2002-10-22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda, George?
MR. HILTON-The first item on the agenda this evening was listed as Northeast American Realty. However,
they have been pulled from this agenda. Their submission deadline came and went and we did not receive
updated information that the Planning Board had requested. So we’re going to move on to application for
Subdivision, Jeff Inglee.
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
JEFFREY INGLEE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE
ENGINEERING ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF TUTHILL ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 47.71 +/- ACRE PARCEL (31.30 AC. IN
QUEENSBURY, 16.41 AC. IN LUZERNE) INTO THREE (3) LOTS OF 5.12 ACRES, 13.95
ACRES AND 12.23 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 3-2001, SB 13-2001, BP 98554 APA TAX
MAP NO. 300-1-40/123-1-40.5 LOT SIZE: 47.71 +/- ACRES [31.30 AC. IN QU., 16.41 AC. IN
LUZERNE] SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-We have no further Staff notes. At the time this application was heard last, it was tabled for
submittal of information from the fire department, West Glens Falls Fire Department, and APA
nonjurisdictional letter, and we’ve received that information, and that, I believe, has been in your packets, and
you’ve hopefully had a chance to review it. The only outstanding issue appears to be, and this is from looking
at the correspondence between Nace Engineering and C.T. Male, appears to be the main issue that we’ve all
looked at, is the steepness of the driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. INGLEE-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that you wanted to add?
MR. INGLEE-Well, just a couple of things, members of the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. INGLEE-I am Jeff Inglee, the applicant for the subdivision. I have no idea where my friend Mr. Steves
is this evening, but he assured me he would be here. I guess the only thing I’d like to say, Members of the
Board is that four years ago I had a decision to make whether to purchase the property across the road from
my existing residence or to pass on the opportunity, and the more I thought of somebody building a house
directly across the road from my place, I decided to go ahead and make Marilyn Smith an offer on the
property. A year after she wasn’t able to sell it, she called me and she said, Jeff, I will sell you the property for
two reasons. The first reason is your offer was very fair. The second reason is that my deceased husband
Albert has watched you, over the last 20 years, turn your existing property into a beautiful piece of land, and
he would have wanted you to own this land, so I should sell it to you, and so at that point, I set out to try to
utilize this piece of property to its fullest potential and to turn it into everything that it has the potential of
being, and that’s what I had set out to do. I bought the land for two reasons. To preserve my own sanctuary,
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
and to hopefully, at some point in time, provide a sanctuary for each one of my children. I know the road is
going to be a pain in the butt in the wintertime, but as you look at all the houses on Tuthill Road, you either
go down to the house or you go up to the house. So I really don’t think there’s a person on Tuthill Road that
doesn’t cringe at the onset of winter months, and I guess I am here this evening with a plea, and I’ll reiterate
this when I say this, I have helped literally hundreds of people, assist them with their dreams come true in my
business, and I’m here this evening with a plea to you folks to let me fulfill my lifelong dream and build me a
log cabin up there where I have a view, on my property. We have decided that we will go along with, I guess,
Mr. Chairman, one of your questions was, am I willing to move my road? I have gone ahead and absorbed a
major part of the expense of moving my road away from the Gomes’ property, to appease them. We will go
ahead and plant whatever shrubbery we have to grow there to lessen the sound of utilizing my driveway, and
I really can’t help but think that we have tried to fulfill every criteria that we need to fulfill here to make this
go through. Again, I’m here with a plea to fulfill a lifelong dream of mine, and I guess that’s just about all I
really have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I was comfortable with the response from John Carpenter, with the Fire
Department. I, too, remember going up the road and seeing the pond, and I’m not sure, I thought maybe I
had made a comment last time you were here about a dry hydrant there. I think that would be sufficient. I
don’t know, in the wintertime, how deep that pond is, and it obviously is going to freeze, but if the hydrant,
under my understanding, is installed correctly, you might have water underneath the surface of ice that you
could access.
MR. INGLEE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. METIVIER-So I was comfortable with that. As far as the driveway, I mean, I don’t think there’s going
to be anything that we can do more to make it any less steep. So I guess I’m comfortable with the response
that we received, from our standpoint, and I really have no further comments or questions.
MR. INGLEE-One thing about the dry hydrant, Tony, is I’ve spoken with a couple of neighbors, and they
really do, in a sense, feel comfortable with the pond being there, because that dry hydrant could not only be
an advantage to my own fire protection, but to other homes on Tuthill Road as well.
MR. METIVIER-I can’t remember, and I’d have to look at the minutes to see if I had made a comment
about that, but I was happy to see that he had suggested that, and I think that if he followed through with
that, that would be a benefit to you. I do wish you luck in the wintertime, but I’ll tell you, I was on a main
road the other day that was probably a little bit steeper that yours, and people travel it. So it was pretty hairy,
though. I wouldn’t want to do it in the wintertime, but I wish you the best.
MR. INGLEE-Thank you, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I want to make sure I understand your original comment. You said you already moved
the driveway?
MR. INGLEE-Yes. Back when we did the excavation work on the driveway, there was a controversy
whether the road that I had roughed in was on Mr. Gomes’ property or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. INGLEE-So needless to say that prior to the gravel base coat being put down, I did go ahead and have
my excavator shift the road to the north 20 feet, just in case, and at that point in time, Matt’s crew was up
there the same day as they were putting the gravel on the road, to shoot the line, and fortunately, the old cut
out road was, in fact, on my property line, but we do have the rough-in grading done to shift the road 20 feet
to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and that’s at that bend in the road?
MR. INGLEE-That’s that first turn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any other further questions or comments, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only comment comes to the letter of C.T. Male regarding the septic system. It
says, “Finally, the proposed septic system layout for lot 3 appears to exceed the maximum NYSDOH slope
requirement of 20%.”
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STEVES-I can answer that. I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors, representing
Mr. Inglee, as well as Mr. Nace, who should be showing up any second, I hope. The topography that’s in the
area of the proposed septic is within the 15% range. It’s because it’s fairly steep up in that area, and with the
contours from the USGS superimposed on it, it appears to be that way, but when we did the actual
topography in that area, we were up there with Tom. He was reviewing the location for the septic, and he did
the deep test and the perc test, and I can assure you that the area where the septic is is within the 15% criteria.
It’s actually around 12%.
MR. SEGULJIC-After further studies (lost words) 20%.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Good evening. The Fire Chief does indicate that he would like to see the road widened. Is
that a possibility?
MR. INGLEE-Sure.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and he doesn’t specify how wide he’d like the road. So I’m certainly not in a position
to make a recommendation, but there is a way in which you can broaden that road out?
MR. STEVES-Yes. We can grade the back on the sides and just widen out the gravel surface a little wider.
It’s averaging around 12 feet. We can probably average up to around 15 to 16 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, my position hasn’t changed from the last time you came, and you’re going into
this with your eyes open. You know it’s going to be tricky in the wintertime, but even independent of this
positive letter from the Fire Chief, I was supportive of the project, and I still am. So, that’s all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, on the drawing that we have here, S-1, does that follow the line of the road as it’s
going to be, or is the road going to be shifted further to the north on that first turn that’s close to the
property line?
MR. STEVES-It’s going to be shifted to the north from where it is shown. We had agreed to move it. We
haven’t moved it on this plan, in case there were any other comments that we needed to address from this
Board before we submit a final plan for signatures, but it will be moved over from its location shown on this
map approximately 15 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the scale of one to one hundred, which this drawing is because of the size of this
plot, if you strain your eyes, you get about 15 feet out of that road on a rule.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And 15 feet sounds, to me, to be wide enough, and then you’re planning on making the
turn outs at 18?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and then the average width, it varies between 12 and 15, and will continue to be
15 to 16 all the way, and 18 at the turn outs.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I would like to see is that the final drawing reflect that, in some way. So that
the drawing that is approved by the Chairman shows not only the road moved to the north, but a note on it
that if it still stays at one to one hundred, a note that says the nominal width of that road would be 15 feet.
MR. STEVES-We will put a note on it to say that the width to be no less than 15 feet, and be no less than 18
at the turn outs.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be satisfactory to me. Because I think, along with my fellow Board member
here, I find the letter from the Fire Chief just a little bit ambiguous, and I had the same thought, how wide
does he want it? Because he doesn’t say. He just says I’d like to see the road widened, without saying
anything on it.
MR. STEVES-Well, we understand that a 12 foot width would be kind of narrow for larger equipment, but a
16 would be, 15 to 16 would be more than adequate to accommodate the vehicles.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he seems to think he can get his pumper up there, and, you know, he’s put his name
on the letter. That’s satisfactory to me. I see you have a second submission to the APA, and I’m not going
to take that any further. If they don’t answer you, within the allotted period of time, it means that you’re
okay, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve made a good faith effort to give them a second shot at it, and you haven’t heard
anything from them yet, I guess?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have any questions, and I’d be inclined to approve this with
the comments that I made on the final drawing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Good evening. I didn’t catch the last part of that. How far, Mr. Inglee, is the driveway
going to be from the property line of Mrs. Gomes?
MR. INGLEE-Mrs. Gomes, right now the property line is probably about four to five feet away from the
existing road. If we shift the road over 15 feet, it’s going to be at least 20 feet away from the property line.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. INGLEE-I don’t know if there’s any criteria as far as setbacks from property lines to roads?
MR. STEVES-Not on driveways, no, but we can make a stipulation that it be a minimum of 20 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is her name spelled G-o-m-e-s?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-The other question I have, what is a dry hydrant?
MR. INGLEE-Basically it’s a big huge piece of PVC pipe that goes down through the ground, and it goes
into the water below freezing level.
MR. STEVES-With a screen.
MR. INGLEE-With a screen, where they can actually suck water from the pond in the dead of the winter, or
in the summer as well.
MR. STEVES-It acts as water that’s not under pressure.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s no problem with you?
MR. INGLEE-No, whatever it takes, John.
MR. STROUGH-All right, and Mr. Nace indicates in his September 23, 2002 letter that he’s willing to show
the following things in the final plans, etc. Okay. So you don’t mind me conditioning our approval,
hopefully, with those items?
MR. INGLEE-No. I think Mr. Nace is a good man for the job.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. INGLEE-I’m set.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we need to do a SEQRA.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JEFFREY INGLEE, 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 22 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any conditions, I suggest you tie them to the Final.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, not to the Preliminary?
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002 JEFFREY
INGLEE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Subdivision No. 15-2002 Applicant: Jeffrey Inglee
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves / Nace Engineering
Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A, LC-10A
Location: West side of Tuthill Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 47.71 +/- acre parcel (31.30 ac. in Queensbury, 16.41 ac. in Luzerne)
into three (3) lots of 5.12 acres, 13.95 acres and 12.23 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 3-2001, SB 13-2001, BP 98554
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
APA
Tax Map No. 300-1-40 / 123-1-40.5
Lot size: 47.71 +/- acres [31.30 ac. in Qu., 16.41ac. in Luzerne]
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: September 24, 2002, Tabled
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/15/02, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 10/8/02; and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice
9/24 Tabled to 10/22/02
9/24 Staff Notes
9/20 CT Male engineering comments
9/17 Notice of Public Hearing
9/4 Transmittal to CT Male for eng. comments
9/4 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 24, 2002 and
October 22, 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
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 Stage is hereby granted.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-A motion for Final, please.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002 JEFFREY INGLEE,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 15-2002 Applicant: Jeffrey Inglee
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves / Nace Engineering
Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5A, LC-10A
Location: West side of Tuthill Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 47.71 +/- acre parcel (31.30 ac. in Queensbury, 16.41 ac. in Luzerne)
into three (3) lots of 5.12 acres, 13.95 acres and 12.23 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 3-2001, SB 13-2001, BP 98554
APA
Tax Map No. 300-1-40 / 123-1-40.5
Lot size: 47.71 +/- acres [31.30 ac. in Qu., 16.41ac. in Luzerne]
Section: Subdivision Regulations
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
Public Hearing: September 24, 2002, Tabled
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/15/02, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 10/8/02; and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice
9/24 Tabled to 10/22/02
9/24 Staff Notes
9/20 CT Male engineering comments
9/17 Notice of Public Hearing
9/4 Transmittal to CT Male for eng. comments
9/4 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 24, 2002 and
October 22, 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
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 Final Stage is hereby granted and is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plan will show that the existing driveway averages approximately 15 feet. The final plans to
be modified to specify that the minimum width will be 15 feet and the gravel surface at each of the
four turns be widened to 18 feet. Final plans will show the shift in driveway, a minimum of 20 feet
away from the Gomes property line; and
2. Cross easements will be included in the deeds for each of the three lots, giving all parties the right to
use and maintain the common driveway.
3. The required building setback lines will be clarified, labeled on the final plan.
4. The surveyor’s seal will be added to the final plan submitted for the Chairman’s signature.
5. The well and septic system serving the existing log home will be labeled as existing and not proposed.
6. Details will be added to the final plans for stormwater turnouts with stone filled check detention
dams at critical locations along the low side of the driveway.
7. The applicant will install a dry hydrant as per the indications and instructions by Chief John
Carpenter in the October 16, 2002 letter.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Inglee.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. INGLEE-Thank you, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, just for housekeeping, let’s stick with all the Old Business, and get them right out
of the way. Prospect, I think, is next.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2002 TYPE II MODIFICATION PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY
CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES
ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 220 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN BY CONSTRUCTING A 6’ HIGH FENCE. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 87-2002, SP 10-2000 TAX MAP NO. 302.13-1-3,
5/93-1-1.5, 1.6 LOT SIZE: 2.60 AC., 1.42 AC. SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-No, we can’t do Prospect. The Zoning Board tabled the motion.
MS. RADNER-You’re only going to consider the part that’s in the side yard, not the part that’s in the (lost
word) yard.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t know that.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-2002, Modification, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date:
October 22, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to modify a previous site plan approval by constructing a six-foot high fence.
Modifications of previously approved site plans require review by the Planning Board.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Modifications to previously approved Site Plans require review and approval by the Planning Board.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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 proposed fence is compatible with the design and layout of the site.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
Not applicable to this proposal.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Not applicable to this proposal.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable to this application.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Not applicable to the proposed modification
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Not applicable to this application.
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.
No additional landscaping or screening is proposed with this site plan.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 26-2002 res. - 5/23/02 Prospect Child & Family Ctr.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s variance request to construct a 6-foot high stockade fence in the front
yard area of the site was withdrawn before being decided on by the ZBA.
The submitted site plan application shows a proposed 6-foot high stockade fence in the front yard of the
property. The fence continues as a 6-foot high stockade fence in the side yard for another 80 linear feet. As
the applicant has withdrawn a variance request for the portion of the fence to be constructed in the front
yard, the Planning Board can only consider the 6-foot high fence that is proposed in the side yard.
The construction of a 6-foot high fence in the side yard differs from the previously approved site plan, which
indicated a 4-foot high stockade fence to be built in this location. A 6-foot high fence is proposed in order to
provide additional screening from the adjacent property to the north. Staff anticipates no adverse impacts as
a result of constructing a 6-foot high fence in the side yard as proposed. No grading, landscaping or lighting
changes have been proposed with this modification.
SEQR Status:
Type: II, no further action required.”
MR. HILTON-Right. Yes, that’s the only comment that we have is that the variance was withdrawn, actually,
by the applicant.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you’re right.
MR. HILTON-The modification calls for constructing a fence six feet in height, as opposed to four, and we
can consider that portion in the side yard, or the Board can consider that portion in the side yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s it for Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. GOUGE-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. GOUGE-I’m Larry Gouge, Executive Director of Prospect Child & Family Center.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your request?
MR. GOUGE-We’re requesting to modify the existing site plan for the fence that we are still able to build,
which was requested by the Planning Board to be four feet, to be six feet. After the planning meeting, I was
requested by the neighbors on our immediate north, the Burkes, to walk the property with them and look at
the lay of the land, and they had requested that we consider a six foot fence, based on the fact that, as you
look, their property moves upward and a four foot fence would provide very little in terms of protection
from the immediate parking lot and other areas. It seemed like a reasonable request, after I considered it, and
agreed to request that, and that’s what I’m doing tonight. It’s as simple as that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only real question I have is more a refreshment of my memory is how close to
Aviation Road does the fence come in the new proposal? I’m sorry, Dixon Road.
MR. GOUGE-Dixon Road? Well, 40 feet of the original fence has been disallowed by the Zoning Board. So
it would be, I don’t know, approximately 50 feet from the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and everything else is the same, from the original site plan, as approved?
MR. GOUGE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s the only question I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-As I recall the original discussion, I have no additional questions at this time, if I recall this,
I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m inclined to go along with it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just that, you know, I support the concept, after going back over there, after they started
construction work, and seeing the existing conditions, you know, not all is as it seems when it’s originally put
to us. We do our best in trying to assess a situation, and I was given the current situation and the excavating
done, I think a six foot fence is very appropriate, screening, considering there’s vegetation in front of it to
soften the look of the fence, and it’s a high quality fence, and so I support the concept, but the Zoning Board
basically said that they wanted to see how this was going to look after additional construction was done so
they could get even a better picture before they gave an approval or disapproval for the fence, but I do
support the six foot fence, and I think it’s appropriate in this situation, and that’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Larry?
MR. GOUGE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Did you folks want to comment?
Does someone want to move it?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2002 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 26-2002 Applicant: Prospect Child & Family Center
Type II Property Owner: Same
Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates
MODIFICATION Zone: SR-1A
Location: 220 Dixon Road
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan by constructing a 6’ high fence. Any
modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: AV 87-2002, SP 10-2000
Tax Map No. 302.13-1-3, 5 / 93-1-1.5, 1.6
Lot size: 2.60 ac., 1.42 ac.
Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: Not scheduled for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/18/02, and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/16 ZBA Resolution
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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, 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 approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and
I think we want to delete the Whereas that references the negative SEQRA declaration. We will
delete that from the resolution
Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Larry.
MR. GOUGE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. All right. Can we move to Keith Crist?
