2004-05-27 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 27, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
RICHARD SANFORD
ROBERT VOLLARO
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE
ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. RINGER-A couple of housekeeping items first. The McKernon Group, which was
scheduled for tonight, is not going to be heard. It’s going to be tabled, and Logger’s Equipment,
which was also scheduled for tonight, is not going to be heard, is going to be tabled. So if
anybody was here for those applications, they’re not going to be heard. With that, we’ll start
the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THE MC KERNON GROUP
PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 338
CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
GARAGE TO STORAGE SPACE ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,760 SQ. FT.
GARAGE INCLUDING A FAMILY ROOM/GAME ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-00, SP 74-00 [BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK] WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
020
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, do you want a tabling motion?
MR. RINGER-Yes, for McKernon, Bob, if you’d like to make that one.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004, MCKERNON GROUP, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Tabled due to the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution, which is for up to 62 days, so the owner
of the property can comment on the questions raised by the Board and/or make sufficient
changes in their request such that variances are not required.
Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
SITE PLAN NO. 10-1994 MODIFICATION LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT OWNER: WILLIAM
BUCKINGHAM AGENT: CHARLES JOHNSON, PARADOX DESIGNS ZONE: LI
LOCATION: 435 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS
APPROVED SITE PLAN BY CONSTRUCTING A 6000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ALONG WITH A NEW 1600 SQ. FT.
WAREHOUSE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUS APPROVED SITE PLAN
REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-
2004, SP 11-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/12/04 TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1 LOT SIZE:
3.93 ACRES SECTION: 179
MR. RINGER-The other thing. I’ve got the Loggers Equipment, public hearing not required.
Why is that, because it’s a modification, George?
MR. HILTON-It’s a modification. Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So I’m not even going to table that or anything. Because it’s a
modification, we don’t have to, and there’s no public hearing.
MR. HILTON-You don’t have to open the public hearing, but I would pass a motion or vote on
something, in order to set it for the record, and make sure that it’s clear that it’s going to be on
in July.
MR. RINGER-Did they ask for a date?
MR. HILTON-They didn’t ask for a date. They asked for a July agenda.
MR. RINGER-Okay. If somebody wants to make a motion to table Logger’s Equipment.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-1994, LOGGER’S EQUIPMENT, Introduced by
Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr. Seguljic:
At the applicant’s request.
Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. SANFORD-Are we tabling it to a particular meeting?
MR. RINGER-At the applicant’s request.
MR. SANFORD-At the applicant’s request.
MR. VOLLARO-Tabled until July.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s whenever they do it, I guess.
MR. HILTON-You can pick a meeting. Yes, but I’d rather, it’s his request, and table it
indefinitely, because with the tight schedules we have and everything, I don’t want to table it to
a meeting, since we’re so filled. So just table it, period. No public hearing. So we don’t have to
worry about the date or anything.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
SITE PLAN NO. 69-2000 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JEFFREY
SCHWARTZ PROPERTY OWNER: IDA OF WARREN WASH. CO. AGENT: PETER
BROWN ZONE: LI LOCATION: 53 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. WAREHOUSE USES IN THE LI ZONE
REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 60-00 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.12, 1.22/308.20-1-2, 4.1
JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Yes. This is an application that was before you, actually tabled in January, and
the applicant was seeking a clarification of a building code, which I understand has been
clarified. I’m not sure of what the issue was, but the applicant may want to speak to that. As
I’ve indicated, a couple of waivers, lighting and landscaping plan have been requested. The
proposed construction appears to go over an existing property line, and in order to eliminate
the need for any Area Variances, the parcel and the adjacent parcel should be merged, and
we’ve included a stipulation that this merging, a proof that the merger has taken place be
submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. As I’ve noted, the most recent C.T. Male
comments for this site plan are dated January 21, and nothing since that point, and obviously
st
not a signoff , a signoff has not been received at this point.
MR. RINGER-A question, I wasn’t here at that meeting that we’re talking about either. The
question seems to be on the lot, and what a legal thing and a.
MR. HILTON-I wouldn’t say legal. It’s just as it exists right now.
MR. RINGER-Interpretation?
MR. HILTON-They have to be merged.
MR. RINGER-Our Counsel is not here tonight. That’s why I might put you off for a few
minutes until Counsel arrives. That’s why.
MR. VOLLARO-Can we expect Counsel tonight?
MR. HILTON-I expect him shortly, yes. I mean, right now, there is a parcel line where the
building crosses an existing parcel line. However, prior to the issuance of a building permit, if
they’ve supplied proof that these lots have been merged, then that lot line goes away and the
building would be conforming, as far as setbacks go. So that’s how we see it.
MR. SANFORD-Right that was the issue. There was a merger, merging two parcels together.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s hear from you. If necessary, we may postpone you until Counsel
arrives.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. I’m Jeff Schwartz, the President of Morris Products. We own both lots,
okay. So if we get approval, just make them one lot. So that’s not a problem, as far as the lots
go. We’re looking to add 10,600 square foot to the back of the building, warehouse space. I
think our existing buildings are, we’ve got two additions, but the first building was put up four
years ago. So we’re just basically looking to expand from where we are now, and the frontage is
still the same. It’s just going to be in the back of the building.
MR. SANFORD-Where do things stand with C.T. Male’s comments, because I saw the letter, but
that was a long time ago. So has there been any correspondence or communications with the
engineering firm?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, I mean, I think as far as I’m concerned, I think they’re all set with
everything, as far as I know.
MR. RINGER-Have we got anything, George?
MR. HILTON-Again, I’m not seeing a signoff, but I’ll take another quick look.
MR. RINGER-I read your notes, and I thought I read that we hadn’t gotten a signoff.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it says has not been seen.
MR. RINGER-Signoff has not been received.
MR. VOLLARO-If you look at Mr. Montgomery’s letter, it was a letter from Mr. Montgomery in
there, and I think that that letter should have gone to C.T. Male, but it went to staff instead, I
believe. Let me just take a look real quick.
MR. RINGER-Which one are you talking about, the 29, Bob?
th
MR. VOLLARO-The 29 letter from William Montgomery, which is the engineer for the
th
applicant, and it went to Jeff Schwartz and to Peter Brown, who is, Peter Brown is the
construction management firm. I didn’t see any cc’s going to either Staff or to engineering on
that, to our engineering, to C.T. Male. So it very well could be that this three page letter.
MR. RINGER-The letter is addressed to the Town of Queensbury, the one I’m looking at.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay, that’s fine, but it didn’t get, I don’t know whether, my question is,
did it ever get to C.T. Male?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I wouldn’t think that he would be sending a letter to C.T. Male
anyway. He’d be going through, hopefully he’d be going through the Town.
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, applicants have, on their own, sent letters to C.T. Male.
MR. RINGER-I know, but we’ve always put Staff in the loop.
MR. HILTON-I guess I can’t answer that offhand. I don’t know.
MR. SCHWARTZ-It says cc on the bottom. It says cc to C.T. Male at the very bottom.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it does say on the bottom it was sent to them.
MR. HILTON-If that’s the case.
MR. SANFORD-So is this the case, George, where C.T. Male dropped the ball, maybe?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Attention James Edwards P.C. is on Peter Brown’s memorandum of 30. I’m
talking to the one from William Montgomery, who’s the engineer for the applicant, for you, Mr.
Schwartz.
MR. RINGER-March 30. I’ve got that.
th
MR. SANFORD-That was addressed to the Town.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That was addressed to the Town.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Dated March 30?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Dated March 29.
th
MR. SCHWARTZ-I’ve got one dated March 30 here.
th
MR. VOLLARO-The March 30 letter is from Peter J. Brown, which the construction
th
management company. Okay. Now, the one that Bill Montgomery sent in had a detailed
analysis in it, and answers to C.T. Male’s questions, and some of them I could understand and
some I couldn’t. It looks like Mr. Montgomery was really resting on a lot of prior data that had
been done by a company by the name of Rist-Frost, which was an engineering firm, which is an
engineering firm here in Albany.
MR. SANFORD-Glens Falls, actually.
MR. VOLLARO-In Glens Falls.
MR. RINGER-You don’t know if C.T. Male received that or not.
MR. HILTON-I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-You know, we really, without that going to C.T. Male, I mean, we’re really caught
between a rock and a hard place here.
MR. VOLLARO-That was my, when I read this whole thing, I said it looked to me like C.T.
Male never got Mr. Montgomery’s letter. That was my conclusion on sitting down in my little
cubicle, to understand what’s going on, at home.
MR. SANFORD-Does everybody or does anybody feel comfortable with conditioning the
application on the C.T. Male signoff? Because again, if the applicant sends communications in
to the Town of Queensbury, and it doesn’t travel from the Town of Queensbury to our engineer,
you know, I don’t feel all that comfortable in delaying the process. We want to make sure it’s
done right, but we’ve conditioned a lot of things on C.T. Male signoff. So would this be an
application that it would be appropriate to do that with?
MR. RINGER-Well, that would depend on how the Board feels about the comments from C.T.
Male. I wasn’t here for that meeting. So I don’t know how the Board feels about all those
comments from C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the C.T. Male comments are rather extensive. What I would say is
if we could find out, see, C.T. Male may not be answering this because there’s not a direct
answer to his questions. The answer is via Mr. Montgomery’s reply and going back to some of
Rist-Frost’s memorandum, and maybe our own engineer is having a difficult time trying to
interpolate that. I don’t know. If he’s got it, and he says we have it, then I would go along
with what you say, Rich.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, all right. I mean, again, we all did site visit on this, and we all know it’s
located in that industrial area, and, you know, to me, it doesn’t seem like there would be
anything that couldn’t be addressed.
MR. RINGER-Richard, I agree with you, and it may be the Town’s fault that C.T. Male didn’t
get that. We don’t know if they got it or didn’t get it. It’s unusual, if they got it, that we didn’t
get a response of some kind. So I would almost have to assume that they didn’t get it. I don’t
have C.T. Male’s comments, because I didn’t get the entire packet. This is two pages, Bob?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it’s been there a while, and then of course the follow up letter to that,
from Montgomery is.
MR. RINGER-That’s the March 29.
th
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the March 29. So, if C.T. Male hasn’t responded since March 29 to
thth
Montgomery’s answer to that letter that you have there from C.T. Male, then I suspect that C.T.
Male doesn’t have it.
MR. RINGER-They didn’t get it, right.
MR. HILTON-Well, as someone said, I mean, if you feel comfortable enough moving forward
with a condition of approval, you certainly can do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with moving forward and considering.
MR. RINGER-Well, let the other two members read C.T. Male’s comments and get their
opinion.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it seems as if all the issues are addressable, and it’s in an industrial
park.
MR. RINGER-I’m sorry for the delay. Apparently something went askew with how we, Rich,
do you want to go over that? Just read it and then you can make a.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a couple of things in that letter that I’ve picked up on. The applicant
justifies this 10,600 square feet additional on some previous approvals. However, C.T. Male
comments 10 or 11, which Mr. Sanford is reading now, are in direct conflict with our 136 Code,
in Appendix A and Appendix G.
MR. SANFORD-You mean the gravel driveway?
MR. VOLLARO-The gravel driveway and the separation between the building and the field,
and that’s a, you know, that’s one of the things that I’m concerned with.
MR. RINGER-Mr. Montgomery is not with you tonight, Mr. Schwartz?
MR. SCHWARTZ-No.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Larry, do you know how congested our agenda is for next month?
MR. RINGER-Very congested. As a matter of fact, we had four items we weren’t sure we could
get on it, and I don’t know how we, if we got them on or not.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I hear you.
MR. SCHWARTZ-The gravel driveway, is that the one around the building for the fire?
MR. VOLLARO-It goes right over your septic tank, which sits adjacent to your building.
MR. SEGULJIC-The proposed gravel driveway crosses the on-site wastewater disposal system.
One or the other should be relocated. It doesn’t seem like a big deal.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. None of this is a big deal, really, if we.
MR. RINGER-Well, if we don’t feel it’s a big deal, we can go ahead with the application, with
the condition that a signoff from C.T. Male would be part of the approval, if the Board feels
confident, but I don’t want to push the Board into something that they don’t feel confident in.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, why don’t you poll the Board and see what they.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to also condition it on the fact that they’re going to merge these
lots, and it becomes one, that’s another condition?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess I would go forward.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll go forward with it.
MR. ANDERSON-I support it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got no public hearing. It’s a modification. We don’t need a SEQRA
for the modification. Right, George?
MR. HILTON-It is on the agenda listed as an Unlisted action. I don’t have the file in front of
me, but as it was a previous site plan in 2000, I believe there was a SEQRA done at that time,
and it’s up to the Board to either reaffirm those findings or do a new SEQRA.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Your prepared resolution has the SEQRA in there?
MR. HILTON-Yes. It has a, you’ll see a paragraph, a Whereas that says finds the previous
SEQRA declaration applicable.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then we can use that. Okay. Any further comment from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if we go by the thing we usually go by here, under lighting design, there
really isn’t anything provided. There’s a note on drawing A-1, and A-1 states that the lighting
will be connected to the existing source. That’s all it says, any new lighting will be connected to
the existing supply. So there isn’t any lighting at all, and maybe there’s not supposed to be. I
don’t know, but there’s no provision for lighting in here.
MR. SANFORD-They requested a waiver on that. Lighting and landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say, once again, it’s in an industrial park.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I think that those are reasonable waivers, given the location, and the
project.
MR. VOLLARO-I have it down, a waiver was requested. Yes. So we’d have to grant that
waiver.
MR. RINGER-And the other waivers he may have requested, too. I don’t have the application
in front of me. Is that it on that, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking through my notes.
MR. RINGER-Take your time. I don’t want to rush through this.
MR. VOLLARO-On the parking, they’ve got 13,000 square foot of parking in this. It seems like
a lot to me, since the closest I could come, in parking, on 179-4-040, was one space per two
employees, which didn’t seem right for me, and I said I would go along with the 13,000 square
feet, but that’s what it says, parking and loading is a gross number of 13,000 square feet. When
you go into our 179 Code, it says one parking space per two employees in a warehouse
environment. So we’re going to have to use some judgment here.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Let’s let the applicant answer why the amount of parking. Is there a reason
you’ve got that much parking?
MR. SCHWARTZ-Just the space that’s there. I mean, we’ve got more than enough parking for
the employees.
MR. RINGER-Yes, the question is, have we got too much parking, and should we have more
green space. I think that’s what Bob’s referring to.
MR. SCHWARTZ-I think if you look at the size of the lot, there’s tons of green space. I mean,
that’s just the way it’s already there.
MR. RINGER-Do you have a problem with it, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, you know, this is a pre-existing site, and I’m just looking at this application
as it comes before us, understanding that it’s a pre-existing site. That’s why I said I’d go along
with the 13,000 square feet. It just seems like a lot of pavement.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Some of that’s for the truck has got to back in to the loading, that’s part of the
loading area. That’s half of it.
MR. VOLLARO-It says that.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have a problem with it either, Bob. Have you got anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-If the septic system stays as it is, you’re not only going to need C.T. Male to
answer the question, but if it stays as it is, you’re going to need a DOH waiver on the septic
system design. This is getting so that there is so much that we’re going to be conditioning this
acceptance on. It’s a lot of conditions.
