t planning on that extra expensive landscaping, but cleaning it up and having life in there, you know, is
an enhancement, and then in the future, when you come back, I think that we need to address that more
seriously.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take an informal poll. How does the Board feel on landscaping issues?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I tend to agree with Tony. I think it was an oversight on a lot of our parts for not
discussing, and I’m just looking at that. I think that it was called out of the Staff comments. I just noticed it
a little bit ago, perhaps landscaping to the north and east of the main building, rather than a gravel drive.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think if we could just get something done on the corner of the building, on the corner
of Highland and Quaker, I mean a moderate landscaping plan there, to dress up the corner. I mean, I think
that’s what we’re envisioning. We aren’t looking for you to bring in 100 fruit trees and evergreens and such.
Keeping in mind it is an industrial application, but albeit that’s in a highly visible area of the Town, especially
at that intersection, and it’s something maybe to enhance that corner and dress it up a little bit might be the
way to go. How do you feel on that?
MR. SANFORD-My feeling is, I’m in total agreement except what I’m sensing is there’s budgetary
constraints here, and of course I have no knowledge of your business and your balance sheet, and so I
certainly don’t want this Board to take action which will make purchasing the building and getting going
prohibitive, but I would like to see it dressed up, and I certainly would also like to see the acceleration of the
painting and get those trailers out and get them cleaned up. Why don’t you volunteer what you think you can
do, within a time parameter for us.
MR. STRAUSS-I mean, again, it’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Although it’s kind of rustic perhaps in the
corner, I suppose just touching up and putting fixed grass rather than wild grass there, and sculpting it a little
bit, so that it looks like a corner rather than just a wildlife preserve. Again, I don’t know much about
landscaping. I would have to consult someone, and see what can be done. The one concern is that’s at a
corner, and there’s a lot of plow runoff. Plows go by and you lose the first 10 feet of any vegetation. What’s
there now is what grows, and so you get plow in two directions, concentration on that corner, it really doesn’t
constitute putting a lot of expensive shrubbery there. I think it’s more maintaining some sort of at least
closer cropped greenery or whatever. I’d, personally, be a little scared of putting bushes or trees there.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Suppose it just started off with, alongside the six parking spaces up to the pedestrian pass
door, put some shrub in there at least, start off that way.
MR. STRAUSS-Is that along the building or along the road?
MR. VOLLARO-Along the building. Put something in, right next to the, you know, get something started
anyway. See what we need from you, and I guess what I’m sensing from my fellow Board members here is
even if you were to give us some phased plan that said, okay, here’s a phasing for how my budget allows me
to phase in some landscaping, here’s how I plan to do it, Year One, Year Two, Year Three, whatever. So we
have some idea what that’s going to be. Otherwise, this just gets to be a talk fest here.
MR. STRAUSS-I know, and I’m sorry, but it’s kind of foreign to me. I mean, you’re talking about shrubbery
alongside the building. That’s taking up parking space. We have little enough room between the building and
the road as it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-The overwhelming concern I have here is doing anything in kind of a phasing plan, or
something that’s, you know, 18 months down the road, so to speak that way because from an administrative
standpoint for our Staff to ensure the site plan has come into compliance, 18 months down the road is a real
far stretch for us to try to keep on top of the application. That’s why we try to do them within a much
shorter time span to bring things up to conditions of approval. Chris, I guess I didn’t hear from you. You
were my hold out here.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t intentional.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but see, I didn’t let you slip through the cracks either, did I.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think I tend to agree more with John and Cathy. I mean, I certainly would like to
see some minimal landscaping, certainly within the budget that the business has, but the existing conditions of
the site, I think, you know, in order to really do anything that would be beneficial, you’d have to bring in
topsoil and some other things, because most of it’s already gravel.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody feel on the stormwater issue?
MR. STROUGH-It’s an established area, and if there’s been stormwater problems, I think they’ve been
probably hammered away at. I mean, I’ve been over there at auctions and stuff and I’ve never seen a glaring
problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other issues that Board members have got?
MR. METIVIER-I’m not being difficult here, but in the past a few years, it appears that some businesses on
Quaker Road have chosen colors of paint that aren’t very appealing to the eye. Do you have any idea what
color you’re going to paint this? And this isn’t my opinion. I’ve heard comments.
MR. STRAUSS-I’m pretty much a dull person on colors. So it’s going to be either gray or blue or a two-tone
gray, two-tone blue. It’s not pink or turquoise or anything like that. I give you that promise. A muted color.
MR. METIVIER-A muted, maybe earth tone type color.
MR. STRAUSS-Yes, grays.
MR. METIVIER-You know where I’m going with this. Just chose a color that’s appealing to the masses, as
opposed to a bargain basement paint sale, I guess.
MR. STRAUSS-No, we’re not doing that. I do have my landscape consultant here. Just showed up. What a
coincidence.
ROGER RUEL
MR. RUEL-Hi. My name is Roger Ruel. I’m the father-in-law. When it came to the landscaping, I would
suggest perhaps some Yews against the Highland side of the building. I suspect that you probably want to
get away from that slab sided look of the structure, and I think Joe could promise you planting a few of those,
to begin with.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s doable. It’s a step in the right direction. Anything else from Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-As long as Tony brought up the painting, and I never would have thought of that, but
muted colors are great. Blues are very, very difficult to find something that really fits. It’s either, blues are
tough. Grays are fine, browns are fine, greens, deep greens, blues can be, can stick right out, if you don’t get
the right one. So stay away from blues.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STRAUSS-Inside of the building is gray based with a white upper end, and it’s sort of going to be
continued on the outside. That was the plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, blue inside is fine, but, I mean, I never would have thought of that, but I guess
what’s happened is that the blue at.
MR. STRAUSS-I’ve seen those blues. I agree with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think blue, we’ve just kind of had our fill of blue over there in the mall there where
the bank is and O’Toole’s is, on Quaker Road. There’s blue over there with those blue awnings. It is about
as far as from being Adirondack as anything could be. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to move to a SEQRA, but anymore questions we’ve got?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, we should probably do a public hearing first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’ll get to it. We’ll get to it. I haven’t forgotten.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, on the stormwater issue, you said you walked the property. You took a look at it.
You see nothing in there that’s detrimental or that would add to. Can you give us a statement with your
engineering stamp on it that essentially says that, so we have a record of you, in the file, that talks to the fact
that you walked the property and see no problem?
MR. JARRETT-I did provide that in the letter of May 3. I’d be glad to stamp that if you want, but I did say
rd
that, I didn’t see any, essentially, there’s certainly no off site nuisances that I’ve noticed. I drove by the site
again tonight, following the rain we just had.
MR. VOLLARO-That is your letter of May 3?
rd
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The last page. That middle paragraph.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in support of the above description. I just, you know, that’s fine. The problem I have
with that is anybody could write that statement. You happen to be unique in the fact that you have an
engineering stamp to back that statement up, and I would like to see that in the file.
MR. JARRETT-All right. So if I took that same letter, stamped it for you?
MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I think it’s a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody
want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. This is a small business with a minimum number of
employees. Virtually, as far as I can see, virtually no traffic impact. There are no residences anywhere near
this site. It’s a business that there’s currently a shortage of in this region, in terms of a manufacturing type of
establishment, and I would encourage the Board to pass it with as minimal hassles as possible for the
applicant. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
RESOLUTION NO. 22-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOE STRAUSS, 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 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone have a motion in mind?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ve got one. Do you want me to run it by you first?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, John.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Here’s what I have for conditions. Stormwater plan waiver is granted. The
applicant will obtain confirmation from NiMo National Grid allowing applicant to use NiMo National Grid
lands. The plastic chain as noted in Site Plan C-1, Chain Fence Detail, will be changed to steel chain.
Additional exterior lighting will be limited to the use of cutoff mini wall pack type fixtures, to answer Bob’s
concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you just add to that, as supplied with the application.
MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, I will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Site clean up, proposed landscaping to also include planting of a row of Yews along the
north side of the building between the parking spaces and the pedestrian pass door.
MR. MAC EWAN-You need a number on that, a quantity. How’s six?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Six.
MR. STROUGH-Six Yews. Okay. Will be completed on or before one year of closing.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. ROUND-Do you think you could fix that with a date, rather than one year from closing. Do you know
when an estimated closing date is?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage the Board to do one year from the approval date. That’s the easiest
way to track it.
MR. METIVIER-But the only problem with that is that you’re looking at, if it’s one year from approval, and
it gets approved tonight, they either have to do it this year or they’re not going to have enough time next year.
MR. MAC EWAN-He can always come in and get an extension, which is an easy thing to do. As an
administrative standpoint, this is the way we should do it, and this is the way we’ve been doing it for years.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. One year of Planning Board approval. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-John, is that for painting only?
MR. STROUGH-No. What I’ve got is site clean up, proposed landscaping, which includes the row of Yews,
and the proposed building exterior upgrade will be completed on or before one year of Planning Board
approval, is what I have.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have all the landscaping and the painting all tied into one year?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if you do need to get an extension on that, you can come back and get one.
MR. STROUGH-Is that a problem, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He offered six months to do that. Six months of purchase. We were thinking more
like one year for the painting and then.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the problem is we don’t know how long it’s going to take them to close.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s not split hairs on it. Let’s keep it as it is, as a package. It’s easier to track, because
Code Enforcement is the one who’s going to have to go out and make the field verification, and if we start
splitting hairs saying the paint done in eighteen months, the trees in in six months.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the applicant’s already stated he would clean up the site as fast as he could.
MR. STROUGH-And the last one I have is Jarrett-Martin letter dated May 3, 2002 discussing stormwater
interalia will be stamped by Tom Jarrett, P.E.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have one to add. Verify the location of the septic tank and note it on the plat. Is
everyone comfortable with that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone to introduce that.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2002 JOE STRAUSS, Introduced by John Strough who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 22-2002 Applicant: Joe Strauss
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Martin Seelye
Agent: Jarrett-Martin, PLLC
Zone: CI-1A
Location: Quaker Road & Highland Avenue
Applicant proposes a Powder Metallurgy operation in the building formerly occupied by Seelye’s Auction
house. Research and Development uses in CI zones require Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: SV 69-1991, UV 92-1990
Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02
Tax Map No. 110-5-2
Lot size: 2.85 acres
Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 16, 2002
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/10/02:
5/16 Staff Notes
5/9 Notice of Public Hearing (sent 5/8)
5/8 Warren Co. Planning
5/3 C. Brown from H. Thomas Jarrett
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 16, 2002; 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
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Stormwater Plan waiver is granted, and
2. The applicant will obtain confirmation from NiMo/National Grid allowing applicant to use
NiMo/National grid lands, and
3. The plastic chain, as noted in Site Plan C-1, chain fence detail, will be changed to steel chain,
and
4. The additional exterior lighting will be limited to the use of cutoff mini wall pack type
fixtures, as supplied by the applicant, and
5. Site clean up, proposed landscaping - landscaping to include the planting of a row of six
yews along the 115 by 90 foot building on the north side, between the parking spaces and
the pedestrian pass store and proposed building exterior upgrade will be completed on or
before one year of Planning Board approval, and
6. Jarrett-Martin letter dated 5/3/02 discussing stormwater interalia will be stamped by
Thomas Jarrett, P.E., and
7. The site of the septic tank will be verified and noted on the final plat.
8. 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 5/16/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. STRAUSS-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
OWNER: COBE, INC. AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION:
SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEX UNITS ON
A VACANT 5 LOT SUBDIVISION. DUPLEXES IN SR ZOES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 11-2001, SB 7-85M, AV 74-2001, AV 98-
2001 TAX MAP NO. 121-10-999 LOT SIZE: 6.19 ACRES SECTION 179-4-020
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN CIFONE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2002, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: May 16, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes construction of 5 duplex units on 5 vacant subdivision lots.
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 proposed use is an allowable use within the Suburban Residential zoning district. Duplexes
require at least one acre of land per unit. This project has received an Area Variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for duplexes on lots less than 2 acres; AV 74-2001.
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?
The proposed use does not appear to present an undue impact to the burden on supporting public
services.
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?
The proposed development depicts adequate on site parking for each unit and should not
present any significant traffic hazard.
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?
The proposed project is consistent with the existing development of duplex units within this
subdivision and should not create any undue adverse impacts relative to these issues.
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 proposed building locations, near the road appear to be the most logical layout. No lighting or signage
has been proposed.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
The lots to be developed front on an existing town road.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The off street parking appears adequate.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposed stormwater facilities depict an outlet pipe directed onto lot 20. No description, or plan has
been submitted relative to the necessary drainage easement. Such an easement must be approved by the
Highway Superintendent.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The lots will be serviced by municipal water and on site septic systems.
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.
No landscaping plan has been presented with this project.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The town road, Smoke Ridge Road, shall provide adequate emergency access to the home sites.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
Please see above stormwater comments.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 7-85 Smoke Ridge
Subdivision 11-2001 resolved 9/25/01 current 5 lot proposal
Area Variance 74-2001 resolved 9/19/01 6 lots subdiv….lots less than one acre DENIED
Area Variance 98-2001 resolved 12/19/01 5 lot subdiv duplexes on lots less than 1 acre
Staff comments:
The proposed development appears to be consistent with the existing development within this subdivision.
In fact, the existing lots and the duplexes were created with 30,000 sf lots. The stormwater discharge from
the town road onto private property without the necessary easement is not allowed and must be addressed
prior to approval.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. BROWN-This project was inadvertently misidentified as a Type II Action. It’s an Unlisted SEQRA
action. So you need to do a SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. BROWN-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough has a question.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I have a question. I see we’re talking about over six acres, almost 6.2 acres, and we’re
in SR-1A zoning. The applicant is requesting to put 10 units in the type of zoning that only allows for six
units. I know they’ve applied for a variance and received a variance from the Zoning Board for this, but I
don’t think that’s appropriate. I think this is a rezoning, but because basically we’re talking about changing
the zoning of six acres from SR-1A to SR-20,000, and, I mean, what is the definition of a variance? I see the
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
variance as one applicant, one lot, requesting setback relief, something small. When you take six acres, after
you’ve gone through a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and you’ve gone through almost an 18 month zoning
study, and it has said that this area is best as SR-1A, I think it’s inappropriate for the Zoning Board to be
granting any variances. That, in effect, is a rezoning change.