MR. HILTON-We can do this at this time. However, Mr. Crist is on for another application later in the
evening. I don’t know if you want to do those both at the same time, or do it now?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d be inclined to keep them together.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s fine. Let’s move back into New Business, then, I guess, Isabelle Harris.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
ISABELLE HARRIS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: BRUCE CARR ZONE: RR-5A
LOCATION: 1748 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 41.8 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 34.39 ACRES AND 7.41 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-
773 APA TAX MAP NO. 266.01-2-5/27-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 41.8 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 19-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Isabelle Harris, Meeting Date:
October 22, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 41.8 acre lot into two lots of 34.39 acres and 7.41 acres. The property is
located on the east side of Ridge Road and south of Oak Valley Way.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The lot would be split along a stream running from the southern part of the property to the
northwest, with the 34.39 acre property to the north and the 7.41 acre property to the south.
Topography: The site does not have any significant slope in the areas to the west of the property. Some
steeper slopes exist in the eastern portion of the property.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: This property is served by private water and sewage disposal systems.
Drainage: The applicant has submitted a waiver request from the requirement of providing a drainage plan.
Lot sizes: The subdivision would create lot sizes of 34.39 and 7.41 acres, which conform to the requirements
of the RR-5A zone.
Future development: Plans submitted by the applicant indicate a proposed home, well and septic system near
Ridge Road on Lot 1 of the subdivision.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A search of Town records found no prior Planning Board / Zoning Board applications.
Staff comments:
The applicant has submitted a letter seeking the following waivers:
Sketch Plan requirement
Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals
Adjacent property site data
Site utility data
Layout Plan
Landscape Plan
Clearing Plan
Grading/Erosion Control Plan
Drainage Report
Statement of Intent
The proposed application calls for the creation of two lots which both conform to the area requirements for
the RR-5A zone. Staff anticipates no adverse impacts on existing public services or traffic as a result of this
subdivision.
A search of the Town’s GIS data shows an additional intermittent stream in the north/northeast area of the
existing property as well as near the southwestern portion of the current parcel. Additionally, there are APA
wetlands shown on both lots to be created. Although this does not impact the creation of the proposed lots,
any future construction on both lots will be required to meet the required setbacks from these features.”
MR. HILTON-This application is for a two lot subdivision of a 41.8 acre lot on Ridge Road. It’s within the
Adirondack Park, and within a Critical Environmental Area. So it cannot apply for an administrative two lot
subdivision that we might normally be able to approve in other parts of the Town. Based on a letter that the
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
applicant has submitted, they’re seeking the following waivers, Sketch Plan, showing the existing and
proposed two foot contours, adjacent property site data, site utility data, layout plan, landscape plan, clearing
plan, grading and erosion control plan, drainage report and statement of intent. Lots that are proposed both
conform to the area requirements of the RR-5 zone. In reviewing the Town’s GIS data, a couple other
intermittent, one intermittent stream to the north, and one to the south appear on the site, along with some
APA wetlands. It doesn’t affect the subdivision of the land. However, it just should be noted that the
applicant will need to apply to the APA prior to building permit or construction at this site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. CARR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce Carr, representing the applicant here tonight. I
believe our proposed project is very straightforward. The purpose of the two lot subdivision is, as you may
have known, Mr. Harris has died over the summer. This is a subdivision to allow his daughter to move back
to the area and build a house on the new lot being proposed, you know, where the proposed house is located
on the map. As Staff has indicated, we are here before you due to the fact that it is in the APA and will need
APA approval, but I really don’t have a lot to add. I have read through the Staff notes, and the only thing I
would like to address is the comment on the Indian burial grounds that may or may not be on this property.
I spoke with Mrs. Farrington this morning, who is the daughter of Mrs. Harris, and she said, no, that this is
not the property that is addressed in the book. The property that was addressed in the book she said she
actually remembers plowing those fields with her grandfather and finding Indian arrowheads, but that was
property further down on Pickle Hill Road, not this particular property. She said there’s never been any
indication of Indian activity that has been located on this property. In fact she did say, too, I think in the
article it mentioned about an archeological dig. She said about 30 years ago she said somebody came to that
property that she had addressed, that Pickle Hill property, to do archeological findings, you know, for Indian
remnants, but anyway, I just wanted to clear up that this is not the same parcel that is mentioned in the book.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s the issue that I’m concerned with, and I still would like to have better clarity on
that, whether or not there are any historical artifacts or what have you on that property, but other than that, I
don’t see too much with the subdivision, except that. So that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to take a look at the waivers that were submitted on here. I’ll go over them in my
mind, anyway. I think the Sketch Plan is okay, and adjacent property site data, was there any notification to
people on this subdivision that this was going to take place?
MR. HILTON-Yes, we took care of that. By that I think they’re referencing the requirement that you have
all owners identified and tax map numbers and that kind of thing.
MR. VOLLARO-That was all sent out. Okay. Site utility data, on area number two, Lot Two, there’s a house
indicated. That house is already there, obviously, but I notice that there’s a well on that, on the land, and
there’s no septic location. I’m sure there isn’t public sewer on this area. So shouldn’t this site plan show, this
subdivision show where that septic location is, and that it’s at least 100 feet away from that well?
MR. CARR-Well, there’s going to be no change to Lot Number Two. That’s an existing structure.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I’m just making the comment on it, that once you start making this
subdivision map, you should be showing things like that on it, particularly if you show the well, it would be
nice to show that the septic is at least 100 feet from that well. The house on the next lot is the proposed
house. Is that the house that’s going to be built on Lot Number One, 34.39 acres?
MR. CARR-No. I mean, that’s not the exact dimensions. Staff had asked us to put on the map that to show
that a house could be located on it without.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I mean, the new house, this is the new house, where it would be located,
roughly?
MR. CARR-Roughly, yes. They had asked us to put on the map where a house, a house, could be located, so
that it would meet all the setback requirements, you know, from the streams and all that, and the grading, and
that’s what we’ve tried to accomplish there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess, as has been previously stated, but the wetland delineation by APA would be
applied to this subdivision map, or delayed to site plan. I guess if you’re going to go to actual build on that
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
thing, you’re going to have to get the wetlands delineated on there. I guess everybody understands that. My
next comment was on Mr. Strough’s e-mail to Marilyn Van Dyke concerning the subject of the Indian burial
grounds and so on, and I’m going to leave that to a mind far better than mine, when he comes up here, and
that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, good evening. Well, the indicators in the things that I’ve read indicate we’re talking
about two things. We’re talking about a burial ground, and we’re talking about a camp ground. Two separate
situations, but it does say in Phil Harris’ book that the Indian burial ground was located on property owned
by Russell Harris, and this property is owned by Russell Harris, correct?
MR. CARR-It’s not the same piece. He owned much property up there, and that, this is not the same parcel
that was referred to in the book. That book I think, according to Mrs. Farrington, was written by her cousin,
you know, and there is a stream running through the other parcel. I mean, in fact I did not even mention a
couple of the things brought up in that, and she mentioned it to me. I never mentioned to her about the, I
think it was mentioned in that article about the archaeological dig, and she was the one who said, yes, that’s
that property on Pickle Hill, and I remember about 30 years, she goes, about 30 years somebody did an
archaeological dig on that site. I knew that she wasn’t talking the same parcel, because I never even
mentioned that to her.
MR. STROUGH-Well, from what I’ve said, the archeological dig was done on what’s considered to be the
camp area, not necessarily the burial ground. Two separate places, but Mr. Chairman, maybe we should have
the Town Historian speak to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will. I want to get her up here.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. I’ll move on to other things and see what Mrs. Van Dyke has to say at a
later time. Now, property, Lot Two, who currently lives in the house and garage? Is that Isabella’s?
MR. CARR-Mrs. Harris, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Mrs. Harris, and the property line division between the two lots is noted as the stream.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-But I don’t see any other indications. I mean, what if the stream moves?
MR. CARR-No. In fact it’s dry most of the year. It’s very seldom, it’s not a real running stream year round.
It’s wet in the spring, and it dries out in the summer.
MR. STROUGH-Well, this is unusual. Usually when I see a subdivision, I see the lines dividing the two
pieces of property very clearly surveyed and delineated, and I didn’t know if that was a problem or not. It’s a
little bit beyond my expertise, actually, Mr. Chairman. I just had a question about that. I’ve never seen
anything like it. So I still have, that question that has to get resolved, because, you know, if we did have a
flood and there was erosion and the stream did change, I mean, using that as the only indicator, dividing two
properties, I just, I don’t know. I had a problem with it.
MR. CARR-I think, I mean, for ease, I could ask Mr. Steves. I mean, he could probably just run a straight
line, you know, and just give us a meets and bounds description.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Steves would be the expert in this.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have for right now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t think I have anything to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, it’s your turn.
MARILYN VAN DYKE, TOWN HISTORIAN
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MRS. VAN DYKE-Marilyn Van Dyke. I’m the Town Historian. I just became aware of this a few days ago.
I’ve been out of town several times during the course of this month. So I need more time to research some
aspects of this, but for years I think we have heard about the campground and the burying ground in this
area. The question is, where is the area and what is it, and several people have spoken to me and they said
that they knew exactly where it was, and that if you along Pickle Hill Road from (lost word) in across Pickle
Hill, a short distance, and then cut in going north towards the stream, you’ll come to this area where the
natives apparently camped and spent time during the summer months, and they left a lot of evidence of their
being there because they had taken flint off of Sugar Loaf Mountain and made a lot of their arrowheads in
that area. Now, as to exactly where the burial ground is, the only information I’ve ever been given is that
there is a mound there, a rise in the land that might be so indicated, but I think that what we need to do now,
since we know that this whole area being like a valley coming down through off from Dunham’s Bay, we
probably should take a harder look at that to see what is there and what isn’t there. Also I need to get a copy
of the archaeological dig, which I believe was done by the Auringer Seelye Archaeological Society. I have
some of their minutes and notes, but I haven’t had time to really determine exactly what that was, and I think
the reports would probably be filed with the State Archives, and I would need to obtain those to see what
their findings were at the time they did that. So you may have enough information already available. It’s just
a question of getting it ferreted out, and it may also be that this property is to the north of what we’re talking
about, in terms of Native American habitation, but I think we need to check that out.
MR. MAC EWAN-So your research, then, would involve verifying the existence or nonexistence of the burial
ground, just by researching what historical documents you can get your hands on, either through the State or
other sources?
MRS. VAN DYKE-That’s the type of material.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would happen if you didn’t find any documentation to support or deny the
existence of it?
MRS. VAN DYKE-Well, what you have then, you’re left with verbal accounts of people, some of which may
have value depending upon how far back they go. If you can go back far enough, you might say that the
verbal account was reasonably accurate, at that point that it was given. Whereas accounts that are given later
on, up to the current day to day should at least be looked at with some degree of questioning.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how much time do you think you would need?
MRS. VAN DYKE-At least two weeks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So if we tabled this until next month, that would give you ample time to research
everything?
MRS. VAN DYKE-I would think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you’d give us a formal report?
MRS. VAN DYKE-I’ll try to do that, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Very good. Thank you.
MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. Thank you.
MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, could I just add, I mean, whether or not there’s burial grounds there, I mean, may
I ask what significance that would have on the subdivision? I mean, the only reason I’m asking this, I don’t
want it to be held up. If the burial grounds are there, whether it’s one lot or two lot, it’s there, okay. That
affects more whether or not there would be building allowed on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right.
MR. CARR-As opposed to a subdivision of the land. The land isn’t going to change by this subdivision. It’s
an imaginary line is what we’re asking for, but, I mean, we would be denied a building permit should it turn
out to be a historical archaeological find there. I think I would just hate to have another month go by, for
something that could have been done administratively, you know, except for the fact that it’s located in a
Critical Environmental Area, and which the APA is going to take a nice hard look at, over an issue that really
doesn’t change the subdivision itself.
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me respond first, John. Two points to think about. If there is burial ground indeed
located on that parcel, it certainly would weigh very heavy on this Board as to whether we would want to
grant a subdivision or not on it. More importantly, if there was a burial ground located on the property, and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
it was in such a portion of the property that it could be delineated on the subdivision plat, that you know you
could no longer disturb that area, that’s the importance of doing that. As far as the administrative approval
on this, I mean, it kicks it into this Board’s review because it is in a Critical Environmental Area, and it’s
under, potentially could be under APA jurisdiction. So I mean I think it’s important for the welfare of the
community that we take a hard look it, and I don’t really think a month is going to really derail your plans
here any significant amount of time. We’re only tabling it one month.
MR. CARR-Well, with winter on setting I mean, it could. We may have to be put off to the spring to break
ground on this.
MR. STROUGH-I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. It may not be a good one, but I’ll run it by you, if that’s
okay?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-We could condition this to read that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant must ascertain from the Town Historian that location of house and associated construction will not
disturb any known areas of historical importance.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that would be the right avenue to pursue at this time. I think it’s important
for us to have Marilyn research this. I don’t think a month is that long of a wait. We certainly have done it
with many other applications that come in front of us. I don’t see any reason to put this on any kind of a fast
track to put it through. This would give the applicant an opportunity to correct some of the deficiencies that
are on the plat anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, I don’t disagree with your point, but what if, at next month, there’s nothing
conclusive one way or another? Then what?
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn has told us, I mean, she just explained to us her procedure for going to review
this. If something comes back and she’s not able to ascertain whether they exist or not, at that point I think
that we’ve given it a good hard look and we’ve tried to research it to the best of the ability of this Board and
to the Town Historian’s ability. I mean, I don’t know what more you could do.
MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, may I just address that? I mean, this has been around at least for 30 or 40 years,
and it hasn’t been pinpointed yet. I’m not sure why we feel within two weeks it’s going to be pinpointed any
more. I believe Mr. Strough has a, I mean, we would be happy to accept that stipulation.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m really inclined to table it. I don’t want to move forward on this. I’m only one, but,
the answer for you is it may have been around for 30 years and people have talked about it. We’ve not had a
subdivision application in front of us before for this parcel. We now have an opportunity to look at it. We
have some interest in it, and it’s time to disclose whether it does or doesn’t exist. I mean, I think it’s
important, for the history of the Town.
MS. RADNER-May I remind the applicant, too, that this is going to need a SEQRA, and it might be to their
benefit, if they’re confident that the burial grounds aren’t on the property, it’s going to be a lot easier for this
Board to give you a SEQRA Negative Declaration if that’s established before they have to do their review.
So it might be in your best interest to agree to tabling, just to make that review a little simpler for you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll put you on for the first meeting next month. The first item on the agenda. I’ll
personally put my guarantee on it.
MR. CARR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please, to table.
MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, I think there’s somebody who wanted to comment on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did we? I’m sorry. Come right on up.
GARY CARDINALE
MR. CARDINALE-I’m Gary Cardinale. I own the piece of property immediately north of the old lines, if
you will, the lot, correct. I just, I’m at a loss as to formulating an opinion or an idea because you’ve
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
referenced some building numbers and lot numbers that aren’t apparent on that diagram, unless I’m missing
something. I don’t have one of these. Okay. Just so that everyone that’s concerned knows, on the map, my
shed is delineated, if you will, and immediately in front of that shed, probably 15 or 20 feet, is my well, just to
make it known where that is down the road. That was my main interest is that my, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s two sheds shown there. Which one is yours?
MR. CARDINALE-The shed nearest the road was where it was during the course of construction. The U-
shaped delineation for a shed is where it currently resides. It was just moved and probably never changed on
the maps, but about where the arrow is above the latitude and longitude line there is about where my well is.
MR. CARR-We’d also have to stay 100 feet away from that.
MR. CARDINALE-Right, setbacks. That was all. I just couldn’t form a clear opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open so next month you can come back and
comment again if you wish.
MR. CARDINALE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before we do a motion to table, let’s talk about these waiver requests here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I still haven’t got clear in my mind, how can we subdivide property using a
geographic feature that may change?
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Carr was willing to change the delineation of that property line so that it would be
meets and bounds. So, I’m not comfortable with it going down the stream bed, either. That’s one of the
deficiencies I was referring to that has to be corrected on the plat. I think Mr. Vollaro hit a good one, to
show that the septic system, where the septic system is on Lot Two. So we know where it’s located. How
about everything else? Are we in agreement with the waiver requests?
MR. VOLLARO-Pretty much. The drainage report, I’d like to see something on that drainage report
required in the area of the proposed house. The existing house is fine, but the proposed house may be
something we want to look at to see what kind of drainage is up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-So are you looking for a drainage report?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d ask the rest of the Board members what they think about it, but, yes, I would like
to see one, up in that corner.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll go right down the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s where the new house is going to be.
MR. METIVIER-I just don’t think with one house it would be significant enough to require a drainage
report.
MR. STROUGH-It’s only one house.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re out there by yourself, Mr. Vollaro.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s cool.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one of the questions that I might have would be on the landscape plan. Maybe a
stipulation that no mature trees were removed or something. I mean, the site’s pretty wide open as it is.
MR. CARR-Yes. I mean, they aren’t intending to raise anything out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CARR-I mean, they’re just trying to build a house for the daughters.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I have a concern, too, that I should have brought up before, but if I can recall last
year now we subdivided a part of this property, didn’t we, for Mr. Kellogg?
MR. CARR-This property?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, he’s the next lot down.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. I just, you know, you’re starting to see a pattern here, and it’s such beautiful ground,
you just don’t want to start.
MR. CARR-Well, it is, but we certainly are staying, you know, we are staying within the requirements of the
acreage.
MR. METIVIER-And I understand that.
MR. CARR-We aren’t looking for any substandard lots by any means.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but, you know, if you have a new owner, even though it is the daughter, and I
respect that, but she’s given the bigger chunk of property, and, you know, I wonder if in another four months
we’re going to see, since it’s 35 acres, technically seven more subdivision lots.
MR. CARR-Well, I think that’s more a function of where the stream goes through than of anything of future
planning, quite honestly.