MR. RINGER-Well, the septic system would be looked at by the Building, and they would, you
know, I don’t think we’ve got to put that in the conditions. That’s up to the Building
Department, to make sure that the septic system follows all the Codes. So I don’t think that we
necessarily have to have that as part of the conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the involved agency, in some of the notes from Staff, and I have Staff’s
notes here, I believe, talks to that question.
MR. RINGER-Well, you know, I don’t feel we need it as a part of a condition, but because it’s
something that the, before the CO is issued, Hatin is going to be looking at the septic to make
sure it complies with all the Codes. If you feel like you want it in there, we certainly can put it
in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Right now it doesn’t. I can tell you that they’ve got 10 feet. They require 20
feet, from the building to the septic field. I can tell you right now they’ve either move it, or
they’ve got to get a waiver for it, one or the other. Because it doesn’t comply with your 136
Code.
MR. RINGER-I’m concerned, we’re getting into so many things here, are we rushing this
approval or?
MR. VOLLARO-In some ways I think we are.
MR. RINGER-Then, you know, I’d rather table it, even though it may be our own, the Town’s
fault, I’d still rather table it and have them come back, if we can squeeze them in next month,
but maybe in July if we can’t, rather than rush something through that you don’t feel
comfortable with.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just one member. If everybody else nods yes, I’ll bow out.
MR. RINGER-I know, but we’ve come up with, already, three or four conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-But you’re going to have to have a fair amount of conditions to approve this,
yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Those comments with regards to getting a waiver or moving a septic system
were in the C.T. Male comment letter. Correct?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-It’s in C.T. Male’s? Then we don’t have to put that as a condition. He’d have to
comply with it, for C.T. Male. So that wouldn’t be a condition. C.T. Male’s condition would be
the ruling there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it.
MR. RINGER-Do we still want to move ahead with it? Then I’ll need a motion. Has anybody
been making notes about the conditions? Although now I only see the condition of C.T. Male.
MR. SANFORD-C.T. Male signoff.
MR. RINGER-And the merging of the lots.
MR. SANFORD-And the two waivers, right?
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. RINGER-Granting the waivers and no change in the SEQRA Findings.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the resolution has the merging of the lots.
MR. RINGER-Right. Well, we’d have to say that we agree that there’s no changes in the.
MRS. STEFFAN-Larry, can we ask the Counsel about the easement? I just wanted to ask
Counsel to give us some clarity on the reason for merging the two lots. There was some
confusion about the (lost word) of that.
MR. RINGER-Counsel, were you aware of what the first questions were that came up?
MR. SCHACHNER-I was aware that Staff was recommending merger of the lots. As far as I
knew applicant didn’t have a problem with merger of the lots, and it’s a perfectly appropriate
condition. I don’t know much more about the background, but it is an appropriate condition.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, it’s no problem.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I understood applicant didn’t have any objection to it, and it’s an
easily fulfilled condition as well.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Richard, are you working on the resolution?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, we don’t even have to mention the waivers in the resolution, do we?
MR. RINGER-Grant the waivers. We granted the waivers.
MR. SANFORD-Grant them. So it’s just, wouldn’t it be, can I take a stab at it, right now?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 69-2000 JEFFREY
SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 69-2000 Applicant: Jeffrey Schwartz
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: IDA of Warren Wash. Co.
Agent: Peter Brown
MODIFICATION Zone: LI
Location: 53 Carey Road
Applicant proposes the construction of a 10,600 sq. ft. warehouse addition related to an existing
wholesale distribution facility. Warehouse uses in the LI zone require Site Plan Review and
approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SP 60-00
Tax Map No. 137-2-1.12, 1.22 / 308.20-1-2, 4.1
Lot size: 2.62 acres / Section:
Public Hearing: Not required for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/23/04, and
5/27 Staff Notes
5/3 Meeting Notice sent
4/15 Additional information received
4/1 P. Brown, agent from CB: request for copies of additional information
3/31 CB from P. Brown, agent: additional information
3/12 P. Brown from DH: response to 3/11 letter
3/11 D. Hatin from P. Brown: response to 3/5 letter from C. Fischer
3/5 Wm. Montgomery from C. Fischer, Code Interpretation Codes Division
2/24 CB from J. Schwartz: request to be tabled
1/27 PB resolution: Tabled: applicant/agent not present at meeting
1/27 Staff Notes
1/26 Wm. Montgomery to CB: request for code interpretation by Sec. Of State
1/23 Fax to applicant/agent: staff notes
1/21 CT Male engineering comments
1/12 Wastewater comments: not w/in sanitary sewer district
1/3 Meeting Notice sent
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
application 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 SEQRA have been previously considered, the Planning Board
finds that this proposal does not present any notable impacts that require further review and, as
such, finds the previous SEQR declaration applicable and hereby affirms the same; and
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Applicant shall submit proof that both lots included in this site plan have been merged
prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Approval is subject to C.T. Male signoff on their concerns as expressed in their letter as
of January 21, 2004.
Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Mr. Schwartz.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID MENTER AGENT:
JONATHAN LAPPER, DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1130 STATE
ROUTE 9, WAKITA MOTEL APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3
STORY, 44,000 SQ. FT. HOTEL BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LIGHTING,
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING FACILITIES. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE
REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Staff notes, George?
MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a couple of notes. I’ve listed here as the items the applicant has
provided as a result of the tabling. My note here about the lighting plan, we met with the
applicant yesterday, and the fixtures and the averages in the lighting plan appears to meet the
intent of the Code overall. As I’ve noted here, following the last meeting, the applicant’s agent
indicated they would contact the State Office of Historic Preservation. They have made that
inquiry. We do have correspondence in the file, including Phase IA and IB assessment, which
indicates nothing was found. We’ve given you a revised resolution this evening that proposes
another condition that some kind of signoff letter, so to speak, from the State Office, Historic
Preservation Office, be provided prior to the signing of the final plans by the Zoning
Administrator. The applicant’s plan, as far as vehicular access, has been revised. New York
State DOT has issued a comment letter, or has issued comment on this and finds it acceptable.
As I’ve noted here, the project involves disturbance of greater than one acre, appears to involve
the disturbance of greater than one acre, and therefore a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention
Plan and Notice of Intent are required. We have included the stipulation as well that this
Notice of Intent be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Just one other note, I
received an e-mail today, late today, from C.T. Male, which essentially says that the applicant
has substantially addressed C.T. Male’s comments. I guess I would suggest that a condition be,
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
of any final approval, be that a final C.T. Male signoff, that the applicant receive a final C.T.
Male signoff, and that’s really all I have at this point.
MR. RINGER-Okay. What about the letter from the Fire Marshal?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, the fire hydrant issue.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve moved it. We met with him and we moved the fire hydrant. Satisfied
him.
MR. RINGER-That’s all you had, George?
MR. HILTON-That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a comment by the Fire Marshal in here.
MR. RINGER-Yes, there is.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s for Schiavone’s project, and for Adirondack Sports.
MR. RINGER-They’re on both of them.
MR. LAPPER-They commented on a number of projects on the same.
MR. SANFORD-They said either a second hydrant or move the hydrant.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with Dave Menter, the applicant, Dennis MacElroy,
the Project Engineer, and Alana Morans, from Creighton Manning, in case there are any
additional traffic issues.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Jon, some of us weren’t here, and we’ve got new Board members. Briefly,
just very briefly give us a.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. We made a previous presentation. This is a proposal to replace the
existing cabins at the Waikita Motel with a brand new 85 unit hotel. Dennis will go through the
site plan for you, but we have sited it so that we can retain the hill, which runs alongside Round
Pond Road, which both protects the Hotel from the traffic and it protects the neighbors from
any commercial activity on this site. The Board was favorably impressed with the project but
asked us to look at traffic and some specific issues, and then the issue of archeology came up,
not because of anything known on site, but because it’s in close proximity to Rush Pond. So we
retained an archeologist, and they went out and did 44 shovel tests, and fortunately for Dave
found nothing. So we’ve submitted their report, which is completely clean, and we will get a
signoff from SHIPPO, but that takes a number of weeks. So that would be an additional agency
signoff. You can make a SEQRA determination based upon what we’ve submitted for the Phase
IA and IB, and a condition we would request would be that we just wait for SHIPPO, for the
final signing of the waiting for SHIPPO to give us a letter.
MR. RINGER-You gave Staff the thing from?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We didn’t get, you didn’t pass that out, George, the archeological report?
MR. HILTON-It’s a detailed report, and there is a cover letter. We did not pass it out.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but you’ve got it.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. HILTON-We have it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’re ready, if you wanted to give us a.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. For those of you, or to refresh your memories, I guess, our
site is a six acre site on the corner of State Route 9 and Round Pond Road. There’s an existing
motel of approximately 13 units here and some cabins up the hillside. As Jon indicated, this
project proposes to eliminate the cabins and build a new three story, 85 unit hotel building with
associated parking and landscaping. The 13 unit motel building would stay in place and
continue in operation. The existing office located in this location would be removed. The two
existing curb cuts, one would be eliminated, and the access from Route 9 would coincide
somewhat with one of them, but it’s been shifted slightly to, based on the recommendation and
request of DOT. Now, regarding the site improvements, access from Route 9, from Round Pond
Road, up the hillside to the parking for that hotel unit, hotel building, proposed future pool in
the exterior. We did look at several different scenarios about the placement of this, in the
interest of trying to maintain this hillside which will, is a vegetated hillside, it will be
maintained to an extent and provide buffer from the Round Pond Road location. Sheet Two of
your packet shows sectional views from two different perspectives. Gives you an idea of the
before and after situation, and that was a comment that was made. In fact, that refreshes your
memory of the site. I could cover the specific comments that were part of the tabling motion,
from last.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Fine. Go.
MR. MAC ELROY-You had requested that the 50 year storm plan be included within the
stormwater narrative. That was done as part of our April 15 submittal. A 35 foot center line
th
for trees along Route 9 in accordance with the Route 9 Design Corridor, and that has been
added and in place. Lighting to conform to Town Code. We’ve submitted a Sheet Seven in
your package, which provides the photometrics and all is in compliance with Town standards.
C.T. Male signoff letter. They wrote a letter on March 19. We responded to it March 22 or
thnd
23. We provided this new submittal April 15. They’ve issued a subsequent comment letter of
rdth
May 21 . We’ve responded to it May 25, and George got the e-mail today, which indicates that
stth
it’s substantially complete. Another condition was to have C.T. Male review the traffic
information that’s been provided to them by Staff. Now because there was not any specific
comment from C.T. Male, I just presume that they certainly were satisfied with the traffic
numbers. There is a comment further related to the access, but I’ll get to that. Visual impact
from Route 9, similar to the drawings on Sheet Two, now showing visual impact from Round
Pond Road. Those are the two sectional views that I referred to on Sheet Two. That second one
has been provided as requested. Color rendering of the building and material, that we have
here, embellished a little more from the last version that you had, and perhaps Dave could
speak to that, the features of the building, but we have certainly supplied that, and the last
comment or condition that was part of the tabling motion, the applicant shall review curb cuts
shown on Sheet One revised 3/22/04. That was our version that was addressed at our previous
meeting. At that time, the proposal was full access from Route 9. Full ingress and egress to
Route 9 as well as Round Pond Road. There was some indication, while not necessarily formal
motion or anything, that the Board was wondering about how that conformed with Town
standards. We reviewed it. The owner or the applicant considered an alternative which we’ve
come up with which would be left turn in, right turn in. So ingress only, to that access on Route
9, that curb cut on Route 9. Round Pond Road maintains full ingress and egress to that location.
So again, turning movement is restricted to only in at that point, no traffic coming out. The site
plan, the detailed site plan, provides the signage and necessary controls that would prohibit
traffic from coming out to that location. C.T. Male, in their comment letter, specifically agrees
with that, endorses that concept.
MR. SANFORD-How many feet is the Route 9 curb cut.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Richard, let him finish his presentation, and then we’ll get back and then we’ll go
through the whole criteria. So we’ll stay in order that way.
MR. SANFORD-Fine. Sure.
MR. RINGER-I think that would be better. That way we won’t get out of sequence.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that covers the specific comments of the tabling motion. The only
thing if you, and I guess that will come with your questions, any further comments about the
building itself.
MR. RINGER-All right. Thank you. Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Alana’s here, but I guess we could just respond to any questions about traffic and
everything else.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we have a formula that we use here, and we’ll go down each of
them. I’m sure many of them were done at the last meeting, but since we have new people here
that weren’t, myself included, that weren’t at that last meeting. So let’s start with design
standards. Any questions on the design standards? Any questions on design standards?
Apparently we’ve got some changes now with the actual drawing of the building and the color.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no comments. I’d like to just open, Larry, and say that before I get into
any details, let me just compliment Mr. MacElroy on a complete and well presented
presentation. Coming from me, I don’t give those out too often, as you probably know, and
incidentally, the floor area ratio was not required in this zone, even though it helped. It wasn’t
required for you to do that, but you did a great job with that.
MR. LAPPER-We were under the impression that it is required in the Highway Commercial
zone.
MR. VOLLARO-No. Is it? I looked in the Code and it only showed a WR-1A and WR-3A. At
least that’s what’s in my book.
MR. RINGER-Well, they’ve got it in there, but. Any questions on the design?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question regarding the, shall I refer to it as the old hotel.
MR. LAPPER-The motel, the 13 unit?
MR. SEGULJIC-The 13 unit motel. Are there any plans to upgrade that at all?
DAVID MENTER
MR. MENTER-Yes, and I haven’t quantified those plans, but I’m going to do as little as I have to
to it, to bring it into conformance to run as part of the property. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall correctly, too, isn’t it like red and white or blue and white or
something?
MR. MENTER-No. The roof is red shingles. That’s what you’re referring to. The color of the
building itself is a tan. It’s a very subdued tan color, and that hopefully will not change. The
roof will definitely change, and it’s going to end up being a lot more subdued to match.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you plan on matching that, then?
MR. MENTER-Yes. Yes, that’s the goal, and again, I’m going to do as little to it as I can get
away with.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-For the new people, the house that’s now the office, that’s right in front at the
corner, that’s right next to the road, is coming down, and that’s going to really change the whole
look from the road, especially replacing it with the street trees. Right now it’s really close to the
road.
MR. SANFORD-The office will go in the new hotel?
MR. MENTER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-George, you had a comment?
MR. HILTON-Just about the floor area ratio, it’s .3.
MR. VOLLARO-It is .3. Sorry about that. Didn’t go far enough in the Code.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on design standards? Okay. Site development criteria. Site
conditions. Any questions on that?