MR. BROWN-Is there a question in there?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-In effect, it’s inappropriate. Putting 10 units in this piece of property.
MR. BROWN-I think this has been discussed and acted on by the Zoning Board. These very matters were
discussed.
MR. STROUGH-I think the Zoning Board was in error. I don’t think it’s in their purview to rezone or give a
variance on six acres of property, basically, in effect, changing the zoning.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think the Zoning Board is the only Board that can issue variances and determine.
MR. STROUGH-I think this is not a variance. This is, in effect, a change of zone.
MR. BROWN-If there’s an issue with an action the Zoning Board has taken, I think there’s another method
to take this up. It’s not at this point. At this point, the applicant has an approval issued by the Town Zoning
Board, which is the proper method for them to take. They’ve done that. Now they’re before this Board to
talk about the duplexes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m going to disapprove this application, and I’ve explained why. It’s a rezoning. It’s
not a variance. When you give the Zoning Board something that’s six acres, and you, in effect, are.
MR. BROWN-It’s certainly an option for you to take. I’d caution you to make a decision before you hear the
application, but to this point, the applicant has followed all the proper procedures and gotten all the necessary
approvals from the Town.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What was the ZBA’s take on this, when they reviewed this application, as far as the
amount of acreage that we were dealing with here and what the requests were? I mean, was there any
conversation regarding that?
MR. BROWN-I don’t recollect verbatim, but the application before the Zoning Board was to allow duplexes
on lots which were less than two acres. In this zoning district, if you want to have a duplex on a lot, you need
to set aside at least one acre per lot, or per unit. In this case, the applicant and the developer have decided
that they’d like to be consistent with the development in this subdivision, which are duplexes on lots, and I
think the Zoning Board, in their reasoning, decided, or at least considered that, as the lots were created 10
years ago, or 20 years ago, even, under 30,000 square foot zoning, that the one acre lots were certainly
sufficient, to be consistent with the approvals that were issued previously.
MR. STROUGH-But using your line of logic, we could take 20 acres, SFR-1A, give it to the Zoning Board,
and say, can we allow a variance for half acre lots? And they say, sure. That is, in effect, a change of zoning.
MR. ROUND-John, I agree with you. As a matter of policy, we don’t think that’s the proper procedure, but
it is a procedure that is allowed. We had an application just last month, the Hayes subdivision, where they’re
seeking additional density, density relief, and that’s what you’re talking about, density relief, is that really a
rezoning. The Town has done this consistently. This applicant hasn’t done anything different than any other
applicant that’s been in front of the Zoning Board. You see it, typically, on a smaller scale. Two homes on a
waterfront zone, on a one acre lot where, that is density relief. As a matter of policy, I agree with you that it’s
really, it is a rezoning, and that you are circumventing the Zoning Ordinance, but relief from the Zoning
Ordinance comes from the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board’s acted and has issued that relief. That
decision’s not in front of you tonight. I think Craig’s right. He’s got to caution you. You cannot make a
decision before the application is heard, and you’ve made your point that you have concern about the Zoning
Board’s actions. Article 78 is the process a Planning Board member, as well as any other citizen that is
affected by a decision of the Zoning Board, can seek Article 78 procedure. Sixty days has passed since that
permit was issued by the ZBA. So you don’t have that relief available to you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then I will wait to make my judgment until after I’ve heard the applicant.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. ROUND-But we agree. This Planning Board has approved other projects with similar relief in front of
them where it has been more than one parcel of land. You can walk down the street. There’s a project over
here that has more units that were allowed per the Zoning Ordinance, and I agree with you. Any time you
increase the density, you go from one acre to 20,000 square feet, in effect you are, you’re altering the zoning,
and that’s not, as a matter of policy, that’s not a good thing to do, but.
MR. STROUGH-Well, two things. One is a basic question is, where is the threshold? Where is that gray
area? Okay. All right. Two is the Planning Board, and I believe, Cathi, I might use your judgment here, in
my accuracy, does not have to abide by a Zoning Board of Appeals determination.
MS. RADNER-The Zoning Board of Appeals has criteria that they’re required to follow, just as you are, and
when they’re granting, this would fall under an Area Variance, not a Use Variance, they have to do a
weighing. They have to balance what relief is requested, how significant that request for relief is, whether
there’s alternate means of reaching the goal of the applicant without granting the relief. Once they’ve done
that, yes, you’re stuck with it. They’ve done it. They’ve already dealt with those issues. You have your usual
site plan issues. Is this the best use for this site? Is this the best layout? You have to follow the criteria that’s
set forth as the guidelines for your Board, and you can’t deny this application on the grounds that you don’t
agree with the Zoning Board. Chris is right. Your recourse, if you disagree with the decision, and Bob was at
a conference where this was discussed, is as a Planning Board member, you can go and file an Article 78
petition, if you think a decision of another Board is wrong, you’ve got that recourse as a member of this
Board to go and start an Article 78 petition, and the time to do that is done. So they’ve got their variance,
and you need to just accept that as a done deal, and consider your usual Planning Board issues.
MR. STROUGH-We may consider that it’s too dense for the area, as one thing that we consider.
MS. RADNER-No, I don’t think you can. I think that that’s already, they’ve already been told this is an
appropriate density.
MR. STROUGH-Well, because you mentioned density.
MS. RADNER-I don’t think that would be appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Moving right along. The floor is yours.
MR. NACE-Afternoon. Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and John Cifone. To address Craig’s Staff comment,
yes, there is an area where we need to create a drainage easement where we’re adding on to the end of an
existing drain culvert across the road to re-direct that outlet into a lower area, and we will, on the final plan,
provide a drainage easement and run it by Rick, so that he agrees with it before it’s presented for signature.
On the Zoning issue, I would only respond to John is that I would agree with you, John, if the Town, in their
rezoning, didn’t repeatedly take areas that had historically been developed at a much lower density, and
restrict those to a much less density, even though the area is predominantly developed. That has happened
even around me, where most of the lots are half acre lots, and it’s rezoned to one acre, even though there are
only a smattering of lots left. They’ve created that situation in the rezoning where, occasionally to develop in
conformance with what’s already around you, and in this case it’s the other side of the street, to make a
neighborhood complete the way it was originally started does require a zoning variance. That’s my only
response.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I had with the project site itself was the existing slopes that are
there. Is there going to be any cut and fill done?
MR. NACE-Yes. Quite substantial.
MR. HUNSINGER-I figured.
MR. NACE-If you look at the grading plan, there’s quite a substantial amount of cut and fill to make the
front of the lot more usable, and to make it more friendly with the road, more compatible with the road.
There will be a good deal of cut and fill to make the lots usable, given the existing road grade and the height
of the road relative to the lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the concerns that we talked about when we did our site visits was the lack
of finished lawns in the general neighborhood. Will you be bringing in any topsoil so that lawns will take
better in the proposed development?
MR. CIFONE-Yes, we will. In fact, we already started on, we own a few other ones in there, not all of them,
and we’ve already started doing some of them. I don’t know how recently you were there.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was a week ago Saturday, last Saturday we were there.
MR. CIFONE-Last Saturday, well then you probably saw there was at least two that were redone, re-seeded.
I know for sure that two lots have been done in the last three weeks, re-topsoiled and re-seeded, two of the
existing houses, and, yes, we’ll do all the rest of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think that was something that, again, we talked about. I think people probably
would feel strongly about, the appropriate soils be brought in so that you have normal lawns, as opposed to
the sort of, you know, beach grass that’s growing there now.
MR. CIFONE-Yes. When we cut and fill, of course, we’ll take the topsoil off the top, pile it and then re-
spread it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Has there been any investigation for Karner blue butterfly habitat on this site?
MR. NACE-No. However, when we did the adjacent property for the Clute subdivision, if you remember
that, we got the habitat area map from DEC, and it did not show anything on this property.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any further questions right now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking at this drawing for a second. What’s the maintenance plan? Are
these all rental units, essentially, these duplexes?
MR. CIFONE-Yes, they’re all rental properties, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And they don’t have some sort of a homeowners, you don’t have any association? You take
care of that property, is that correct?
MR CIFONE-No, they take care of their own property, the tenants.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you don’t have a maintenance program? That’s maybe why, when I pulled in
there, some things didn’t look quite up to snuff to me. When you first pull in and do a 360 and look around,
it doesn’t look like there’s very much maintenance around those buildings, to be honest with you. I’ll come
out flat and tell you that.
MR. CIFONE-Well, one thing there’s, I think there’s maybe 18 houses up there, all of them except maybe
one are duplexes. So you can double units. We only own eight. So, some are owned individually. Some
people own three.
MR. VOLLARO-So there may be some off site landlords? Is that what you’re telling me, that some people
own those buildings and don’t live there?
MR. CIFONE-I would say the majority of them are that way, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that speaks volumes to me, as to why it looks like it does in some places. I don’t
know, it’s kind of an interesting concept. Tom, you said you were going to do some cutting and filling and
grading. Does that mean you’re going to be getting pretty level with Smoke Ridge?
MR. NACE-Excuse me, we’re going to be what?
MR. VOLLARO-Cutting and filling in here, that some of this would be pretty level with Smoke Ridge Road,
these new lots?
MR. NACE-That’s correct. If you look at the grading, I’ve kept it so the driveway grades are reasonable and
so that you have some front lawn to work with.
MR. VOLLARO-Because right now some of them are way down.
MR. NACE-Some of them drop way down off the road real quick.
MR. VOLLARO-That has a problem with water in the building and drainage problems and all of that stuff. I
just wanted to ask Staff a question for a minute. Craig, up front there, where it says the variance from Zoning
Board of Appeals for duplexes of lots of less than two acres?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that was Area Variance 74-2001. Isn’t the variance that we’re dealing with here really
Area Variance 98-2001?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Should that be changed?
MR. BROWN-It should say, that description should say duplexes on lots less than two acres instead of one
acre.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It does say two acres, less than two acres. It says that now, but that’s on the Area
Variance 74-2001. There’s a variance which followed that which is 98-2001.
MR. BROWN-What exactly are you reading from?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading from Staff notes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Where it says Parcel History, or in the beginning?
MR. VOLLARO-Right up front, the total project to comply with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that should be a difference reference. That should be 98.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. That should be 98-2001, correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have anything much to say about this. I guess one of the
things, Tom, is there any perc data been submitted for these fields?
MR. NACE-No. You’ll see in the notes, because the soils are very similar to the soils over in Smoke Ridge,
and most of those were less than one minute soils, and plus the fact that there’s a good bit of grading going
on here, in the area of the septic systems, we’ve stipulated that perc tests be taken in the specific location,
once the grading’s done, and if the perc’s under a minute, then the replacement soil systems be used.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to use infiltrators here, is that what your plan is?
MR. NACE-It can be either infiltrators or regular pipe and stone.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything to say on this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Not too much. No landscaping plan has been presented. Is it typical that one would be
presented with this type of an application?
MR. BROWN-Typically a landscape plan is not required in a subdivision until you get up to either 20 or 25
lots.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have nothing further than what has already been said. So, I’m all done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything 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
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-I’m just, if I’m not mistaken, I don’t know if it’s artifact of the scheme that you have there,
but is it the case that there is quite a bit of undeveloped property in the area there?
MR. BROWN-When you say undeveloped, you mean without houses?
DR. HOFFMAN-Well, I see a lot of areas that have no houses. So, conceivably, there’s plenty of more
development that could occur in that region.
MR. BROWN-The plane data, the building locations on here, are taken from 1990 information. So the
information that you see is data. Actually all these lots in here, and these lots as well all have duplexes or
buildings on them currently. Is that correct? So the surrounding properties could be more developed than
what you see on the screen.
DR. HOFFMAN-I guess my concern, relating to that comment about, well, the area’s already developed, and
we’re just going to be like everything else that’s already there.
MR. BROWN-Within the subdivision.
DR. HOFFMAN-Yes. I mean, it looks like there’s a lot of areas immediately adjacent to that which are not
developed, and I guess the question always comes up, well, okay, so now we’re going to put in a higher
density over here, but what about the people living on the next site? Now they’re going to come in and say,
well, across the street from us, there’s higher density. So you get this cascade of everybody saying, okay, well,
we’ve already got pre-existing stuff. At some point, somebody’s got to say, you know, the buck’s got to stop
here, and the zoning that was appropriate 10 or 20 or 30 years ago may not be appropriate anymore. As far
as the issue as to whether that’s appropriate for this Board to consider, I don’t have the zoning code in front
of me. I would just suggest that it may not be something, zoning per se, may not be something that’s
appropriate for you to consider, but if this is a site plan review, then there may be aspects of the site plan
review that relate to what should or should not be, what would or would not be appropriate for this site, in
terms of the number of houses. For example, is there adequate recreational facilities available in this area. Is
there, is any of this property being left as open space, or is the entire property going to be developed?
MR. BROWN-This triangle on the other side of the Niagara Mohawk line is not being developed at this time.
DR. HOFFMAN-At this time or forever?
MR. BROWN-That’s a question that the Board should ask.
DR. HOFFMAN-I mean, that may be something you may want to stipulate. Maybe you want to condition
the approval on some land being set aside for open space. I mean, there are ways to deal with this issue of
the number of units in that area without necessarily stepping on the toes of the Zoning Board. I’d just leave
that to your consideration. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ROUND-I just want to comment. The area, so everybody knows, and for Dr. Hoffman’s, the area just
to the east of the property has been approved as a residential subdivision with 20 to 30,000 square foot lots.
The zoning on the north side of Sherman Avenue has been changed from one acre to 20,000 square foot lots
as well. So the densities aren’t in consistent, but I agree with Dr. Hoffman. I’m not defending or advocating
any of that. I just wanted to put the facts on the table, but the problem can occur, though, is that you see
that, well, next door, the leapfrog effect, and that’s often the justification for decisions. Well, we already
made that mistake somewhere else. So it’s okay to make the same mistake again somewhere, but the densities
are there today, and I think, also, that, I was aware of the subdivision, when it was originally done I think it
was always conceived as a duplex subdivision with these lot sizes or smaller lot sizes that are proposed. So
it’s consistent with what has been envisioned for this particular property, for better or for worse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. We have a short form attached.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, I really didn’t get a chance to say anything before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When we were there, I didn’t want to say anything. I was a little confused at first
because the other houses weren’t built, aren’t put in the maps that Craig is showing. So I was a little thrown
off when I saw that, and I was like, I couldn’t find my orientation, but I haven’t been, had never been in
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
there, and, granted it might not be, have the number of lots that a regular subdivision has, where we can put
some landscaping restrictions on, but I’ll tell you, something really should be done as far as making the place,
it just looked like it was all gravel and dirt and, you know, no real driveways, and I have no problem. I think
the duplexes are on an ample amount of property. There’s enough property there, as far as everybody having
some space, but I just said, wow. This, you know, for what we do to all these other subdivisions, and for
what we ask, I thought, we’ve got to ask for something here, but you said you were going to bring in some fill
and some topsoil and start putting some grass in.