MR. VOLLARO-I think a good deal of these waivers will probably, as I looked them over, would probably
become applicable when we go through, when the lot’s actually going to be constructed. Somebody else will
look at that, but it probably won’t be us, but the clearing plan and that kind of thing might have to be looked
at further, when the construction actually takes place.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just wanted to give them some direction, so when they come back here next month,
hopefully we’ll come to some resolution on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s go down real quickly. Sketch plan, I’m inclined to say that’s okay. Existing and
proposed contours at two foot intervals, I’d say that’s all right. Adjacent property site data where the
notification is made, septic tank we talked about, site utility data will be shown for the existing house. The
layout plan, I think that’s okay. The landscape plan, I don’t see a need for that, on a piece of property this
size. The clearing plan would be done when the house is built. Grading and erosion plan would be, again,
part of site. The drainage report I got overruled on. That’s fine. The Statement of Intent, now that’s
something I haven’t seen before, required to aid in what? What is that Statement of Intent supposed to do?
Is that an intent of what?
MR. HILTON-I think it’s just a basic statement. It maybe goes along with, as a cover letter, with the
application, that says what their plans are.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know what that was, but the fact that nobody here can really clearly state what this
Statement of Intent is, I’d just leave it out.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So, basically, we’re agreeing to the waivers.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion to table, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2002, ISABELLE HARRIS, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
To the first meeting in November, November 19. The reason why we’re tabling it is for several reasons:
th
1. To get a clear delineation on the plat for Lot One and Lot Two, which is currently shown by a
stream bed which will now be surveyed in with an actual line.
2. To allow the Town Historian to do a check to see whether there is any Native American activity on
this site, or sites of historic importance.
3. That the septic system on Lot Two be shown with respect to the distance from the well.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-And the intermittent stream and the wetlands to be shown on the?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we’re going to ask them, John, to do, that the intermittent wetlands be shown, then
that’s got to be delineated by somebody other than, that’s got to be an APA delineation, and I don’t know
that we can make this for one month.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Let’s stick with the three things we’re tabling this for.
MR. SANFORD-Well, just one quick question, please. You mentioned earlier that the reason for the
subdivision was largely because the stream made some sense because it was there. Now that you’re going to
actually have a line, rather than the stream, is there any reason for us to anticipate that the subdivision, in
terms of the two lots, will be materially different than what has been suggested?
MR. CARR-I don’t think so. I think if you take the map and just draw it from the road back to the, a straight
line back to where the stream crosses, I guess, the southern border of the property, you’re going to find the
stream probably goes on both sides of it. We’ll just try to do a line right.
MR. SANFORD-It’ll approximate the same dimensions then?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-It may change. The lot size may vary just a little bit.
MR. CARR-I was going to say, if it changes by a half an acre, I think that would be a lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be insignificant.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-FYI, submittal deadline was when?
MR. HILTON-A week ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-A week ago. You need to revise this plat. That’s one of the things we’re looking for. If
you can have it in to the office by the end of business the First.
MR. CARR-I’ll ask Mr. Steves.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the way you’re going to get on. I’m extending you a little extension normal.
MR. CARR-I appreciate that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. CARR-And can I get a report from Mrs. Van Dyke also before the meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll certainly get it, yes.
MR. CARR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2002 CUMBERLAND FARMS PROPERTY OWNER: VSH REALTY
AGENT: MARTIN AUFFREDOU ZONE: HC-MOD. LOCATION: US RT. 9 AND
KENDRICK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF NEW STATE OF THE
ART GASOLINE DISPENERS WITH NEW CANOPY, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPING AND SITE WORK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 84-2002, AV 44-93, SP 29-93
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-69/69-1-17 LOT SIZE: 1.00
ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
BRUCE LIPINSKI & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-2002, Cumberland Farms, Meeting Date: October 22, 2002 “Project
Description:
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
The proposed site plan calls for the construction of two additional gas pumps, a new gas island canopy,
underground storage tanks, landscaping/sidewalks, and vehicular access consolidation at the Cumberland
Farms located at the northeast corner of Rt. 9 and Kendrick Rd.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed plan requires Site Plan review and approval by the Planning Board. The proposed
canopy, which does not meet the 75-foot Travel Corridor Setback, received a variance from this
requirement from the ZBA on 10/16/2002.
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?
No additional burden on public services and facilities are anticipated with this proposal.
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 driveway consolidation along Rt. 9 would have a positive impact on vehicular access
and circulation. Relocation of the Kendrick Road access point farther to the east would improve
vehicular access/safety by providing a larger separation distance from vehicles accessing the site and
the Rt. 9 / Kendrick Road intersection.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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.
No new buildings are proposed to be constructed at this location. The site plans call for new lighting
to be built underneath the proposed gas island canopy. Comments on lighting will be provided in
the staff comments section of these notes. The site plan also shows signage to be placed on the new
canopy, which will face toward the property to the north. A business on a corner lot is allowed one
freestanding sign and two wall signs. Wall signs that are allowed must face a public street. The
proposed canopy sign is not allowed to face to the north, as proposed, and must face a public street.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The applicant proposes to consolidate two vehicular access points along Rt. 9 into one full service
drive. This consolidation will have a positive impact on vehicular access and circulation at this
location. Relocation to the east of an existing access drive on Kendrick Road would also improve
vehicular access, circulation and safety, by providing a larger separation distance between the access
points and the intersection of Rt. 9 and Kendrick Road
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The number of parking spaces provided conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Consolidation of the vehicle access drives along Rt. 9 will allow for safer pedestrian circulation along
already existing sidewalks on Rt. 9.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
No information on stormwater drainage has been provided.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site is served by municipal water service and an on site sanitary sewage system.
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 applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing additional plantings. No removal of existing
of vegetation is shown on the site plan.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Emergency access and provisions appear to be adequate at this location.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 84-202, res. 10/16/2002 – setback relief for canopy
Staff comments:
The lighting plan submitted indicates an average foot-candle reading of 27.85 underneath the gas island
canopy. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 10. The fixtures to be used under the canopy must
be flush with the canopy ceiling. Cut sheets should be provided showing the canopy light as being flush
with the ceiling. The lighting plan shows pole mounted lighting which appears to be down facing, but
does not have a 90 degree cut off as required by code. The lighting to be used at the northwest corner of
the property appears to be above the foot-candle limits of the Zoning Ordinance. It appears that some
light spill will take place to the property to the north. An overall light uniformity ratio of 4:1 should be
maintained on site. The Zoning Ordinance states that high-pressure sodium lights are preferred.
The plans call for the consolidation of two driveways into one on Rt. 9. This will have a positive impact
on access management at this location. Consideration should be given to moving the Kendrick Road
access drive farther to the east in order to provide a greater separation distance from the Rt. 9
intersection and vehicles accessing the site.
As previously mentioned, the signage shown on the canopy elevations must face a public street. Signage
shown on the plan is not being approved as a part of this application.
SEQR Status:
Type: II, no further action required.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LIPINSKI-Good evening. My name is Bruce Lipinski. I’m here for Martin Auffredou, and I have Chris
Boyea with me. He’s from Bohler Engineering, and we have representatives of Cumberland Farms here if
you have any questions for them as well. Essentially we’re here tonight because we were granted variances
last week from the ZBA, which allow us to put the canopy in the place where we’ve designed it to go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I get you to possibly put that right upon the easel so that our audience can see that?
MR. LIPINSKI-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can pull that easel right up closer if you want. Could you give me your name again,
please? I’m sorry.
MR. LIPINSKI-It’s Bruce Lipinski.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. LIPINSKI-And, if you recall, Cumberland Farms has been before the Board a couple of times already.
This is Store Number Three. It’s part of the revitalization of the Cumberland Farms stores in the Town of
Queensbury, and with this project, it’s a little different than the others. What we’re doing here is taking out
the old tanks and replacing them with brand new tanks, and we’re also proposing to increase the number of
pumps by two, and we’ve increased the canopy space to cover those pumps. One of the major benefits of
this project is Cumberland Farms has agreed to eliminate one curb cut along Route 9, which is in keeping
with Warren County’s plan for the corridor. I’d like to remind the Board we’ve been before the Warren
County Planning Board, and they unanimously approved this in terms of No County Impact, and so we’re
basically limiting the access to just one point on Route 9, and continuing to maintain the access on Kendrick
Road, which currently exists. We’re not making any changes to the actual building. Essentially we’re
improving the tanks. They’re going to be state of the art, environmentally sound tanks. We’re basically
keeping up with the other major convenient stores in the area, try and provide a better product to our
customers, maintain the customer base, and modernize, and that’s why we’re here before you this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s go through the concerns on behalf of Staff and C.T. Male. First of all, the
signage on the canopy facing north seems to be an issue. It’s not allowed under the current Ordinance.
MR. BOYEA-Good afternoon. My name is Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering. The signage facing north
was received off of the elevations that were provided to the Town. One mistake was made that that’s kind
of boilerplate, where those signs are placed, and nobody caught it. It’s a very good point. That sign can be
moved to face Route 9.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s solved.
MR. HILTON-That was just a point of clarification as far as we were concerned, just to let you know
beforehand. I mean, this is obviously not issuing a sign permit, but that was our intent.
MR. BOYEA-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Also, how about moving the Kendrick Road access a bit east?
MR. BOYEA-As far as moving that access further up, we can certainly see where the comment comes from.
I mean, obviously everybody likes to move them further away from the intersection. In this particular case,
though, we’re pretty much binded, we cannot, and the reason being is because of the business that they’re in
with the fuel tanker truck delivery. Two issues come up with this. If we move the entrance further away, the
first would be the grade from the road to the grade where the finished floor of the existing building, would
create a five percent plus grade, which is drivable. It’s been done before. However, it’s not conducive to a
tanker truck delivery. You’ve got a very large truck. You’ve got a lot of gallons of fuel. You’ve got hoses
with a parked truck, so it’s got to be on a certain pitch on a grade. It wouldn’t be conducive to unloading fuel
at all. Plus, the second concern would be is that a tanker truck needs really at least a 50 foot radius for, to
turn around, and what you’d have, if you went down and brought that entrance further down, is no matter
how you look at it, the truck would have to do a 180 degree turn, whether he’s coming up Kendrick Road and
then coming into the site, or whether he’s going the opposite way, he’s exiting the site that way. The tanker
truck would be forced to do a 180 degree turn, which wouldn’t fit there without, I don’t think our neighbors
would like them driving over their lawn a little bit. The back of the truck would hit. So those two issues are
really prohibiting that. The grade, the safety of the tanker truck unloading on that heavy grade, and the tanker
truck turning radius of 180 degrees.
MR. STROUGH-Given your arguments, and given the fact that Kendrick is not a busy road, I can live with
that, talking for just myself.
MR. VOLLARO-John, on that subject, wasn’t that road moved a little bit to the east, as the site plan shows
now, or is it in the same location?
MR. STROUGH-It’s just about what we’re looking at. I think it’s pretty close to where it is. Okay. Let’s
stay with Staff notes. The canopy lighting, the plan indicates 27.85 foot candles, and the Town Code, I
believe, according to C.T. Male, is 20 foot candles. I mean, one of the notations it was 10, but that doesn’t
seem right.
MR. SANFORD-It’s 10 in the book.
MR. STROUGH-Is it 10 in the book?
MR. HILTON-It’s 10 in the book.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 10 in the book. I looked it up.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STROUGH-Because did you notice the two different, all right, the Town Code says 10. Are you willing
to compromise some place in between there?
MR. BOYEA-We would like, like anybody would, we would like 100 foot candles. However, what we’ve
done, in designing this site, Cumberland Farms called me way back and said, hey Chris, what did you do for
canopy lighting at Main Street Cumberland Farms that we just did, and the other site that Bohler did for them
was Ryan, not Ryan Street, Quaker and Ridge.
MR. MAC EWAN-Quaker and Ridge.
MR. BOYEA-And we went through this whole issue with canopy lighting. So they kind of looked ahead and
they said, I remember lighting was an issue. So we sent them up what we did at Quaker and Ridge, because it
was more similar to this station. It wasn’t right on Main Street. There was a couple of residential properties
or what not that was around there, and what they did is they mimicked that lighting plan with this canopy. I
do have the two approved plans from both those stations. We have them here tonight if you guys, I could
pass them around if you wish. What you’ll find is the hot spots, which are right underneath the light always.
They are right in line. It’s the same light fixture. It’s the same everything, the same spacing as the two
stations that were just approved for those two locations. So with that in mind.
MR. STROUGH-Didn’t we take out some fixtures, though?
MR. BOYEA-Yes, you did. In Quaker and Ridge you did. That’s correct. It’s too many.
MR. STROUGH-Might do the same, here. All right. Let’s move on. We’ll see how the rest of the Planning
Board members feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to interject here, you’re saying that the proposed lighting you have for this canopy, is
as it is at Quaker and Ridge?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. Same fixture. Same wattage.
MR. MAC EWAN-Same amount of lights?
MR. BOYEA-No. I cannot say that. It’s two different canopies. The one at Quaker and Ridge is a different
style canopy than this. This is a much longer canopy. So the similarities are between it is it’s the same light,
the same manufacturer, same spacing. Obviously, it’s different length.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a gut feeling, I think you’re going to go oh for three on lighting. Anyway, John,
moving right along.
MR. STROUGH-The pole light does not show a 90 degree cut off as required by Code. Does it have one?
MR. BOYEA-The pole lights, that was actually the interesting thing that I just learned about today, when I
started looking at the comments and the notes, I wasn’t sure, as the Building Inspector or Planning pointed
out, whether they were coming or going or staying or what was going on with those. So I looked into that,
and they are going to be new pole lights. There is, I’m not sure whether you guys received the new lighting
plan that was prepared?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, we got the new lighting plan.
MR. BOYEA-That’s it, yes. That’s the Challenger fixture, again, they stayed with the same light fixture that
was at the other two stations. They do have house side shields on them, meaning that they are shield around
to direct the light down, and if you look at the new lighting plan, with the photometrics that are on there,
you’ll see that behind the light it drops off very quickly. It’s like, you know, .3 to .1, very quickly. So they’re
directed to shine the light towards the front.
MR. STROUGH-So what you said, there’s a shield surrounding a light, that basically is a cut off.
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So they do have cut offs.
MR. VOLLARO-Where you on the lighting plan, with respect to, are we all on the same page? This is the
plan of 10/9?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. BOYEA-In regards to this light pole, sir?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BOYEA-Okay. If you go to the back right corner of the site, which is down by Kendrick Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just so I’m on the same page as my fellow Board member here, I’ll let him take over.
Go ahead, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, are those pole lights, are they the Challenger that’s shown in the detail on the
lighting plan?
MR. BOYEA-Existing now, or proposed? I mean, proposed they are the Challenger.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m assuming they’re proposed, the fixtures?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-The canopy and the pole lights?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t show a cut off fixture on that, though.
MR. BOYEA-Well, the cut off would be internal, too.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. BOYEA-I mean, you wouldn’t necessarily see an actual device hanging down from it. They’re house
side shields. So they actually go up in the lens, or in the bulb. They stop the projection of the light at a 45
degree angle before it has a chance to go.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let me give you two reasons why I’m concerned. The one in the northeast
corner is toward the residential area. So I just want to make sure that that doesn’t negatively impact the home
in back of that, or the home across the street.
MR. MAC EWAN-From this lighting plan, John, it’s not throwing any light off behind it.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s .2 to 0.
MR. MAC EWAN-.2, .1, 0.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the light on the northwest corner.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different story.
MR. STROUGH-I just was wondering, do you really need that, given the street lighting that’s out that way?
MR. BOYEA-I can’t give you a very good answer on that.
MR. STROUGH-Because the street lighting isn’t accounted for.
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. It is not accounted for, and without being out there at night, I really couldn’t
tell you whether it is. What I would just say is that it’s existing now. We are definitely going to have shields
on it, which I can tell you that light does not have shields on it now. We would like to keep it, whether it’s an
overkill or a redundancy or whether it doesn’t really add anything to the site, we’d like to have it. You never
know when the maintenance of that, of the streetlight bulb’s going to go out, and it might take DOT three
weeks to three months to change it. We would just like to have it and keep it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It looks like there’s two streetlights that would illuminate the front portion of that
property.
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s one there, and one there.
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-So what can we do to eliminate that one light?
MR. STROUGH-Eliminate it.
MR. BOYEA-It’s existing now. Without actually going out there, I mean, I can see in the picture it’s clearly,
yes, there is a light pole there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two of them.
MR. BOYEA-But I hate to say anything without actually physically going out and saying, look, okay, how is
this going to shine? Is there going to be a problem? Because it’s existing now, does it throw, would it have a
problem with remaining? I guess is my question.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, to steal a minute from Mr. Strough’s time here, I don’t want you to get the
impression that the Board is like picking on every Cumberland Farms application that comes through the
doors. I mean, we’ve taken lighting as a very serious issue, especially since the new Ordinance has come out,
and we’ve worked with every application that’s come in in front of this Board for review to try to get the
lighting down, to try to get off site lighting to the bare minimum we can, and eliminate it wherever possible.
It certainly seems like an appropriate opportunity to eliminate that one light pole.
MR. BOYEA-I tell you, would it be possible, and I don’t have the authority to say this, and I think I’d have
to talk to Steve or get a nod before, if you wanted to do something there, because I can definitely see that
there is some lights there that are definitely going to contribute. What if we were to propose to meet you half
way? Those are 400 watt bulbs proposed in those lights that are there. If we found the same manufacturer,
the Challenger, the same light, which I know that they manufacture, they just put a smaller bulb into it. If we
were to agree on even cutting that down to 50%, to a 200 watt bulb?
MR. MAC EWAN-My only concern is a year or two years from now, when the bulb burns out, someone
goes by and puts a 400 watt bulb in it.
MR. BOYEA-That’s always a concern. However, if the light is there, as the light is showing, and if it’s
sufficient, there would be no need for them to go and put a 400 watt bulb in there. This would ensure that
the client, if those bulbs were ever to go out, for any reason, kids with a bee bee gun shoot them out or they
just go out over time, that at least the client has guaranteed that they have regulations, or they could regulate a
light in that corner.
MR. LIPINSKI-And the other point I’d like to make is we’ve got to remember what the use is here. This
store is open 24 hours a day, and they need a certain amount of lighting, for security purposes, both for the
protection of the customers outside the store, as well as the employees inside the store, and so we certainly, I
mean, Cumberland Farms obviously is in the business, and they design these with that in mind as well, and
I’m just concerned that, you know, by reducing a lot of these lights, you know, we may be impacting upon
something else, and I just want to make that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, personally, whether I buy into that debate or not. I mean, we certainly, you
know, we have the Ordinance to go by. We’ve worked very hard with all new applications that come through
the door to keep light spillage to a minimum. If security was an issue, as part of your upgrade, are you
upgrading the building itself and doing a remodeling of the building itself?