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little discrepancy, but not much. In the stormwater management
narrative, on the revised version of April 14, 2004, they talk about 110 cars. When you look at
the drawing it’s 102 cars. The drawing matches the, the number of spots on the drawing
matches what you have on the drawing as 102. So it’s 110 that’s in the stormwater management
that doesn’t quite fit, but it’s a minor detail.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s about 17 spaces over. As far as I’m concerned, it’s fine.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s within the 20%.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s within the 20, yes, it’s 20% above 179-4-040. It’s just 20% above. So that’s
fine, but I think you might want to just scratch that out of your stormwater report on the 110, so
that everything hangs together.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Emergency access. We’ve got the letter from the Fire Marshal.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We were in a meeting with George and Chris two days ago I guess, to just
go over this before the meeting and make sure, and we handed them the archeological report,
which we just got, and they pointed out, the Fire Marshal’s comment, that we brought the Fire
Marshal in and came up with a location where we would move the hydrant so that it would be
on the other side of the road so that the house wouldn’t be blocking the road, and that was
really responsive. It’s right in the middle of the building across the road, and Dennis can show
you where that is. That’s where it is now, where it’s proposed now, and that’s where it’s going
to be relocated.
MR. SANFORD-So what was the issue, that it wouldn’t cross the road, the hose? Is that what
they didn’t like about the first placement was that it would restrict traffic?
MR. MAC ELROY-Evidently, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Okay.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s really an operational thing that we may not consider Code wise, but
operationally, that’s where it came from.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I read it, and I was a little confused.
MR. RINGER-I got the impression from what Joe was saying that you lay your hose, and then
you’ve got other apparatus coming in, now you’ve got to go over the darn hose or disconnect
the hose, and this way you get more apparatus into the site, to fight fire, whatever the situation
may be, without going over the hose or having to take the hose out.
MR. SANFORD-Another question I have is I read all the comments, and it looks like
everybody’s comfortable with what you have planned for curb cuts, but just out of curiosity, on
Route 9, how many feet is that curb cut on Route 9 going to be from the Round Pond
intersection?
MR. MAC ELROY-155 feet center to center.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, I just don’t know the answer, so, if a light ever gets put in to
Round Pond, what’s the recommended distance that you should kind of have before you start
having a curb cut, or isn’t there any criteria for that? I mean, a reasonable amount of distance
from a light before you have a curb cut, or is that just something that I’m way off base on? No,
there’s no such thing?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don’t know if Alana knows that right off the top of her head, but it
would be somewhat subject to the level of highway service there is.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m just thinking that if people were stopped at a light, and then the light
changes and they accelerate out, from the light, and people are coming in, I mean, it makes
sense that the more distance you have probably the better it would be, and I was wondering if
the distance that you have speced out is appropriate or adequate, and I don’t know the answer
to that.
MR. RINGER-Well, I think that DOT has written a signoff. So they’re probably, I would guess
somewhat the experts on that, more than us.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We were in close communication with them and revised it to their
request, and as important as anything was the opposition to the curb cut on the west side of 9.
MR. SANFORD-The only other item I have is I would also like to echo what Bob said. I think
that you did a nice job with this project. It looks good.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Coming from Rich, that’s even better than coming from Bob.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we heard what the Board and Rich said about the curb cut and we took a
hard look at it. Dave would have preferred the full movement, but we thought this would work
and it would address your concerns, and that’s what we did before we resubmitted.
MR. VOLLARO-While we’re on the light, could I just ask Mr. Menter a question? Have you
had a chance to participate with DOT and The Great Escape and all? There’s a thing going on to
try to get lights at Round Pond and at Glen Lake Road. You’re aware of that?
MR. MENTER-Yes. I’m certainly aware of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you had any chance for you to sit in with The Great Escape folks and talk
to DOT about the light at Round Pond?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. LAPPER-Part of the answer, Bob, is the traffic that Dave is generating is so miniscule,
compared to The Great Escape, and for them it’s if they relocate that access road behind
Martha’s they would be creating a four way intersection. So it’s really their project.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but sometimes a little more push from a local owner of a
motel like that would help drive them over the edge, because right now I kind of feel they’re
still teetering. That’s the only reason for my question.
MR. RINGER-We’ve certainly got the Town pushing them quite hard, the State.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on traffic?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just had a question on the Creighton Manning data. We’re looking at
statistics that go back to 2002 and 2001. Is that the most recent information that’s available?
ALANA MORANS
MS. MORANS-That’s the information that we were provided by DOT. I understand that
they’re, well, yes, that is the most recent that we have. Yes.
MR. RINGER-A lot of that was probably done with the EIS for The Great Escape when we did
the traffic. That was in 2002, too, Gretchen.
MRS. STEFFAN-It was just a question. I certainly think that the one way entrance access won’t
be any issues, certainly with all of the attention that’s being focused on.
MS. MORANS-Right, and standard practice is to add a two percent growth rate to whatever
annual growth rate to whatever the base volumes are. So we can project it up to 2004 volumes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on traffic? Parking? Okay. Stormwater?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think we have a C.T. Male signoff which addressed pretty much the
stormwater problem, and the sewage is going to be connected to the main sewer system.
MR. RINGER-Anyone else?
MRS. STEFFAN-Does The Great Escape issues with the runoff that goes off into their?
MR. LAPPER-You know what, ironically it’s The Great Escape runoff that’s coming onto Dave’s
property. The contours run the other way. They have a culvert, I guess, or a pipe even, that
runs onto Dave’s property.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, but you’re right in some ways. Some of the site grades to their
property. That’s a pre-existing. The rate is controlled to no greater than what pre-development
will be. So that’s within standards. What Jon and Dave are referring to is that there is a portion
of the back northeasterly corner of the property that there was some diversion of runoff from
The Great Escape into a retention area or recharge area on Dave’s property.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Lighting design.
MR. SEGULJIC-One question. Once again with what I refer to as the old hotel, you don’t have
any lights around there at all, looking at the lighting plan.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the existing lighting for the existing motel, there is a, in the peak of the
roof, the foot candle ratings don’t reflect that existing lighting, if that’s the point that you’re, you
probably see a bunch of zeros out in that parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s all zeros, yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Well, there is one light that serves that parking lot, and there’s
some under lighting in the soffit area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not that I’m saying we need more lights, but you’re okay with that? You have
adequate light there?
MR. MENTER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else on lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got probably the same question. There’s zero light, and now they’ve
answered the question. There’s a wall pack up in the peak.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Which isn’t reflected in the lumens on the ground, foot candles on the ground.
Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I saw, just at the southern end you’ve got a little bit of lighting there
from some of your poles, but it doesn’t get up into the end. Now there is some light spill, very,
very little light spill, I guess, onto Route 9 and Round Pond, but it’s very, very small. So I’m
going to just discount it. There’s a couple of spots where, and I don’t know, that’s in the
anomaly of the software, I think. The more I look at it, the more I think that’s what it is.
MR. RINGER-There’s a couple of spots there, 1.9 and 1.2, that could be a street light maybe.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it could be. Either that or, you know, when these computers do this kind
of jig, it’s never linear. That’s the problem with it. Your uniformity ratio is now three to one,
which is good, I think. Our Code is four to one, but three to one is probably acceptable, as far as
uniformity is concerned. Uniformity really has to do with how good these things change with
light levels. Get into a very high level when you go into a dark street. They just don’t change
fast enough. That’s what the four to one ratio is all about, uniformity ratio. Okay. That’s it.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on lighting? Landscape design?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I think they did an excellent job on landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question with regards to, on the plans it says existing wooded area to
remain undisturbed. If we approve the plans, do we have to condition? What I’m trying to say
is, I like the way they’re maintaining a lot of the trees along Round Pond Road. The plan says
existing wooded areas to remain undisturbed. Do we have to condition that?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s part of their application.
MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, that is limited to what’s shown on the plan, based on there is some
grading on that hillside naturally, which we’ll remove some, but that that is shown
undisturbed, unaffected by grading would remain.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I wanted to see that remain.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s right. That’s the intent.
MR. LAPPER-Dave needs it, too, to protect the hotel.
MR. MENTER-The whole intent of that design was to do that. It would have been real easy just
to level the whole thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s much more appealing this way, actually. I think it’s a good design,
actually, all the way around.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on landscape?
MR. SANFORD-How visibility will it be from, actually, I’m in support of what you have there,
too, but is it going to be a situation where you’re not going to have the right level of visibility
that you might want as a hotel owner, or is it still going to have a comfortable level of visibility?
MR. LAPPER-Well, one answer is that Dave obviously could have made it parallel to, rather
than perpendicular to Route 9, which would have made it a lot more visible, but what he would
have given up is that there would have been less privacy for his guests. So there is some loss of
visibility, but it’s just a nicer site. It’s just more wooded back there and that was his call.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with it.
MR. MENTER-And it will have good visibility, as well as for south traveling traffic and
northbound traffic. A lot of it because of the elevation of the building itself. It’s going to be
substantially higher than the other buildings down front.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on that? Okay. Environmental, historical factors, you’ve already
addressed that.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got that.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on Environmental? Neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. RINGER-Involved agencies. We’ve taken care of all them, DEC, and, any other thing we
haven’t hit on? Okay. The public hearing. Craig closed the public hearing, or is it still open?
MR. SANFORD-The public hearing is still open, I think.
MR. LAPPER-It’s tabled. So it’s still open.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Still open. Okay. Anyone here wish to address the Board on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Any of the applicants? Let’s do a
SEQRA.
MR. METIVIER-Long or Short Form? Short Form, right?
MR. RINGER-Yes, Short Form.
MR. METIVIER-All right.
MR. SANFORD-It’s Unlisted.
MR. RINGER-They did the Long Form?
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see a Long Form in my package.
MR. LAPPER-I think it was Short.
MR. HILTON-You’re right, Short Form.
MR. RINGER-Short Form? Okay. Short Form, Tony.
MR. VOLLARO-Mark, did you have a feeling that it should be a Long Form?
MR. SCHACHNER-I thought it was. Sorry. Since it’s not a Type I Action, it’s not required.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DAVID MENTER, 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
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
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 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anybody ready with a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID MENTER, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 13-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: David Menter
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Dennis MacElroy
Zone: HC-INT
Location: 1130 State Route 9
Applicant proposes the construction of a 3 story, 44,000 sq. ft. hotel building along with
associated lighting, landscaping and parking facilities. Hotel uses in the HC-Int. zone require
site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Warren Co. Planning: 3/10/04
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9
Lot size: 6 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: March 23, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/17/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/21/04, and
5/27 Staff notes
5/21 CT Male engineering comments
5/6 PB from S. Smith, Fire Marshal & Qu. Central Chief Joe Duprey
5/4 D. MacElroy, agent from Wm. Logan: NYS DOT
5/3 Meeting notice sent
4/15 New information received
3/29 Jonathan Lapper from GH: applicant/agent will submit a ltr. Of inquiry
to
NYS Office of Historic Preservation
3/23 PB resolution: Tabled
3/23 Staff Notes
3/23 D. MacElroy, agent from CME: trip generation
3/19 CT Male engineering comments
3/16 Notice of Public Hearing
3/11 C. Brown from D. MacElroy: partial plan from DOT [3/5 letter from Wm.
Logan to D. MacElroy
3/10 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
3/5 D. MacElroy from Wm. Logan, NYSDOT
3/1 Water Dept. comment
3/1 FOIL request: J. Bramley
2/27 Meeting Notice
2/26 G. Hilton from S. Johnston, CME
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
2/25 E-mail from M. Shaw
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 3/23/04 and 5/27/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Applicant shall provide copy of the NOI/SWPPP prior to submission of a Building
Permit.
2. Applicant to submit final letter from SHPO accepting findings of Phase IA/IB site
assessment prior to signature of final plans.
3. The C.T. Male signoff on their three (3) letters, they have a sign-off, I guess, that’s in the
file, C.T. Male final signoff. They have three (3) letters that they addressed here, of their
3/19 letter, which the applicant talked about, a 4/19 letter and a 5/21 letter, and I assume
that when they do a signoff they’re going to incorporate all of what they wrote in those
three letters as part of their signoff.
Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. SANFORD-Shouldn’t those correspondences be listed on Page One of the resolution?
MR. RINGER-That question has come up before, and Staff has told us that they always add the
additional letters that have come in after they’ve prepared the resolution, to that. So they’re
added. Not as a condition, but as part of the information.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. RINGER-And Staff adds those, and they’ve told us in the past they’ve always added those.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, guys, and lady.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER OWNER: GEORGE DRELLOS AGENT:
NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: SHERMAN
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 20.61 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO (2) LOTS OF 19.2 AND 1.2 ACRES IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PROPOSED SPORTS
COMPLEX/RECREATION CENTER ON SHERMAN AVENUE. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ,
AV, SP TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 LOT SIZE: 21 +/- ACRES SECTION: A183
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER,
PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George, do you have some Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Really briefly, I’ve summarized the information the applicant has provided. As
far as the lighting plan, we did receive cut sheets today. I have them if you’d like me to hand
them out to you. I guess a question is, are there flood lights still proposed, in the rear of the
building. As I’ve mentioned, the parking lot averages seem to be above the Town Code’s
average of 2.5 foot candles. The building entrance appears unusually high, at 35.2, where 5.0 is
the average, and again, what is the proposed average for the building exterior. The applicant
has indicated no outdoor lights are planned for the ball fields, and perhaps a stipulation could
be included that no outdoor lights will be used. Previously the Planning Board conditioned, or
in their resolution, tabling resolution, indicated no clearing except for the road on Sherman
Avenue, and I guess the Board should confirm whether or not the clearing plan meets your
expectations or is what you were looking for, and as far as the clearing limits for the indoor
tennis facility, which the applicant indicated they would not clear until such time of
construction, they should probably be shown on the plan and secondly a note added to the plan
that the area will not be cleared until the construction of the tennis facility. That’s all I have at
this time.
MR. RINGER-Did you get a response from Kathy O’Brien? I see where Roberts Environmental
sent a letter to Kathy O’Brien. Did we get anything back from Kathy?
MR. LAPPER-You specifically, or you weren’t here at that meeting, perhaps. The Board
specifically said that if we got it from Deb, that would be good enough, because it takes a while
to get Kathy to respond, and Deb’s letter was pretty clear that there was nothing there.
MR. RINGER-It works for me. I mean, I’m not a big fan of this Karner blue, to tell you the
honest truth, and I guess I’m on the record with that now, but, I mean, we’ve held up some
projects for this thing that. Okay. Now you’re up, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper, Doug Miller and Tom Nace. Very simply, the
Board couldn’t grant the subdivision approval last time because you had to do a SEQRA signoff
first. So that’s why both of them are still before you. The subdivision is very simple. The
proposed use of the other site is an indoor ice hockey training facility that Doug would be
subdividing and selling and that would come in for a separate site plan review probably over
the summer. It’s another use that’s a permitted use in the zone, the Recreation Commercial
zone. It’s a very small facility just for training young kids about a quarter the size of a regular
hockey rink, and that’s a compatible use with Doug’s use. So that’s the subdivision which is on
first, and all of the comments that George made were really site plan specific and I’ll let Tom
address the lighting, etc.
MR. NACE-Okay. We have supplied, just today, cut sheets of the lighting. They are all down
lit, cut off fixtures. We have changed the lights in the back of the building, to cut off wall pack
type lights that will be pole mounted, so that they are cut off fixtures back there. They’re not
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
floodlights anymore. We do have a glitch in the plans that were submitted. The lighting
consultant showed a very hot light under the canopy. We’re going to change it. It’s not, we
don’t have the architectural details for the canopy yet. Once we get those, we’ll work with the
architect and get a more appropriate lighting plan for the canopy.
MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-five foot candles is pretty high.
MR. NACE-Yes, 35 is pretty high. When we saw that, it was too late to change it, and we knew
we had to. So, as far as the lighting, I think with that changing of the under canopy lights, we
will be pretty much in compliance with your Code. The clearing, we have not changed the
clearing limits any since we’ve started with this project out on Sherman Avenue. Where, the
only opening through the existing trees there that we’re proposing is for the road, and the rest
of the clearing has not changed since we’ve first submitted. We are adding, as we’ve pointed
out before, we are adding a buffer out there, that will provide under canopy coverage, or under
canopy shielding, from Sherman Avenue. Let me get the right plan open here. In here, along
the edge of the fields, we’re adding some lower pine cover that will provide more of a low
buffer in there. The other question that had come up at the last meeting was, could we leave
trees where this indoor, future indoor tennis facility is going to be. Could we leave our trees in
there until we’re ready to build that facility. We looked at it. The fact is that we’re going to
have construction taking place on all four sides of that area. We have to get the road around
here. We have to build a spectator building. By the time we’re all said and done, it’s a fairly
narrow strip of trees that would remain, and they really don’t buffer anything from anything
else. We’d much prefer to be able to do all of our grading and get all of our heavy earthwork
done at once, when we’re on the site, replant this area in grass, and then when we’re ready for
the tennis facility, we have a level site to construct it on. The other advantage of that is that it
allows us, temporarily, to use that if we ever require overflow parking until we get the tennis
facility built, but that’s, I mean, our analysis really is that when you look at what would be left
in the way of trees in here, it really doesn’t provide a buffer for any reason. I mean, it buffers
the power line. We’ve already got a good buffer there along the power line, and there are no
people back here behind the power line that it would serve to provide any buffer to.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Tom?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Anything else?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s go down our list here. We’ll do, this is going to be subdivision and
site plan at the same time, but we’ll go down our sheet here of subdivision. Then we’ll turn it
over, do the site plan. Some of them are going to interchange. Okay. Design standards,
subdivision now we’re talking, design standards, any questions on that, on subdivision?
MR. VOLLARO-We previous conducted a SEQRA on this related to the subdivision, along with
a recommendation to the Town Board for a zone change.
MR. RINGER-Did we do the SEQRA, or did the Town do the SEQRA?
MR. LAPPER-No, that’s absolutely true, and I misspoke.
MR. VOLLARO-We did the SEQRA. The SEQRA’s been done.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right. I was wrong.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Right. Your comment confused me. It’s our understanding that the
Planning Board did the SEQRA review for hopefully the entire project at the time of the
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
rezoning, because everything was proposed, subdivision, site plan, rezoning, the whole
shebang. Is that correct? That’s what we’re saying, right?
MR. RINGER-Well, that was a recommendation for a zone change.
MR. LAPPER-Also you were Lead Agency for SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that’s correct. You’re correct that your role at that time, as far as
decision-making, was recommendation for a zone change, but remember that there’s been,
pursuant to a resolution of a year and a half or two ago, zone changes that are the subject of
project specific requests, you generally take the role of SEQRA Lead Agency, and actually
prepare the SEQRA positive declaration or negative declaration, even though the Town Board
has to make the zone change decision. We think that you did that here. Correct?
MR. SANFORD-Did we accept Lead Agency? I know we did SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you did the SEQRA review, then you did it as Lead Agency.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-By definition. You couldn’t have done it otherwise.
MR. RINGER-So we don’t have to do a SEQRA?
MR. NACE-Larry, I think your hang up last meeting was that you were trying to reconfirm that
your previous SEQRA determination still applied and you could not make that in good faith
without having the Karner blue issue put to bed.
MR. SANFORD-That was it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s correct.
MR. HILTON-Yes, and I’m probably going to say the same thing that Tom just said, but at the
time of the rezoning, the subdivision was known, the site plan was known. This Board passed a
SEQRA negative declaration at the time of the meeting, last meeting, the Board felt that some
additional information was needed for Karner blue, to address the Karner blue issue, and now I
guess at the same time, if there’s anything else that you feel you may need to address or will
cause you to re-look at your previous SEQRA determination, you can do that, but SEQRA has
been done.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. SEQRA has been done. Really what we’re doing here, then, is site plan.
Subdivision, too? Okay.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got to do subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’ve got the Neg Dec that this Board unanimously passed on
December 23, 2003.
MR. RINGER-The action would have been a recommendation for a zone change.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don’t think so.
MR. LAPPER-No, it was a Lead Agency determination separately, earlier.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, Larry, in all likelihood, the action was described not only as the zone
change, but as, for the purpose of this project, I don’t know, but.
MR. RINGER-I don’t either. I don’t either. I was here for that, but I don’t.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. LAPPER-Well, it was because both the Town Board and the Zoning Board signed off on the
Lead Agency status. So it was the whole thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-And generally, again, the reason you would be taking the Lead Agency role
on a zone change.
MR. RINGER-Because there’s a site plan that we know of.
MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s do this. Any questions on subdivision?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any questions.
MR. SANFORD-No. At site plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now we’re going to site plan.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. If the applicant could.
MR. RINGER-Let’s start right at the top of the list.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-The design standards.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no comments on design standards.
MR. RINGER-Anyone? Okay. Site development?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, a site development. Just clarify this for me. I wasn’t too comfortable with,
if there was an emergency, how emergency vehicles could get in there and do what they have to
do, and I think the explanation was they’ll move the vehicles if they have to, but I think, and I
was reading this literature that was distributed. You did some changes there to make the roads
wider or something. Would you take a minute and explain if there’s been any changes to your
road configurations, in terms of access?
MR. NACE-Okay. Are you referring to the recent?
MR. SANFORD-It was recent.
MR. NACE-From the Fire Marshal’s office?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Yes, from the West Glens Falls Fire Chief.
MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, it turned out they didn’t have a plan in front of them that they could
look at that had the water main on it. So they didn’t think there was a hydrant in here
anywhere, and they were concerned about getting emergency vehicles around where this
airlock was, and as you can see, the earlier plan, this is an airlock for trucks entering and exiting
the dome. We have bumped the pavement out a little bit around that, so that there is wider, we
had, I think, 10 or 12 feet beyond the end of the airlock before. Now we have a full 24, I think 25
feet.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-So there’s better access there, but their big concern had been that they didn’t see a
hydrant anywhere, and they thought they were going to have to run from a hydrant all the
way, I think it’s out here on Sherman.
MR. SANFORD-Where is the nearest hydrant?
MR. NACE-The nearest hydrant is right here.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. It’s laid out so that as the trucks enter the site, they can stop, hook on, and
lay their hose as they come in.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks.
MR. RINGER-Is that it on that, Richard?
MR. SANFORD-That was all I had.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else on site development? Parking, emergency access, traffic?
MR. VOLLARO-On the drawing, there’s no apparent pedestrian access, other than to use the
entrance road. You don’t have any way for pedestrians to get in, and maybe the pedestrians are
not going to come in to this site in that manner.
MR. RINGER-There’s no sidewalks on Sherman Avenue anyway, that they’d be coming from.
MR. VOLLARO-My only question is, what is the length of the whole road? I tried to lay that
out, but it’s difficult to lay out on the drawing.
MR. NACE-In my, the scale’s 50, back to the edge of the parking it’s about 800 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s under a 1,000 foot road.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, at our previous meeting, we had some discussions, during the time we
did SEQRA.
MR. NACE-It’s less, it’s about 650, 700 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as it’s under 1,000.
MR. SANFORD-There was some discussion for an emergency access along the southern
property line. What ever happened to that? We did discuss it during that meeting, and I don’t
know whether that, it didn’t get carried through on the design.
MR. MILLER-Well, we have, south of our property is Arrowhead Equipment, that Bill Elhert
owns, and we inquired with Niagara Mohawk about perhaps using their right of way because it
is so wide, and they declined any use of that. You can cross their right of ways, but you can’t
run parallel with them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. Okay. So that’s the impediment to a southern exit. Now, the Fire
Chief’s comment that he provided here, it’s rather lengthy. So I don’t know whether we want
to read the whole thing or not, but he expressed concerns about the proposed access road and
the associated paved surfaces within the proposed complex. He doesn’t seem to mention too
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
much about the height. While the main access road into the complex appears to be wide
enough for fire department use, it becomes much more narrow as it winds around the air
inflated structure. Now, he didn’t realize there was a hydrant back there. Well, two things, and
I met with Steve yesterday. Did Steve provide a revised letter to you? Because he told me he
would, I met with him two days ago. He said he was going to revise his letter after I met with
him.
MR. VOLLARO-There is something here from him as a revision. Let me see what it says.
MR. NACE-Okay. I haven’t seen a copy of it, but two things that he was unaware.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He said the fire lane has been addressed. There is a comment from him.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The plan appears to now satisfy the 20 foot width requirement. However, we
are still seeking an additional fire hydrant to be located at the rear side of the facility’s support
building. (Lost words) distance greater than 600 feet from a hydrant to the furthest corner of
the sprinkler building, as measured around the perimeter code. I’m not sure what he means by
that.
MR. NACE-Well, he may have, just from this hydrant around to the back of this, may be over
600 feet. We’ll certainly look at that. If we need one there, we’ll provide it.
MR. RINGER-What he’s saying is, you’ve got the sprinklered building. So when we come in,
we’re going to hook a line on to the sprinkler system, and we’re going to run that off from the
truck of the hydrant to feed that, the sprinkler system.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. RINGER-And he feels apparently, I guess, I don’t want to speak for him, but I’m guessing
that he’s probably saying if you’re going to run five inch hose 600 feet there, you’re going to
have to put a portable hydrant or something if you don’t have a hydrant there to feed into the
sprinkler system, and then feed your own lines to fight the fire. Because you’ve got two things
to feed, and that’s what he probably wants is the hydrant there.
MR. NACE-Okay. I will talk to Steve and find out exactly where he wants it and see what we,
we certainly should be able to provide that. He was not aware that there was a hydrant, and he
wasn’t aware that these domes really don’t have any flammable material in them. They’re all
fire retardant, nonflammable material.
MR. RINGER-What happens if there is fire in there and then the air goes out, that it’s held up by
air, right, and the air goes up. It does clot, or, just out of curiosity?
MR. MILLER-Weigh down just like a balloon deflating.
MR. RINGER-Just comes down?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Like a hot air balloon.
MR. MILLER-I don’t anticipate any fires inside.
MR. RINGER-You figure, a hot air balloon, you let the air out and, zoom, it comes down.
MR. MILLER-It’s conceivable that if a fire was to start inside there, it wouldn’t, it’s
noncombustible material, but it could clearly eventually melt through, you know, and if I
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
opened all the doors, it takes about two and a half hours for the air to get out enough to bring it
down, but if we did have a fire, it would deflate.
MR. RINGER-I guess the big thing would be to get the people out, and that would be the first
thing you’d do anyway, and if it takes two and a half hours for it to deflate, hopefully you’d
have them all out.
MR. MILLER-Yes, you could open all the doors and evacuate the place in plenty of time, and
that’s the other thing, you know, to get around to the back, would you really need access to the
back with fire equipment? You’d probably just, you wouldn’t cut in there with chainsaws like
you would on a building.
MR. RINGER-No, I don’t think you’d put a chainsaw up there. Maybe they don’t know what’s
there then. I think maybe we’ve all made mistakes before, I guess.
MR. MILLER-We don’t have any rooms in there. There’s no partitioned rooms. There’s just a
big open space.
MR. VOLLARO-The last thing on this, at the entrance to the road, the radii there should be 40
foot, the 40 foot radius, on drawing SP-1. According to, you know, if you hold on a minute, I’ll
try to get the reference to that. It’s part of Chapter 183, and that’s part of the Subdivision,
however.
MR. NACE-Okay, the subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-183 in the Subdivision it talks to where you make a radius out onto a main road
it should be a 40 foot radii.
MR. NACE-That’s if it’s abutting a public right of way, and I think it’s, the property line radius
is 25. Typically, under your Subdivision, the street radius is 25. If we’re doing a DOT highway
entrance, it’s 32 foot radius. That’s all that DOT will want for truck entry.
MR. VOLLARO-I did have reference to it in this document, and I misplaced the reference. I’m
sorry about that.
MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll look at that. If we have to change the radius to make it comply, we will.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, whatever radius is there should be identified.
MR. NACE-Sure, absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Larry, that’s I have on that section.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anybody else on site development criteria? Okay. Lighting, questions on
lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-There is one other question. I’m sorry. This is a requirement from Rick
Missita, in a letter that he wrote, that the potable water supply line will be bored underneath
Sherman Avenue. He asked that to make that a condition.
MR. NACE-Okay. Can we get copies of these Department letters that? Okay. Great. Thank
you.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t need that letter from Rick. You can have it if I’ve got it here.
MR. RINGER-Lighting? Anything on lighting? Landscaping?
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t looked at my notes. The flood lights are not part of this plan?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. NACE-They are not. The new plan that you have in front of you has the wall pack type
cutoffs.
MR. VOLLARO-And the cut sheets for the lighting plan, have they been submitted? Do we
have cut sheets? They got them today. Okay. George, have you looked at them, the cut off
fixtures?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The plan shows that the parking lot average is at 3.3, and the Code is 2.5. I’m
not going to get concerned about that. At the building entrance, I think that’s an anomaly, that
35.
MR. NACE-That’s not going to happen.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d never even present that against a five foot candles.
MR. NACE-Although for reference, some time look in your Code, the fact that loading,
unloading areas have an allowable foot candle average of 20. Which is actually five is low for a
pedestrian unloading zone.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Or place where you’re getting out of a car and getting in to a building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the discussion we’re going to have here, hopefully at the end of this (lost
words).
MR. RINGER-Are you done on lighting, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Anybody else on lighting? Landscape design? When you last discussed this item
on cutting those trees down, that was just an informal, the Board just thought it would be nice if
you waited to cut those trees down until after he was ready to build the building.
MR. SANFORD-My suggestion. They seem to give an explanation why, it doesn’t make sense.
MR. RINGER-We heard his explanation. It seems to make sense to me. Anybody have any
trouble with that? Okay. Anything else on landscape?
MR. SANFORD-Well, again, you said you widened the buffer on Sherman?
MR. NACE-No, I said we haven’t changed the buffers. I said we’ve added. No, we’ve added,
along the Sherman Avenue line, we’ve added the lower buffer with spruce, it’ll keep a low limb
cover.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on landscaping? Environmental? Wetlands, noise, air quality,
aesthetics, historical, wildlife, neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-Involved agencies? Kathy O’Brien, but apparently we’ve got that from the last
meeting we agreed that the letter from their expert was satisfactory. Okay. Any other
comments? Any comments from you guys? Okay. We’ve got a public hearing. Anyone from
the public want to comment on this project?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-We don’t have to do another SEQRA?