MR. CIFONE-First of all, I’ll tell you that, I don’t know if you really still understand, we don’t own all the
houses in there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you don’t.
MR. CIFONE-So, if you’re picking on the houses.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m not, I wasn’t picking on the houses. I was picking on the property.
MR. CIFONE-And I agree with you. When you come in the street, the first road, I mean, the first two on
your left, or three on your left, I should say, excuse me, which aren’t owned by us, I wished, I mean, there’s a
pipe sticking out of the roof. There’s, but I have no control over it. We’re trying ours, and we don’t own the
first one on the right. So we just own two on Sherman Avenue, and we own six, the last six in on the right,
and we’ve been dressing ours up one at a time. Like I said, we just got two done, and are continuing with
them, but the other ones, we don’t have any control over.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So when this subdivision was, the offerings in this subdivision, or whoever came
before originally with this idea, and this plan and this subdivision, and obviously there weren’t any restrictions
put in, you know, any.
MR. CIFONE-I would say no. We bought it from the original developers, and there were quite a few houses
done when we bought it, and we just finished out what they hadn’t, and so I don’t really know what the
original was.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. STROUGH-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Cathy, you’re finished?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-What are your plans for that southern triangular piece of property on the south side of
NiMo right of way?
MR. CIFONE-Well, it’s kind of land locked, as you can see. That’s a power line going through the middle of
it, and I think it might be of some use as green space to the development behind us.
MR. STROUGH-So would you be willing, then, to leave that as a green space?
MR. CIFONE-We have a contract to sell to them for green space.
MR. STROUGH-To sell to?
MR. CIFONE-Clute.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So Larry owns the other houses there?
MR. CIFONE-No, no. He owns, you see the yellow triangle, down, that’s his. That’s Clute’s, I believe.
MR. BROWN-The density calculation for this subdivision is, since this land was considered when all the
density was originally calculated for the subdivision, if this land was included in that, this land may already be
spoken for, density wise. So if it’s made part of an approval for this subdivision, it’s going to have to stay
with this subdivision. The land area back here was used in the density calculations here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, could we condition it to say that that remains wild, unless that condition runs contrary
to prior conditions?
MR. BROWN-I think so.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. NACE-The subdivision that was done, and subdivision that we’re now looking for site plan approval for
the individual lots, only goes to the power line, okay. I think what you’re looking at there in yellow, south of
the power line, was maybe part of an original parcel that these lots were divided out of.
MR. BROWN-But this has always been under the same ownership. So when that subdivision was done, this
parcel in back here was part of it.
MR. NACE-And which subdivision?
MR. BROWN-This subdivision up here, this five lot subdivision.
MR. NACE-Okay, but this five lot subdivision.
MR. BROWN-Wasn’t a separate parcel to start with. Right? It was always part of the same.
MR. NACE-Well, you could look, but I don’t think that the, that this subdivision was married to the piece on
the south of the power lines having to remain undeveloped.
MR. BROWN-It probably should have been, if it wasn’t, and I mean, it’s.
MR. NACE-Then there would have been no reason for a zoning variance.
MR. BROWN-Because the lots are less than.
MR. NACE-Well, okay, the individual lots. I don’t know. Okay. I’ll have to look in the files.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s my recollection anyway, just because of the number.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting confused now. Is that triangle piece part of the application we’re reviewing
tonight?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. BROWN-It’s part of the parent property, not a part of the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Cifone, do you own that?
MR. CIFONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-It’s not a part of this site plan, though.
MR. SANFORD-Craig, can we get a more current map? I mean, are we constrained with this, which
apparently is not up to date at all. I mean, is this the best we have?
MR. BROWN-The property lines on here are based on the tax maps, which aren’t surveys. They’re accurate.
The ownership information on these parcels is accurate. The coverages or where the buildings are and how
many there are and if the properties have buildings on them, that’s dated information, but definitely all the
ownership information that we have and the approximate size and location are accurate.
MR. SANFORD-It’s dated. Is there more up to date?
MR. BROWN-Some place there is, not at our disposal, though.
MR. STROUGH-So we don’t know whether we can condition this or not, other than to condition it as long
as it doesn’t upset any other prior conditions.
MR. NACE-Correct. If there were any conditions that could apply, it would have been done at subdivision
stage.
MR. STROUGH-But the applicant’s willing to go along with a condition that it be forever wild, as long as it
doesn’t upset any prior conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-No, he didn’t say that, John.
MR. STROUGH-He didn’t say that.
MR. VOLLARO-He wants to sell that piece, John, and he would have a covenant, he could hardly get rid of
it with a covenant that said he’s going to keep it forever wild.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, then that’s a no can do, but I want to clarify, Mr. Cifone, that my
disagreement is nothing personal. Nothing to do with you. Nothing to do with your application. It has
something to do with the process, and I think that needs a little bit better defining, but, again, it doesn’t have
anything to do with you.
MR. CIFONE-Well, what it is, is I sit here and I probably look frustrated. It’s the point that we started
months ago, and then we’re up to our final phase of drainage and whatever, and all of a sudden. So, you
know, it’s like, well, let’s just throw up our hands and.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got an issue. We’ve got to work on it, and it’s nothing to do with you.
MR. CIFONE-All right. I understand that. As long as you understand our side, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the density of that subdivision that Clute’s got to the south?
MR. BROWN-I believe it’s SFR-20.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one we approved last year, right?
MR. METIVIER-Craig, did we approve that one with the condition, with that parcel? I almost remember, he
had to put a fence up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think he did toward the east, there was Karner blue habitat.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. Who was that?
MR. NACE-That was Clute, but it wasn’t, this parcel wasn’t part of it, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. What I’m thinking here is, you’ve got a contract, obviously, to sell it to Clute, and
he’s going to want to come back and modify his subdivision to include more housing in there. That’s what I
see happening.
MR. NACE-I think, as you’re aware, he had, at one time, I don’t know if he still does or not, have options on
various parcels, you know, adjacent to what we got subdivision approval for last year, and we, if you’ll
remember with that subdivision, we left avenues for expansion to the west and south, okay. Whether they
occur or not, Lord only knows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do our SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, 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
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
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 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Has someone got a motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I can make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2002 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 23-2002 Applicant: Cifone Construction
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Cobe, Inc.
Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
Zone: SR-1A
Location: Smoke Ridge Road
Applicant proposes construction of duplex units on a vacant 5 lot subdivision. Duplexes in SR zones require
Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: SB 11-2001, SB 7-85M, AV 74-2001, AV 98-
2001
Tax Map No. 121-10-999
Lot size: 6.19 acres
Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 16, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/10/02:
5/16 Staff Notes
5/9 Notice of Public Hearing (sent 5/8)
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May l6, 2002; 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
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
1. The Stormwater outlet pipe onto Lot 20 must obtain an easement and approval on the plat,
signed by the Highway Superintendent, and
2. 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 5/16/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002 by the following vote:
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to abstain, because I’m a little confused.
MR. STROUGH-And I’m saying no just because of the process, but it’s going to pass, but I’m sending a
message.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-2002 SEQRA NEG. DEC. – 4/11/02 HOME DEPOT PROPERTY
OWNER: GERTRUDE STONE, NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC, ALEXANDER
POTENZA AND FRANK BORK AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC-INT
LOCATION: SOUTH EAST SIDE OF MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 85,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 116,000 SQ. FT. HOME DEPOT HOME IMPROVEMENT
STORE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ALL COMMERCIAL USES IN HC-INT
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
PZ 1-2002 TB PH FOR REZONING, 5/6/02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP
NO. 72-7-2, 3, 4 LOT SIZE: 5.32 AC., 25.22 AC., 4.13 AC. SECTION: 179-22, 179-20
JON LAPPER, DAVE CARR, AND JIM HAGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there was a public hearing back on March 26 that has been tabled, and we had a
th
Special Planning Board meeting on April 11, and the public hearing there was tabled, too.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2002, Home Depot, Meeting Date: May 16, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes demolition of approximately 85,000 sq. ft. of existing commercial space and construction
of an 116,000 sq. ft. Home Depot home improvement store and associated site improvements. All
commercial uses in HC-INT zones require Planning Board review and approval.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Article 9 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
For the purposes of this review the Zoning Administrator has determined the April 1, 2002 zoning
regulations will apply. The project is an allowed use in the HC-Int.: Highway Commercial Intensive
zone. No variances are required. Several design elements, including parking and landscaping require
review and comment by the Board (see below).
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?
The Planning Board found in the SEQRA review there would be no negative impact on public
services/utilities.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
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?
The traffic impact analysis presented the conclusion that there would be no detrimental impacts to
the traffic network. This was validated by NYSDOT and the Town’s Engineer. The proposed site
modifications will provide potential improvements to on site vehicle movements.
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?
The Planning Board found in its SEQRA determination – no detrimental impacts would result from
the proposed project.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The building, lighting and site signs are consistent with the Town’s design standards. The Planning
Board has already commented on building architecture. Lighting is addressed below. The main
entrance sign is excessive in size and antiquated in style.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis that reports no significant impacts to affected
intersections. This has been validated by NYSDOT as well as CT Male Associates. The project
includes closure of the southernmost Route 9 access, conversion of the central drive to Right
In/Right Out only and geometry and grade improvements to the main/signalized driveway.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Off street parking is more than adequate as are loading areas. We have noted previously that the
project includes parking in excess of what is required under 179-4–040. A reduction in parking may
be achieved on the site, specifically along Quaker Road. Additionally there are several parking areas
that may be problematic to on site circulation.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The Plans do not identify pedestrian connection between buildings nor do they identify pedestrian
crossings for Route 9. Additional consideration to these facilities is appropriate.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
C.T. Male Associates has provided technical review of stormwater drainage facilities.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Adequate municipal facilities are available. The Town’s Wastewater Department has corresponded
with the applicant.
7. 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.
The proposal includes improvements to the existing landscape conditions. Additional landscaping
should be considered along Quaker and Route 9 as well as internally. We have requested additional
parking lot screening along Route 9 consistent with 179-8-040.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
The Director of Building & Codes as well as the Fire Marshal has communicated concerns regarding
the required 50 foot clear access zone along the north side of the structure. The staging area for
lumber loading may need to be reduced/relocated to address this requirement. Adequate hydrants
are available.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
There are no concerns regarding these facilities.
10. Conformance with the design guidelines, landscaping standards and performance standards.
The Planning Board has commented on Building Architecture conformance with Route 9 Design
Guidelines (179-7-050). We noted additional landscaping (hedge or berm) may be required along
areas of Route 9 as well as Quaker Road to provide for the minimum screening requirements of 179-
8-040. Lighting is consistent with the design standard with several minor exceptions that have been
communicated to the applicant as noted on the memorandum from Marilyn Ryba (dated 5/8/02).
They include minor off-site light spill, wall mounted fixtures-cutoffs required, and potential off-hour
timing/shut down.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
The project site most recently obtained a rezoning (PZ 1-2002) from the Town Board May 6, 2002. There is
a long history related to commercial uses on the site.
Staff comments:
We recommend the Planning Board consider the comments noted previously. They include - additional
perimeter landscaping, reduction of parking, elimination of parking slots that conflict with on site circulation,
additional pedestrian amenities, and minor changes to site lighting.
SEQR Status:
The Planning Board issued a SEQRA determination of Non-Significance (Negative Declaration) April 11,
2002.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. ROUND-I know the Planning Board was focused, last meeting, on stormwater and addressing
stormwater on the existing site that’s not being significantly altered, but they are paving, and they have
submitted plans to do that, and I’ll let the applicant make their presentation.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr, and we’ve got a cast of many
behind us, to answer any detailed questions that may come up. As Chris said, since we were here last, we’ve
submitted more detailed design plans. We’re not here to ask for final site plan approval tonight, but we’re
here to advance the site plan, in anticipation that we may be ready, in June, for final site plan approval. The
Home Depot would like to get in the ground as soon as possible. Since we were here last, when the Planning
Board issued the negative declaration, we’ve been to the Town Board, and the Town Board granted the
rezoning. It was an important component of the project. The Planning Staff has made some additional
recommendations, such as increasing the buffer, 10 feet along Route 9, in front of the existing parking lot,
adding a hedge berm that would soften the site, as we’ve agreed to most of the requests of the Town, and the
significant issue that we talked about last time, dealing with the stormwater, the LA Group has proposed a
vortex swirl chamber that I think we did talk about that briefly at the SEQRA level, and that’s now on the
plans. So, we’re here to just respond to the issues that have been raised, and the LA Group has responded to
C.T. Male with a detailed submission, and we’re hopeful by the next meeting, C.T. Male will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we haven’t heard back from them yet, at this point.
MR. LAPPER-Do you want to go through the changes that we’ve submitted or just listen to questions?
Whatever the Board would like us to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you just want to do an overview of where we’ve come from the last time we visited,
and where we are in our process here.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. CARR-You’ve seen the plan many times. So I think what is I’ll just highlight the changes that we’ve
made, and they really relate to the C.T. Male letter and the Staff notes, and this is the original plan, but I’ll just
highlight on here what we’ve done, some of what Jon has already mentioned. One of the comments was
increasing the buffer along Route 9. So what we’ve done is we’ve moved the pavement 10 feet back, and
we’ve introduced additional street trees and a hedge in front of the parking lot in this area, this area, and this
area, wherever there is parking along Route 9, and the hedge we’re introducing is Japanese Barbary. I don’t
know if you’re familiar with it. It’s a deciduous shrub. The reason why I chose that is because it is very
tough and requires very little maintenance. It can handle heat, direct sunlight. It can handle salt, and it’s
thorny, and I’m proposing it to go in a 24 inch height, and it’ll get up to about four feet or so, and it’ll
become very dense, and once it matures, nobody will walk through it. If you do walk through it, you’ll know
it because you’ll have scars for weeks. So basically, it’ll prevent people from crossing through the parking lot.