STEVE KNOPFTL
MR. KNOPFTL-We’ve made lots of internal upgrades, with regard to security. I’m Steve Knopftl, Regional
Manager. We have made significant upgrades internally. We just put in a four camera multiplex system
within the last year and a half, as well as we will be arming the store with a panic button, as well as a security
company. Universal Atlantic will be a security company that will be, the store will be alarmed, telephone
alarm.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about outside lighting on the building itself?
MR. KNOPFTL-We would be glad to add additional lighting outside of the building, if you would allow that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m only asking the question because he raised the point that, you know, as far as
security and such like that, and it’s my understanding the only thing that’s in front of us tonight is installing a
new canopy and the appropriate lighting for the canopy and upgrading your gasoline tanks.
MR. KNOPFTL-Correct. If you’re asking if we would like to add additional lighting for security purposes,
the answer is yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not asking if you wanted to add that. I’m asking if you had done that as part of your
upgrade to the store, if you were doing it. I guess I’m trying to drive home a point. You’re saying that
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
security’s a concern, but I don’t hear any comments being made about adding more lighting to the building
itself, when it seems to me that this one particular light pole in the corner is not going to be a significant
security deterrent for your operations that can’t be made up by the two light poles that are on the public road
right now, with both of them shining in to your lot.
MR. BOYEA-You’re talking about the rear corner by Kendrick?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about the one that would be the northwest corner, on Route 9.
MR. BOYEA-Is that it, right there?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, I’m talking about your light on your property.
MR. VOLLARO-Those lights there are placed approximately where you want to put your light?
MR. SANFORD-Their light already exists. Is that correct?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. We would utilize the same base.
MR. SANFORD-I, personally, feel comfortable with the compromise suggested by, I’m sorry, I didn’t get
your name.
MR. BOYEA-Chris, with Bohler.
MR. SANFORD-With Chris. It makes sense to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I don’t like to do about that, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll turn it back over, when
we start doing these compromises, then I lose the validity of the foot candles on the ground, and this chart
becomes not as useful to me then as it is now. I see what it is, and if you want to make, it would be nice if we
had a computer here we could say, okay, change that to 200, let’s see what the spread looks like, but as soon
as we start making tradeoffs, let’s get rid of this, make it 200, you don’t know what you’ve done to this
lighting plan, and that concerns me.
MR. SANFORD-It would be less.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be less, but how much?
MR. SANFORD-The argument for you in advance is, is it excessive now, and it certainly looks like it is not,
based on these numbers.
MR. VOLLARO-To me it doesn’t look like it, because I was up there last night and parked across the street
in that strip mall at about nine o’clock looking at this site, and those two lights that we keep talking about
throw very little light, as a matter of fact, very little light.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? Sorry.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the only thing is, in discussing a compromise, should we go in that direction, is
this three phase lighting?
MR. BOYEA-No. I don’t believe this is three phase of bulbs. These are all (lost word).
MR. STROUGH-Well, I see the wattage for the pole lamps is 458.
MR. BOYEA-Right.
MR. STROUGH-So I’m wondering if that’s three phase.
MR. BOYEA-No, that’s just, the watts are the lumens.
MR. STROUGH-You might not get a 200 watt light bulb out of the deal. That’s what I’m saying. Make sure
that we can have a fixture that if we say 200 watts, and we’re thinking a compromise, and the light fixture, in
three phase, is going to be 250 watts.
MR. BOYEA-I feel very confident. I’ve put 200 watters out there. I’ve specked them. So I don’t know what
they’re putting in, but.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, we’ll keep that in mind.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. BOYEA-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And the uniformity ratio here is, I’m looking.
MR. VOLLARO-Four to one.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what it’s supposed to be.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve looked at it, and it looks about four to one, to me.
MR. STROUGH-This is four to one?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Pretty close.
MR. STROUGH-What’s the applicant say?
MR. BOYEA-If you look at the table up at the corner, it is very close to four to one. It’s slightly higher,
which keeps them in check with your others.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I see. How about sodium lighting?
MR. BOYEA-At this time we’re not proposing sodium lighting. These are mercury halide, which provide a
little bit clearer of a light. I’m sure you guys all are aware of the two different kinds of lights that are out
there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the sodium, though, is not as bright, not as strong, and it’s not as brash, you
know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t the issue, though, with sodium lights, aren’t they the ones that need to be warmed up
before they come on?
MR. BOYEA-They take longer, but it’s not a huge downfall for them, but, yes, they do take a little bit longer
to warm up. We tried to speck the exact same, because I know we went through this before, and I know that
we were pretty pleased with the lights that we, the fixtures. I mean, we went through quite a lot to get these
fixtures on the others. So we tried to keep it the same. The look is going to be the same from one station to
the other. We’ve decreased the lights to account for any of that extra glare that you’re referring to. You’re
correct. You do get a little bit more of it sometimes, but we’ve already decreased the lights for that, knowing
that we’re going to go into that. I can guarantee to get the same, I mean, what we’re really looking at is the
numbers of the output. To get the same, I’m going to have to come back with more lights, and even though
we all agree that this isn’t excessive anymore, if we were to go to the sodium and get the same numbers, I
might have to add a light or two.
MR. VOLLARO-Our zoning code says high pressure sodium lights are preferred. They’re not required. So
this is something I think, if they’ve done this, the way I’ve looked at this whole thing, John, is I’ve taken,
saying to myself, how much of a departure is this application from the other two we’ve already approved, in
terms of candles underneath the canopy, etc., and I’m kind of doing my judgment a little bit on that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we’ll come to some consensus. Let’s just get all the cards out on the table.
On your US Route 9 curb cut, and we have a sidewalk.
MR. BOYEA-Can you?
MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s already currently a sidewalk.
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But you don’t show any, and I’m not sure what the technical term is, but when the sidewalk
is sloped down to meet the macadam.
MR. BOYEA-The ramps.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, there’s probably a word for that.
MR. BOYEA-I call it a ramp. That keeps it simple.
MR. STROUGH-I like that. You don’t show those ramps on here, and I just want to make sure that, you
know, they do get on here, that there’s ramps, down ramps, for the sidewalk area, so that people don’t have
to jump the curbs to get down to the macadam, okay.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. BOYEA-Yes. They are on there. They’re just not labeled as ramps. You’ll definitely see a clear line that
shows that it’s a ramp. We could put the word “ramp” on there.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you’ll show them and label them, okay, on the final plans. All right. No
sense in hanging out there too long. Now the canopy stormwater drainage, is there a down spout for that
canopy, and does that go into that adjacent drywell?
MR. BOYEA-Currently, I believe that the downspouts are above ground at that facility. So, in other words,
they spill out right onto the concrete mat that you’ll be standing on fueling. You’ve seen some of those
where they come right out. They’re trying to get away from that. So in the redevelopment of this, when they
replace the existing drywell that’s there, they’ll tie that in, and that was half the reason why they put in the
second drywell.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the canopy is, for all practical purposes, pretty level, though, right, and flat
topped?
MR. BOYEA-The canopy is 100% level on the top.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and flat-topped. So if it drains to the south, or to the west, then it’s going to drain in
the road. I was just trying to get all the drainage to stay on site, as much as I could.
MR. BOYEA-Right, and that’s one of the reasons why you’re not going to see water spilling at your feet
anymore when you pump gas. It’s going to be hard piped right into one of those drywells.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what I asked.
MR. BOYEA-Okay. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is the fascia of the canopy going to be lit up?
MR. BOYEA-No, but we will have a neon strip that goes, no.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t say no absolutely. Even the signage for Cumberland Farms, which will be facing
towards Route 9 won’t be lit?
MR. BOYEA-The signs are proposed as two Gulf signs. They are proposed as internally illuminated on these
plans.
MR. STROUGH-Just that part of the sign that advertises the gas station on the fascia or skirt of that canopy
will be the only part lit?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now C.T. Male says, Number Two, I don’t know if you’ve responded to the C.T.
Male comments. If you did, I didn’t see them.
MR. BOYEA-We just got them. So I can respond to them tonight, but I haven’t.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s go through them. Okay. Number Two, Number One, I don’t think, needs anything.
With respect to the modified entrance to Route 9, the New York State DOT should be contacted to
determine the need for a non-utility permit. I don’t understand that. So you’re going to have to explain it to
me and then give me your opinion.
MR. BOYEA-We definitely will have to talk to DOT. It’s very simple. We’re going to have to talk to them
to get their permission. Any time you work in the right of way, and we definitely are working in there to
adjust and consolidate those curb cuts. Even though they’ll probably say, God bless you, we love the idea, it’s
a formality that we have to talk to them to get a permit, so that they know Joe Shmo was out there on a
backhoe taking, you know, (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s a mandated procedure.
MR. BOYEA-Yes. We will have to apply for one.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Number Three, due to the width of the entrance onto Route 9, consideration should
be given to striping a separate right and left turn exit lane.
MR. BOYEA-We would prefer not to do that, for the following reasons. However, if you want to mandate
it, we’ll put a stripe down the middle.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STROUGH-Well, it would help, especially with you going, I’m hoping that you’re going to eight
stations, four pumps, right?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And so, you’re hoping to get the traffic to do that.
MR. BOYEA-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-And so in order to accommodate the traffic better, and hope that you do get the business, I
think the striping is absolutely needed in my opinion. All right. Number Four we already talked about, right,
pretty much?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Number Five we’ve talked about. Number Six, C.T. Male asks if the soils have been tested
to confirm the drainage, the ability of the drywells to handle the drainage perc test?
MR. BOYEA-Yes. C.T. Male did not have any information on any of the drainage, basically, at the time
when this response was written. We did, since then, get a drainage report together, as brief as it may be,
seeing as how we’re not really changing impervious, I’m not sure whether the Board has a copy of that report.
MR. STROUGH-We just got one tonight, and I gave it a cursory review, and haven’t gotten the chance to
read it in detail. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Should we be inclined to approve this, as a condition, just make sure that all engineering
comments be signed off by C.T. Male. That way you’re covered by that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Number Seven, the plan does not contain a proposed grading plan. It appears that
if the new pump island is constructed level it will significantly affect drainage patterns. At a minimum, spot
elevations should be provided in the area around the new island. Consideration should be given to relocating
the new drywell based on the proposed grading.
MR. BOYEA-Okay. When we perform plans, as we did for your other sites, we actually call out those spot
grades. That’s how we do it. This plan was prepared by Cumberland Farms, with the help of our engineers.
They use contour lines. The contour lines do run through on the plan. So it does leave the contractor a little
bit of interpretation. The contour might say 97, and run over the corner of the canopy. Obviously it’s 97
there. It doesn’t really call it out. The intent of the plan is to match the existing grade. We don’t want to
change the grade. We want to lay out that canopy as it is. It all drains. There’s no puddles. There’s no
ponds now. So the mat would replace the existing asphalt.
MR. STROUGH-But where the drywell is being proposed is where the gas, the holding tanks are now for the
gasoline. So we just want to ensure that the grading occurs so that the driveway is pitched towards this new
drywell. So we want to ensure that that happens. Okay, and so you don’t have a problem with that, I mean,
if we just condition that C.T. Male approves the.
MR. BOYEA-As long as C.T. Male is happy, if that’s a condition, that’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s one of those housekeeping things that can be worked out.
MR. BOYEA-Yes, sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-The plans should more clearly show the limit of pavement removal, resurfacing, including
the sidewalk along Route 9.
MR. BOYEA-I think that that’s lumped in to the exact comment that was just made that was just made that,
you know, C.T. Male needs to be made aware that obviously we’re going to follow the existing contour of the
land. So it’s a saw cut and replace.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, that does it for me, for now. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t have much more to add. I just wanted to make a comment, from the other two
sites. I think you did a great job, or Cumberland Farms did, on both sites, and I certainly applaud you for
bringing in this lighting plan from Ridge and Quaker. I don’t have a concern on the lights, but I just did want
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
to state that in both sites I’m very, very pleased with how they turned out, and you should all be commended
for a great job.
MR. BOYEA-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Usually after John gets done there’s not much else to ask. I wanted to just sort of echo
some of Tony’s comments. I live near the site on Quaker and Ridge, and that was such a huge improvement,
and as I was looking at the lighting plan and thinking about it, I was thinking that it should match what was
constructed there, and obviously you were ahead of us in anticipating that comment. So I really didn’t have
anything else to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a question. What is a positive limiting barrier?
MR. BOYEA-That is a newer feature that was put out, Cumberland Farms uses it on all their stations. You
won’t find it on all of them, but eventually it’s going to be mandated that all of them have it. What that is is
no more, and as simple as putting grooves in, with a trowel, when the concrete’s wet. They’re pretty deep
grooves. They’re about three-quarter inch grooves, all the way around the outside of the canopy mat. So you
can drive over them, you walk over them, they’re not a trip hazard or anything like that, but what that does is
if somebody was to overfill their tank or to do something stupid and to spill gas, you’ve got a reservoir, three-
quarter inches long by 100, you know, or 98 feet, or it varies a little different, that when the gas starts to roll
off the mat and into the pavement, and then into your storm sewer, it catches it, it stops it. It finds the
grooves, and it sits in there and it can hold up to approximately 15 or 20 gallons, if it’s spread all out on a flat
surface. If it’s on an angle, it might hold five gallons, but the point is that if it holds enough and stops before,
that’s so you can stop the problem, or stop the source.
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like a great idea, but that takes care of my second comment, then. I was
concerned about the drywells being right next to the filling area, and I was going to say put up some of those.
MR. BOYEA-We’re going to put a positive limiting barrier there.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-No, no real comment, other than just to weigh in, because it’ll probably be introduced when
a motion comes up here, that I, personally, on the northwest corner, do appreciate the security issue that was
referenced, especially with all that’s happening these days, to rely on another source, which would be, I guess,
I don’t know if that’s the County or if that’s the Town, for lighting, the State, you know, Cumberland Farms
does have, I think, an issue there, for that lighting, if that light went out. They don’t have control over it, and
with all the things that are going on, I certainly don’t see it as a problem. So, I would support the
compromise that you suggested, and that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-The only question I have, in looking at the lighting plan, is some degree of spillage. Now, I
understand that the canopy is set forward, you’ve got relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the 75 foot
corridor overlay setback. So that pushes your canopy up toward Route 9 a little bit, and I can appreciate why
some of these numbers seem to, for example, what does this double line on the lighting plan depict? Is that, I
couldn’t quite understand what that was.
MR. BOYEA-Right next to the canopy?
MR. VOLLARO-No, get down on Route 9, and you’ll see that there’s a double line that runs along Route 9
there, you have it as a double, for some reason or another it looks like a double line.
MR. BOYEA-That’s pavement markings.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s where the pavement stops?
MR. BOYEA-That delineates a drive lane.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would be a left hand turn up into Kendrick Road?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s the north lane. I mean, if you look at the photo right there, what you’re looking
at is the northbound lane of Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then we could have some light spillage onto that lane.
MR. BOYEA-That is correct, that you do have a little bit out in there. However, that is very insignificant,
usually, in a commercially developed area, especially when you have two, I would have to guess, 500 watt high
pressure sodium State DOT lights there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I notice that if you take a look at your light distribution, right along that line you’ll
find that the only place you have light spillage is almost directly in front of your canopy.
MR. BOYEA-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, one of the reasons for that is that the canopy is moved forward because you don’t
have to meet the 75 foot setback.
MR. BOYEA-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m in favor of having enough light under the canopy, for sure. I’m a big proponent of
that. I’m also always worried about light spillage off site. I like to see these light plans show zero on the
property lines, because then I think the light becomes intrusive when you do that, get off the property.
MR. BOYEA-Do you feel, though that this might be a little bit different scenario with US Route 9 that is
right there? That the amount of light that we’re looking at over the property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Is insignificant.
MR. BOYEA-Is, well, it is insignificant.
MR. VOLLARO-It is. I mean, I understand that. To me, I like to see zeros on the boundaries.
MR. SANFORD-But what’s .1, Bob? I mean, give me a reference. What would that be like?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to have to sit and explain what .1 is now, because.
MR. STROUGH-Can I ask a question, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Related to this. Now, the fixtures going in under the canopy are the Richmond Flush
Mounts?
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And each bulb is 215?
MR. BOYEA-On this one, each bulb.
MR. STROUGH-Each fixture is? What’s the wattage of?
MR. VOLLARO-215 watts.
MR. BOYEA-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So each bulb, and there’s 16 fixtures, and each bulb is 215 watts.
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-That seems like an unusual bulb, 215. What would be the next lower grade?
MR. BOYEA-I think there’s probably unlimited. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a canopy light that goes under
175, but then you could just go to a different canopy light. I think, you could go right down to a 40 watt
vanity bathroom light bulb, really.
MR. STROUGH-They do make 175 watts for this fixture, though?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. BOYEA-I don’t know if it’s the exact fixture, but I’ve seen them out there that go that low.
MR. STROUGH-And the only other question, Bob, if you don’t mind, on the south side of the building we
have a door there, and we have a sidewalk on the south side?
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Are there any building fixtures mounted on the side of the building?
MR. BOYEA-None that are proposed.
MR. STROUGH-Even by the door?
MR. BOYEA-None that are proposed. We’re going to keep exactly what’s there. We’re not proposing to
add anything to the building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess based on the amount of light spillage that’s in just that particular area, I’d
probably go along with it, and I can see why you’re getting it, because if you were building this station new,
that canopy would have to be 75 foot back from the road.
MR. BOYEA-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-But because it’s not being built new, and you’ve got a variance against that, your canopy’s
pretty close, and I kind of go along with the lighting under the canopy, the way I see it right now, even
though our zoning calls for 10 watts, 10 foot candles, rather.