MR. SCHACHNER-Unless you feel there are things that are different.
MR. RINGER-I feel pretty good about it. I thought we’d have to do a SEQRA for site plan, but if
we don’t, we don’t. I’m all for it.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, because remember that one of the principals of SEQRA is that the,
quote unquote action is all the multiple component parts of an action. So this is why, I mean,
the process is designed to work this way and this is, you know, I think a benefit of the process.
When this particular applicant filed for the zone change, they didn’t do so generically. They did
so with a specific project on the table, and George and I have been looking at the documents,
and it’s pretty clear that this is the project that was proposed.
MR. RINGER-You could have just said no, but, any other questions from the Board? Okay. I’ll
look for a motion. We’ve got a few conditions.
MR. LAPPER-First subdivision.
MR. RINGER-Subdivision, right. Let’s do that one.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just have a discussion question. For now they’re showing the entrance to the
subdivision from the access road. Should we condition that at all? Because what happens if,
down the road, you know, they can’t put the access, for whatever reason they get into an
argument, doesn’t allow it, and we have another curb cut onto Sherman Avenue?
MR. LAPPER-We would condition that we’re going to grant an access easement, because no one
would want another curb cut onto Sherman.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. LAPPER-So as a condition we would grant an access easement from the main drive to that
subdivided parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we need to put that condition in there?
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about that (lost words)?
MR. SANFORD-The hockey rink.
MR. SCHACHNER-We think that’s a very appropriate comment, and would be a very
appropriate condition, and George is pointing out, and he’s right, that you would want the
condition to include that the applicant submit a revised plan indicating that that would happen.
MR. LAPPER-Put a note on the plan.
MR. RINGER-And then if he sold that lot, that would become part of that. Okay. It sounds
good.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s very appropriate.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Any other questions before we do the resolution on the subdivision? Does
anybody want to make a motion on subdivision?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2004 DOUGLAS &
TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 6-2004 Applicant: DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: George Drellos
FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering / Jonathan Lapper
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RC-15
Location: Sherman Avenue
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 20.61 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 19.2 and 1.2 acres in
association with a proposed sports complex/recreation center on Sherman Avenue.
Cross Reference: PZ, AV, SP
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3
Lot size: 21 +/- acres / Section: A183
Public Hearing: April 20, 2004, May 27, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received 3/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/16/04, and
5/27 Staff Notes
5/14 CT Male engineering sign-off letter
5/14 New info received
5/12 K. O’Brien, NYSDEC from Roberts Environmental Consulting
5/3 Meeting Notice
4/20 Staff Notes
4/15 New information received
4/13 Notice of Public Hearing
4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent
3/26 Water Dept. comments
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 April
20, 2004 and May 27, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application 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 reaffirms SEQRA findings of 12/23/03, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted and is subject to
the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board
Chairman’s signature and filing:
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
1. Waiver request(s) are granted: Stormwater, Grading and Sketch.
Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-Now for the Final.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2004 DOUGLAS &
TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 6-2004 Applicant: DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: George Drellos
FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering / Jonathan Lapper
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RC-15
Location: Sherman Avenue
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 20.61 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 19.2 and 1.2 acres in
association with a proposed sports complex/recreation center on Sherman Avenue.
Cross Reference: PZ, AV, SP
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3
Lot size: 21 +/- acres / Section: A183
Public Hearing: April 20, 2004
May 27, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received 3/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/16/04, and
5/27 Staff Notes
5/14 CT Male engineering sign-off letter
5/14 New info received
5/12 K. O’Brien, NYSDEC from Roberts Environmental Consulting
5/3 Meeting Notice
4/20 Staff Notes
4/15 New information received
4/13 Notice of Public Hearing
4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent
3/26 Water Dept. comments
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 April
20, 2004 and May 27, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application 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 reaffirms SEQRA findings of 12/23/03, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on
the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. A revised plan showing the interconnection between the proposed hockey rink lot and
the access driveway in the subdivision shall be submitted,
2. All necessary outside agency approvals that have been or will be received by the applicant,
copies shall be sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-Now we can do site plan.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER
PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE & DAWN DRELLOS AGENT: NACE
ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 169,975 SQ. FT. INDOOR SPORTS
COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED OUTDOOR BALL FIELDS, SITE LIGHTING AND
VEHICULAR PARKING. RECREATION CENTER USES IN THE RC-15 ZONE REQUIRE
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: PZ, AV, SUB WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3
LOT SIZE: 21 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER,
PRESENT
MR. RINGER-Do you have many conditions on site plan? We’ve got a signoff from Male, right,
George?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So we don’t need that.
MR. SANFORD-The hydrant’s the only condition, right?
MR. RINGER-The hydrants, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say also the area of the future tennis court, that that be graded
and seeded.
MR. NACE-That’s what we’re proposing.
MR. SANFORD-That’s in the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s in the plan?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s the plan.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is it on the plan?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, at the last meeting, someone had suggested they keep it wooded,
and they re-evaluated it, and they’re sticking with their original plan which was to clear.
MR. NACE-It’s in, certainly the grading plan shows it graded, and the erosion and sediment
control plan shows it all graded off, and I think actually labels it to be seeded.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I’m missing it. I see the grading plan. I don’t see anything.
MR. RINGER-While Tom’s looking for that, any other conditions?
MR. VOLLARO-The only condition on this is the Steve Smith, Fire Marshal’s (lost words).
MR. RINGER-On the hydrant you mean, the second hydrant?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would say what we do here is to condition this to be in accordance with
the comments from the Fire Marshal dated May 26, 2004.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Did you find it, Tom?
MR. NACE-No, Tom’s right. I thought there was a note right on there.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you want to add that condition to it, Bob.
MR. NACE-That it’s to be seeded, graded and seeded.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the area of the future tennis facility, be graded and seeded until construction
of the tennis facility.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Also, there was a comment in Staff notes about clearing limits.
MR. RINGER-On the seeding?
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe, though, I think you took care of that, then. That’s taken care of.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 17-2004 Applicant: DOUGLAS & TERESA MILLER
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: George & Dawn Drellos
Agent: Nace Engineering / Jonathan Lapper
Zone: RC-15
Location: Sherman Avenue
Applicant proposes the construction of a 169,975 sq. ft. Indoor Sports Complex with associated
outdoor ball fields, site lighting and vehicular parking. Recreation Center uses in the RC-15
zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: PZ, AV, SUB
Warren Co. Planning: 4/14/04
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3
Lot size: 21 +/- acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: April 20, 2004
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/16/04, and
5/27 Staff Notes
5/14 CT Male engineering sign-off received
5/14 New information received
5/12 Roberts Environmental Consulting to K. O’Brien, NYS DEC
5/3 Meeting Notice sent
4/20 Staff Notes
4/14 Warren Co. Planning
4/13 Notice of Public Hearing
4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent
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 April 20, 2004 and May 27, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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 reaffirmed SEQRA findings of 12/23/03, and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. A copy of the requested NOI shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to signature
of the final plat by the Zoning Administrator.
2. The comments provided by Steve Smith, Fire Marshal, in his memo of 5/26/2004
shall be complied with.
3. The tennis facility is to be graded and seeded until construction is in process.
Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Good luck, Doug.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW 6-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS
SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS ZONE: SR-1A WETLAND: NYS
DEC GF 27 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVE., WEST OF POWER LINES
APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED WETLANDS, AS
WELL AS THE DISTURBANCE OF 0.099 ACRES OF REGULATED WETLANDS IN
RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 33 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003 NYS DOH, NYS DEC TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2 LOT
SIZE: 49.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FW 6-2003, Thomas Schiavone, Meeting
Date: May 27, 2004 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 49 acres of land into 34 lots, 33 of which will be
single-family residential properties. As part of the subdivision, the applicant proposes to
disturb approximately one tenth of an acre of NYSDEC wetlands, as well as 1.88 acres of
disturbance within the NYSDEC 100 ft. regulated buffer. The applicant’s plans also indicate a
.62 acre wetland mitigation area to be created. The applicant’s proposal requires a NYSDEC
Freshwater Wetlands Permit, as well as a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit
because of the proposed disturbance of regulated wetlands and proposed disturbance of areas
within the 100 ft. regulated area surrounding these wetlands.
Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
Staff comments:
The requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands
Permit are outlined in § 179-6-100 E (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are:
1 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve,
protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the
despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such
wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetland, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town.
2 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the
town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of State Environmental Conservation Law
3 – The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare
4 – The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary
5- There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a
freshwater wetland or adjacent area.
6 – The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulated activity
will be in accord with the standards set forth in this subsection.
In considering these 6 requirements the Planning Board should consider any feasible
alternatives that exist that could eliminate or lessen the impact on existing wetlands or on any
adjacent regulated area. In terms of the impact road construction may have on wetlands and
the adjacent regulated area, it could be stated that a redesign of the street system to lessen the
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
impact may not be a reasonable alternative. However, a feasible alternative may be to
consolidate or redesign some lots in order to lessen or eliminate the impact that some of the
proposed lots may have on the wetland and adjacent regulated area.
It should be noted that the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Code states that on-site septic systems
must be setback 100 ft. from any adjacent waterbody or wetland. The subdivision plat related
to this application shows some leach fields within 100 ft. of the mapped wetland. Locating a
septic system or leach field within 100 ft. of a wetland may require a septic variance.
Staff suggests that a condition be added to any approval stating that prior to the issuance of a
any building permits within this subdivision, that the applicant provide copies of the required
NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and that any conditions of the NYSDEC permit be
included as part of the granting of a Town Freshwater Wetlands permit.”
MR. STONE-Staff notes, George?
MR. HILTON-Yes. My notes address the Freshwater Wetlands proposed subdivision
associated with this application. As I’ve indicated, we’ve received a revised layout sheet
showing the wetland delineation for the entire property, with a revised density calculation and
lot layouts, proposed lot lines. The new information shows the wetland delineation as I said.
However, in order to calculate the allowable density, the applicant should address the
development potential of Lot One, as outlined in the Zoning Administrator’s letter of December
12. You’ll recall that letter basically said what is the development potential of Lot One, which
th
areas are undeveloped. As you will recall, as far as calculating residential density, areas of
undevelopable land are to be deducted from land area. The previous wetland disturbance plan
proposed wetland mitigation, and I guess the question is, is this still a part of the application,
and if so, it should be reflected on the disturbance or mitigation plan. Another question, are all
proposed septic systems located greater than 100 feet from New York State DEC wetlands. This
is a requirement. If they are not, the septic systems would require a septic variance from the
Town of Queensbury Town Board, and in reviewing the subdivision layout, in the corners of
Lots Two and Three may not have the required radius, radii, and as we’ve previously
commented, consideration should be given to providing a no cut buffer in that common, in that
center island between the rear properties in order to provide a visual buffer from the backyards
of these homes. I’ve enclosed my previous comments from way back, the original hearing of
this application for your reference, as it’s been a while since we’ve sat down and talked about
this. Additionally, C.T. Male comments were out there, and as of this time, we have not
received a signoff, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go. Freshwater first.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Schiavone, and Tom Nace. Tom Schiavone’s
been working on this, proposing this, changing this for probably a year and a half. We were
held up for probably the last five months because winter conditions. We had to delineate the
wetlands. In general, the concept for this property, in the residential single family area, is to
cluster it in the back to leave the buffer area and open space area in the front, which is pretty
rare along Sherman. The Planning Board has previously required that this connect, the
roadway here connect to the Schermerhorn roadway, which is now under construction on the
site next door, in accordance with the design guidelines for subdivisions. A lot of work was
done on the adjacent property to deal with the Karner blue butterfly. That was not a problem
on Tom’s site. There’s a little bit of avoidance area, but there wasn’t like the site next door. It’s
just been a while since we’ve been before the Board and some of the members are new.
MR. NACE-Okay. As you’ll recall, originally, when we were here before, we had the wetlands
delineated over to here, and the completion of that delineation, which was done this spring by
DEC, is depicted on the map. The density calculation for that, we have gone through now and
the density calculation shows now, and I apologize. We have a mistake on the map that we
submitted to you. It’s a mistake in your favor, actually in both favors, but the actual wetland
area is 5.08. The road area on your map was wrong, because it was pulled off a previous map
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
that had the boulevard entrance. If you’ll remember originally it had a boulevard entrance. So
the actual area of the road is really 4.11 acres. However, we had failed to add in, which I have
now, we failed to add in the proposed mitigation area, which is shown, for the wetland
mitigation shown on the wetland plan, and that is .63 acres. So the correct calculation now is
that there’s a total of 49.87 acres of land, 4.11 acres of proposed roadway right of way, 5.08 acres
of existing wetlands, 0.62 acres of proposed wetland mitigation, and when you deduct those
three numbers from the total of 49.87, the actual density or actual acreage allowable for
development is 40.06.
MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to 39.
MR. NACE-So the actual density would be 40, or the allowable density. Okay. The issue had
come up, and we’ve discussed it several times before, regarding the constructability on what we
are leaving as undeveloped at this stage. The issue being that in the area up here, there is a lot
of that, where the existing seasonal high groundwater table is less than two feet from the
surface, and the Health Department’s stance on that is that you can’t develop that unless you go
ahead and fill the area of the proposed septic system, let it settle, let it weather for a couple of
years, so it becomes what they consider natural ground, and at that point then they will
approve a subdivision using septic systems in those filled areas. So it really is developable. It’s
just that they won’t approve it until that happens. Our intention, at this point, is to take the
wetlands here, which are contiguous with the wetlands on the adjacent property, that area, plus
most of this area up front, and either turn that over to the Town, or to a conservation group.
We’re talking to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. We would retain a small area along the
road here, for development of those future lots, if we chose to fill and construct those in the
future. So wetland, what we’re talking about wetlands, let me finish with that. The reason
we’re asking for a wetland permit is that simply to be able to get a road in here and utilize the
back end of this property. The only way to do that is to get a road that turns around on itself,
using your standard required road radiuses and to do that, there is no way to miss this one little
end of the wetland here. That’s just a very narrow finger of wetland. We’re proposing to DEC
to replace that, which is less than one-tenth of an acre, to replace that with a strip in here that is
outside the existing wetlands. It’s upland area now, but we would excavate into that area to
lower the ground level in it and plant wetland vegetation and that area is .62 acres that we
would turn into wetland from current upland, and I guess for wetland issue, that’s pretty much.
Yes, I’m sorry, that’s right. Thanks, Jon. One of the comments regarding wetlands was the
septic systems within 100 feet, and it is true, we did have one within 100 feet or that I had
missed, and we have revised the layout slightly, to correct that. If you look at your map on Lot
Number 20, the septic system was down closer to the house and within the 100 foot wetland
buffer. We have moved this lot line over about seven or eight feet, and moved the septic system
back toward the rear, and we do have it outside the 100 foot buffer presently.
MR. RINGER-That’s on the site plan you’ve got there, not what we’ve got in front of us?
MR. NACE-That’s on the revised. I haven’t submitted this yet, okay, to you, but that’s to show
you, at least for tonight, that we can do that. It was the one lot that was not within, or that was
too close to the wetland.