It’s a great buffer, and it’ll last a long time because it doesn’t require any maintenance. That’s one of the
changes, and, by doing that, we’ve reduced the parking by 12 spots, and I know parking is an issue, and if
anyone has any questions specifically about parking, with respect to the existing center, there are some folks
here from the existing center to answer those questions. The next item was pedestrian access, and Jon and I
spoke about this, because I know he had spoken to Chris on this issue, and I did not indicate on the plans any
improvements, and I think what I want to do is discuss it with the Board. The area that makes the most
sense to me, if it makes sense at all, would be to bring a walk from the Travelers area, at grade, out to Route 9
in this location. We have the area to do that. We could put a crosswalk here. We could put a crosswalk here,
or we could bring a sidewalk right out to Route 9. In my opinion it seemed to be that this area where the
offices are seems to be the most likely that somebody would want to get up and walk somewhere. Normally
people that drive to Home Depot drive to Home Depot, get their lumber, get their nuts and bolts, get back in
their car and leave. Also this, there are some grade issues in this area. So this becomes much easier. The
reason why I didn’t put it on the plan, and obviously it’s quite simple to do, is I wasn’t sure where the Board
was going with this. There isn’t great pedestrian access on Route 9. Shelly Johnston from Creighton
Manning spoke with Mark Kennedy as late as yesterday on this issue, and he basically said, you know, we
have no thoughts on pedestrian access on Route 9, but if the Town wants to do something there, we’re
amenable to it. So they’re kind of lukewarm on it. So I guess what I’m saying is that if the Town desires us
to add something to this plan, we will do it. I have not done that at this point, but obviously we can add that.
Lighting was another issue. There are revised lighting plans in the set that we sent to Jim Edwards at C.T.
Male, and obviously whatever revisions come out of this evening, we’ll add it to the set and we’ll submit 15
additional sets for the final approval, but basically what we’ve done is we’ve taken all the lights on the
perimeter of the property, and put house shields on those. So there will be absolutely no migration onto
Montray Road, and the migration onto Route 9 would be limited just to this area, and it would be half a foot
candle, and it would come just to the edge of the pavement. It wouldn’t spill on the road at all. So by adding
those shields to just the lights on the perimeter, that reduces that migration. The comments that we have
received about the lighting basically states that we have met the Town’s requirements for lighting, the 4 to 1
ratio, the 20 foot mounting height. I did send some additional information to Marilyn yesterday. She
probably hasn’t had a chance to look at it, but that’s where we are in lighting. As far as, the concrete pad
issue, and maybe Roger Hershorn from Home Depot can speak to this. There’s a little concern about this
concrete lumber pad and access, and it’s my understanding that nothing is actually stored on that concrete
pad.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who had that concern?
MR. LAPPER-The Town raised that.
MR. ROUND-We have that, as a Code issue, you need.
MR. MAC EWAN-We addressed that last month in conversation, I know, because the question was raised by
John, and we knew that that was just nothing more than unloading for tractor trailers and nothing was going
to be stored there.
MR. CARR-It’s just a material change, is what it is.
MR. ROUND-Just so you know, we have building permit plans in-house, and we’re doing a concurrent
review with this, to facilitate this project, and that’s been a concern, and you folks are comfortable with it, but
our technical staff had some issues with it, and we’re looking to gain a greater comfort level, and I think that’s
what Dave is referring to.
MR. CARR-Right, and once again, I mean, I can revise the plan to cut down that concrete, if it adds that
comfort level. The only reason why it is concrete is more of a lifecycle issue. Home Depot has found that in
their loading area, in the areas where trucks will sit for a period of time, concrete lasts longer. It’s a lifecycle
issue, as far as replacing asphalt or concrete, and that’s why they do it. If they want us to angle this back a
little bit, I don’t feel that would be a problem. What they’re talking about is maybe cutting this corner off.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think our Board has an issue with that. I mean, if that’s something you have to
work out with Code Enforcement and Building, work it out with them.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. CARR-That’s fine. I think Jon mentioned the swirl chamber, and we have talked about that. As far as
the C.T. Male letter, it was based, generally technical in nature, and we have sent Jim and revised set of plans
with a letter explaining what we’ve done. My hope is maybe we can get with him, on the phone next week or
so, and just talk through all those issues, and get him to a comfort level and make all those revisions into our
next submittal. So I’m not sure we need to go into those in detail, unless you desire.
MR. VOLLARO-Dave, are you supplying him with one to twenty that he asked for? He asked for a 20 scale,
I think.
MR. CARR-On just the intersection.
MR. VOLLARO-On the intersection.
MR. CARR-We can do that. Our answer on that issue is that, again, speaking with Creighton Manning, they
are putting together the application to DOT, and DOT normally doesn’t like to review those details until final
approval has been granted. So, we can, now, give him that, it basically is just changing the scale. So that’s not
difficult to do.
MR. VOLLARO-I think 1 to 60 is pretty hard to determine what’s happening.
MR. CARR-It is, and the reason why, our original submission was at 1 to 40, and the reason why we went to
1 to 60 was that C.T. Male wanted everything on one plan. It was actually very difficult for us to go to 1 to
60. As you can see, a lot of the type is fairly small, and it wasn’t what we desired, but in the first submittal, it
was what they desired, so that’s why we went, that’s why we have that enlarged basin plan, so we could also
do the enlarged intersection plan. That’s not a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s that L-4?
MR. CARR-Right. Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the only other significant issue that I’m aware of is the discussion about parking and
whether or not the site has adequate parking or too much parking, and Bill Dutch, the owner of the plaza, can
talk about that, but we’ve mentioned that briefly in the past, that they feel, because of the location of where
their tenants are, some of their office tenants in the back, that it’s important to have access to all of the areas
where their tenants access the office buildings, and C.T. Male actually came out and said that they thought
that, based upon the shared usage of the site, that what was proposed was adequate. So it’s really a question
of how the Planning Staff and the Board wants us to address that, but the applicants would like to provide
the parking that’s proposed on the plan, and certainly by doing what Dave described with the hedge, it’s
going to soften the look. When you look from Route 9, you’re not going to see the field of parking, even
though that’s something that’s been existing.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to ask one question on that. Some of that right up along where that hedge is
going to be placed, there are parking spaces there.
MR. LAPPER-They’re going to be moved back.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to be moved. It’s going to be moved 10 foot. Okay. Because those are
some of the, some of the parking spaces that I’ve outlined, myself, on C-9. I tried to take a look at the utility
of some of those spaces, and just how they would affect the rest of the, I’ve got mine on the floor here
because I can’t get these sized drawing up on this table. Just let me start off with the parking by Monroe
Muffler. Let’s take a look at that.
MR. LAPPER-I guess in terms of that, Bob, we mentioned last time that we’re hopeful, although there’s no
existing plan, to replace the Monroe Muffler with a restaurant.
MR. VOLLARO-With the restaurant, but that’s a whole other, that’s downstream some place. That’s another
site plan review. Right now when I come into that, I usually use that Quaker Road entrance that’s going to
remain, and when I go past Monroe Muffler there’s maybe five cars there. All the time, an average of five,
and there’s a ton of parking spaces there. So that would be a candidate, in my mind, for asking for those to
be removed out of the total package. I don’t know whether I’m starting this off on my own, or, Craig, did
you want to run this and let somebody else?
MR. MAC EWAN-I was starting with you anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-You were? Great.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just don’t know if you’re out by yourself on this one or not.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I might be. These are my notes and what I did today, and I’ll just go through them. Right
now you’ve got 1546 spaces provided, against the required 1534. It’s pretty close.
MR. CARR-We’re actually down to 1534.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re down to the required number, then? Now, to your credit, you chose to use 105,350
square feet net. I guess I was confused. I was looking for gross leasable area here, and I didn’t understand
how you got to this 105,350, even though it would have aided you to go to the total amount of 115 or
116,000 gross, but you used 105,350 net. What’s net mean? I guess I know what net means, but how are you
using it in this?
MR. HAGAN-My name is Jim Hagan. I’m the architect working with the owners of the center, Northway
Plaza, and you raised several questions. Let me try and take them one at a time. In looking at the building
areas, what we tried to deal with was a net usable area, which is, I believe, what’s allowed under the
Ordinance, and what that does is takes out exterior wall thicknesses, mechanical areas and what have you, and
that’s why we’re trying to do, trying to keep the numbers down to what’s a reasonable area and maximize the
amount of green space we could keep on site. We, in preparing this, have used the 4.5 per thousand, which is
what the Ordinance is proposed to be, but what we’ve also had to factor in is the lease requirements of the
Travelers space, which are six per thousand, and while it’s true that down in the area of Monroe Muffler it
appears we’ve got excess parking and clearly it’s underutilized right now, when you look at the overall
distribution and the proximity to the Travelers lease premises, that space could be used by the Travelers
employees.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not used by them now.
MR. HAGAN-I understand that, but what you’ve got to understand is that under the lease, Travelers has
options.
MR. VOLLARO-For additional space.
MR. HAGAN-For additional space.
MR. LAPPER-On existing vacant space.
MR. HAGAN-Right.
MR. CARR-If I could jump in. I think what’s going to happen is if you look at the site today, a lot of the
areas that the existing Travelers Insurance people are using are going to be taken by where the Post Office is
located and where the Home Depot is located, and I think that’s where that distribution is going to go,
because they have to go there.
MR. HAGAN-I could add one other thing. We have a diagram here in front of us, where we kind of
highlighted, okay, I don’t know if you had that in front of you, the parking diagram. Yes, okay, fine. I’d be
glad to go through a more detailed, some of the intricacies, but I really don’t want to take up your time if
you’re comfortable with what we’re doing here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get your questions answered?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got some more, unfortunately.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, as far as the parking? I mean, I know I’m comfortable with what they have
and where we’re going with it. How does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking at, you know, taking a look at the labor building. Taking a looking at
Travelers, taking a look at the peak usage of the Home Depot on Saturday, for example, and yet those other
facilities won’t be used at that time. So there’s mixed uses here where I see we could have some excess
parking because of that mixed use, particularly on the peak times during the Saturday. That’s just, you know,
something that, in looking at this, some people will be there on Saturdays and some people won’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the reality is, and the glitch to this whole thought process, Bob, is they have a lease
agreement with Travelers to supply X number of parking spaces, and short of that violates their lease
agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s six spaces per thousand. One other question. Is there a covenant between the
owners and the users concerning the maintenance of the parking facilities? For example, there’s
approximately 25 catch basins on this.
MR. HAGAN-I think I’d have to talk to Mr. Dutch. In the lease agreements that you have, Home Depot,
there are maintenance stipulations called out, correct?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. DUTCH-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-And you’ll be responsible, somewhat, Home Depot will be responsible for other portions of
it. Correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-If he’s going to respond, it’s going to be on the mic.
MR. HAGAN-Yes, okay. The reason I’m asking, he’s part of the lease. I’m not really knowledgeable in that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why you’ve got that platoon you have.
BILL DUTCH
MR. DUTCH-I’m Bill Dutch with Northway Plaza Associates, and the response to your question is, yes,
there are maintenance agreements between all the tenants and the owner of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess some of my questions now don’t go necessarily to parking, but what are your plans
for moving the Post Office? Are you going to be able to, are you going to have to demolish the existing Post
Office or build the facility for them first and then demolish it? How are you going to form that transition?
MR. HAGAN- Right now, we have two scenarios. One would be to take the Post Office from their current
location and relocate them on a temporary basis to a vacant space we have at the southern end of the center,
which would allow us time, and that would be down where the Convenient Medical office was, next to
Monroe Muffler, that’s currently vacant, and the Post Office has agreed to move there on a temporary basis.
That would allow us time to then build out the permanent space, and they would move in. We’re also
looking at the option, if we can sequence it correctly, so that we do not delay Home Depot, of starting their
construction prior to that, and allow us to just make one move from their existing facility to the new, and we
have two or three other tenants who are in a similar situation we’re trying to accommodate within the center.
MR. VOLLARO-That second scenario seems to make more sense to me. It’s nothing I have any control
over, but it would eliminate a double move.
MR. HAGAN-We agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s just a matter of timing and dollars and cents is what
it’s going to come down to.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I wanted to ask, I guess this question would be more directed to Kevin Hastings
than to anybody else. Looking at the CDS units working on a vortex basis, I did a little study on them since
you presented that, Kevin, and I’m just wondering whether or not there would be any benefits. You allude to
some of the benefits of perhaps using several smaller units, as opposed to one large, and that appealed to me
because it probably catches a lot more of the contaminants than just one big vortex unit would.
KEVIN HASTINGS
MR. HASTINGS-Yes. Kevin Hastings for the LA Group. That was an idea that we had considered but
we’re still focusing on the single installation as a primary treatment unit. Either way, the cost of the
installation is probably equal, whether we have three units, three smaller ones or one larger one.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, obviously you’re satisfied that the larger one will do the job in catching X amount of
contaminants off that site.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only question I had on that. Dave, I think you covered something to do
with pedestrian connection between buildings. Did you mention that just a little bit before?
MR. CARR-I actually didn’t discuss between buildings. I was discussing pedestrian access between Travelers
and to Route 9. As far as between buildings go, the logical location would be somewhere between the Post
Office and the Home Depot. We do have a great issue in the lower corner. There is a retaining wall there,
but we could come out and cross, where you see on your C-9 where the number 130 is, we could do a
crossing right there at that intersection. If pedestrians wanted to move from the Home Depot into the Post
Office area, we could probably take a walk down that green island, you know, to the Home Depot, if that’s
what you’re looking at. That would be a logical connection in my mind between the Home Depot and the
Post Office. I guess what I was questioning, in my earlier comments, was the logic of the possession access
to Route 9. Internally, I would say that would make some sense, between Post Office and the Home Depot.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what the, what is the concept between having a pedestrian walkway up to
Route 9, since that’s a primarily a vehicular traveled road.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. ROUND-I would just refresh your memory, the article last year when we got a lot of press about our
ability to cross Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. ROUND-That, and Travelers is a large employer. A lot of people cross Route 9 to go to the restaurants
that are across, for what they are, the fast food establishments across the way. I think on site, Mr. Carr’s
correct. We see the potential for people, you do your shopping, you’re going to pop in to the Post Office.