MR. LIPINSKI-I don’t know if it helps, but the existing canopy and the new canopy, I mean, they’re basically
in the same location as far as the distance from the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Well, that’s why you got the relief, I believe, to put it in the same place. I’m going to
go along with this lighting plan because I think it parallels the lighting plans that have been submitted under
the other two. If what you say is correct, that the plans you’ve got there for the other two stations essentially
mimic this plan.
MR. LIPINSKI-If you would like to see them, I can certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not necessary. If you say it doesn’t, I’ll buy it, and if it does, then I’m going to go
along with this lighting plan.
MR. HILTON-Just a little research I did today. The Quaker and Ridge Road average foot candle under the
canopy there, as approved, was 28.13.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you look at these numbers here, you’d probably get pretty close to that.
MR. BOYEA-Might actually be a little under, but you’ve got some 12.9’s, and you’ve got some 20’s and then
you have a hot spot at 31.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve already come up with the canopy, under the canopy average is 27.85. So I
would go along with this, based on what Staff has got to say. Thanks for looking that up for them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Any other questions from Board members? Anything you folks wanted to add?
MR. BOYEA-We can’t wait to start.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, SEQRA, please.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MS. RADNER-This one is a Type II, I believe.
MR. STROUGH-A Type II. So there’s no SEQRA required.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about conditions. Any?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well there’s going to be one that on the final plans, a ramp will be shown and noted, as
agreed upon by the applicant in this sidewalk area.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it on the plan now?
MR. LIPINSKI-It is, but it doesn’t say ramp or it doesn’t have an arrow.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re just going to emphasize it on the plan itself?
MR. LIPINSKI-We’ll either put the word “ramp” on it or else we’ll throw an arrow on it that shows, you
know, ramp up.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I couldn’t find it there myself. I looked at it.
MR. BOYEA-It’s just a line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to get a final signoff from C.T. Male?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s all we’re discussing?
MR. SANFORD-John, you wanted to go for the 200 watt versus the 400?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll back Richard up on that. In the two corner pole lightings, a limit of 200 watts.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s just the one, I think.
MR. STROUGH-Is it? Well, there’s two pole lightings.
MR. SANFORD-The northwest corner.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and the other one was.
MR. SANFORD-The other one there’s no other lighting there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. No one had an issue with the other one. You always try to slide one in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no.
MR. LIPINSKI-And that one has zero light spillage, going in the back.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now you know how pork barrel legislation comes about. Someone always tags
something onto the thing going through.
MR. STROUGH-I just misunderstood.
MR. VOLLARO-I would not be in favor of that. I’d like to either, my position’s going to be very simple on
this Board. This plan is either going to be like it is, and approved like it is, but to start playing around with,
leave it as it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus is leave it as it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Because you start fooling around with this, you’re going to start to change the spreads, and
then when I change the spreads, I want to see the new spreads.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re leaving it as it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone introduce a motion, please.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-John, you did all the talking. Why don’t you do the motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is that the only condition, that the notation be of the sidewalk? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. They’ve got to get signoff by C.T. Male on the letter.
MR. STROUGH-C.T. Male. Okay. I’ll give it a shot.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2002 CUMBERLAND FARMS, 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. 49-2002 Applicant: Cumberland Farms
Type II Property Owner: VSH Realty
Agent: Martin Auffredou
Zone: HC-Mod.
Location: US Rt. 9 and Kendrick Road
Applicant proposes installation of new state of the art gasoline dispensers with new canopy, along with
additional landscaping and site work.
Cross Reference: AV 84-2002, AV 44-93, SP 29-93
Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-69 / 69-1-17
Lot size: 1.00 acres
Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: October 22, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/18/02, and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/16 ZBA resolution
10/15 Notice of Public Hearing
10/9 Warren Co. Planning
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on October 22, 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 with the
exception that in the prepared resolution you delete the Whereas SEQRA paragraph, and two
conditions:
1. On the final submitted plans that a down ramp will be noted in the sidewalk areas of the
curb cut going to Route 9.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
2. That the concerns by C.T. Male in the October 18, 2002 letter will be addressed to the
satisfaction of C.T. Male.
3. 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 10/22/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-All done. However, I’ve got one favor to ask, seeing as how we have a District Manager
here. The Cumberland Farms on Main Street, as a daily visitor there, and I’ve spoken to Staff about this last
week. The exit and entrance signs, non-illuminated ones, while you have your new Subway store being built,
can you get your contractor to move those signs about three feet in, closer on the property? Because when
you come off the exit, you cannot look west on Main Street to see traffic coming. You actually literally have
to stick the nose of your car out in the drive lane to be able to look up, because it does block your view.
Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-While we’re on the topic. The doors on Ridge Road, the main doors, in the front of the
building, you’ve got to fix them. They’re going to hurt somebody. Because they stick. The doors are too
close together. There’s no gap. So you try to pull one, you’re pulling both of them. You’ve got to get it
fixed, but besides that.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d like to refer this as a post-engineering review.
MR. STROUGH-And no extra charge. Right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2002 TYPE II KEITH CAVAYERO PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: CURTIS DYBAS ZONE: MU LOCATION: 7 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN ABANDONED RESIDENCE AND GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY 1,944 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE IN A MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-31/117-11-7 LOT SIZE: 0.27
ACRES SECTION: ART 4, 179-4-020
CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-2002, Keith Cavayero, Meeting Date: October 22, 2002 “Project
Description:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage and house and construct a one-story building to be
used as an office, along with associated site improvements. Professional office uses in the MU zone require
site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Professional office uses require site plan review from the Planning Board.
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?
No additional burden on public services and facilities are anticipated with this proposal.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
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?
Vehicular access at this location should be improved with the proposed curb cut
consolidation and definition.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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 proposed building appears generally compatible with the site. No information on proposed
signage appears on the site plan. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting is proposed for this
location. Comments on lighting will be addressed in the Staff Comments section of this note.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Vehicular access will be provided by a one-way entrance from Holden Ave., and a two-way access
drive on Luzerne Rd. The proposed access appears adequate for overall vehicular access and
circulation.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The number of parking spaces provided conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrians will access the building from a walkway to be constructed in front of the building.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The applicant proposes stormwater improvements including drywells and catch basins to be used on
site. A stormwater management report has been submitted and will be reviewed by CT Male.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site is served by municipal water service. The status of wastewater service is not indicated on
the proposed site plan.
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 applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing additional plantings. The number and size
of plantings should conform to the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for parking areas and
street frontages.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Emergency access and provisions appear to be adequate at this location.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
Staff comments:
The applicant has submitted a stormwater report, which is being reviewed by CT Male. Any comments
from CT Male should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application.
A lighting plan has been submitted by the applicant indicating building mounted lighting and one pole
mounted light to be used. Schematic elevations of the building show additional building lighting to be
used, which is not shown on the lighting plan. If additional site lighting is proposed, the number of lights
to be used and intensity (foot-candles) should be shown on the lighting plan. The lighting plan, as
submitted, shows a pole mounted light on the south property line that appears to be more intense than
allowed by code. There also appears to be some light spill to the property to the east. Light levels
around the building also appear to be above the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. It is not clear if
the applicant proposes additional lighting to be used for the proposed ATM at this location. Overall light
uniformity should also conform to code requirements
Street landscaping and parking lot landscaping should conform to the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Any additional comments from CT Male should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this site
plan.
SEQR Status:
Type: II, no further action required.”
MR. HILTON-And what you have before you tonight, our comments mostly concern, centered around
lighting. There are some elevations, schematic elevations, that have been submitted with the application that
show potential building lighting, and the question would be, is that lighting accounted for in the lighting plan.
If not, the foot candle readings would need to be updated. Also there’s a light pole mounted on the south
property line that appears to be too intense than what the Code allows, and there appears to be some light
spillage on the property to the east. Street landscaping and parking lot landscaping should conform with
Zoning Ordinance requirements, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. DYBAS-Good evening. My name is Curt Dybas, and I’m here representing Keith Cavayero for his site
plan review. I think Staff covered pretty much the scope of the project, and that we want to remove the
existing structures on this site, clear the site off completely, and start anew and build a proposed office
building on that property, providing parking, and re-landscape the entire parcel. I think the package, I tried
to put everything in that, and I can understand Staff’s comment on lighting. The Staff comment about lights
on the building, what you’re looking at on the elevation are these wall packs that we’re seeing, that are part of
a lighting package. As part of your package, there is a photograph of a similar store that’s down in Saratoga,
and does not have light packs, but has more of a historic type fixture that was used on the walls.
Unfortunately that would not meet the foot candle level of the site. We would very much like to not have the
pole light and just rely on the historic type fixtures on the building. Even the proposed use of half of the
building as a bank at this point is just something that is in the negotiation stage, and I know there was some
comment about lighting for the ATM. If the bank does actually come to final agreement, we would probably
have to, if we did go to the historic type fixture, for security reasons, have some type of high intensity lighting
at the ATM, just for security.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s some sort of requirement.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, it is. You are correct.
MR. VOLLARO-We had to do that for Stewarts, if I remember.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stewarts, yes, that’s where it was. Yes.
MR. DYBAS-At this point, and working in the new zone that has been created recently, we’re trying to work
with the Board and come up with a solution that’s agreeable to everyone, and we are still open on the lighting.
With that, I don’t know what else to add to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I really, I guess my biggest hang up with the whole thing is what the intended use is going
to be, if it’s going to be a bank versus professional offices, and if it is a bank, and the type of bank it is, with
drive-thru, ATM’s, the increased traffic in the area. I think it’s a great idea, and the concept on paper, with
the elevations, looks wonderful. I think Keith did a great job across the way, with CVS, the Plaza, and every
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
time, you know, somebody takes the initiative to start cleaning up that corridor, it’s a bonus. So I certainly
have no problems with what you’re doing. I just do have a concern with the impact it might have on that
area, you know, should you bring a bank there, and I guess, you know, the increased traffic flow more than
anything else, although the area is traveled pretty heavily, and it’s a main route for a lot of people to get home.
I don’t know if we really looked at that so much in our site visit, as to what the impact might be there, and
how it would be arranged. Because really, you know, do we know how it’s going to be arranged on the road,
if you’re going to have curb cuts on Holden and on Luzerne, type thing. So that’s really my main concern. I
mean, if it’s office space, doctor’s office type thing, that’s one use, but constant in and out ATM, busy
Thursday afternoon or Friday afternoons when people get paid type thing, what it might do to that area.
Because it is such a small area there. I mean, you’re looking at a quarter of an acre, and I don’t know if the
Board, you know, obviously there’s seven of us here. That’s just my main concern, but as far as the concept
and the look, and I’m sure it’s going to pull or tie in with the total care plaza across the way. I mean, they did
a beautiful job there, and I applaud them for that.
MR. DYBAS-Okay. Let’s see if I can address some of your issues. As we can tell you, it is a small parcel of
land. It is also a small building. I mean, it’s less than 2,000 square feet, and we did not even attempt to max
out the building size, if you’ll see what the envelope is. Another issue that is in the comments is the number
of parking spaces. By number, even with half of this thing being the bank, we could have gotten by with
eight spaces, but we decided to increase the parking, addressing the idea of the bank. The bank would be a
very small bank, I mean, the maximum of two teller spaces, but you are correct in that the ATM, as we all
know, is a big draw. It is not a drive-in teller, which is another entire approach. There is limited number of
available space on the site for parking, if you’re going to use that, but as far as assuring you, at this point, that
it’s going to be a professional office, at this point, Keith waited until the new zoning was in place before he
went after this, the idea of improving this parcel, because, for obvious reasons, and at this point, he is doing
his development thing, in hopes that by approval of the Board for a site plan review, he can go out and
actually lock something in, as far as a tenant. This is not something that I’m saying has to be approved even
tonight, and I’m not anticipating that, but it’s something that would obviously, because of the construction
schedule closing in, was not going to happen until spring anyway, and we decided to get this thing moving at
this point, but to tell you exactly who’s going to be in there, I cannot at this point.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, if you look at the local banks, Glens Falls National is starting to introduce more
branches in different areas of the Town to compensate for the need of the Town. So it takes away from
their, what I would refer as not their main location, but their Glen Street location which gets so busy, they
introduced the branch on Cronin, which gets used, but not intensively, and they’re also introducing a branch
on Aviation, which is going to take away even more of the intense use on Glen Street, but, and that’s fine,
and the geographical areas, if they start doing that, I mean, it could handle that, because if you look at the
Cronin Road location, where the storage plaza is, it gets used. It’s a great location, but it’s not intense, and,
you know, you might have two, three people there at a time, but, you know, I didn’t mean to say that this
location would turn into a Glen Street location, because it wouldn’t.
MR. DYBAS-And it can’t.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. DYBAS-It’s impossible. Physically, it’s impossible, and I think the idea, and I, personally, I don’t know
even what bank he was talking to. I’m not privy to that, but I think just the idea that it’s an ATM only, and
not a drive-thru, because there is a definite difference in the amount of use of those two facilities. Even at
the Glen Street location there, you know, you can have three and four, and if it’s pay day, six cars deep at the
drive-thru’s, yet, if you look over, no one’s at the ATM. The only time I’ve seen the ATM crowded is in the
morning you might have to wait one or two cars because someone’s looking for lunch money, but that’s what
he’s, I think that’s what we’re looking at, not a drive-thru.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interject a thought here?
MR. METIVIER-Please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Based on the size of this proposed bank portion of the building, based on the number of
parking spots they’re looking for, would it be a safe assumption to think that maybe they want to target like a
credit union or something like that? That’s something that has a very low volume of traffic?
MR. DYBAS-I wish I could give you that answer, but I truly do not know who he was talking to.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I would be more inclined to see something like that.
MR. METIVIER-Well, and I don’t expect it to be anything large. It’s just not going to be. I mean, you
know, Glens Falls National is not going to move its main branch to Holden and Luzerne Roads. So I guess
it’s not really an issue in my mind. I just want to be sure that.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, another thought that was one of your concerns, too, is the amount of traffic that
this may or may not generate on Luzerne Road. Luzerne Road’s a collector road, and it’s already got a lot of
traffic on it, and I know that, just from the improvements they made with the CVS Plaza on the other side, as
far as being able to go in there, it’s helped a lot right there at that intersection.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that this thing would have that much of an impact.
MR. METIVIER-And after I made that comment, I realized to myself that, you know, I would be going out
of my way to go over to Luzerne Road to go to that bank because I like it over there type thing. So, I would
imagine that would attract people from over, you know, going home up West Mountain Road. So it
wouldn’t, you know, increase that traffic. So I’ll rescind that comment that I made as well. So I guess I’m
done.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Tony, was your concern that it was a busy drive-up bank, that the queuing would go
out on Holden Avenue?
MR. METIVIER-Well, it initially could be, yes, but, again, it’s hard to say because I can’t picture any one
bank in Town that could create that, well, it’s hard to say. I guess that was my concern, yes, but, depending
on which bank it is, I just don’t know if it would be an issue or not.
MR. DYBAS-I go back to my original premise, in that I have never seen, I don’t think I’ve ever seen, an
ATM backed up with six or eight cars. I mean, I’ve seen two or three, but not a big line.
MR. STROUGH-That’s just an ATM and not a?
MR. DYBAS-Yes. That would be just an ATM.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I thought it might be a bank drive-up window.
MR. DYBAS-That is not the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to reiterate some of Tony’s comments about the design, and, you know, this
would be a tremendous improvement over what’s there, and I really applaud you for that. The only real
concern that I had is the distance between the curb cut on Luzerne Road and Holden Avenue, but there’s
nothing you can do about that. Because you maximized it as best you can on the site.
MR. DYBAS-I’ve just about maximized it, and then with C.T. Male’s comments of going to a 30 foot radius
on the cuts. Right now I’m about 40 feet from Holden, and Holden is not a heavily traveled street by any
imagination.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. DYBAS-The sight lines are good, and there’s not much movement to the east. I mean, there’s not
much, maybe 10 feet, but even that is pushing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think you even have that.
MR. DYBAS-I’m thinking about it in my mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re almost as close to the property line as you can get.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, with the swing, I’ll be at the property line then now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure there’ll be some comments, though, on, you already commented a little bit on
the lighting plan. I guess I just am surprised that there’s not a light fixture that has a more attractive
appearance to it that also would provide the type of lighting that you need.
MR. DYBAS-I personally, when we were putting this together, I will admit, it was the 11 hour and ticking. I
th
was trying to get these computer images back. I, personally, would like to revisit it, and I would like to
resubmit something to the Board, because I, personally, am not happy with it myself. This wall pack is
something that, it’s looking at you.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DYBAS-And I would like to go back. The Saratoga project, that was a different lighting thing because
you have street lighting in that location, and I don’t know if we can come up with a nice uniform one foot
candle throughout the entire site. Unfortunately, we can’t plunk a light fixture in the middle of the parking
lot, but I think we can do better than 175 watt metal halide sitting on the property line. I would truly like to
try to get everything on the building, even though you’re concerned about zero at property lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you do spill over onto Holden Avenue a little.
MR. DYBAS-It spills over onto Holden. There’s no question about it, but, you know, to maybe even be a
little hotter at the building, and then drop off, as we come away from the building. At the next meeting, or
two meetings or almost two meetings now, with the submission schedule, is, as I said, this is spring. This is
not, we’re not trying to even attempt to do this in the next month or two, but we’re trying to do it in a timely
fashion. So we do it right, and I would be more than happy to re-submit something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’d probably all like to see a revised lighting plan. Nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just some clarifications. Is this the type of building you’re proposing here?
MR. DYBAS-Yes. If you’re familiar with the CVS building on the other side of the street, Keith Cavayero’s
Chiropractic practice is in the rear of that building, of the CVS building. He occupies 4,000 square feet. His
building looks out across Luzerne Road at this parcel. So, what we’re attempting to do is get some aesthetic
tie-in between the two, and he was very successful with what he did down in Saratoga, off of Broadway. I
don’t know if anyone’s familiar with it, from the pictures, where the Freighoffer’s store is and everything is.
That’s Keith’s building right now. You’re looking at the back of the CVS building. You’re standing on
Holden Avenue, and this big sea of gravel and paved area off to the left is part of this parcel, currently. The
house is just to the left of that frame.