MR. RINGER-Any other outstanding comments from Staff?
MR. NACE-As far as the wetland permit? No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll be the bad guy on this one. I’m not going to vote for granting this permit,
based on 179-6-100E(2), which is, Staff comments that go back to December 16. What I’m
th
proposing here is that we do not encroach on the 100 foot buffer, and I’d be proposing to take
out Lot 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, and 33, which would then allow only 25 lots, with no incursion
into the 100 foot setback from the wetlands. The road itself is a minor encroachment, as far as
I’m concerned, and that might have to go there, and I don’t know how you proceed from that
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
point on, but that’s my position. I just can’t see incursion into that 100 foot buffer here at all. I
looked at this and looked at it and looked at it, and said, no. I just can’t see doing that. So I
guess my proposal was to try to bring you down to, from 33 to 25 lots, as far as the cluster is
concerned.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, a couple of comments that I have. I agree with Bob. It’s been a nice
meeting so far tonight, Jon, but one thing you possibly can do is consider a phasing, and it is
going to be two years, I understand what Tom said. You could maybe put some fill in in Lot
Number One, and pick up a couple of extra lots that way. It would have to go past the wait, the
two years you’re talking about, but going through the requirements for the Freshwater Wetland
permit that Staff outlined, and there were six of them, I think, six, there’s another one on the
other page, I have to agree with Bob. There are alternatives to this site, which, you know,
present a reasonable alternative. So I have to agree with him. I think it’s a density issue. Other
than that, I’m comfortable with it, but I don’t know how long you were expecting this to take
anyway, but maybe you can get some of your density in, only two years down the road. So I
would offer that as a suggestion.
MR. RINGER-Do you want to answer now?
MR. NACE-Sure. First of all, the buffer area, okay, is, if you, have either of you been out to the
site at all? Walked the land? Have you been back in that corner where the wetland is?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. No, I haven’t been in there.
MR. NACE-This wetland, I’ll go to the wetland map.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you on S-2 now?
MR. NACE-I’m on W-1.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re on W-1. Yes, I’ve got it.
MR. NACE-It doesn’t matter. The wetlands show up, I think, on S-2, or.
MR. VOLLARO-S-2 is the recent wetland map.
MR. NACE-Okay, but basically the section of wetland that is up in here, and down into here is
fairly distinct, and it’s fairly wide spread. When you get down past, you don’t have the
wetland flag numbers, but if you look behind the northwest corner of Lot 21, where the
wetland, next down in there, when you get past that, going south, there’s a very narrow section
that’s really wet and as soon as you get back off the wetland, it turns into upland very quickly,
and is not a very sensitive area, especially along the very tip of the southern piece here. If
you’re concerned about the quality of the wetlands and preserving the wetlands which is really
what the regulation is written to do, it might be more important, I would think, to create maybe
some additional wetland back in behind Lot 21, or expand a little more in that upland area
that’s cut in to the wetland on the western boundary. I’m just not sure if you were to go out
there and walk this section, where you’re talking about losing these lots, I’m not sure what
you’re going to accomplish by, in the way of protection of the wetland, by actually honoring
that 100 foot buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you look at Lot 22, it actually touches the wetland. It’s not just
encroaching on the 100 foot setback, twenty-two is actually touching the wetland.
MR. SANFORD-So is 20 and 32.
MR. NACE-Yes, well, 20 is in that area where the wetland is a very narrow little neck without, I
don’t know, any redeeming qualities. I’ve spent, you know, several days on this site, looking at
soils at various times, but it just, my gut feeling is that this area is not very important from a
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
wetlands standpoint. This is maybe more, and, you’re right. Maybe Lot 20, even though it’s on
the edge of the wetland, or, 20, 22, I’m sorry, maybe 22 is, if you want to lose a lot, maybe that’s
a more important one to lose, but the ones down here, I really don’t think, and I’ll be glad to
walk it with anybody that would like to walk it. I really don’t think, seriously, that
encroachment in the buffer there is an issue of any vital concern to the quality of the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me just read into the record 179-6-100(E2). It says the requirement for
granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands permit are outlined in this 179-6-100E.
The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this Chapter to preserve,
protect, and conserve freshwater wetlands, and benefits derived there from, to prevent the
despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such
wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the Town.
Then it goes on to say, the one that caught me was that there is no reasonable alternative for the
proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area, which
means, they’re talking about this other area here, this Lot Number One, which apparently has
high water (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-Well, a reasonable alternative, Bob, what Tom is getting at is in terms of creating
significant wetlands, because a wetland serves a function, which is to filter the water, and if we
have adjacent wetlands that are more significant that we can increase, rather than leaving a
couple of puddles over here, if you will, we can do more for creating that filter and creating a
significant wetland, and just taking out these couple of areas, but what it also does is that it
makes it a better, more livable subdivision, just in terms of how the lots lay out, how it will look
for the neighbors, to put the wetlands in the area where it’s more protected and put the houses
over here.
MR. SANFORD-I guess it’s just the point of departure that we disagree with. I mean, we’re
talking maximum densities based on these calculations, and I don’t really know if it’s the
challenge of this Board to make that puzzle fit. I mean, I look at this configuration, you know,
what I say is, well, you know, those lots that Mr. Vollaro referenced, if they were eliminated
then it’s fine, it’s going to be something less than what you want. However, you could come
back, perhaps. I don’t know how you would have to do that, and in a couple of years maybe be
able to get some additional lots in Lot One, but based on 179-6-100E(2), as I look at these criteria
that are requirements, I guess, is the better word, that are listed, I certainly can’t say that I’d be
doing justice to my charge here by approving this when Number Five says there’s no
reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater
wetland or adjacent area, where there clearly are a lot of alternatives, one is a less dense site,
and again, the maximum density isn’t really necessarily the goal that we have to look at, A, and,
B, if we want do that I mean as the applicant, if you want to do, you do have other possibilities
to get that density in without going there, and then Number Six, Number Six is basically
challenging the applicant, who shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed
regulated activity will be in accord with the standards set forth in this sub section and Tom,
basically what you’re saying is, let’s not do that, you know, what the intent really is, is this and
that, and so I basically feel the same as Bob, that I’m just not comfortable with approving the
permit.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, Larry, at this particular point, this one end of the Board is talking about
trying to eliminate eight lots, and I’ve got to, I’d like to here from some of the other Board
members as to how they feel about getting into that 100 foot.
MR. RINGER-What you’re saying, Tom, is that you want to add more.
MR. NACE-I think if you start looking at wetlands, wetlands have an importance factor, okay,
and not all wetlands are created equal, okay. The benefit the wetlands have to offer are
different between a little narrow strip of wet ground that you can step over, you know, with a
good jump, and a wider, more contiguous section that can support more of the wetland
vegetation and absorb more water and help clean the water more. What I’m saying is that the
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
way the subdivision is arranged, the piece of wetland that we’re going across, and that we have
the potential to impact, is certainly a lot more, and, I don’t know, I’ve spent a lot of time out
there in the field looking, is a lot less important than the pieces of wetland that we can increase
and make bigger and help become more contiguous, with the mitigation that we’re offering. So
I really seriously think that our net benefit, or our net impact will be of benefit to the existing
wetlands that are there.
MR. RINGER-The amount of wetland you’re disturbing and the amount of wetland you’re
putting back, how does?
MR. NACE-We’re disturbing .09, I think it’s .095 acres. So less than a tenth of an acre, and we’re
putting back .62 acres, significantly more, more than half an acre, and if it became that much of
an issue, we could probably do more to create more of a contiguous area in here where there’s
just a narrow neck at present.
MR. LAPPER-I’m just suggesting, for the record, Tom, that you should talk about how the
Army Corps and DEC lets you create wetlands to mitigate wetlands that are being disturbed, in
terms of policy.
MR. NACE-Good point. As Jon said, the policy of DEC and the Corps is that, you know, you
can impact a wetland, but they want to see a net benefit overall to the wetland system. It’s not
any little particular piece of wetland that has the value. It’s the overall impact of the, or the
overall benefit of the entire wetland system in the area, and I think that what we’re proposing
here will actually increase the good of, and the viability of the existing wetland, and the impact
that we have is fairly minor compared to that. Generally, DEC is, if you take a small piece of
wetland, replace it in kind. The Corps, you know, their criteria is two to one, replace twice as
much as you take, and we’re, you know, going six to one.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments?
MR. ANDERSON-I have a question. Who gives the authority to trade the wetlands?
MR. NACE-The regulatory agencies having jurisdiction, and in this case, it’s the Town, and
DEC. We’re in parallel to this, we’ve applied to DEC for a permit.
MR. ANDERSON-Either one, or both?
MR. NACE-Both. We have to have approval from both.
MR. ANDERSON-And we don’t necessarily need to move first. They may continue to work
through an application with DEC to.
MR. NACE-Yes, we’ve put in an application to DEC. We’re waiting for.
MR. ANDERSON-If they grant that, it becomes a different picture here. You can almost make a
new drawing.
MR. RINGER-I think we have to approve, too, don’t we, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-Too, yes, but not first.
MR. NACE-Right. There’s no necessity of who has to be first.
MR. ANDERSON-Well, why do we approve it now if it may not be approved by DEC?
MR. SANFORD-And in fact, if we do approve it now, we may actually influence DEC’s opinion.
MR. NACE-I doubt that very much. That would not be the case.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to really sit with our zoning requirements. Our 179-6 is very explicit
and very clear. It doesn’t waffle. Number Five says there is no reasonable alternative for the
proposed regulated activity, and I’ve got to hang my hat on that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a question of what’s reasonable, but in general, even more simply, this
gets down to what is the benefit and the burden on the wetland itself, and what Tom just said
on the record is that we’re creating a benefit, and that benefit by creating more wetland and
more significant wetland than these little areas that we’re proposing to take out. This is new, of
course, for the Town to be regulating wetlands, but we’ve all been dealing with it, and certainly
Tom as an engineer has been dealing with it with the Corps, and with DEC for many years, and
what is proposed here is something that is typically approved by DEC. If you say you’d like to
see the DEC permit first, Tom’s working hard to accomplish that, but I think that doing wetland
mitigation where you’re creating it is something that is viewed, State and Federally, by the
regulatory agencies, as something that’s positive, as long as you create more and better wetland
than you’re taking out. So we’re trying to honor the concerns that you have, but to show you
that what’s proposed is engineered, and is better for the system, for the wetland system.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments down here?
MR. ANDERSON-Another question. Are there any other limitations in that 100 foot setback
except the positioning or locating of a drain field, anything else?
MR. NACE-Well, both the Town and the DEC regulate any activity in that 100 feet, okay.
MR. ANDERSON-Including structures?
MR. NACE-Excuse me?
MR. ANDERSON-Including a structure, building?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. ANDERSON-Building itself?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. ANDERSON-And you’d be invading that 100 foot area with structures as well.
MR. NACE-And that’s part of our permit application with both you and DEC, that, yes, we are
disturbing that 100 foot buffer, but, you know, in compensation for that disturbance of the
wetland and the buffer, we are offering to create additional wetland, and with that additional
wetland comes additional 100 foot buffer.
MR. ANDERSON-You look like you need mitigation on the wetland itself, it’s a small number.
On the 100 foot setback, it’s a pretty good sized area.
MR. NACE-And we’ve shown that on the plans, but as I said, with the creation of the new
wetlands, comes additional new buffer with that, too, that we’re, you know, creating.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments down here?
MR. VOLLARO-As far as that’s concerned, that’s the one comment, you know, I would be not
voting for the wetland permit, Mr. Chairman.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-We’re shorthanded on this. Mr. Seguljic has excused himself from this
application.
MR. VOLLARO-We were wondering why.
MR. RINGER-He had done some business with Mr. Schiavone in the past, or in the present, and
he’d rather not be involved in any decision making process.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Understand. Understand.
MR. RINGER-So we’ve got a public hearing. Anything from you before I open the public
hearing, Jon, or Tom?
MR. LAPPER-I guess the only thing I’m going to suggest is that we don’t want to get denied on
something that we think that State and Federal agencies would allow, and we don’t want to
argue about it. So maybe the answer is to table it. I know that certainly the two guys on the left
will look into t his and study it, because they’re raising the biggest issues, and maybe look into
the Federal and State regulatory schemes and see that the six to one mitigation that we’re
proposing is a positive benefit, rather than to have a denial which would just give us a 30 day
period to bring an Article 78. That’s not our goal here. We want to work this out, and as Tom
mentioned, we can create more than the six to one, if that’s something that the Board wants to
look at, but we certainly don’t want a denial on a permit.
MR. RINGER-I’m not one for passing the buck to somebody else either, but, you know, if we’ve
got something before us, but we’ve got a public hearing. Let’s get the public hearing, and then
we’ll come back and we can talk further.
MRS. STEFFAN-Larry, can I just ask one question?
MR. RINGER-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-What is on the other side of this wetlands? Is that an undeveloped parcel? Is it
empty?
MR. NACE-There’s more wetland. That area has been logged in the past. If you go out and
look at the site, the lot behind us has been recently logged, but it’s open land.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anyone from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. RINGER-George, have you got a letter?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. HILTON-A letter from Howard Krantz. It says, “Dear Members of the Planning Board:
With respect to the application”, and this is in respect to the subdivision. I’m assuming we’re
having the public hearing for both?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. HILTON-Okay. “With respect to the application from Mr. Schiavone for approval of a 33
lot subdivision off Sherman Avenue, please know that I represent Madeleine Drellos, whose
home adjoins the subdivision on the south. Mrs. Drellos is not opposed to approval of Mr.
Schiavone’s subdivision provided that reasonable conditions and safeguards are in place which
address my client’s concerns regarding surface water, high water table, and visibility. Mrs.
Drellos has lived in her home adjoining the subdivision for many years and knows well by first
hand experience that the subject premises are situated in part, not only in a wetland, but in an
area which has an extremely high water table. Mrs. Drellos asks that the town engineer
carefully scrutinize the subdivision application and supporting documentation and make
reasonable recommendations to your Planning Board to assure that the development of this
subdivision including, but not limited to, construction of 33 homes, septic systems and
roadways, will not cause any new and additional surface water to migrate from the proposed
subdivision onto my client’s property. Specifically, my clients home residence property abuts
the southerly boundary of the proposed subdivision at Lots 11 through 16. Further, my client is
legitimately concerned that this subdivision development activity may cause an increase in the
high water table on her property. Finally, my client asks that reasonable conditions be imposed
to insure mitigation of loss of privacy and minimum visibility of the subdivision. Specifically, it
is respectfully requested that a natural vegetation buffer zone of 40 feet is maintained along the
southerly boundary of Lots 11 through 16. Maintenance of a buffer zone will not only aid in
minimizing migration of surface water from the subdivision onto my client’s property, but will
also provide at least a minimum of privacy not only for my client but for the owners of Lots 11
through 16 as well. I note that the subdivision proposes a 25 foot no cut zone along the eastern
boundary where the subdivision abuts lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. It would
appear that this proposed no cut zone is proposed primarily to afford homeowners in the
subdivision privacy from the lands of Niagara Mohawk. Likewise, my client would like to
maintain as much privacy as possible from this 33 lot subdivision. I would have been present at
this evening’s meeting to advance my client’s concerns and urge the Board to adopt reasonable
measures and conditions to address my client’s concerns, but prior travel plans for the holiday
weekend prevent me from doing so. Thank you for your kind consideration. Very truly yours,
Howard I. Krantz” In addition, I have a record of a conversation I had today with Madeleine
Drellos. She stopped in. She spoke about her concerns. She noted high water conditions in the
neighborhood and had concerns about the impact on the wetland, and wondered what the
impacts would be on the existing neighborhood as well as her property and other owners in the
neighborhood, given that there will be new impervious surfaces, increased water use and new
septic systems, and that’s all I have.