So it is necessary. It is a tough site. There’s a lot of grade changes through there, and there’s a lot of
structures that are going to impede free movement across the site. It’s good and bad. You don’t want people
moving, you know, through some of your transportation areas, but people do cross Route 9. I guess I’ve got
to defer to Dave. Dave’s talking to Mark Kennedy who’s a design engineer, and one of their things is to
accommodate pedestrians, and Route 9’s really not a pedestrian friendly area, but we had talked to him
initially to do it at the intersection where the light is, where you’ve got a controlled signal point, but you’re
probably not going to get people walking up to that location to cross and come back down. People are
looking for bee-line. Generally they’re looking for a straight line kind of things.
MR. CARR-Right, yes, and that’s why I think if you do it, and like I said, we have no problem doing it, but I
think it makes more sense at that existing Travelers corner, grade wise. It is the quickest way to Route 9, and
if, you know, I know everyone’s saying it’s down the road, but if the Monroe Muffler becomes a restaurant in
that area, it probably even makes more sense to have it down in that location. I mean, obviously, that may
happen or it may not, but, again, if you’re introducing a restaurant there, I think, you know, if I’m working at
Travelers Insurance, I would probably much rather have a restaurant where Monroe is than a muffler shop,
because, you know, it just makes more sense for an office worker.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to be getting comments letter on C.T. Male’s letter of April 9. Is that, or has
that already been done, or is that still coming?
MR. LAPPER-C.T. Male has it, and we’re waiting for their response.
MR. CARR-Right. Actually, they got it today. So we didn’t really expect a response for this evening’s
meeting.
MR. ROUND-Yes. For your benefit, I did talk to Jim Edwards at the end of the evening, and he said that
most things have been addressed, with one exception, I think that’s something that the engineers have
disagreed on, is that, to the extent that it’s necessary for some construction level of detail for the thousand
foot of retaining wall that’s on site, because it is a constructability issue, and I think the LA Group deferred
that, they’d prefer to have the contractor design it a design build type of scenario at the time of construction,
our engineer is a little uncomfortable that that’s a pretty significant structure, as far as the site plan goes, but I
think that’s something they can resolve between now and the next meeting.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not suggesting that C.T. Male doesn’t get a chance to look at it. We’re just saying that
we don’t know, that there’s a number of choices that could all be good choices. So we would just like it as a
condition of final approval that that design be reviewed by C.T. Male after site plan approval. It’s just really
construction detail, you know, for site plan where it’s going to be, and we just can’t specify at this point.
MR. CARR-And I think, the idea was more borne by Home Depot’s construction division than it was by us.
Their thinking is, I mean, we have pretty specific specifications on how that wall is to be constructed, but
their thought is, is that maybe putting this out to bid to five or six contractors, maybe there’s a better way,
and maybe, because, I mean, this wall, thousand feet, it’s about 34,000 face feet, and I’m just kind of guessing,
but it’s probably, it’s a fairly educated guess. I’m figuring the wall is probably going to cost in the range of
$1.2 to $1.5 million, just for the walls. So I think Home Depot’s feeling is, you know, we know, you know,
there’s are way, but maybe there’s a better way, and I think that’s their thinking on doing it as a design build,
and I think what Jon was saying, and what it states in the specifications is that the wall design would have to
be approved by us. We’ve retained Ryan & Biggs, who’s a noted structural engineer in the area, to review the
design, and we could also add to the specifications that it would have to be approved by C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-It sounds like a logical thing to do to me, to get a design on paper that can be critiqued.
That’s what you’re really saying.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going through the notes I’ve put up today. The DOT’s letter of March 21, Item
st
Three, where they talked about that protected left turn on Route 9 not being required. Is that, are we
agreeing with that, that you folks have decided that you’re going to go with that?
KEN WERSTED
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. WERSTED-Ken Wersted from Creighton Manning Engineering. I’m standing in for Shelly Johnston.
Yes. They commented on that, and they basically said that the operations of that signal are adequate. The
level of service there is going to be actually improved, you know, with this project, and I don’t think they had
any big concerns with traffic not being able to get in or out of the site.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to go along with their recommendation not to have that as a, I guess really
what they’re talking about is protected left turn means an arrow, that’s what they’re saying.
MR. WERSTED-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there will not be a protected left turn at that intersection?
MR. WERSTED-Not at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That takes care of that question. On lighting, I guess I’m jumping around, but this is
how my notes popped out today. So just taking a page out of John Strough’s book here. On the lighting, are
we going to have sequence, in other words, when Travelers shuts down, will the lighting in that vicinity be
subdued, reduced?
MR. HAGAN-Jim Hagan again. Quite frankly, this is not an issue we’ve discussed, but normally on most
commercial properties, you’d put the lighting on and keep it on for safety and security reasons. I believe
Travelers does run different shifts at times, and I would hate to get into a system where you’ve got things
being shut off and creating dark areas to create more problems than what you’re going to save. I think the
combination of going to the relatively low mounting heights and the shielding that’s been described should
pretty well control the lighting, keep it on site.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the answer is there won’t be any real time periods controlling lighting, in lieu of
you’ve got lower posts and shields on lights to get the thing to go down.
MR. HAGAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Cutoff fixtures and so on. Looks like I’m coming close to the end. The sign at the main
entrance, have you got something planned for that, a replacement for the sign at the main entrance? I mean,
some talked about that being an old, antiquated.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t anticipate needing a Sign Variance, but that hasn’t been designed yet. That would be
the Home Depot sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but that sign would be replaced by something else?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to get off this soapbox and let you continue on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Nothing at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No. I guess I really have nothing. I just wanted to add a few comments. I don’t know if
Bob read in the paper last week with the Travelers is kind of downsizing a little bit, and one of the things that
they have done, to my knowledge, is they’ve closed their night operations, and I do know for a fact that they
have the light shutoff at midnight. The last shift would end at 11 o’clock or midnight, and then the lights,
the outside lights, parking lot lights.
MR. VOLLARO-The parking lot lights, okay.
MR. METIVIER-So, if you drive by there at any given time now, after midnight, which some of us do do,
you would notice that the lights are off then, but I guess my point to that was, even though, in the past, there
have been terrible problems with Travelers parking, you might not see that in the next few years, depending
on the situation that’s going on now. I realize that there are required spaces, depending on size of the
building, but I just don’t foresee that happening in the next, I mean, obviously everything’s cyclical, and in the
next three or four years things could change, hopefully, but since they’ve downsized their operation so much,
and they’ve taken so many different units out of there, I don’t foresee that being a problem with them.
MR. VOLLARO-I did spot one other question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. You had your turn. We’ll come back to you. Anything else, Tony?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. METIVIER-No, nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John.
MR. STROUGH-One thing, I was kind of ecstatic about the continuous deflective separation stormwater
system, and I see you’ve included the maintenance program. Very nice, and one thing, I was getting ready to
battle, and then I read the maintenance program a little closer, and you are planning on use sorbents. So I
was pretty happy about that. The only thing, and the sorbents, and I shared with my Planning Board, via e-
mail, nothing, whether it should be pro or against, but I gave them information on what sorbents do, and
they take out, for the public, about 80% of any automobile pollutants that might occur on the parking lot and
get washed out. It cleans out about 80% of that stuff. The only thing is, you know, it says a visual inspection
of the treatment unit, and the sorbent material will be completed after, okay, but it doesn’t say specifically that
you have to use sorbents. If I could get the verbiage to include that sorbents will be a part of the, or an
integral part of the stormwater plan, as far as the CDS unit goes?
MR. CARR-Sure, we’ll add that to the maintenance plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that went good. So much for all the work I did. CDS is very accommodating.
They even gave me a video tape of how it works, if you want to see it. Kevin, maybe you want this. Okay.
Now on to some other things. In back of the US Post Office, I see the loading area. Now, I’m going to
assume that trucks get to that loading area by taking the back ring road, and I’m on Plan C-1, and again, I see
a potential radius problem with the radius 20 feet. I’m just wondering, in fact, I might be wrong. Maybe
trucks are going to access this from another exit, but if they’re going to access this from this easterly part of
the ring road, we might want to increase that radii.
MR. CARR-You could.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying if a truck, and I think big trucks access the Post Office.
MR. CARR-Yes, and we have looked at that, and I think the 36 foot width is what helps us get that truck in
there, but increasing the radius doesn’t hurt any. I mean, we can do that. It would make it a little bit easier,
but we’re figuring they’re going to swing through that intersection a little bit. Because they’re probably going
to be one of the few vehicles using it, but, yes, we could increase that radius.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just thinking if I was a truck driver, and there were two cars parked there in front
of the proposed maintenance, and I pulled forward and was going to back into that loading area, which is
what a truck may do.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. STROUGH-I may want a little bit more of a forgiving radii.
MR. CARR-Sure, okay.
MR. STROUGH-Just a suggestion, and I’m also very glad to see how accommodating you were in adding the
note on C-1 that the owner is prohibited from storing snow removed from the parking areas in the wetlands
or areas that drain directly to the wetlands prior to treatment.
MR. CARR-Right, and also to help assure that we continued the guardrail not only along the wall, but all the
way around that ring road. So if there was somebody removing snow that didn’t read this note, they’d have
to drive through the guardrail to get to it. So that will help also.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Excellent. Very nice improvements. Now, I had a question on landscaping. First
of all, one was brought up by the Town Board, and I was there, and it talked about the additional screening
shrubs, possibly located in what you pointed out was State right of way, and that you had said, if I’m not
mistaken, that you had already made a request to the State to see if you could put something along there.
Have you heard anything from the State in regards to that?
MR. CARR-I have not, and I should have asked Shelly yesterday when she was talking to Mark Kennedy, but
I’ll make another request and certainly, the only thing that I can think of that they would have a problem is
they like to leave as much area as they can for snow removal, but, you know, I’ll try, you know, I should have,
before this meeting, asked again, and I’ll give Mark Kennedy a call myself, and certainly if we can put
something in there maybe tighter to the building we’ll do that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, fair enough. The other thing I was looking at. I’m in back of the Home
Depot, and I’m going between C-2, Grading and Drainage, and C-4, Landscaping. I’m right in the middle of
the back of Home Depot. I’m in an area that’s not, nor does it have to be the way it’s designed, protected by
guardrails or fences, or retaining walls.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. LAPPER-Where the grade’s flat.
MR. STROUGH-Where the grade goes down. Now, I see the plantings, and the plantings are actually about
15 feet, I’m guessing, below the level of Montray Road, which means that they’re really, in effect, providing
no screening at that part of that part that I’m referring to. Is there any chance that we could put up some
kind of vegetative screening? I know it’s a 34 degree slope. I figured it out, but is there anything that we
could put closer to the road that would provide some kind of visual screening?
MR. CARR-Well, we could move, actually, we could move that whole planting area closer to the road. The
reason why we didn’t do it is because it is the right of way, and normally it’s Town property, but, I mean, if
the Town would allow us to do that, certainly, we’ll move that planting screen tighter to the road, if that’s
acceptable.
MR. STROUGH-Well, some of the neighbors have voiced concern to me, and I said, you won’t even see it,
and they were referring to what are we going to see from Montray Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s a viable solution because I don’t see you putting plantings in the Town
right of way.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see it happening.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how far does, onto that slope, does the Town right of way go?
MR. CARR-There’s actually a line. That’s the line.
MR. MAC EWAN-On Montray Road, is it 50 feet each way from the centerline of the road?
MR. CARR-It’s pretty, it’s very wide for, yes.
MR. HASTINGS-I wouldn’t think it’s more than 25 from the centerline of the road, for a total of 50.
MR. CARR-This plan indicates, and it’s from the survey, that we’ve got almost 25 feet between the edge of
pavement and the right of way. So it’s a lot of area.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s a lot.
MR. CARR-I mean, maybe the Town would allow us to do 10 or 15 feet into that. That would still give them
plenty of room for snow removal.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if we could put a couple of blue spruces up there.
MR. CARR-Yes, well, that’s what we’re planting, I believe, are spruces in that area.
MR. STROUGH-Well, just to get the visual screening that I kind of promised them.
MR. CARR-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Now, while we’re on C-2, and I think C.T. Male saw this, too, is I was looking in front of
the Home Depot, and I’m looking now at the islands in the parking area right in front of the place, and I’m
looking at a contour line that says 398 feet, and I see some of those islands. Is there a conflict there? I mean,
is this the kind of transition we want from those islands? I see the islands are, 397, almost 398 feet. I mean,
you might only have a couple of inches of curb there.
MR. CARR-No, well, the curb will follow the grade. Basically, the way it’s designed is that there is a two
percent cross slope from the façade of Home Depot to those islands, and the way those islands are designed,
which is the way we design all those islands, is the highpoint of the island is in the middle, and it’s lower on
the edge. So as the water comes towards the island, it moves in both directions around, so it can get around
it, so it doesn’t pond. So it kind of looks a little funny, the way that contour goes, but the reason why it
bends in and out like that is because at each island, there’s a highpoint in the middle, so the water doesn’t
cross that access drive and just sit on the curb, so it moves around it. In the winter you’d have a freezing
problem.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I used to work construction. We’d run across the oops once in a while.
MR. VOLLARO-John, what was the elevation of those, 398? Is that what you said?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-398 rings around the Home Depot.
MR. VOLLARO-Because the finished floor of the Depot is 399. So that’s set a foot below.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a foot below, but I wasn’t as concerned about that as I was about the island
partitions with the parking area.
MR. CARR-Actually C.T. Male did have a comment. We had one bad spot grade. They obviously look at
these drawings very closely. We had one spot grade where, you know, we had a bad number and the grade
was actually six percent, and we adjusted it, and I’m glad they caught it.
MR. STROUGH-C.T. Male is pretty thorough.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ve got my notes, of course the traffic impact plan and analysis can be validated by
New York State DOT. I think that was brought up, and you’re going to have a new sign, and the Staff notes
ask is it going to be more up to date, and not as antiquated in style. I’m assuming it’s going to be. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s pretty safe. That’s a given.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just going through my notes. Pedestrian crossing for Route 9. I guess that’s something
we’re still kind of working on. I found in the new Town Code, which I guess applies, and Page 51 of the
Code, 179-4-040, Bicycle facilities, there will be one bicycle rack per 50 spaces, which I think is a little
excessive for this, but maybe a bike rack, let’s say, that would hold 10 bikes.
MR. CARR-Near the Post Office, maybe.