MR. SEGULJIC-And with regards to your site plan, looking at the landscaping, in the west and south, you
have (lost words) low screen Juniper. What is that now? How low is that? Is that a foot?
MR. DYBAS-West and south?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. DYBAS-Okay, that would be a maximum of two feet in height because of the visual of the corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going guess we’re probably going to table this thing tonight so one of the things I was
going to ask them to do is to submit a landscaping plan with a schedule.
MR. DYBAS-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically that’s what most applicants do, so we know the species, caliper size.
MR. DYBAS-In this case height.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I think the maple trees there work great. Then as far as the drainage goes, are you
going to have spot marks in there (lost words) since all this drainage is going to be (lost words).
MR. DYBAS-Yes. The entire, well, one thing on the drainage is I didn’t take and subtract what’s there. The
drainage as if it’s an undeveloped site, if you look at the calculations. So I didn’t turn around and subtract off
existing roof and hard surface. Right now, all the water that comes down Holden Avenue sheets into this
property, and the evidence is the foundation of the existing house is completely collapsed. The water sheets
right across this thing, and what we’ve done in the grading is we’ve raised this grade so that the water goes
around that corner that’s coming down Holden. Because it should not be our responsibility to handle, in fact,
this sheets across the parcel onto the neighbors. If you look at the dotted lines, you’ll see that the grading is
really going northeast across this. So it comes in and sweeps back around, and we’ve raised the grade up to
get the water to go around the corner. We’re handling what we are creating on site, but we obviously can’t
handle what’s coming down the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s all for now.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Let me see if I understand how traffic is going to flow. A car wants to go to this ATM
machine, it’s going to come in at the northwest, and then stop, and then continue on and exit out the south, is
that right?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, onto Luzerne.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I actually applaud what you’re trying to do. It looks like an awful small piece of
land, and I do agree with your comments earlier that, whenever I’ve seen the queuing lines at banks, it’s all
been for teller assisted service. I rarely see more than two or three at the ATM machine. So I think that’s
probably a good behavioral observation on your part. As the Chairman said, this is probably going to be
tabled, but I just want to weigh in that I support what you’re trying to do and I think it’ll be an improvement,
and good luck to you.
MR. DYBAS-Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-That’s all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-This is probably one of the first times I do not agree with some of the C.T. Male
comments. First of all, they didn’t make any comments on the stormwater at all, in their letter. Since this
wasn’t computer generated, I had an opportunity to look at your mathematics on this thing. One of the
things I see, some of the constants that you use, for example, on your perc rate, when you do the 24 hour
storm duration, you use a perc rate of, assumed perc rate, of five minutes per inch. When you do your runoff
coefficients, you’re using one. Why is that? How come the perc rate changes for the two calculations?
MR. DYBAS-Because in your first 15 minutes, you are required to hold everything on site.
MR. VOLLARO-But all this is based on an assumed perc rate. I noticed that there wasn’t any perc rates
done. So you made some assumptions for perc rates, and, you know, in that equation, based on what the
perc rate is, things can change pretty rapidly when you go from.
MR. DYBAS-Also change very rapidly if I subtract what’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s true, but what’s there, you know, I wouldn’t know, it’s not in this
calculation, what’s there. What you’ve used is an assumed perc rate, as opposed to what’s there.
MR. DYBAS-What is there is 1,429 square feet of existing roof. I’m building 1,944 square feet. I only have
to deal with 515 square feet of additional hard surface of roof. There is 2,750 square feet of existing parking.
I’m providing 5,794 square feet of new. I only have 3,044 square feet. So I have a combined total of hard
surface area that I’m adding of about 3600 square feet, which basically you could put into a 55,000 gallon
drum with some holes in it. I mean, it’s, you know, I’m trying to approach it in the best optimum way, is
what I’m attempting to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just saying I saw some inconsistencies there and I wanted to check those out
with you. I’m not an expert at doing that. So I’d like C.T. Male to comment on it, and in their comment
letter of October 18, they did not comment on the stormwater at all. I was kind of surprised that they
th
didn’t. Going to the C.T. Male letter for a minute, it says consideration should be given to enhancing the
landscaping along the south and west sides of the building, but I’m kind of concerned about that comment. I
would, I notice what you’ve done there is you’ve put some low screen Junipers or Yews in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking the building, the building itself. Like foundation plantings.
MR. DYBAS-I think he’s adjacent to the building, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You say along the west sides of the building. Okay. I see. Okay. Proposed illumination
levels, now you say you want to take another look at that.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So we won’t even get into that discussion. Because what he says, it appears to meet the
intent of the Town Ordinance, and if you get to look at the Town Ordinance, it doesn’t meet the Town
Ordinance, and he says it does, and I didn’t understand how he got to that position. All right.
MR. DYBAS-I want to back track one second to your stormwater. I think you’re confusing runoff
coefficient with perc rate.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-No, I understand what perc rate is, but you’re using perc rate in two different equations.
You’re using it in a 24 hour storm duration at five minutes per inch, and you’re using it in the runoff
coefficient at an estimated.
MR. DYBAS-No, but the one in the runoff coefficient is, you’re taking it as all your runoff and retaining it
initially. You’re not, when you do your 24 hour calculation, you base it on volume and percolation. If you
take your initial runoff, it’s only retention. You do not plug in the perc rate.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m, on the existing site, this is Cavayero, this is some printed material that says
existing site, the existing 11,591 square foot site is occupied by abandoned residence and garage, etc., etc.
The site has also 2750 square feet of paved area. The percolation rate for this site is assumed to be one
minute per inch, and that’s your assumed perc rate for the entire site.
MR. DYBAS-And then when I did the calculations, I based it on five, five minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-So I’m just trying to see why your constants are different. That’s all.
MR. DYBAS-Well, (lost word) difference, but the difference between a one minute and five minute soil on
the chart is, there’s no difference.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s insignificant you’re saying. Okay. That’s fine, but I would just like to see that you pick
one constant and stick with it throughout the calculation. Then it would be easier for me to (lost words).
Other than that, it looks fine.
MR. DYBAS-Well, the one minute will help me greatly.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I mean, it certainly changes the equation. No matter what you use, the lower
you get, the better it is.
MR. DYBAS-And the five minute is to the Town’s advantage.
MR. VOLLARO-I was wondering why you took the five minute penalty in the next calculation.
MR. DYBAS-Because, quite frankly, I have more than enough drywell area here, both retention and perc, to
handle the water, and this is what I’m trying to show the Board, that it’s well covered. I mean, this thing
would take the 100 year storm.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that.
MR. DYBAS-And I’m not worried about the 100 year storm at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-My real question was to make sure that you.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, I can appreciate that.
MR. VOLLARO-You know, understood what you have here and didn’t make a mistake in the calculation or
something like that.
MR. DYBAS-No, it was done intentionally.
MR. VOLLARO-You took a penalty.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-On the 24 hour storm duration of five instead of one.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Where is the calculation with five at? Since we’re getting into this stuff. On the second
page. Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else have you got?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. We’re going to be tabling this. The gentleman is going to be
looking to redo his lighting plan. I think that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. It certainly has been tailored down, but I’ve got a couple of questions. Now there
are currently sidewalks, that means sidewalks. Do you plan on putting sidewalks back in?
MR. DYBAS-No.
MR. STROUGH-Then there’s not going to be any sidewalks?
MR. DYBAS-No. The intent is with the paving area running across the property, that would cut through the
corner.
MR. STROUGH-Well, are there currently sidewalks along Holden and sidewalks along Luzerne Road?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. DYBAS-If you can call that hard surface a sidewalk.
MR. STROUGH-Well, isn’t that supposed to be a sidewalk?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. DYBAS-No. That’s not a sidewalk.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was originally where Holden Avenue used to be, as far as I know. Then it was,
when it was shifted out a little bit. For whatever reason, the pavement was never torn up.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So that’s not the sidewalk, and your not putting sidewalks in won’t break up the
continuity of existing sidewalks in the area.
MR. MAC EWAN-There are no sidewalks on that portion of Luzerne or on Holden.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Now, your neighbors to your east, the Worths, or not yours, but the
applicant’s.
MR. DYBAS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Have you talked to them about this proposal at all?
MR. DYBAS-I have not.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason why I was thinking that we have the Type B, tall screen spruce on your
eastern border, that common border between the, well, it says “Lands of Albert and Louise Worth”, so I’ll
assume whoever the current owner is, of extending that so that, you know, this reduces the impact on the
residential area?
MR. DYBAS-Extending it, you mean adjacent to the parking?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. You see where you have your Type B tall screen spruce?
MR. DYBAS-There’s two obvious reasons, well, one obvious reason. One is the space to get planting in
along the edge of that parking is minimal. It’s about two to three feet right there, and whether or not
something would survive there is questionable. The second thing is, there’s a very large tree right there. I
don’t know if you have a shot. There are two, three large trees on the adjacent properties, and I don’t believe,
well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see two of them there.
MR. DYBAS-That’s the back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Those right there, right?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, but there’s one more in the front, that is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a shot from Luzerne Road?
MR. DYBAS-And you have the back also. All those trees that you see are on the adjacent property. They’re
not on this property, and I don’t believe anything is going to grow up underneath that existing crown that’s
underneath that front tree. I wish he had a, well.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, George, I had a tough time seeing what anything is zoned with this. So I
went on line. I’m still having a tough time. It’s all blacked out by that Main Street zoning. I can’t tell what
street’s where and when are we getting our zoning maps. Do you know? They’re in now?
MR. HILTON-Yes. We’ve produced zoning maps for the entire Town. We’re working on a publication
format, but this property is zoned mixed use, MU.
MR. STROUGH-How about the adjacent properties?
MR. HILTON-To the east it’s Mixed Use. It’s Mixed Use all the way until the City line, Town line.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. See, I couldn’t tell, but on this, it looked like they might be different because the
patterns get different. This is an opaque, like gray. Do you see what I mean? And then it changes
surrounding it. So it looked, it appeared that the zoning changed around this property.
MR. HILTON-No, I can understand what you’re saying, and based on our finalizing this map, we’re going to
go back to the intranet and the internet, and take care of that as well.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, I do have that concern about the neighbors and no hedges there and
everything else. The other concern that I have is the parking on the west side, the angled parking. I’m
concerned that that doesn’t meet Town Code. The parking has to be at least 162 square feet per space, at
least nine foot in width. That you have. I measured that, and at least 18, at least 18 feet in length. So, it
looks to me that, I measured that line, I measured 14, and I’m just wondering if that’s enough space to meet
Town Code, and if that’s enough space to get a car all the way in there. It wouldn’t be blocking cars using the
ATM lane.
MR. DYBAS-I don’t have a scale with me. Is it 14?
MR. HILTON-The parking areas look to be about 9 by 18, based on this. They, in fact, go maybe even to
19, as far as length.
MR. VOLLARO-As far as the lines are concerned, almost.
MR. DYBAS-As I mentioned before, with the parking calculations, one of C.T. Male’s comments was the
access to the one or two parking areas with a car parked adjacent to the handicapped access. C.T. Male raised
a question about accessibility to those parking slots along there with the parking in back. One of the things
that you’ll note in the calculations is that it came up to 8.2 cars.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-Which would allow me to drop one of these spaces.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that’s fine, if we have to do it.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, if we have to do it. I’d just as soon not, if I don’t have to.
MR. STROUGH-But, George, in your measurement, if you go to that first space, and that’s as far in as you’re
going to get a car, because there’s a curb, and you draw a perpendicular off of that.
MR. DYBAS-I see what he’s doing.
MR. STROUGH-And then measure out to this line over here, do you see what I’m saying? That’s not 18
feet.
MR. HILTON-No, I see what you’re saying. That’s kind of close.
MR. STROUGH-See, that’s less than 18 feet.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Right.
MR. DYBAS-I see what you’re saying.
MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is the farthest you could pull a car in would be up to that point in that
curve. If you draw a perpendicular off that and measure from there, I measured 14. So, I’m just wondering if
the tail end of a car, given that, is going to inhibit traffic flow here, okay, just a concern.
MR. DYBAS-I can revisit that. I don’t (lost words) any 18 foot cars around anywhere, but.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. STROUGH-And the stormwater, Bob, the Staff notes says the stormwater is currently being reviewed
by C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-It didn’t come in this.
MR. STROUGH-Right. It didn’t come with this, but.
MR. VOLLARO-Is C.T. Male still doing something on that, George?
MR. HILTON-The comment was made just to make the Board and the applicant aware that these plans had
been submitted to C.T. Male, and as evidence of the October 18 letter, they looked at the plan. Why there
th
are no comments I can’t, concerning stormwater, I can’t speak to that, but certainly we’ve provided them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re not expecting anything coming from them on stormwater, or they didn’t say
to you, there’s still a stormwater analysis coming, standby?
MR. HILTON-No. This has been our only communication.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it was just missed. That’s the way I look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not typical of them. If they had other issues, they would have noted, they would
have requested more information. They don’t piecemeal their reviews.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. If they don’t comment on something, typically that
means it’s okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I was looking at Staff notes, and Staff notes said they weren’t commenting on it,
C.T. Male would comment on that, and I thought, do you see what I’m saying, if I hadn’t seen that, I’d say,
well, okay, they didn’t have anything to say. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That’s it for me. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-Before the Board tables, I have a question on the lighting. Obviously I’m going to resubmit a
lighting plan and fixtures. As I mentioned, I want to attempt to keep the lighting on the building, and not go
to pole lamps. It will mean that as you obviously get farther away from the building and the parking, your
light levels are going to drop probably dramatically, down to probably in the neighborhood of .2 or
something along the farther edges. I just want the Board to be aware that this is the tact I’m going to take. If
they say, no, you’re going to need lighting of a higher intensity farther out, then we’re going to have to go to a
pole light of some type.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you use the four to one ratio.
MR. DYBAS-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ll be safe. If you meet the four to one ratio, it would be fine. I think that’s what we’re
really looking for.
MR. DYBAS-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? No letters?
MR. HILTON-No, no comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open. The reasons for tabling, folks.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s just the lighting plan, isn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to see a landscaping schedule, which identifies species, caliper size and/or heights.
The comment from C.T. Male, I think, wanted, and I think it’s a good comment, is a little bit more
landscaping around the foundation of the building. Maybe something like perennial, annual gardens, that sort
of thing.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. SANFORD-Parking?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just wanted to make sure that at least that one parking space, you may want to
eliminate it or redesign it so as to make sure that a car that would pull in there wouldn’t be blocking that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you wanted C.T. Male to look at the stormwater.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they are looking at, I thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where were you four minutes ago? They’re not looking at it. They’re not looking at it.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like them to make a comment on it, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, then, if there’s no other issues?
MR. VOLLARO-Before we get into that, I just want to get some clarification, maybe the rest of the Board
can help me out, because I sat there and stared at this C.T. Male comment for a while. It says the drive
through entrance, this is their comment number three, the drive through entrance from Holden Avenue
should actually be narrowed up to, and then I don’t know want what means. There’s a black line going
through that. Is that 15?
MR. DYBAS-I have a clear copy. Drive through entrance Holden Avenue should actually be narrowed to 15
feet, plus minus, such as two vehicles cannot enter and conflict at the one lane drive through the facility, and
if anyone wants, they faxed me a clear copy.
MR. VOLLARO-Number Six is also a little ambiguous. It says, it takes a little bit from what John was saying.
There appears to be marginal drive between the exit to the drive through and the adjacent parking spaces.
The northernmost parking space on Holden Avenue appears to be unusable if a vehicle is parked in the spot
adjacent to the handicap ramp.
MR. SANFORD-Is that what John was saying?
MR. VOLLARO-No. John was talking about drawing a perpendicular line and the fact that that shortened it
up to about 14 feet, but I see the handicap parking as being a long way from that northern parking spot. Am
I missing something here or what?
MR. DYBAS-No. There’s two items to this question. One is the actual driving lane appears marginal. That’s
Number One.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-The second piece of it is you have to do some creative interpretation. I think he is mistaking
where the handicap parking is. I think he means that space that’s directly in back of those four spots that are
along Holden.
MR. VOLLARO-That would make sense, but handicap parking is clearly described, and it’s.
MR. DYBAS-That’s the only thing that I can find that makes sense.
MR. SANFORD-And that’s plenty of distance away, right. Is that your point, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, and it goes back to what I’ve been saying before. If I drop back to eight parking places,
which is allowable by the calculations, I can eliminate that corner one.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can.
MR. DYBAS-I can spin the four around, that you are concerned about, and get them more perpendicular to
Holden, which will give me, maybe not directly perpendicular, but come around enough so I’m assured that I
have enough depth to get somebody’s SUV in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I was picturing my SUV. I stick out all the time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2002, KEITH CAVAYERO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
To the first meeting in December, and the reason for tabling is as follows:
1. We’d like to have C.T. Male look at the stormwater conditions on this site and make a comment on
that.
2. We’d like to provide some landscaping around the building, as C.T. Male had commented on in their
letter of October 18. Also to take a look at some of the landscaping. I want to make sure that the
th
landscaping that is just off Holden Avenue doesn’t limit any sight distance going on to Luzerne Road
and re-do the lighting plan, and the parking plan, and supply the Board with a landscaping schedule,
to denote species, caliper sizes and/or heights.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-One question. This has to be in by the November filing.
MR. MAC EWAN-The 15, right? November 15.
thth
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 TYPE II MODIFICATION KEITH CRIST PROPERTY OWNER:
WILLIAM & KEITH CRIST ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1025 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
SEEKS TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE REVISED PLAN
DELINEATES THE GRAVEL DISPLAY AS CONSTRUCTED, WHICH DIFFERS SLIGHTLY
FROM THE APPROVED PLAN. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 LOT
SIZE: 2.82 ACRES
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH CRIST, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-As far as Staff comments go, this site plan that’s been submitted for modification shows the
new gravel display area as constructed. No adverse impacts, as far as stormwater drainage, are anticipated,
and the landscaping as shown on this plan to be put in place has been put in place. Just a general comment.
MS. RADNER-On the Staff approved resolution, it’s listed as a Type II, and I don’t think that’s what they
mean. I think they mean that because it’s a modification you may wish to find that there’s no new or
significant different environmental impacts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering.