MR. RINGER-That property to the south, that would go all the way up to Luzerne Road?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-So that would be a long ways away.
MR. NACE-Eleven through sixteen. Does she own the whole back side of that? I thought that
was different lots? Okay.
MR. RINGER-But there’s nothing between that and Luzerne Road, right?
MR. NACE-No, that’s not, but actually that is fairly deep. That property, at it’s narrowest, is
about, at it’s narrowest it’s 360 feet. At it’s widest it’s 740 feet.
MR. RINGER-And that’s Luzerne Road you’re showing on your map?
MR. NACE-That is Luzerne Road right here.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t realize it was that close to Luzerne Road, to tell you the truth.
MR. NACE-Yes, it is.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Well, wouldn’t it be nice if you could make a road right out to Luzerne Road.
People have been crying for that for years, and years, and years, trying to get a couple of more
roads from Sherman to Luzerne, but that’s beside the point.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Now we’ll get back to your
comments, Jon, and you feel you want to table this?
MR. NACE-Yes. Can I address one issue, since it came up in the public hearing record?
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-George had mentioned buffer zones in his Staff comments.
MR. RINGER-On the back lots.
MR. NACE-Although I haven’t, on what we submitted to you, you don’t have a copy of it, but
what I’ve marked up and shown here is a 30 foot buffer, 15 foot on each lot.
MR. RINGER-You’re talking Lots 25, 26, 27.
MR. NACE-Twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, and thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-three,
okay, that would give fifteen foot on each lot will give an effective 30 foot buffer, and won’t
encroach on the building setback lines in here, so that there’s buffer proposed there. We’ve also
shown a 15 foot wide buffer along the rear of Lots 11 through 15, actually 16. Again, figuring
we provide some buffer to adjacent lots which are much deeper than us, should be providing
some buffer or their own.
MR. RINGER-That’s for the subdivision if we get to that tonight.
MR. LAPPER-I guess one thing I’m thinking, in light of the comments from Dick and Bob, C.T.
Male has a whole bunch of guys that deal with Freshwater Wetlands issues, and maybe you
should refer this to them and get an opinion from them on what we’ve proposed, and maybe
they’ll ask us to change to something, but I think that, I’m hopefully that they will recognize
that what we’re proposing is actually positive for the wetland, but rather than take a vote right
now, I would rather that this get looked into in a little more detail, based upon the comments
that we’re hearing.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Mark, you had a comment.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think that, I mean, I’m not insensitive to your concern about passing
the buck, but here you have the applicant suggesting that the Board would have more
information, and you all know I’m a big believer in the most important decision making
possible. I think you have an applicant indicating that, they’ve already submitted an
application to the relevant State agency that deals with Freshwater Wetlands permits, as well as
you all do, and the applicant is suggesting that perhaps tabling would be to it’s benefit, but also
to your benefit to gain more information. I wouldn’t be too worried about the passing the buck
concern, although I’m not insensitive to that. It sounds like a reasonable approach.
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t going to say no to them, but I just, you know, I wanted to get a full. C.T.
Male, we have never, that I know of, sent a Freshwater to C.T. Male, have we, George? I think
we’ve had three or four of them, and I can’t remember any of them going, because we’ve
always, they’ve always done the site plan or subdivision with that.
MR. HILTON-Yes, I don’t think we have. We’ve sent site plans that show disturbance of
wetland buffers, or possibly wetlands, but not a, yes.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-But not a Freshwater thing, and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request at all,
and we can do that and table at the same time for the DEC, and, you know, I’ve got no problem
with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I think it makes some sense.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments?
MR. VOLLARO-The only problem I have with it, I don’t have a problem, but there’s two sides
to this equation. One is the documents that I’m charged with, 179, upholding the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. Other documents, which I’ve never had to see, talk about a trade in
mitigation. If you intrude on a wetland, we’ll allow you to, you know, create equal or more of a
wetland. Well, I don’t have access to that knowledge. I really don’t. I haven’t seen that. I don’t
know what that is. I don’t know how to do that. It’s a question of, I’d like to know what the
procedure the applicant can follow to do this. See, we’re off in an area now where as a Planning
Board member I have no insight.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, because you don’t do wetland stuff that much, but I mean, the
procedure that the applicant can follow is essentially what this applicant is doing, and I can tell
you from my own experience elsewhere that what the applicant is proposing, I’m not saying,
you know me much too well to know that I would never say approve or deny, but the process
the applicant is pursuing, which includes a proposed mitigation of creation of wetlands, of new
wetlands, to offset disturbance of existing wetlands, they’re not inventing this process.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t believe they’re inventing it either. I just don’t know what it is.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and frankly, the documentation that you’re referencing is not very
technical and not very detailed, and not very specific in my opinion. I mean, Tom Nace knows
as much, or more, about this than I do, and I welcome his input, but the document, it’s more a
policy, if you will, than the technical documentation, and it’s sort of policy that’s evolved over
the years as more and more acres of wetlands are disturbed. Both the Army Corps of Engineers
and DEC and other State Environmental, you know, Conservation type entities, have looked to
see whether mitigation can include creation of new wetlands, so that the net loss, so there is not
a net loss of wetlands. Having said all that, I mean, I’m no wetlands expert either. All I was
suggesting was that I think the applicant’s request essentially would arm you, as a Board, with
more information about the wetlands issues, and that doesn’t sound like a bad idea. That’s
really all I’m saying in a nutshell.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, just to follow up, Larry, if I could, on what Bob was saying. I guess one of
the concerns I have now is that this shows the wetlands as they currently exist, and when you
start dealing with this kind of cluster density, and you’re going to have, you have no sewer so
you’re going to have septic going into the land and you’re going to have roof runoff and things
of this nature, well, you know, I’m not sure that’s going to be an additional contributor, but I’m
wondering if you already have wetland, and now you’re going to be adding more water to it,
you know, are you going to be creating through this high density even a worse situation than
you currently have?
MR. RINGER-Well, that’s what our engineer, in the stormwater report, would determine.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s not really a wetlands issue. That’s a whole separate issue,
and that’s an important subdivision issue.
MR. SANFORD-Well, my issue, as I’m looking at it, the wetlands are an important problem,
but, you know, really what I’m concerned with, they become an important problem because of
the density.
MR. SCHACHNER-The issue you just referenced, at least in my mind, is not a, quote unquote,
wetlands issue. That may be a wet land issue, and that’s certainly something that’s a valid, if
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
you have that concern, that’s a valid concern, I don’t know to what extent it’s been addressed or
not that would be something C.T. Male would focus on.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m just trying to save time for everybody. I think that, you know, Mr.
Vollaro has stated the case clearly for why he has problems with, I’m not going to quote it
again, but whatever it is 179, whatever it is, where the conditions are all listed, and so do I, but I
also think that, the density is another issue as well, and they go hand in hand in a lot of ways.
So, I don’t know, I mean, are we doing the applicant justice to put off a determination, and then
have to revisit this, and in a way, what happens here is, inherent in the process, is a false sense
of encouragement, and I talk about this time and time again. I mean, we send a message that,
okay, we’re going to table it so that you can come back, you know, maybe with DEC or
something else, and then find a way for us to rationalize or justify approving something that
we’re not comfortable with, and I don’t like to put myself in that position. I don’t think Mr.
Vollaro wants to be in that position either.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t think anybody, if they don’t feel comfortable with something, would
approve it anyway, Richard.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’d be surprised if the applicant’s feeling real encouraged, but I could be
wrong.
MR. RINGER-I think that we, you know, the applicant has requested a table. I think we will
table this and we’ll table it for two things. First, to have C.T. Male give us, I don’t know what
we could expect from C.T. Male actually. George, would you help me on that, what we could
ask C.T. Male?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just jump in on that, George. I’d like C.T. Male to tell me that there is
a reasonable alternative, and what it is, because Number Five, under 179, says there is no
reasonable alternative. If C.T. Male can propose a reasonable alternative, based on wetland
mitigation, or whatever, maybe that’s the answer.
MR. HILTON-I don’t know if they’re going to do that.
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s our responsibility.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think that’s their design.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then I’ve got to stand on this statement. I can’t just arbitrarily jump off
179, and say, you know.
MR. RINGER-And, Bob, you probably will vote no on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I mean, but you’ve already said you’re going to vote no on it, but if there’s an
opportunity to get more information that may change your vote or may not change your vote.
MR. VOLLARO-It may.
MR. RINGER-If the applicant has asked for that tabling, we should table it.
MR. VOLLARO-If a presentation is made that shows it’s to the benefit of the Town that this
increased mitigation takes place, and I can understand it, certainly I might change my vote.
MR. RINGER-Well, then we’ll table this. You’re probably not going to get on until July. June is
filled, and I would suggest that if you do get back on in July, you go Preliminary, you try
Preliminary and Final. Otherwise, you’re looking at September or October perhaps.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we’ll do.
MR. SANFORD-Just a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I mean, that’s a unilateral decision you’re
making, and maybe it’s justified, but I don’t believe so, having read the by-laws of the Planning
Board. You’ve concluded that we’re going to table this.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to make a motion, I said, and the motion will go to a vote.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. You didn’t say that. You said you were tabling it. I just want to make
sure that you’re suggesting we table it.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to make a motion that we table this, and the reason for the tabling is at
the applicant’s request, and traditionally whenever an applicant has requested a tabling, we do
it, if nothing else but a courtesy to the applicant to table, an application, and this is done many
times.
MR. SANFORD-I’m unaware of that, but okay.
MR. RINGER-It is. We’ll take my word for it in this particular case, or ask Counsel, if you
would like, but I’m making a motion to table this application.
MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-2004 AND
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003, PRELIMINARY STAGE, THOMAS SCHIAVONE, Introduced
by Larry Ringer who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
And the reason for the tabling is at the applicant’s request, and also to get some information
from our engineer, C. T. Male, in regards to Freshwater Wetlands permit and perhaps getting a
determination from DEC on their approval for the Freshwater permit. For the second meeting
in July, July 27.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. HILTON-The public hearing is still open on this.
MR. RINGER-The public hearing is still open.
MR. HILTON-So I just want to be clear when you’re tabling it to.
MR. RINGER-Well, I can’t give you a date, so I’ll make part of my tabling that we will provide
public notices and mailings prior to the next meeting.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Secondly, are we going under the assumption that if the information is in
prior to the deadline for the month, like let’s say this information comes in on August 15, that
th
they’ll be placed on the September agenda?
MR. RINGER-No. I’m not going to put it that way, because I don’t want to give them a date
right now. We don’t know when that information’s coming in. So we’ll do it as quickly as
possible, as we do Old Business first, as soon as we get the information to make it ready to
present to us. So Old Business, that would be Old Business. It would be as soon as information
is available, it would be on the agenda as Old Business.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s your engineer that we would be waiting for, I guess? We would like to be
on the July agenda, if we’re going to miss June.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then I’ll put you on now for July, for the second meeting in July.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-The second meeting in July.
MR. HILTON-So therefore the re-notification is not necessary, but if you want to.
MR. RINGER-The notification would be for the second meeting in July.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you don’t need to re-notify if you’re setting July 27.
th
MR. RINGER-All right. Then we don’t need to. Save you a few bucks.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re saying July 27 is the date.
th
MR. RINGER-Okay, July 27. The second regular meeting in July. I need a second.
th
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second that.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MR. RINGER-So you’re set then until July, and so you can get your information.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Larry, I’m concerned about something that applicant’s Counsel just said. I
understood the motion to be referring to C.T. Male for input, but also hoping you will provide
DEC input?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Great.
MR. RINGER-And if you don’t have it, we’re still going to be on. Okay. The next item is Site
Plan No. 22-2004.
MR. SCHACHNER-Wait, that’s not true. The next item is the same applicant’s subdivision
stuff. You just tabled Freshwater.
MR. RINGER-No, I tabled them both.
MR. SCHACHNER-In one motion you did both?
MR. RINGER-Yes, I did both.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. All right. Thanks.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MORTT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. DBA
DUNHAM FOOTWEAR PROPERTY OWNER: LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES [PAUL
GORDON] ZONE: HC-1 LOCATION: 1498 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO ERECT A 20’ X 40’ TENT AS PART OF A SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES USE AT
DUHAM FOOTWEAR STORE ON ROUTE 9. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE
ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 15-87, SP 25-87, SV 1371, SV 1395 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
5/12/04 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.61 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
GEOFFRY HOLCZER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-2004, Mortt Distributors, Inc. DBA Dunham Footwear,
Meeting Date: May 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 22-2004
APPLICANT: Mortt Distributors is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to operate a temporary seasonal tent sale,
including using a 20’x40’ sales tent.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 1498 Route 9 (Dunham Footwear).
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a
short form EAF with the site plan application.
PARCEL HISTORY: Previous Planning Board and ZBA reviews exist for the existing indoor
business at this location.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to use a 20’x40’ tent to conduct a temporary
outdoor sales event at the Dunham Footwear location on Route 9, just south of Route 149.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
The applicant has submitted a parking calculation indicating that there will be enough parking
spaces to satisfy parking requirements as part of the operation of this tent sale.
Based on the New York State Building code requirements for temporary tents (included with
the site plan materials), the use of a tent cannot exceed 180 days in one calendar year. How long
does the applicant intend to use this tent and conduct this temporary outdoor sale?”
MR. RINGER-George?
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to use, to construct, if you will, a 20 by 40 foot tent, as
part of a temporary outdoor sales event at Dunham Footwear. The applicant’s requested
waivers, as I’ve indicated, stormwater management plan, grading and lighting and landscaping.
Parking calculation indicates there will be enough parking to satisfy the parking requirements.
As I’ve mentioned, New York State Building Code requires temporary tents, that they cannot be
used, or cannot exceed 180 days in one calendar year, and I guess the question is, how long does
the applicant intend to use this tent and conduct the outdoor sales. You’ll see in your packet a
comment from the Fire Chief, or actually from our Fire Marshal’s office, and prepared
resolution, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Could you please identify yourself .
MR. HOLCZER-I’m sorry. My name is Geoffry Holczer. This is Joel Reichman. We’re the co-
owners of Mortt Distributors. We’re the tent in this building owned by Mr. Gordon. To answer
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
your question, ideally and historically, for the past 11 years, we’ve had this seasonal tent
adjacent to our store during the high selling season. Last year it was up from approximately
May 1 through the middle of October. We’d like to do the same thing, obviously now it’s
st
going to be closer to Memorial Day through middle of October, but even May 1 through
st
October 31 would only be 180 days, and less than New York State Statute.
st
MR. RINGER-Have you got anything else you want to tell us?