MR. STROUGH-Maybe, and one up near Home Depot, or something, a couple of them here and there.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. CARR-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d be more inclined to ask for one toward the Post Office and one the other end
toward Travelers. I can’t see a guy picking up a two by four and putting it on a bike.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, a couple here and there.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Just so that you do have a bike rack for the bikes.
MR. CARR-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-One bike rack for 50 spaces. Should we take another look at that?
MR. CARR-They may mean one bike per 50 spaces, right? So, I mean, the rack, so if you’ve got 200 spaces,
then you have space for four bikes. Is that what they’re talking about?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know that. If you’ve got one bike, a facility that has 50 spaces, and you’re going to
only have one bike storage unit? So it’s rack, and it’s a standard, it’s a guidance that you have to apply. If
somebody comes in and you’re building an airport, you don’t put bikes out at the airport, and if every space
we looked at had less than 50 spaces, you wouldn’t have bike racks anywhere.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, so it’s any use required to have 50 or more parking spaces shall supply one bicycle rack
per 50 spaces. This requirement may be modified by the Planning Board at its discretion.
MR. LAPPER-Fortunately.
MR. MAC EWAN-I like that last line.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thanks a lot, guys, for being very cooperative, as you have, and the process is
moving along.
MR. CARR-Thank you.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-After John, I never feel like I can ask anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know. It takes all your thunder, doesn’t it?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I wanted to make a comment, more than ask a number of questions. I mean, I
read through all the engineering comments and Staff comments and I saw your response this evening, and I
got through most of it, and it started out talking about parking, and I mentioned to John, you said you were
going to sacrifice 12 parking spots to put in some landscaping along Route 9. Why stop there? I mean, I’d
give up 20 more, if you’re going to put in more landscaping, but that’s just my feeling. I really didn’t have any
specific questions, other than what’s already been raised. I think we’re now down to a point where a lot of
the issues are more technical in nature than typical site plan kind of stuff, and we don’t have the sign-off from
C.T. Male yet. So hopefully we’ll have that in time for the next Board meeting so we can really.
MR. MAC EWAN-When do we suspect we’re going to get that?
MR. ROUND-Within the week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Within the week.
MR. ROUND-Within a week, a week from closing of business today. The applicant just submitted the stuff
yesterday, so it takes time to review.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s safe to say you’d have a response from them hopefully by next Thursday or so. Okay.
That’s really our only outstanding issue at this point, regarding them getting to sign off at the latest.
MR. ROUND-Well, you folks haven’t seen these plans that they’ve said they’re going to do all this stuff on
either. We haven’t seen it. This is great that they’re going to do it, but you’ve got to see it before you
approve it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Well, that’s the other issue that you’re going to revise the plans accordingly to
these comments.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of timetable are you looking to do that?
MR. LAPPER-This is unusual, and don’t quote me on this, but we would be very comfortable coming back
for the June meeting for final site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ROUND-The outstanding point was that the County has not, the County Planning Board hasn’t
reviewed and provided recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-When were you supposed to be in front of them?
MR. LAPPER-Last week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Last week. How did it go?
MR. LAPPER-It didn’t get referred to them, but it was a clerical error on the Town Planning Staff. So I
wasn’t going to mention it. So we’re precluded from.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s safe. I don’t think anybody heard.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ve got to wait until June, because we went to the County and we weren’t on the agenda.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well done, Jon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyway, I think certainly, you know, all of us are, you know, there’s the revisions that
you mentioned tonight that we haven’t seen tonight and I think are all steps in the right direction.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we’ll go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We need a motion to table this thing, please.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I just had one last question.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just had comments to make, but Craig doesn’t want to hear them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MR. VOLLARO-The last full environmental assessment form that we did, we had some corrections to it,
while we were going through the SEQRA, if you remember. Has that been cleaned up?
MR. LAPPER-As you were reviewing it, I think that was changed on the record, in the minutes of the
meeting that night, because you needed that for the SEQRA vote. That’s how I interpreted it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. During the last SEQRA review, we made changes as we were going to the
Environmental Assessment Form. There were some corrections made to it, and I was just, my question, has
this been corrected and re-submitted, or, what Jon is saying is that as we were going through and making
comments on it, that the record, the minutes themselves would have sufficed.
MS. RADNER-He covered it well.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, to table.
MR. VOLLARO-Until what date?
MR. MAC EWAN-The first meeting in June, the first regular meeting in June.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002, HOME DEPOT, Introduced by Anthony Metivier
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Tabled until the first meeting June (June 18, 2002).
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. There’s no point in us keeping the plans. They’re revising the plans. So we’ll
have a whole new set of plans, right?
MR. CARR-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would keep the associated paperwork that went along with it.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 MODIFICATION PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC LOCATION: AVIATION
MALL, AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO RELOCATE BUILDING E TO THE WEST OF
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOCATION AND SETBACK FARTHER FROM AVIATION
ROAD. A LARGER PORTION OF THIS PROPOSED STORE WILL BE INCORPORATED IN
THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE MALL SO THE NET INCREASE IN DEPARTMENT
STORE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOW 70,429 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING “FRIENDLY’S”
RESTAURANT AT THE WESTERN MALL ENTRANCE HAS BEEN RELOCATED ACROSS
THE WEST SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE DRIVE. ADDITIONAL SITE MODIFICATIONS TO
ACCOMMODATE THE RELOCATED FACILITIES ARE ALSO INCORPORATED. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 22-1994, SB 2-1994, SP 1-91, SV 45-1990, AV 21-1989, AV 1459, AV 25-1996, SV 63-
1996, SP 38-96, SSE 1-97, SP 14-98, P1-98, SP 14-98, SV 89-1998, SP 67-88 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21, 5.23 LOT SIZE: 40.81 AC., 3.14 AC. SECTION:
179-27.1
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
JON LAPPER AND RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-2001, Modification, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Meeting Date: May 16,
2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes the modification of an approved site plan. The modification entails the relocation of the
previously approved retail space to a location west of the originally approved location and for the space to be
incorporated in the existing mall footprint. Also, the existing Friendly’s restaurant is to be removed and
reconstructed to the west of the existing mall entrance on Aviation Road.
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 proposed modification is an allowable project within the Enclosed Shopping Center 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?
The proposed development appears to be an overall improvement from the previously approved site
plan and should not present an undue increase to the burden on public services.
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?
The proposed modification plan depicts additional parking areas above the requirements
of the town zoning ordinance.
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?
Minimal, if any, impacts are anticipated with regards to these matters.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
Frank Polumbo, RLA from Sear-Brown performed an in depth review of this proposed
modification. This review was performed by Sear-Brown for consistency purposes, as they reviewed
the previous project. Please find their comments attached hereto.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Several Site Plan Reviews and Variances have been considered for this project, the most recent being Site
Plan Review 21-2001, the subject of this modification. The original design called for a completely new,
external addition to the mall along with the associated site work.
Staff comments:
Please see Sear-Brown comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. ROUND-Frank Palumbo is here from the Sear-Brown Group, and Frank had performed the review for
that, and he has correspondence. Do you want him to read his comment letter for you?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. As far as Staff notes, we’ll go that route.
MR. ROUND-Yes. Frank, I don’t know if you just want to highlight some of the salient points.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you, before we get too far into this, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on
this.
MR. LAPPER-You mean it’s all set so you can just vote on it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The consensus of this Board is that this is not a modification. This is a whole new
site plan.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I’d certainly like to start out responding to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we cross this bridge first before we do, I just don’t want to get us out here
until 11 o’clock tonight discussing this thing when I’m pretty confident I’ve got everyone’s support here that
we’d like to see this filed as a brand new application.
MR. LAPPER-Let me explain why we’ve done what we’ve done. The reason why we consider this a
modification is that the square footage and actually the building that was proposed last time in front of the
Mall has been relocated to another part of the site. So we’re not increasing the size of the structure, the size
of the square footage.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you moved it.
MR. LAPPER-We’re moving it. In truth, we’re moving it to an area that the Board requested last time, and
we didn’t think that we’d have the flexibility with the tenant that Pyramid was going for. We didn’t think we
had the flexibility. You’ll recall there were issues about the loading dock being in close proximity to the outer
ring road. So we feel, from a design standpoint, that this is a superior plan to what was proposed, but we
didn’t think that we had the flexibility, last time, to do this. The reason for these changes is because the
intended tenant has requested these changes, that they were looking for more parking in closer proximity to
their entrance, and that’s really the reason why we’ve done this, the reason why we’ve proposed the relocation
of a restaurant on the outer ring road, to provide more parking closer to the door to make a major tenant
happy, so that they can close the deal and improve the Mall.
MR. MAC EWAN-In theory, Jon, a modification to a site plan could be, you know, the changing of a
building size from 100,000 square foot down to 90 or up to 110. Minor modifications like that, but when
you’re taking a building here and moving it completely to another part of the site, you’re demolishing an
existing restaurant, relocating that, taking out a portion of the hill, you’ve got traffic patterns that are
changing. You have stormwater that is changing. I mean, there’s issues that are way beyond just a simple
modification here, and I think that the position of our Board is that we want to review this as a brand new
site plan, and that is what it is.
MR. LAPPER-Well, but what Russell who’s sitting next to me, Pittenger from the LA Group, what Russ did
was he just replaced those pages that have changed, and everything else stays the same. So in every respect
we’re proposing a change, he’s provided new pages of the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the Board views it that way. I mean, if any of my Board members disagree
with me on this position, I’d like you to chime in right now.
MR. LAPPER-Let me give you some more legal reasons for this. You’ll recall that we did this as a Full
Environmental Impact Statement project, because we don’t know if the building we proposed last time would
have necessitated it, but the reason why Chris retained the Sear-Brown Group when this was originally
proposed this was, you know, five years ago, it was a much more ambitious plan to include a multi-story
parking lot, and to include the lands where Howard Johnson’s is as part of an Enclosed Shopping Mall, a
much larger regional mall. So we were already in the process of an Environmental Impact Statement and,
procedurally, it just seemed appropriate to continue with that project. All of the impact analysis, which
included the per square foot charge to the Town for improvements to Aviation Road, all that stuff has been
nailed down with this Board. We’re saying we’re taking the same square footage, which is the impact, the
traffic analysis. I mean, there are certainly site plan issues that you can tell us that what we’ve done now, what
we’ve proposed, you’d like to see it changed somewhat, but in terms of the overall impact analysis, we’ve
gone, exhaustively, through the Environmental Impact Statement to look at the overall analysis, and we don’t
want to open that up again, because it’s done, and what we’re doing now is taking the same square footage
and just changing the site plan. So, procedurally, it’s really important to us that the Board treat this as a
modification of the site plan, but that this isn’t a new application. So if you tell us that, what we’re hearing,
that tonight’s not the night that we’re going to get this approved because you have design issues, we view that
as just site plan issues that we can respond to, but in terms of the procedure, it’s real important that we stick
with where we are and treat it as a modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get some legal thoughts on that? I don’t share his view.
MS. RADNER-Yes. I think you have some discretion there. Nothing legally binds you to accept that
SEQRA if you feel that it’s significantly changed that you need to take another look at it, and the proper
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
criteria would be, does it impact the traffic, does it impact the stormwater, does it impact traffic flow, does it
impact aesthetics, and if you can look at those things and believe that your prior review covered those and
that the change is not significant enough to change the conclusions that you have reached, then you can
determine it’s a modification. If you don’t feel that it is properly a modification, I believe you have the
discretion to tell this applicant, no, you want to look at those issues further.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how would we be limited by treating it as a modification? Would we have our hands
tied, or would we be able to ask for everything that we would normally be able to ask for?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think it goes to, and Staff can jump in here anytime, but it goes from when does
something become a modification to a new site plan, and the issue we’re dealing with here now is, feedback I
seem to have gotten from Planning Board, fellow members here, is that this isn’t a modification. This is a
whole new site plan. I mean, the whole thing has changed, the whole picture has changed. We’re not just
making subtle revisions to what was previously approved. We’re taking this site and changing it completely
from what we had approved previously. So is that a separate modification.
MR. ROUND-Two points. I think that you’re correct, in that this is not a subtle change from, a design
standpoint, that you’re relocating the building. The applicant’s correct, too, that under SEQRA you have to
consider it as a modification to what was previously approved, otherwise they’re concerned about starting
SEQRA from the, you know, reinitiating and starting from Ground Zero. To answer John’s question, I don’t
think it ties you hands in anything that you look at. You’re issuing a site plan approval, you know, in your
words, a new site plan approval. You have to look at every aspect of the site, from parking and stormwater
to aesthetics, and you have to do that under SEQRA as well. So you’re not hamstrung by any of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Environmental Impact Statement that was done for the Mall expansion fit the
envelope of anything that was to be done in the future under the Mall. Right?
MR. ROUND-No, it didn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was only for that one specific thing?
MR. LAPPER-There was an envelope on top of the hill, and it was specific on the site.
MR. ROUND-Yes. There were two expansions, one an attached structure, and second a detached structure,
and many of the impacts related to, when you’re talking about traffic, regardless of where the building is
located, traffic impacted 9 and 254. It doesn’t matter whether it was, you know, in the rear or in the front,
but from some of the site design issues, in regards to the service road, it does impact those things, and I think
that’s some of the things Frank’s commented on during his review, is that the new building location does
impact the service road in some aspects positively, and others we have some concerns about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When that Environmental Impact Statement was done for that Mall expansion, it
had the freestanding store over at the western portion of the parcel. Then they came in with a new
application, a new site plan to have a store in front of the parcel facing Aviation Road. We didn’t do a
SEQRA then.
MR. ROUND-Yes, we did.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did?
MR. ROUND-Yes. Actually, the Town Board was the Lead Agency because of the rezoning. The Town
Board was Lead Agency and they issued a Negative Declaration and issued a SEQRA Findings Statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand. Where is your concern if we end up having to do another SEQRA on
another site plan?
MR. LAPPER-Because the SEQRA, we want this to be treated as a modification because we’re taking the
same square footage, and we’re moving it, and you may condition this that you want different trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not answering my question.
MR. LAPPER-The SEQRA was a big deal. It took a lot of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-The second one?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The second one was completing the Environmental Impact Statement, looking at.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done two SEQRA processes on this parcel. We did the original Environmental
Impact Statement.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. LAPPER-It never got done. The original one was put on hold when that project was tabled, and it was
the same process that got picked up again and continued.