MR. CRIST-Keith Crist, from A-2000.
MR. NACE-Do you want to address why?
MR. MAC EWAN-How did it come to be?
MR. CRIST-Well, the existing crushed stone area, it grew a little larger than it was anticipated. It happened
mostly by accident.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a photo of that, George?
MR. HILTON-I do not have a photo of the front area of the property.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. CRIST-Basically the existing, the stone was supposed to come out on the sides, and then the way I drew
it in originally, they were going to park cars as parked cars, which I originally kind of set it up as a parking lot,
as you would park cars, not really realizing, never displaying cars before, not knowing that, if people look at
parked cars, they think they’re parked cars just ready to be worked on. So they were kind of in a position
where people didn’t understand they were cars for sale. That’s what our big problem became. So what we
kind of did is fanned the cars out a bit more, and that’s where we kind of ended up. When we put the stone
down they came around that corner, and overrode a little bit of the boundary there. I happened to be, I was
away when that part was being done. I was away in Myrtle Beach on vacation last summer when that was
being done. So Craig just pretty much said, well, we’re coming in to do, Craig Brown, I had talked to him
about it. He said, well, just do an update on it when you want to do the storage facility, which was going to
be this, basically this fall. So that’s why we brought this back to the attention, basically, just ask for
permission to leave that as it stands, at this point, instead of messing around with trying to cover stuff back
over and, as I say, it really doesn’t seem to have any real impact on the original theory there.
MR. NACE-I don’t have a specific photograph of that, but I do have one taken looking south on Route 9. It
starts to show, you know, a little bit of that fanning out of the vehicle.
MR. MAC EWAN-Notice that campaign sign right in the middle of the picture. I hear two things, and please
forgive me. I’m trying to understand. I’m hearing that, one, the contractor made a mistake by spreading the
stone where it wasn’t supposed to be spread. However, I’m hearing you also say that when you decided to
show those cars and put them out there or display them for sale, you realized that people thought they were
parked cars, so you started spanning them out, so that people could understand they were cars for sale.
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did the gravel go in after you started spanning the cars out or before you started spanning
the cars out?
MR. CRIST-Actually, we kind of, I put the gravel down, put the cars back out. It’s kind of hard to really
remember if we started to even spread them out beforehand or just to, we just kind of, once we got the stone
situated, and got the cars situated that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the problem with just putting it back the way it was?
MR. CRIST-Parking cars as regular parked cars, it makes it, again, makes it look more like a parking lot. It
doesn’t have a display type atmosphere.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many cars do you display out there for sale?
MR. CRIST-Roughly a dozen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Roughly a dozen. I think that was what your original approval was for, some place, no
more than 13 or 14 or something like that, if memory serves?
MR. CRIST-Right. That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it wasn’t going to be a problem then.
MR. CRIST-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to understand here.
MR. NACE-Well, I think when, and I wasn’t involved at this stage, but what Keith has described to me is
when he originally laid the site plan that was approved for car display, when he laid that out, he didn’t realize
that he needed space to put the cars so that people could circulate around the cars, and that it drew attention
from the road as being something other than a parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-My point exactly. Personally, for me, that’s where I have a difficult time with an applicant
who goes ahead and does what they need to do, then comes in and seeks the approval afterwards. I mean,
there’s a mechanism, there’s a procedure in place, and I wish that he’d come in and ask for a modification
before he had already gone ahead and done it.
MR. CRIST-Well, I would have, and I apologize for that happening, and what happened was the corner, like
a 90 degree cut, I laid it out with the cars parked originally, and the contractor just followed the lay of the
land, basically, the lay of the black top and just naturally did it, a 90 degree turn, instead of making a jettison
in and then jettison back out. It would look awkward that way anyway. I think they went and just kind of did
it the way they normally would do a driveway. So when you cover it, basically, it would be even, it would
look like an even flow. It wouldn’t come in and then cut back in and then cut back out again and then cut
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
back down. So I think it’s, but it was my fault. I didn’t really realize how it all, it was ignorance on my part,
on how to display things, and it was my fault that the stone had gotten placed that way. I was on vacation at
the time when it was going on. I tried to get everything laid out before I went away, but, I mean, it’s
whatever you want to do. That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess, I, you know, my only comment is I agree with you. I always have a hard
time when people come for approval after the fact as well, and I think there’s a lot of different ways that this
could have been laid out. I understand what you were saying about the two areas of gravel as it was designed,
but there was a lot of other ways that that could have been laid out that necessitate the amount that was
actually created. I’m not sure what to say, other than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-We’re only dealing with the first one, right, now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, other than what you’ve said, Craig, which I agree with, I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, nothing, but I’m kind of looking at these together, because I’m looking at parking
needs, and I know the storage area requires certain parking according to Code, and the access way requires to
be cleared, and I mean, I would have liked to have seen the parking layout. I don’t really have a problem with
you extending the crushed stone where you extended it a little. I mean that looks fine, and if that’s all you
want from me right now, it’s fine, but I would like to have seen a parking layout to see that we have enough
parking spaces for the sales, for the visitors, for the people coming in, for the maintenance of the cars, etc.,
but.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when we get into the site plan, into the next application, we might want to talk back
to this subject here, and re-visit what they’ve already done. They’ve decided to it to us in two parts, and the
first part, I think, is pretty straightforward. I would approve the first part.
MR. STROUGH-I have no problem, either, with the layout of the crushed stone, as it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, are we doing segmentation of SEQRA?
MS. RADNER-I don’t think it is a segmentation because the reason they had to split it into two was because
you already did SEQRA on the existing, and that’s what’s got to be modified. Otherwise they’re in violation
of their prior approval. So they have to modify the prior, which you’ve already done SEQRA on. So it’s not
really segmentation to now look at the new project as a standalone.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t have any problem with what the applicant’s asking for, a modification. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t think I have any issues with it. I guess I, too, get a little bit disturbed when people
come in after the fact and say that they made a mistake because it just seems like every time a mistake is
made, so be it. I guess my feeling on this particular mistake is it is just crushed stone, and what’s to say that
even if it wasn’t down, the cars could technically still be fanned out in this area, and I know I’m going to get
yelled at for this, but there’s other car dealerships in the area that fan their cars out, too, on the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. I have an issue with that, too.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. METIVIER-And yet they don’t have any applications in front of us yet, they still continue to do so, and
the little guy gets swallowed up by the big guy. So, in this instance
MR. MAC EWAN-Photo evidence. No, we know who you’re talking about.
MR. NACE-Yes, I that couldn’t have made it any plainer in that photo.
MR. HUNSINGER-We talked about it on site visits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the issue of that, he’s violating, that’s a County ordinance, that’s a 75 foot right of
way. There’s not supposed to be anything in there, right, that overlay zone?
MR. NACE-It’s probably State property.
MR. HILTON-Yes, well, I can’t speak to the property, but, the boundary, where the boundary is, but I know
that the 75 foot setback that you’re speaking of is a building setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe someone ought to go up there and paint it yellow and blue. State vehicle.
Anything else, Tony? I’m sorry.
MR. METIVIER-No. In this particular instance, I understand what has happened, and I can accept that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone introduce a motion, please?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 KEITH CRIST,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 4-2000 Applicant: Keith Crist
Type II Property Owner: William & Keith Crist
Zone: HC-Int.
MODIFICATION Location: 1025 Route 9
Applicant seeks to modify a previously approved site plan. The revised plan delineates the gravel display as
constructed, which differs slightly from the approved plan. Any modification to an approved site plan
requires Planning Board review and approval.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24
Lot size: 2.82 acres
Public Hearing: Not scheduled for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/25/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/18/02; and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for modification; 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, 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, with
the exception of the deletion of the Whereas concerning the SEQRA.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One down.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 50-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM T. & KEITH CRIST PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, PC ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1025
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SELF STORAGE
BUILDINGS BEHIND EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE GARAGE. SELF STORAGE
BUILDINGS IN HC-INT. ZONES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-93, SV 3-2000, SP 4-2000, BP 2000-059, BP 2000-3465, SP 4-
2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 LOT SIZE: 2.82 ACRES
SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH CRIST, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-2002, William T. & Keith Crist, Meeting Date: October 22, 2002
“Project Description:
The applicant proposes to construct four self storage units, gravel drives and stormwater improvements
behind the current A 2000 car dealership on Route 9.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
A commercial use of this type requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
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?
No additional burden on public services and facilities are anticipated with this proposal.
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 parking of vehicles along the south property line may present access difficulties to the proposed
storage areas to be constructed to the west of the existing building at this location.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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 proposed buildings would be constructed behind the existing auto service use. The storage areas
would be accessed from an existing drive located on the south portion of the property.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Vehicular access will be provided off of Route 9 as well as a 24.91 foot driveway south of the
building. Parking vehicles along the access drive would limit the access to the rear of the property.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The proposed site plan appears to have adequate area for off street parking, however the locations of
any proposed parking areas have not been identified.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
No pedestrian access features are shown on the site plan. The site has a concrete sidewalk along
Route 9 for use by pedestrians.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
A stormwater plan and report has been submitted as part of the application. CT Male will provide
comments on this plan.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site is served by municipal water service. The site is served by an on site sewage system.
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 applicant has submitted a landscaping plan showing additional plantings. The plan calls for
some planting on the south side of the site. Additional plantings along the north and south property
lines would provide more screening from adjacent properties.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Emergency access and provisions appear to be adequate at this location.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location.
Staff comments:
The applicant has submitted a stormwater report, which is being reviewed by CT Male. Any comments
from CT Male should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application.
Access along the south property line may be difficult if cars are parked in that area of the site as currently
occurs. In order to provide adequate access to the proposed storage areas, the Planning Board may wish
to stipulate that no parking be allowed in this area in order to provide adequate access to the storage
areas.
Additional landscaping along the north and south property lines would provide a better visual buffer
from adjacent properties. Landscaping should be provided as required by the landscaping section of the
Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping which was previously shown for the A 2000 use should be put in place
prior to final construction and occupancy of the proposed storage units.
The plans call for building mounted lighting to be placed on the new storage buildings. The proposed
intensity appears to be within the limits outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. No information on lighting
cutoffs or fixtures has been submitted with the site plan.
The plans identify a limit of clearing for the western area of the site. Will any additional clearing take
place in the northwest area of the site?
Any additional comments from CT Male should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this
application.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted, a short EAF has been submitted.”
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. HILTON-The only comments that we have from Staff are a stormwater report has been submitted.
Any comments from C.T. Male on stormwater or any other issues should be addressed. One of the main
issues seems to be the parking of cars along the south property line and an access way to both self-storage
units. It appears that there’s some parking of vehicles along that line. Whether or not they’re on the property
or off the property, it’s to be determined. However, the main intent is just to leave a wide enough drive aisle
for access to those storage areas. Additional landscaping could be considered along the north and south
property lines to buffer the adjacent uses. Building mounted lighting is indicated, and we’ve received updated
information showing those cut offs, and the plan calls for a limit of clearing on the west side of the lot, and
just some clarification from the applicant as to the extent of the clearing, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. NACE-Okay. Do you want me to address both Staff and C.T. Male comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Fine.
MR. NACE-Okay. Let’s see if I can do this without a plan in front of me. C.T. Male first. The issue with
parking. If you look on your plan, to the south of the existing office portion of the building there’s an asphalt
apron, and that may not be clearly labeled on the plans, but the limits of it are labeled front and back.
MR. MAC EWAN-This plan or that plan?
MR. NACE-No. This is fine. It doesn’t matter. This is asphalt out to this line right here, and then it’s
crushed stone beyond that, on the adjacent property. Mr. Crist has an informal agreement with the adjacent
property owner to be able to store vehicles over here, in order to keep the front less cluttered. So this asphalt
area, if you’ve been out there, is kept clear and free. It is an access to the back of the property, and it will
remain clear and free. What he uses this for is simply for any vehicles that are being dropped off, not just a
short-term oil change, but for long-term repairs are stored out here before and after service. If this were ever
lost, there will be space in back here, this is a minimum of 40 feet, actually water at this end. There is space
behind the building on the existing asphalt where vehicles can be stored. None of these bays any longer, they
originally I think were drive through bays, but they’re, none of them are drive through bays. So this area is
not needed for through access for the building. As far as, I’ll address it while we’re talking about parking. As
far as parking for the self-storage units, your Code has a quirk in it, and I’ve forgotten exactly how it’s
worded, but it requires one space for every.
MR. STROUGH-Five storage units.
MR. NACE-Five storage units, which is kind of a funny criteria. If you look in most other codes around this
area, for self-storage, it requires spaces for permanent employees, but none for the actual units themselves,
and if you think about it, the circulation space that’s required to gain access to the units provides the parking
that people use for the units. So, it’s, you know, the way I think I showed it on the plans was just parallel
parking in front of the units, which still allows a through lane for access on down the aisle, but typically the
codes don’t require.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and typically the amount of time one would spend on a self-storage unit would be
minimal at best. I mean, you’re either going to drop something off or maybe spend a half hour there loading
or unloading.
MR. NACE-Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not like you’d spend the whole afternoon over there.
MR. NACE-I’ve used, I store a trailer over at one of Rich Schermerhorn’s self-storage units, and the most
cars I’ve ever seen in there, and that’s, I don’t know how many, there’s one over on Dix. He’s got a lot of
units. The most cars I’ve ever seen in there is three, on a Saturday morning, you know, it’s probably one of
the busier times. So the parking is kind of a, you know, Never Never Land requirement in your Code. Okay.
The retaining wall, C.T. Male had a comment about the height of the retaining wall, and it was a well taken
comment, because the wall that I had detailed was the wrong wall. It was a low wall, intended for something
three feet or less. The actual wall, in this case, is six feet high at the highest point, and I have changed the
plans to include a detail of a six and a half foot maximum height wall. It’s a different detail, has some
reinforcing behind it. The adjacent property owner has indicated willingness to allow a construction
easement onto his land for that wall, and in fact he may allow us to grade that back so that either a lower or
possibly no wall could be used. As far as security fencing around the units, the owner feels fairly strongly at
this time that because of the location and the fact that access to the units is right beside the existing office,
that he will not require the security fencing. He intends to construct it without fencing. However if, in the
future, he finds that security is an issue, at that point he would fence it. I’ve enclosed catalogue cuts of the
lighting fixtures. The lighting on this is very low intensity, simply security type lighting. It’s wall-packs, with a
fairly low wattage and fairly short cutoff. So those have been now provided. I’ve relabeled the “paving”
around the building from a gravel surface to a stone surface, which is really what is detailed and what’s
intended, a crushed stone surface. As far as signage, there are no new signs proposed for the storage facility.
They had a comment regarding the stormwater management, as far as the fact that at the rear, the very rear of
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
the storage units I’ve allowed the runoff to go out into a low swale, and they’re concerned about snow storage
there preventing that runoff from reaching the sandy ground. The intent would be there’s really not adequate
space there for snow storage anyway. With the site, it’s going to probably be required that snow be trucked
off the site. So that should not be an issue. Staff comments, we discussed that 20 foot wide parking access
aisle beside the south end of the office building. As far as additional landscaping, if you look at the landscape
plan and grading plan, we have proposed some landscaping on the south side of the property, at the, I would
say the road end of the, or the Route 9 end of the proposed storage units. If you look at those pictures I gave
you, the visibility from Route 9 is, from the south there’s a little bit of visibility, but you’ve got to look
through the adjacent car dealer, you know, parked cars to see the site. From the north, there really isn’t any
visibility at all, if you look at that picture taken from the north. The go kart track and the banking of one of
the turns of the go kart track really kind of blocks any view that you would have of the buildings to the rear
of the A-2000 building. Keep in mind that these storage buildings are very low, that I think the peak of the
roof is less than 10 feet high. So we think that what we’ve provided, the three summit ash and the arborvitae,
will provide enough softening of the one view that is available from the road, and what else. I have modified
the clearing and grading plan to show a wee little bit of clearing that I had missed up at the very northwest
corner of the project, and I think that addresses the comments that I know about.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Tom, I think we start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had mentioned the construction easement. Could you just clarify that for me again, the
retaining wall?
MR. NACE-Okay. The retaining wall, if you look, is right almost on the property line, okay. It’s a foot or
two inside the property line. In order to construct that wall, if you look at the details for the wall, it includes
the, well, the revised detail, it includes the geo fabric that runs about five feet behind the wall, horizontally
five feet behind the wall. So to be able to construct it, we’ve got to go dig up the adjacent property owner’s
ground. So that would be the construction easement required to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One of my concerns is visibility of these units, because they’re (lost words), but
you’re saying is between, when you’re driving south down Route 9, it really won’t be visible because of the
drop in grade.
MR. NACE-Well, they will be. The picture from, okay, here. They will be visible, they’ll be back here.
They’ll be, this building is about 15 feet tall, I think. So they’ll be about the height of that little white thing
there, and they’ll be back in this area here. If you look at the landscape plan, we’ve provided some
landscaping in an area where it’s really intended to cut off a little bit of that view, okay, kind of soften it. It’s
not created as a barrier, just something to soften the little bit of view that you would have of the roofs in that
one area, but again, you’re looking over a used car lot, in order to see it at all, and the color of the units,
Keith, did you have your brochure there?
MR. CRIST-Yes, I did.
MR. NACE-The colors that have been chosen, again, are earth tone. The siding would be the cream beige.
The roof would be this white, and there would be minimal trim, green trim on it. So, you know, they’re not
going to, it’s not going to jump out at you.
MR. CRIST-Those doors will be green, too.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
MR. CRIST-The evergreen. Obviously, I don’t want a project that looks like a U-Haul or a Home Depot. I
live here, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s my biggest concern, but it looks like you guys have taken that into account.
MR. CRIST-Yes. I purposely chose the evergreen and the beige to kind of blend in to the scenery behind it,
and as far as the natural area, that will stay the green space area, I want to try to leave that as natural as
possible as well. I don’t plan to clear cut the whole entire lot in the back. I want to leave as much. It might
not be the best stuff in the world. There’s a lot of scrub brush and stuff like that, but it’s been matured for
probably about 25, we’ve been there for 25 years. So it’s grown up 25 years worth. I remember my younger
days we used to be able to walk all the way back to the back, but it has filled in and grown up, berry bushes
and things like that, but I’d rather leave that intact and let nature take it’s course there.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then as far as the, I guess you had an informal agreement to the south for using that,
but if that falls through, you have adequate space behind?