MR. ROUND-That’s accurate. We never concluded the SEQRA review process because of development
issues, because of financial issues. We concluded it, and the applicant made a successful argument that it was
the proposal that was in front of the Town Board, and this was before the rezoning that occurred as well,
okay, that that was a modification or an alternative that hadn’t been fully explored. They fully explored the
modification and this building alternative, and then proceeded forward, obtained the rezoning, and came back
to you with a site plan for the things that you saw.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if your position is that you don’t think that the changes are going to be all that
significant, what are you worried about the SEQRA for?
MR. LAPPER-Procedurally, to open up an Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s talking Environmental Impact Statement? We’re talking doing a SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-But you can’t, because it already wasn’t a SEQRA.
MR. ROUND-Yes. An EIS was prepared for this project.
MR. LAPPER-Let me just digress for a moment. In terms of the overall site, I think, you know, we haven’t
come to you, a lot of times we come to you, conceptually, in a workshop, and explain what’s going on, and
that hasn’t happened here, and just to take a step back, by moving the building inside the Mall, it gets it out in
front of the ring road. We also take existing stores and eliminate them. So it’s not as big a building in the
parking lot because it’s using existing Mall stores. That has a corresponding effect of increasing the
permeability. So in terms of the stormwater plan, this plan has less impervious surfaces that the plan that was
approved, and that’s why, in terms of these thresholds, we’re building less right now. We’re going to have
more green space. The idea of taking the restaurant building and relocating it, building another restaurant
building, on the other side of the entrance drive, that tucks it away so that the driveway from the restaurant
would no longer be on the access road. It would be on the ring road. So it eliminates the potential for a
conflict on that access road. It also increases the green space right in front of the Mall, front and center at
that intersection, where you have a restaurant now, you’ll have a grassed area. So all of these things that I’m
mentioning are reduced impacts from what this Board approved, and that’s why, granted, you haven’t had our
explanation. You haven’t had Russell go into all of the engineering design issues, but we think that what
we’re coming up with now is really a better plan that what the Board approved last time, and that’s why we’re
asking you to treat it as a modification, and, granted, in site plan, you have the right to condition and ask us to
change things, move things around as appropriate, but we think that this is just a, less of an impact, and so
the idea of starting anything from scratch, not that it’s your issue, but we also have a big tenant that’s ready to
go, that is real important for the Mall, and that we’ve been trying to get for a good period of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, you ruffle my feathers when you start talking about, got to put this through because
we’ve got somebody hot and ready to go.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t mean to.
MR. MAC EWAN-You should have started the process months ago.
MR. LAPPER-We had a site plan, and I mean this with all respect, we have a site plan for a building that we
could go in tomorrow start constructing what’s approved, and we’re saying, hey, we think, and the tenant
thinks, that if we move it over and make these changes, it’s going to make it a better site, and that’s why we’re
here, and that’s what it’s going to take for the tenant to sign the lease, but we think it’s a better site plan,
because it’s farther away from the road. There’s more green space.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the problems that I have, Jon, is as a reviewer, sitting by myself, because we don’t
review these collectively, you know, each guy goes into his knothole and tries to review these drawings, and
I’m having a problem determining what the difference between the site plan we approved on 8/21/01 and
this one, trying to understand what the different impacts are between what we approved and what we’re
doing now. It’s very difficult, speaking just for me, to try to do a thorough review of that.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a very specific issue, and we could provide a Mylar overlay, either showing the new one
over the old one or showing the old one over the new one, I mean, that’s a specific request, and we can
address that and get you something that you can look at a plan and say, you know, we can do a chart and we
can do a picture, and we can show you the difference.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s the differences that are throwing us into, you know, into the position that said
this is really not a modification. It’s enough of a difference to be a new site plan.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. LAPPER-What if we just spend five minutes and ask Russ to just stand up in front of the map and just
talk you through the changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not ready to go there yet.
MR. LAPPER-All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, I can almost visualize what you’re trying to do with the new plan, as far as its
proximity to the Mall and the way it’s attached and the way it’s going to be part of the Mall, but as soon as I
saw we’re going to tear down the Friendly’s, after what’s going on up there at Exit 19 right now, I’m like, wait
a minute, I can’t see tearing anything down before something else is built.
MR. LAPPER-But this would be torn down and replaced with grass. It would be, the area that’s parking lot
on the other side of the road would be a restaurant, and the existing restaurant would just be grass.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, it’s going to be torn down before everything else is built.
MR. LAPPER-No. This would be one project to build a new department store, and that’s just the site work
to enable the parking lot to be changed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So when does the Friendly’s get razed? Before the new store is built or after or in the
process?
MR. LAPPER-Before there’s a CO, in the process, while the store is being built.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then another modification that you’re talking about, which I think, to me, is a
new site plan, is where the new Friendly’s is going to go.
MR. LAPPER-Well, on that one, that is not, that has not been thoroughly thought out. So what we’re saying
there is, look, we’ll come back for a site plan when we know exactly what a new restaurant is going to look
like.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, to me that’s analogous to getting rid of Seven Steers and Howard Johnson’s,
which wasn’t really thought out, and then what happens? Now we have nothing up there, and now we’ve lost
a Friendly’s. So I think that should be thought out.
MR. STROUGH-Can’t we also, Mr. Chairman, can’t we also say to the applicant, you have to build the new
Friendly’s before the raze the old one? They have to be open before you raze the old one? I mean, wouldn’t
that be a part of our site plan power? Couldn’t we do that? As part of site plan.
MR. ROUND-(Lost words) phasing, yes, under a couple of.
MR. STROUGH-So what I’m trying to figure out, too, is whether it would be an advantage or a disadvantage
to me, as a Planning Board member reviewing the project, I’m having trouble here seeing.
MR. VOLLARO-John, one of the things that I have a problem with.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, I have no problem with pursuing going this route, and I’m trying to be
understanding of you because I know you’re talking about a process thing and I had an issue on a process
thing earlier. So I’m trying to see your reasoning, but then again, I don’t see where any of my observations or
suggestions are going to be limited.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lapper just made a comment that even more reinforces my position on wanting a
new site plan. They’re not sure where they’re going to put a new Friendly’s, and if they did put a new
Friendly’s in, they’d come back and seek a modification of that one, and we’re not going to continue just
coming in and getting a modification every eight months. That’s not the way to do it.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but an Enclosed Shopping Mall, as a development, is
something that does change. I mean, you’ve got all these big player tenants, and over time, shopping malls
are frequently in before Planning Boards for modifications as the market changes. So, even if there was a
period, I understand what Cathy’s saying, if there’s a period where there is no restaurant out front. I mean, in
terms of a site impact, traffic impact, visual impact, that wouldn’t be a problem really. I mean, that restaurant
is well-liked, but if a bigger restaurant were built across the ring road or something, or a smaller one, I mean, I
don’t see that that’s a problem, either way. We’re trying to get a 120,000 square foot department store in
front of the Mall, and that’s the main focus.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but what we’re looking at, I view this as a total site plan, and this Friendly’s is part of
that total, it’s on the plan now to move it to the other side. So that’s all part, I don’t think you can segment
this by saying let’s put the Friendly’s off to one side, get the Mall, then we’ll talk about where Friendly’s goes.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. LAPPER-A lot of times when you do shopping mall development, you do what’s called an out parcel,
and it really is something that’s separate, that you have a pod for a restaurant or a retailer or bank that’s out
by the road, that’s separate from the Enclosed Shopping Mall. So we really do view that restaurant as
secondary to what’s primarily going on here.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re making that part of your modification tonight, your application here for this.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we need to move what’s there to get rid of it, because we want to make the parking lot
better.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what you guys need to do is really put a plan together of what you really want to
do and come back and see us, so that you have a game plan, so that we can sit here and review it as one
whole site, not what we’re going to do six months from now or eight months from now or whatever. I think
you need to put your site plan together and come back and see us.
MR. VOLLARO-Jon, I think if you look at S-3, you’ve got the new restaurant located right there. It’s right
on the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just hang on a second. I want to get the other three members who we haven’t heard
from yet. I want to get your thoughts on this, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Personally, I don’t have a problem in looking at this as a modification, and I understand
what Jon’s last comment was about the out parcel because we did that with Lowe’s and Applebee’s. We
approved a pod, if you will, for Applebee’s, and I don’t remember if they came back later for landscaping
review and approval or not, but I also don’t feel what we have right now is a complete application. Because
we don’t have signoffs from the engineers and there’s still a number of questions that need to be reviewed,
but, personally, I don’t have a problem looking at this as a modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I agree with, I think, where you’re going, Craig. It’s very material in what they’re
contemplating. I don’t think it’s consistent with how we would react to other applicants, and so it is very
much parallel with what John was saying he was unhappy with how the Zoning Board handled that issue with
the applicant earlier today. I think we have to be consistent. I think that this is a major change. I think it’s a
major change, and I think that, you know, if we do it here, I mean, we’re being inconsistent with how we
would treat other applications and so I agree with what Mr. MacEwan has been saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I actually was going to go along with Chris a little bit. I think I’m confused as to exactly
what is happening. I have a pretty good idea. I guess my main problem with the whole thing is why you were
getting rid of Friendly’s, but you just actually started to answer that question, but I just don’t, I mean, we sat
through this whole thing in August of last year, and I just don’t know why we have to do it again, because it
just doesn’t seem to be that much different.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to equate thought, Tony, the 8/21 approvals to what I have in front of me
and try to understand how this modification changes the impact to that.
MR. METIVIER-And I agree with that, and you’re absolutely right.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s hard to do.
MR. METIVIER-It is hard to do.
MR. VOLLARO-With no site plan in front of you and all that.
MR. LAPPER-That we can provide. We have to do that analysis.
MR. MAC EWAN-What information did you think was lacking?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the big things that was missing was the stormwater runoff. There was just a map
in there. I think the plan would have to be modified.
MR. LAPPER-The simple answer there, and Russ can say this better than me, is if we have more green space
now than we had last time, then the other plan which was engineered, designed and reviewed will work now,
and it will just be capacity.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t disagree with that, but.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a pretty simple statement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I think one of the things we’re going to absolutely demand is a stormwater review.
MR. LAPPER-Of course, we can do that. I’m just trying to make the argument that it should be a
modification, but the level of detail will be whatever it takes to make this Board satisfied.
MR. MAC EWAN-From what I’m gathering up here, we’re kind of split down the middle about whether this
is a new application or whether it’s a modification, but what I’m also hearing up here is everyone’s in
agreement that the information we’re looking for is not there.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re here for the first time on this, and it’s not unusual that you would be asking us for
more information, and our job is to supply that to you. I’m more concerned about process. I don’t want to
go back to SEQRA, but in terms of, and that’s not to say that, in terms of SEQRA, you know, if you need
changes, we’ll make changes to the plan, in terms of impact, but we’re saying the total square footage, the big
picture is what you looked at last time. We want to move some stuff around to make a tenant happy, to get
the deal done, and you have great flexibility in terms of the site plan to tell us how you want to see it, and
whatever information you need we’ll get you. We’re certainly not being argumentative. We are just afraid of
going back to SEQRA because we don’t think it’s necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Frank, what do you think’s lacking? What do you need?
MR. PALUMBO-Well, when we did our review, and the way that we did it, we thought that there were these
global issues that needed to be addressed and discussed. So we only went as far as we felt that the Board
would need to look at those, i.e. the Friendly’s relocation. I had some serious concerns with just how that
was shown on the site plan, and so I didn’t want to go any further than that. What I would say is that,
hearing the discussion tonight, you could be justified in going in either direction, it would be my opinion.
You’ve heard the counsel on that as well. What I think it would be very appropriate to do is to do what, if
you stayed within the modification, we, hearing your concerns tonight, we could ask the applicant to give us
both site plans, just as they had done all of the plans in one set, with the information showing the, what is
modified on the plans from the previous application. You don’t see, as Mr. Vollaro was saying, you don’t see
where that old site plan approved building was. So you don’t have that. We were sitting there looking at
both sets of plans. It would be appropriate, to say the least, that you have plans that at least some sort of
overlay plan with the old plan maybe gray scaled down with the new plan superimposed over the top of it. If
you, that would be characteristic of a, when you’re looking for a modified plan, you know, something that
shows what you had approved before and how it relates differently. Our biggest issues were, and this does
relate to that, in terms of how the differences work, the ring road, although we think it is really generally
improved, my biggest concern was the area where it gets pushed out further. The whole reason that the
Friendly’s, in my mind, the reason that it’s being removed, is because that ring road, to get the added parking,
as Mr. Lapper said in the front, is being pushed out. There was no way that you could have seen just how far
that was being pushed and what kind of impacts that was going to have on the plan. I was concerned by the
shortened distance of that. I asked some questions for that. They’ve given me some preliminary feedback on
that, and I don’t think I have all my answers on that. I think that, at a minimum, where you refer to the
Applebee’s and the Lowe’s, I would venture a guess, having been in that seat presenting to the Board before,
that even though you had a pad there, I would venture a guess you had a pretty good feel of how that pad
was situated within the overall context of the site, how the traffic flows were going to be situated. I have
concerns with that site, if you just left that out, and didn’t consider the access point onto the ring road, you
know, I think that’s something that you would want to look at now with this site plan modification. So
without going the full level to a new plan, which again, you could be very well justified in going that route,
without going, you could get a better set of plans that was more comprehensive, in terms of how it relates
from everything, stormwater, that the traffic numbers relate to the new building. Each case, what you have is
they have decreased in some senses. I would suspect that the lesser building area would transcend into a
slightly reduced amount of traffic, but I think what’s important here is how that traffic is internally moving
through the site. So, from a SEQRA standpoint, I don’t think it would change the traffic. From a site plan
standpoint, I think your internal circulation and how it’s moving is something that we did talk at great length
when we went over this project before. So, I’m sorry if I gave you a longer answer than you expected. I
think, from a stormwater standpoint, they’ve taken, right now the latest response we’ve got is a very
conservative approach from what they had in terms of building square footage and where they were taking it,
and they’re presently looking at putting right back in what they had at the last site plan saying, well, it would
be conservative. I think it probably would, but that doesn’t mean that the greater specifics, I would probably
like to see greater specifics on the actual flow rates going into each structure, the capacity of the piping, with
this modified change, because it will change from how it gets from Point A to Point B. There was a lot that
went on with the last site plan review. I don’t think any of that should be negated, but I do think you’d be
justified if you kept it within a modification process as well.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-Thank you for that, but it made me think. This restaurant thing, all right, the way I think I
understand it now is different from what I understood before, and correct me if I’m wrong. What you’re
trying to get are really two site plans, one for the new addition, the new tenant, the 125,000 square foot retail
business, right? And another for the restaurant, and you’re saying you’re not really moving Friendly from
Point A to Point B, and razing Point A. You’re really looking for some generic restaurant/site plan, not
Friendly’s, to be approved at the same time as we approve this addition. Is that accurate?