MR. CRIST-Yes, I do. Ron Jeckel, years ago, my blacktop driveway that I put in was receding, because he
wasn’t maintaining from his blacktop there was like a no-man’s land in between of about 30 feet, and I kind
of said, well, let me take care of that. I’ll stone it and keep it cleared and keep it intact, because it was
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
receding against my, it kept getting pot holes against my blacktop, and the blacktop kept cracking, and you
can see a lot of cracks down along it. So I needed to shore that surface back up again. The only way to do
that was to put stone against it, crushed stone, and it’s so far away from his facility, and the same with Della,
with Anthony’s over there now, and I’m friendly with them, and it’s not an issue. It’s not a problem, and if
something were to come along, and for some reason I lost that, we could work with the back. It would make
it tougher, because you’d have to run around to the back of the building through the back, but, I mean, it’s
doable, but I just use that area for daytime parking basically, stuff that comes in that’s going to be repaired
during the day, and when we finish it, that’s kind of like a finished line that we work with, and just to kind of
keep the main front area clear for people pulling in and out for oil changes or if they’re going to be renting a
storage unit or whatever. It’s like 15 minute parking kind of. I try to keep those five or six spaces criteria just
for those needs.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Where is this located? I’m sorry.
MR. CRIST-Right here.
MR. SEGULJIC-This isn’t their property?
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s somebody else’s.
MR. CRIST-That belongs to Ron Jeckel, on that, yes, where this stone area is.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s what I wanted clarification on was the, I feel uncomfortable any time someone
says they have an informal relationship that’s going to work and accommodate traffic patterns and things of
this nature, because relationships change and property changes ownership and what have you. So, does
everybody understand it but me, at this point in time?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know what you’re saying.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m going to just try to get a better feel for it. You have your building where you do
oil changes and things of that nature, okay, and then you want to do these storage units that admittedly aren’t
going to get a lot of traffic, I guess. So someone comes in, they’re going to be parking kind of on Jeckel’s
property. Jeckel still own this?
MR. NACE-No. Somebody comes in for the storage? No. They’ll be parking back by their storage building.
They’ll park right in front of their.
MR. VOLLARO-See these lines here? He has those outlined as.
MR. SANFORD-Parallel parking.
MR. VOLLARO-Parallel parking to the building.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. CRIST-They’re going to rent the unit. I’m going to micromanage the self-storage through my A-2000
business, through the oil change office. I’ll have an area set up for computer. It takes nothing, that whole
desk area, with a computer, basically, to check people in and out for the storage units. So I’m going to
micromanage that through the waiting room of the A-2000 Fast Lube and Automotive Center.
MR. NACE-But as far as parking requirements, the parking for the storage units would be back with each
individual storage unit.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s the site plan we’re looking at. So the fact that for this informal parking
arrangement, where does that enter into this?
MR. NACE-It really doesn’t. The only way it enters in is that there was some concern that cars were parking
on that asphalt strip that was required for access to the rear, and they are not.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. CRIST-And if something should happen that changes and I lose that area that I’ve been maintaining, I
can work behind the building. I have plenty of room behind it for those cars. It just makes, I can, it makes it
easier to use that crushed stone area as a day use area. As I say, we’ve been doing it for 25 years now. So it’s
been awhile, but.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. SANFORD-I think I understand that. Now you don’t plan on putting any fencing around because
you’re not particularly concerned about security.
MR. CRIST-Well, I did a lot of research on this, and most self-storage facilities actually get broken into in
broad daylight, because who’s to know if you really belong there or not. Not so much at nighttime. Our
area, from my business being there over the years, I haven’t, since I put a security system in the building 20
years ago, I’ve never, knock on wood, been broken into, and I’ve not had a major league problem with
anything disappearing on customer’s cars in my parking lot. The Sheriff’s Department is very nearby. We’ve
got a good presence of security, or police protection. I haven’t had a real problem with (lost word).
MR. SANFORD-I’m not too familiar with these, but there’s one not to far from where I live, and they have a
chain link fence around it, I guess, but not all of these types of.
MR. CRIST-Some do, some don’t.
MR. SANFORD-Some do, some don’t. Because I would be concerned at nighttime. I mean, I would think
that that, counterintuitive to what.
MR. CRIST-It’s not, though. It’s actually statistically.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. CRIST-And the only reason that a unit is typically broken into is either a spouse or a spat or a
partnership or somebody knows what’s in that locker. Typically things people store in these lockers have a
lot of value to it. It’s, I can’t, as I say, I’ve done, because I went back and forth whether to fence it in, and I’d
rather not put another fence up if we don’t have to. I think they’re kind of unsightly myself. Chain link
fences don’t really get my excited, and I’m there. We’re there. The presence of us, if you’re out in the middle
of nowhere, where there is nobody around at all, then I could see where fencing might come into play, but
we’re going to have a fairly large presence. I mean, I’m there every day. I’ll be checking on the facility every
morning. I’ll be through, as I say, we’re on the premises, I’m on the premises constantly. So there’ll be an
awareness of who belongs there and who doesn’t belong there. We have 138, roughly 138 units when all four
buildings are built, and I’ll have a fairly good understanding of who belongs there and who doesn’t, and if it
does become an issue, then, I mean, it’s designed that the fencing can be in place. It’s there if need be.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine. I just thought I’d go into that a little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi?
MS. RADNER-I’m concerned that we’re creating rather a cloudy record here. Because we’re not being
consistent in our terminology, and you’ve got an application pending for four self-storage units, and you’re
sort of changing your terms bin unit, locker, in the individual spaces that are inside. So I think you better
clarify for the record exactly what it is that you’re asking for, and I believe what you’re asking for is four,
basically, buildings, for a total of 138 individual rental spaces.
MR. CRIST-Correct. Right. Yes.
MR. SANFORD-But these spaces probably aren’t all the same dimensions.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Some are larger than others.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Like you might have a trailer in some and some might be too small to house a trailer.
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MR. NACE-In reality, we’re asking for four buildings, to be used for self-storage, in the size they’ve shown
on the plans.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I think I have a feel for this. I’m all done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Concerning the safety issue, since we’re on that, your insurance is probably going to be able
to take care of, if you have a break-in? In other words, your insurance company is going to look at this?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. CRIST-Actually, when you do self-storage, the person that’s renting the locker, their homeowner’s
insurance covers that locker.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that right?
MR. CRIST-Yes, or their renter’s insurance. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, can you verify that?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, that’s absolutely true.
MR. VOLLARO-There you go. Nothing like having somebody on the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. It’s great to have just a variety of expertise up here.
MR. STROUGH-What happens if you don’t have a homeowner’s?
MR. SANFORD-You suffer the loss, and you wish you had a fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure that you could go out and purchase a policy just for that.
MR. METIVIER-What would happen, technically what happens, because a lot of times when people actually
use self-storage units is that they are moving out of a house. If you’re in, okay, and then technically you don’t
have homeowners insurance. So what you would do is if you had a good agent, he would say to you, what are
you doing with your stuff, I’m putting it in a storage unit. At that point he says I’ll write you a tenant’s policy
against the storage unit, and all of your contents would be covered in that unit, and the technical place of
residence would be that storage unit. So you’d still be covered.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what happens if I don’t have any insurance and somebody breaks in, what they stole
from me I’m at a loss for, but what about damage to the building?
MR. CRIST-That would be my responsibility. Yes, absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-So you do have to have insurance for that.
MR. CRIST-Yes, but I mean, you turn it over to your insurance company and your rates are just going to go,
you would take care of that in-house more than likely, unless it was catastrophic where somebody took half
the building off the foundation or something, but I mean, it’s, the doors are a roll up type door that you
replace the doors with, unbolt and bolt back in a new door. I mean, it’s nut and bolts. The buildings are nut
and bolt erector sets. So it’s not a, maintenance and doing that type of repair work, I can do that myself. It’s
not too much work. I can fix cars and I can do that, (lost words) a nice change.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Notwithstanding your gentlemen’s agreement on the southern parking line there, I would
certainly like to see some no parking. For example, people coming in who don’t readily recognize they’re
going to use these spaces that are adjacent to the storage units might decide they’re going to park their car
and walk in, and it would be nice to have probably some, no parking along both of those lines, because up in
the back here.
MR. CRIST-On the back of the building?
MR. VOLLARO-No, along the side. In other words, people coming in here, there should be no parking here
and probably no parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why? Even if someone parked there, there’s plenty of room to drive another car by it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. CRIST-The only problem with no parking signs, I don’t like the word “no”. It’s not business friendly.
MR. SANFORD-Well, right now they’re going to be parking in front of your lockers or your bins or your
garages. Right?
MR. NACE-There are so few people in those places.
MR. CRIST-Right.
MR. NACE-You get as close to your unit as you can.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. CRIST-I was going to say, they’re not going to, you know, usually for the most part they want to walk
the least amount of distance. That’s why if you put second story facilities in, nobody ever rents your upstairs.
You can’t give them away. They can’t be bothered to walk up a flight of stairs.
MR. SANFORD-They would be attics, I guess, if they went upstairs.
MR. NACE-Yes. There’s very few of those around. There’s one in Clifton Park, and I don’t think it gets
used.
MR. CRIST-I don’t think he’s, yes, that monstrosity they built. I’ll bet you it’s less than half full.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-The Ferraro’s don’t have any problem with any of this going on? In other words, their little
facility right next door is going to be looking right down on this.
MR. CRIST-Yes. I’ve talked to Keith about it. He has no problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-They already said that they’d give them a work permit or work easement, whatever you
want to call it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m talking about more than just that. I mean, you’ve got the race car course over
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I would think if they didn’t want a mini-storage place built next to their property,
they sure as heck wouldn’t give them authorization to work on their property to build a retaining wall.
MR. VOLLARO-Or they’d be in the audience. They’d be here.
MR. CRIST-Remember, Keith Ferraro built this track because he used a third of an acre of my land. We
worked together on his project as well to get his project off the ground. So me and Keith work together very
well.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as there’s not a neighbor problem there.
MR. CRIST-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a little note on my thing that said a landscaped fence with a question mark. I’m glad
you said that. One concern that I do have is on the site, I don’t see where the location of the present sewage,
the tank and the field are now. Where is that?
MR. CRIST-Well, right now the present septic system, I believe, because the building is older than I am, and
it was built before I was born, so I don’t know, but when I’ve had Roto Rooter rotor a line out, we listened to
the auger thing, it was right behind the south part of the back of the building, in the rear.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, heading towards the first storage unit.
MR. CRIST-Roughly, but it’s, where that area is going to be, it’s going to be stone. It’ll be graveled area, and
hopefully we’re going to have sewers in Queensbury soon, on Route 9, because that’s why I dragged my feet
in doing my landscaping out in the front yard forever and ever. I was hoping we could do, because I want to
go to the north, and then head out to Route 9 that way, to the north of my facility, on the property line,
which all my landscaping I just planted has to be dug out to do that, because I’ll probably meet up with Keith
Ferraro at that point, and we’ll run our lines out together on the property line, right down through that
corridor, but there is room enough for another septic system if need be. If that one were to fail, we can go
further north on that back section, before we get to the first storage unit. It would be enough corridor,
enough.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’d be enough, that’s that 30.99 foot between the corner of the building. Right.
MR. CRIST-Right. There’d be enough.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s enough to drop a septic tank, but, you know, there’s also a field that has to go along
with that. I don’t know where that is.
MR. CRIST-Yes, but we have two restrooms. All we have is two toilets in the whole building.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t any construction over the top of
the existing.
MR. CRIST-No, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-You could actually do it with drywells if you had to. You don’t necessarily have to run a
leach field.
MR. CRIST-Right. Yes, right here is the septic, right there. So we’ve got plenty of room to do, I did think
about that, too. In case I needed to do that, in the back of my mind, I left room to.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as you’ve got that in mind there.
MR. CRIST-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-In the event you have to replace that. Do you have an oil separator in your?
MR. CRIST-In the building, the oil, basically what we do, Speedy Dry and stuff like that, we maintain the oil,
the oil spills on the floor with Speedy Dry, and then any wastewater is taken away by Sheldon.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not going into your septic in any way at all.
MR. CRIST-Right, no. That would make a mess out of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than what we talked about on landscaping and so on, I don’t have any other
questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-It’s the parking. I just don’t know where to go with this. I mean, I’m looking here, and we
need one space of parking for 200 square feet of floor area, plus one space per 600 square feet of service area,
as was already pointed out earlier, you need one per five storage units. So you’re going to need, the way I
figure it, approximately 39 parking spaces. Now I don’t know where they’ll be. I mean, we can give you
relief up to 30 percent.
MR. NACE-Okay. The parking for the existing facility and the existing operation is already there. You’ve
looked at that with your site plan that you did before. I’ve addressed parking for the self-storage units, back
with parallel, the way it’s used with parallel parking in the aisles adjacent to each unit, okay, and I have 31
spaces shown on the plan, twenty-eight required and I have thirty-one shown. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many parking spots do you need? We can put this to bed real quick.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many parking spots did you say the Ordinance says he needs?
MR. STROUGH-Twenty-eight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-eight. Tom and I come up with he could come up with forty-four.
MR. STROUGH-All totaled?
MR. MAC EWAN-All totaled. So we’re okay. Ask us how we got to it. Just for the record, we’ll show them
how we got to it.
MR. VOLLARO-How did you get to it?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you park the cars parallel with each one of those storage units, the length of the storage
unit we calculate can handle six cars per side, end to end. That’s exactly how someone would pull up to their
storage unit to unload. So parking is a moot issue.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got?
MR. STROUGH-The only other thing I was thinking about was, and I didn’t know how the Planning Board
felt about this, but every time we get a new application we like to see a spot shown on there for the adjacent
property for use in the future in our access management plan, which is 179-19-010, and we try and show
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
where you could provide access to an adjacent site on here, and as applicants come before us, we try and do
this so it’s part of our access management plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Just have them delineate it on the plan. That’s all.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re willing to do that. All you’ve got to do is show a cut through where it goes on to
the Jeckel property. That’s easy enough done, isn’t it?
MR. NACE-Done.
MR. MAC EWAN-As long as you aren’t a large retail local grocery store who refuses to do it. I hope I’m still
Chairman should they ever come back.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So, showing a cut through some place to the south.
MR. NACE-Yes, we’ll show it.
MR. CRIST-That’s no problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STROUGH-I share some of the concerns. This is back area. I mean if I was mischievous, this is a
perfect location.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll keep an eye out. The issue with the security on this facility. I mean, it’s incumbent
upon the owner to secure his site to the best of his ability, and if he’s feeling comfortable that he doesn’t need
to put up a chain link fence around the entire perimeter of this thing.
MR. STROUGH-And I also agree with him that they’re unsightly, but he may change his mind and maybe
I’m wrong, and I don’t see anything else. Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-I have one question. It’s actually for Staff. I’ll make it quick. Although I might hold this
application ransom. On your Staff notes and on the plan it says that the landscaping plan from the prior has
not been completed. Has it been?
MR. HILTON-That’s, again, going by the note that said, to be in accordance with what was previously
approved, we made the general comment that it should be up to date. Based on my visit, it’s been put in
place as required. I mean, that’s not an official compliance determination, but there is landscaping in the area
that is shown to eventually contain landscaping.
MR. NACE-On September 15 when I drew the plan it wasn’t. Now it is.
MR. CRIST-We were waiting until the summer season that was so dry that.
MR. METIVIER-Well, this, the original went back to 2000.
MR. CRIST-Well, correct. You’re absolutely right. I did the sign, I did the front sign. I did that island and
got that done, and then the sewer project came up, and there was hopes that that was going to come together,
because really I’d like to hook to the sewer as soon as possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-The bottom line is your landscaping in the way it was approved on the previous site plan.
It’s done now.
MR. CRIST-Yes. It’s a done deal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move on. What else have we got?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only concern that I had originally was the visual impact of the project, and based on
what’s been presented, and the review, I really see that as being insignificant. So I don’t have anything to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any additional comments or questions from Board members? Let’s do a SEQRA, Mr.
Strough.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 50-2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro :
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WILLIAM T. & KEITH CRIST, 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 22 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any conditions in mind? Somebody move it, then.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only condition that they agreed to was to show on the final submitted plan a cut
through or access to the adjacent southern property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. As your condition, just cite that Section of the Ordinance. How’s that? As outlined
in blah, blah, blah Section of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you got that?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got it right here. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2002 WILLIAM T. & KEITH CRIST, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 50-2002 Applicant: William T. & Keith Crist
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same
Agent: Nace Engineering, PC
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 1025 Route 9
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
Applicant proposes construction of four self storage buildings behind existing automotive service garage.
Self storage buildings in HC-Int. zones require Site Plan review by the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SP 10-93, SV 3-2000, SP 4-2000, BP 2000-059,
BP 2000-3465, SP 4-2000
Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24
Lot size: 2.82 acres
Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: October 22, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/18/02, and
10/22 Staff Notes
10/15 Notice of Public Hearing
10/9 Warren Co. Planning
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on October 22, 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. On the final plans submitted for signing that the applicant will show a cut through or an
access to the abutting property on the south, in accordance with Section 179-19-010.
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 10/22/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. CRIST-Thank you very much.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Did Mr. Brown want us to move on this Special Use Permit revision? You and I talked
about it, about four or five days ago, and he was going to make sure that all the final copies got in everyone’s
hands, so that we could move on it tonight. Does he still want us to move it?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know. I can’t speak for Mr. Brown. He’s away from the office.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’ll hold off on it until next month.
MS. RADNER-What date was that, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-October 15, 2002. You’ve reviewed it and put your blessing on it.
MS. RADNER-I don’t know that I’ve reviewed that one. I’ve reviewed a previous one, and gave him my
thoughts and comments, and I would assume that his later one reflects those to the extent that he accepted
them.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll do it next month. Any other business? All right. I’ll be in touch with everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
63