ERIC GOETZMANN
MR. GOETZMANN-I’ll introduce myself. I’m Eric Goetzmann from the Pyramid Companies, out of
Syracuse, New York. What we’re in front of you tonight for is a site plan modification for the department
store. In order to accommodate this department store, we’ve made some major concessions. We were in
front of you a year ago, the Town Board a year ago. We were in front of you the point of August of last year.
We’ve made concessions of de-malling 50,000 square feet of the existing structure in order to accommodate
this tenant. To further accommodate him, or the tenant, they’ve required increased parking. In order to do
that, we have to remove the restaurant which is in front of the center. We are asking you for a site plan
modification for that Department Store E. As Jon stated, the restaurant is not finalized. The new restaurant
that would go across, when Jon used the word preliminary, it’s a location that’s been laid out. The traffic has
been looked at coming onto the ring road, but the final site plan has not been finalized. We’re not asking you
for a site plan approval of a restaurant across the street. It’s laid out there. What we’d like to do, if there are
conditions on the restaurant, if we come back, I think we did the same thing when we did the 150,000 square
feet on the northwest property. We made a condition where we went through SEQRA, we went through the
approval process, and we decided what the final layout was going to be, we were going to come back in front
of you for a site plan approval for the additional square footage of the northwest property.
MR. STROUGH-I have no affiliation or special affinity for Friendly’s, but I’m getting the idea that the lease
arrangement that you have with Friendly’s, I assume that that’s going to be dissolved. Otherwise, otherwise,
what Cathy’s concern was, was that you would build a new restaurant, Friendly’s would move in, then you
raze the old restaurant, but it seems like you don’t have that kind of relationship with Friendly’s, per se. Is
that right, accurate?
MR. GOETZMANN-Yes. The restaurant is tied directly to the department store. In order for the
department store to happen.
MR. STROUGH-Right, so, in other words, I think I’m getting the picture. In other words, you’d probably
leave happy tonight if this were to happen. We don’t even look at a restaurant. Don’t even propose a
restaurant. You’re going to raze Friendly’s and forget Friendly’s. That’s gone. You’re only trying to
accommodate this new tenant. Maybe it’s viewing of the signage or whatever of the tenant, and increased
parking, and increased green area so it looks nice for the new tenant. You’re trying to accommodate the new
tenant, and I understand that, so far.
MR. GOETZMANN-Right. In order to accommodate the new tenant, it would be 50,000 feet in the existing
center and Friendly’s. The new tenant would open.
MR. STROUGH-So this issue is all about the new tenant, and Friendly’s is not part of the thing. We could
raze the building and forget the new proposed restaurant.
MR. SANFORD-John, with what we have in front of us, we don’t know that there’s going to be a Friendly’s.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I’m getting at what Cathy’s getting at. Cathy says, I don’t want a situation where
you’ve got something halfway done and something not here. I think her point’s valid.
MR. SANFORD-Well, as I look at it, we don’t even know who the new tenant’s going to be. That’s not
identified. There’s been a past history of plans that are unrealized with the Aviation Mall. So we really don’t
know who this new tenant will be, what their use will be, specifically. We don’t know if, when the Friendly’s
is torn down, whether there’ll be another Friendly’s built or not, and why should we, as a Planning Board,
accommodate a modification when there’s so much uncertainty here.
MR. STROUGH-What we do know is we have a tenant that wants to move in. That’s 125,000 square foot
retail. That’s a given because they’re really going out of their way to accommodate this new tenant, whoever
it may be, and the restaurant is up in the air. So what I’m saying is since the restaurant is an unknown, and
you’re going to raze Friendly’s, well let’s propose the new addition, 125,000 square feet, as it’s proposed.
We’ll do some stormwater review. We’ll tighten up a lot of other details that I seem to sense here, and forget
this proposal for a restaurant since it’s not an issue. You don’t have a restaurant. You don’t have anybody
there. You just said it in so many words. You don’t have a restaurant before us.
MR. VOLLARO-John, would you be willing, I guess, under that scenario, to just, where it says new
restaurant, you want to white that square out. Everything else stays exactly the same. Is that what you’re
saying?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-Right, yes. So they’ll get their new tenant in.
MR. SANFORD-Just a point of clarification here. I don’t know who we’re talking about with this new
tenant. We all might think it might be a Target, but Mr. Lapper is also representing another client who is
proposing a Target on Quaker Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-No more. That’s been withdrawn.
MR. SANFORD-That’s now been withdrawn.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think the Mall would go out of their way to this great extent unless they were pretty
sure they had a tenant.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what I’m trying to say is, I don’t understand the game that we’re in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my only issue is this restaurant thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s put our train back on the track here for a second. I’ll concede to the sense
I’m getting we can forge ahead with the modification. However, I’m not willing to do anything tonight, and I
think that Frank has come up with a long laundry list of things you need to supply to him for him to do his
review, as well as us to have the right information for us to begin our review. I’ve come up with five things.
You can add more to them, Frank. Here’s what I’ve come up with. We want a phasing plan, whether that
includes a Friendly’s, no Friendly’s, another restaurant, something else, whatever else you plan on doing in
this modification. We want a stormwater management report plan. We want the previous approvals, as
Frank put it so well, done in an overall with the modification, so we can visually see the difference on one
drawing. The ring road, how it impacts the site, and how you think it’s either justified or it’s more intense or
less intense, and how the traffic numbers relate to this modification, for the better or for the worse. What do
you have, Frank? Do you have anymore on that that you’re looking for?
MR. PALUMBO-What I would say is it would give me the opportunity, not to say figure it out right tonight,
but they have actually sent me some answers to my first set of questions. I could incorporate in another
review letter to them the items that you raised tonight, and I think I will also proceed with not only those
comments, but as I said, we sort of stopped short of making any further technical review of those plans. We
thought that there might be these types of discussions, but we will scrutinize any recent, the plans to see if
there is anything more technical in detail, so we’ll have a list of the general concepts and plans that they must
be doing, and then also we’ll get down to the more detailed items, so that the next time they come before us.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the next three or four business days you’ll have a letter to them telling them what more
information he may require. Fair enough?
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And then, Mr. Chairman, and I think Bob Vollaro will agree with me, and I think I’ll put
this burden on Mr. Pittenger. We’ve got the building size. We’ve got the addition. Can we get them, this is
the same problem we had last time, can we get them so they all add up right? It’s still a problem, Bob. So
everything adds up right. It’s not adding up right again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not one of them’s saying anything. We want the numbers to correlate. Okay. Is that it?
MS. RADNER-You need to do the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, typically we don’t have a public hearing scheduled for a modification. However
there is one tonight, and I’m going to open it, and I’ll leave it open, but I won’t take any comment tonight.
What I’d like to do is ask anybody who has comments they want to make, if they could reserve them until we
get all the information we’re looking for, and I think we’ll all be more informed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-I’d request to make a comment tonight because I sat through three hours, four hours of
deliberation, and I don’t know if I can come back again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Somehow I knew you wouldn’t disappoint me. Come on up.
MR. LAPPER-We’d rather here what Dr. Hoffman has to say so we can react.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
DR. HOFFMAN-First I’d like to ask whether you received any correspondence on this.
MR. ROUND-Yes, we have. We received a letter from the Healthy Heart Program, Kathy Varney.
DR. HOFFMAN-Good. I’m glad. Has everyone had a chance to read that?
MR. MAC EWAN-We all received them at home.
DR. HOFFMAN-Okay. I would just encourage you to read that letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think they have some viable ideas.
DR. HOFFMAN-I heard some comments tonight, relating to the Home Depot, indicating that, well, why do
we want to bother with these pedestrians. This Route 9 is not amenable to pedestrians anyway, and who’s
going to go to Home Depot to bring lumber out, and I know that Home Depot does sell other things besides
lumber, some of which you can fit in the pocket, but I just can’t emphasize enough that getting people out of
their cars and either walking or using some form of non-motorized transportation, whether it be bicycles or
otherwise, is one of the single most important things we can do to promote the health of our population, of
all ages, from the youngest to the oldest, and 95% of what we do in our daily lives is purely determined by
habit, and often we don’t give a second thought to the way we get from one place to another, but there are
habits. We’ve got some really bad habits that need to be broken, and one of them is the total dependence on
the automobile for our daily needs. If we want people to get out of their automobiles and walk or ride,
you’ve got to give them some place to go. I mean, it’s nice, on a Saturday afternoon, if you want to take a
bike ride, but to really get people to do it on a daily basis, you have to allow them to incorporate it into their
daily lives, which means to go to the store, to do the kinds of necessities that are involved with day to day
activities. If we don’t provide those, the ability for people to do that, then it’ll never happen. Now obviously
it’s not going to, you know, just by putting a sidewalk up to the Mall or up to Home Depot, it’s not going to
just magically everybody’s going to start doing it, but each one of these little things is a small piece of a bigger
puzzle, and if we don’t start with the small pieces, we’ll never get to the bigger puzzle. As far as the specifics,
I know there was some discussion about pedestrian access to the Mall previously. I don’t recall seeing the
final plans of that. I imagine that would be modified somewhat with this modification that we’re seeing now.
I, personally, have found that Friendly’s, aesthetically, is one of the nicer spots on Aviation Road, in an
otherwise less than optimal kind of a situation. So I’m kind of sad to see it go, but if they can do as good or
better a job with the new Friendly’s, which may or may not happen, and I’d like to see it happen, I think
that’s important. Friendly’s currently does provide a bit of a barrier between the street and the parking lots,
so that people aren’t looking directly at the cars when they’re walking or driving down Aviation Road. It’s
close to the street, which means that people can walk there or bike there. I would hope that the new
Friendly’s is not only close to the street as the current one is, but also has a sidewalk access from the street.
Currently, there is no, in order to get to Friendly’s now, you have to go into the main entrance of the Mall, go
into the Friendly’s parking lot, and then get in the back way. So right now there is no access from Aviation
Road for a pedestrian to get to Friendly’s. I’d like to see, with the new Friendly’s, that there is a way of doing
that. Another general comment about the automobile versus pedestrian transportation, walking is good for
everybody, but for some it’s a necessity. There are people that don’t own cars or can’t drive cars, and by
saying the only way you can get to the store in the Town of Queensbury is with a car, you’re disenfranchising
a significant part of the population, and also losing business, and that would relate to people that can’t afford
cars, which the stores may not care about because they don’t have money, apparently, or it may relate to
senior citizens who have visual problems, and certainly it relates to young people who are too young to drive.
I would just comment that recently my household received a survey from the Nielsen Ratings to write down
what our t.v. choices were, and I would guess that the reason we got that survey is not because of myself and
my wife, but because of my 16 year old daughter, because those are the people that buy stuff, and I think any
commercial enterprise that ignores that potential consumer is doing so at their own loss. It’s a loss of
business to those people. Just on my way here, and I biked here today, from work, coming in the other
direction, a half a dozen kids between the age of 12 and 16 were biking the other direction on Bay Road. So
there is a market there, and kids, you could say, well, their parents will drive them to the Mall, but kids don’t
want to shop with their parents. They want to shop with their friends. Friendly’s in particular is a great
hangout for teenagers. I’m sure anybody who’s gone in there, you can see that kids like to hangout and talk
and it’s a great opportunity for kids to have a little bit of independence, and if you can give them a way to get
there where they don’t have to be dropped off by their parents, it’s a nice thing for kids. It’s also healthy for
them. It’s a way that they can get, you know, people are always complaining, my kids are in the basement all
the time in front of the computer. Well, if you want them to get away from the computer, give them some
place to go where they don’t have to be driven. As far as the, again, the specifics on the Mall, I don’t know
what, if there are any plans for the sidewalk along Aviation Road. Right now it’s a disgrace. It’s basically,
there’s a little curb, then there’s some asphalt. I’d love to see a sidewalk that is separated from the road by at
least five feet. There’s plenty of space there now to allow for a green buffer or some shrubbery between the
road and the sidewalk. So people don’t feel like cars are attacking them as they’re walking along the side of
the road. I think the sidewalk could be widened so that more than one person can walk at the same time. I
think if you make it wide enough, it could also be used by bicycles because the road itself is not safe for
bicycles, but certainly if you put a wide enough sidewalk in, people could bike down Aviation Road, and that
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/16/02)
would go a long way toward opening up that whole commercial district for non-motorized access, and finally
I’d like to make a push for, I know part of this is to move the parking lot, or to provide more parking spaces,
but I really want to put a very strong emphasis on making sure that the parking lot is not seen from Aviation
Road. I think that’s a doable thing, because basically parking lots are ugly things to look at. That is a very
important entrance way to the Town of Queensbury. We want people to have a pleasant appearance to the
landscape when they go down that street. Be very important to keep the parking as far away from the street s
possible, and buffered with as much landscaping as possible. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll leave that public hearing open. Is there anything else
that Staff would be requiring? Frank, you’re running with the whole ball of wax here, aren’t you? You are
The Man. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. LAPPER-We hear you. We’ll get you the rest of the stuff, and we’ll communicate with Sear-Brown and
get them what they want.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you receive a copy of that letter that Dr. Hoffman’s referring to?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could Staff get a copy of that to him regarding that? I think there’s some good ideas in
that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can have mine, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-I did just point out to Dr. Hoffman that the proposal does show a sidewalk all along the side
where the new restaurant would be relocated, that keeps it out of the parking lot. It’s just, because of the
location and their department store, we didn’t have to go right through the center of the parking lot like we
did last time. We kept it on the side, on the way towards Penney’s, and then just came in. So it’s a little safer,
and it would make that restaurant pedestrian friendly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll introduce a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001, MODIFICATION, PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS
FALLS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Pending additional information as required by Town Engineer and consultant for review purposes.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anything else on the agenda? I move we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
57