MR. HOLCZER-Only what’s in the package. That it complies with all the fire regulations. You
see the Fire Marshal’s approval in the plan. The landlord supports the plan as. His comments
are in the plan. George referred to parking, which was an issue that was raised a year ago, now
this process started, and we comply with all the parking regulations. Also recently the Warren
County Planning Board has looked at this on May 12 and also found no issues in there. So we
th
ask for your support of resolution 22-2004.
MR. RINGER-Okay. When I first saw this last month at our completeness review meeting, I
didn’t have any problem with it, and then when I sat down for our completeness review
meeting this month, I found another applicant across the street from you proposing the same
thing. To tell you the honest truth, I’m becoming concerned, you know, we get one, we get
another, we get another, we get another, and I don’t really personally, I’m speaking for myself
now, but I only want to let the Board know that next month you’re going to get an application
for across the street from this applicant for the same request for another tent, and I’m just
concerned that, you know, if we allow this, if we allow the next one, we allow the next one,
allow the next one, do we want to have tent city or not. So I’m just mentioning it for the Board
because the rest of the Board doesn’t know that next month we’ve got the same thing across the
street from you. So, now we get comments from the Board, and we can use our Site Plan
Review criteria here. A lot of it isn’t going to be significant, but.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s anything there, Larry, to use.
MR. RINGER-I really don’t, but we can, you know, design standards, if there’s nothing there
that I can see.
MR. ANDERSON-Before you start that, I would have a comment that I think to call that use
seasonal use is stretching it, if you extend the period to six months. That’s multi-seasonal use.
Somebody could extend that to nine months, eleven months. It’s seasonal use. That has to be
better defined. I would always think, when I think of tent, it’s for a sale. Well, you’re going to
have a tent up for a good part of your year.
MR. HOLCZER-Well, the New York State maximum is 180 days, and we’re certainly less than
that.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re 99 days, as I see it.
MR. ANDERSON-That’s the request, a maximum of 180 days.
MR. HOLCZER-Well, it’s a little bit less than that. Memorial Day to the middle of October is
about 135 or 40.
MR. VOLLARO-I think your request is Memorial Day through Labor Day. That would be the
beginning of September.
MR. HOLCZER-That was the original one, yes, right, that’s fine. You’re right, Memorial Day
through Labor Day. Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a 99 day period. I looked at that. That’s still pretty extensive.
MR. ANDERSON-Well I heard May 3 to October 31.
rdst
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. HOLCZER-No, that was last year.
MR. VOLLARO-This is Memorial Day, which would be 31 May, through Labor Day, which I
believe is 4 September. I checked it on the calendar, a 99 day period.
MR. ANDERSON-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, comments in any of the areas of our review criteria?
MR. VOLLARO-No, not of the review criteria, Larry. I this case, I don’t think that particular
criteria is valid.
MR. RINGER-All right. In the application, then. No one?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with this.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what’s the basis for decision making on something like this? Does
anybody want to educate me?
MR. SCHACHNER-The site plan review.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, I don’t think if every single merchant in Town wants a tent
put up, we would feel comfortable with that. In fact, Larry pointed out that next month another
applicant across the street’s going to want a tent. So, I don’t really think we know what we
want to do with this, if you want to know the truth. I know I don’t want a bunch of stores who
supplement their space, you know, showroom space by erecting tents all over town, and so I
guess the question is, how do you grant them to one and not grant them to another?
MR. RINGER-That’s why I told you about what’s going to happen next month. My own feeling
is a tent is something for an event. An event would be an Americade or a weekend sales event
like Fourth of July event or, not for an extended period.
MR. SANFORD-Not for the summer season.
MR. RINGER-However, if we only had one, like last year I’m sure I voted yes on this, but right
now I’ve got some reservations because of what’s coming next month, and my theory always is
if somebody sees it and it’s successful, somebody else is going to ask for it, and then somebody
else is going to ask for it, and perhaps if we did get several of these, then the Town would make
a decision and say no more tents. I don’t know, but I thought it was important to let everyone
know what else we may have next month.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. This particular facility has had a history of setting up
these tents.
MR. RINGER-Apparently so, but I don’t remember.
MR. HOLCZER-We’ve had it for the last 11 years.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, because of that history, I would tend to be a little more lenient.
The problem is, how you level the playing field here, and I think Mr. Sanford has pointed out
that, you know, the more you grant, the more will want to do it. I just see that this particular
applicant has got a fairly long track record at this particular facility of putting up a tent. That
would be the only fact that I would consider.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’ll comment on that. If they’ve done it for 11 consecutive years, it’s
certainly not a special event type of a thing. One could suggest that perhaps they need to
consider a permanent attractive addition to their store, because it’s a, you know, it’s part and
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
parcel of what they’re doing, and so, you know, I think we have to kind of look to what the
intent of this is, and I think I agree, rare occasions do happen, but I think I agree with Larry that
this is not A-typical event where Americade’s in Town or something along, this is sort of like a
permanent addition to their building. So, you know, and I just, I know if they all started to do
it, I would not feel comfortable with this, and so I don’t know how I can feel comfortable with
one doing it and not others.
MR. SEGULJIC-But can’t we only respond to what’s before us at this time?
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, but if we know there’s another application right behind this, you
know, I only brought it up for information only.
JOEL REICHMAN
MR. REICHMAN-I just want to add one thing. Joel Reichman. The events that you’re talking
about. One leads right into the other. You’d have Memorial Day, then you’d have the
Americade, then you end up with the Fourth of July and then on into Labor Day. There’s a little
bit of a space in August. So to erect it and then down for each event, we understand that, and
that was the season where everything’s really coming together.
MR. RINGER-I was thinking of a sales event, not necessarily.
MR. METIVIER-Well, this is a sales event.
MR. RINGER-A sales event that lasts five months.
MR. METIVIER-But this is, I’m looking at this in a different aspect, and in that this is really a
tourist area, and, you know, to you and I, if we drive up Route 9, which we don’t do in the
summertime, of course, you know, we see it all the time, but the tourist that’s driving through
will see the tent and to them it is a one time event. I mean, I know, it’s a stretch, but, you know.
MR. SANFORD-Tony, if during the holiday season, if Wal-Mart wants to put a big tent in their
parking lot.
MR. METIVIER-No, they put blue containers in their parking lot.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, we wouldn’t look favorably on it. In fact, when we looked at
that application, we put some restrictions on what they could keep on their site for storage of
inventory. I just think that this certainly isn’t aesthetically appealing to the Town, and in a way
it’s a way for any store merchant who goes this route to increase their floor plan significantly,
when it is, in fact, much more than a typical or a special event. It’s part of their core business.
MR. METIVIER-Gretchen brought up a good point, to me, anyway, that I have to just pass
along. You’re absolutely right as far as, do you want to talk?
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure.
MR. METIVIER-Please do. It’s a great point.
MRS. STEFFAN-If we’re looking at these, obviously this applicant has petitioned us and we’ve
approved this in the past, and I’m feeling pretty strongly that I would lean toward, you know,
approving this for this year, but in light of other things that are going on in the area, we’ve all
had conversations about looking at our Zoning Codes and such, you know, maybe we do have
to look at this from an assessment point of view. I mean, if these folks are going to have a tent,
and increase their square footage for six months of the year, you know, houses are assessed
based on square footage and features, and the land mass, and so if these retail operations are
going to increase their footprint for six months out of the year, perhaps we need to look at our
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
zoning and our assessments to see if there’s a way that we can capitalize on these businesses
increasing their square footage. There’s a relationship between those two things, I think.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and it’s further complicated, and I’m not sure if it’s totally the same thing,
but a lot of vendors are charged, they’ve been complaining about the fees, the permit fees that
they might have to pay to do temporary, you know, the people with the carts and sell the hot
dogs and all of that kind of stuff, and in a weird way, this is not totally dissimilar, though
admittedly it’s on their particular property, but as you just said, they’re not being assessed for
this, and they’re not maybe paying the same level of taxes that they would pay if they had
additional floor space. So, you know, again, I just feel uncomfortable with it. I don’t know
about, at the twelfth hour, if I feel totally comfortable saying no to you, because you’ve
probably planned this season. So maybe, Gretchen, are you suggesting that we approve it this
time, but we send a clear message that maybe next year we’re not going to be inclined to want
to address it?
MR. METIVIER-Well, actually, why don’t we take it a step further and maybe you could refer to
the Town Board that they take a look at this and assess some kind of fee for tents or.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m comfortable with that.
MR. METIVIER-That way these applications.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because then it becomes a policy.
MR. METIVIER-Right. I mean, I think that the vendor fee is like $500 a day, and obviously
you’re not going to charge them $500 for every day that the tent is up, but, you know, maybe
they could have an application fee for putting a tent up that might discourage them from going
up all over.
MR. RINGER-You’re talking future now. We’re not talking this application.
MR. METIVIER-Exactly, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. RINGER-I just want to be sure we all understand, we’re talking future.
MR. METIVIER-I think that in fairness to these two gentlemen, we should look at the fact that
we have one application in front of us.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. ANDERSON-Bob, Larry let me look at this piece of paper here, and it says.
MR. RINGER-It’s part of the application.
MR. ANDERSON-It was?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. ANDERSON-Well, if I read this, I think it’s a permitted use. We don’t have any right to
reject an application if he meets the requirements of this document.
MR. RINGER-We could say no, if we feel that it doesn’t fit in with the nature and the character
of the commercial neighborhood of Queensbury.
MR. ANDERSON-But that’s not what the Code requirement reads.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-The Code doesn’t speak about the character of the neighborhood, or this letter
doesn’t, actually.
MR. METIVIER-But, you know, for the last, 10, 11, 12 years, it was the character of the
neighborhood.
MR. RINGER-My whole thought on this, and I’m not necessarily against you tonight, I’m
concerned, the snowballing, and the suggestions I heard from over here are great, that we
should look at your application tonight and decide on it as one application, but I do think that
what Tony said and so forth, that we should somewhere down the road, at a workshop, come
up with something to propose to the Town Board to look at this in our zoning and see if maybe
we want to change the laws or the Code or whatever, but that’s nothing to do with this
application.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with that. If anyone wants to throw out a motion to approve it for this
year, subject to further review by this Board, by way of a recommendation to the Town Board,
for future uses, I’m comfortable with that.
MR. RINGER-Well, it wouldn’t be part of the approval.
MR. SANFORD-No, but the understanding is there.
MR. RINGER-But I wanted to bring it up and let everybody know about it. Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have a process question. You all are talking about something
different than I understood the application to be, but I may have misunderstood. You sound
like you’re treating this as a temporary, potential temporary approval, similar to, for example,
you know that you do get to review some transient merchant applications, things that are, for
example, during only the week of Americade. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought this applicant
was proposing seasonal use, not seasonal use in the Year 2004, but permanent, if you will,
seasonal use. Did I miss understand that?
MR. RINGER-I thought we’ve been approving this every year.
MR. VOLLARO-This has been a yearly, an annual approval.
MR. RINGER-George is shaking his head no.
MR. SCHACHNER-Staff’s not aware of that. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
MR. RINGER-I don’t remember it either, George, but reading the letter that we have here from
Craig Brown, I think it was, I got the impression that we approved this every year.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we could modify the resolution.
MR. RINGER-To one year, absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-And specify one year.
MR. RINGER-I would suggest that.
MR. METIVIER-Why don’t we specify until Labor Day of this year, and then it would have to
come down.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, for the season of 2004, which includes Memorial Day to Labor Day.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we want you to do business, and we appreciate your business.
MR. HOLCZER-We’d actually like to start Friday when the season starts, not typically on
Memorial Day, which is Monday. Having this weekend would be a big boon to us.
MR. RINGER-Well, I think you’re going to get your approval tonight, but I want you to
understand where we’re coming from. We’re concerned, we give it to you, we give it to the
next guy, where do we stop, and I think that we’ve had good discussion up here from the Board
tonight, and we probably will ask the Town to review our Codes and stuff and perhaps next
year you might want, before you order your inventory, you might want to run through the
Codes to make sure that you’re going to be approved next year. Any other comments from the
Board? We’ve got a public hearing on this. So, I’ll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Unlisted. We need a SEQRA on this. So, Tony, you’re just waiting there. I can
see it.
MR. METIVIER-I’m ready.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 22-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MORTT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. DBA DUNHAM FOOTWEAR, 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
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
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 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-Does someone want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2004 MORTT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. DBA
DUNHAM FOOTWEAR, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 22-2004 Applicant: MORTT DISTRIBUTORS, INC DBA DUNHAM
FOOTWEAR
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Lake George Associates [Paul Gordon]
Zone: HC-I
Location: 1498 State Route 9
Applicant proposes to erect a 20’ x 40’ tent as part of a seasonal outdoor sales use at Dunham
Footwear store on Route 9. Retail uses in the HC-Intensive zone require site plan review and
approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SP 15-87, SP 25-87, SV 1371, SV 1395
Warren Co. Planning: 5/12/04
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Lot size: 1.61 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 27, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/21/04, and
5/27 Staff Notes
5/20 Notice of Public Hearing
5/12 Warren Co. Planning
5/3 Meeting Notice
4/28 CB from S. Smith: Tent location does not pose safety threat
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 May 27, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That a time for the tent would be Friday, the 28 of May, 2004 through September 15,
th
2004.
Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. HOLCZER-Good. Thank you. I also would like you to know how helpful both George
and Craig have been to us throughout this process. We’re retailers. We don’t go through this
on a regular basis. We had a lot of questions, but George and Craig were very helpful.
MR. RINGER-Great. We’re always happy to hear that, and they do work well with everyone.
We hope we didn’t shock you too much, but you can see if everybody asked for a tent, we
would be in problem.
MR. HOLCZER-But again, is there any way we can find out how many do ask, because clearly
if you only have one more review, no one’s going to ask to start this thing after Labor Day.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve only got that one right now that I happen to know is coming up next
month.
MR. HOLCZER-No, I was wondering if there was any way we could find out how many, so we
can prepare.
MR. RINGER-Well, we wouldn’t know until we get the application, but the Town may look at
this, and we may have some different Codes and Ordinances next year. You just might want to
check with Staff next year before your inventory is ordered.
MR. HOLCZER-Fine, we’ll do that. That’s great. Thank you all so much for your help.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, we have one more item.
MR. RINGER-Yes. We’ve got one more item, and, Bob, if you want to take over here.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Larry. During our last meeting, it was requested by our Chairman
that I propose a draft resolution from the Planning Board to the Town Board, and I have that
resolution prepared. I’ve got some feedback on it from the Chairman, and from Chris
Hunsinger, who is not here tonight, and from Mr. Seguljic, who sent me an e-mail on it as well.
I will read my proposal.
MR. RINGER-Before you read it, Bob, has Counsel got a copy of it?
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
MR. RINGER-Wow. You don’t have a copy of it either, George? You didn’t send it to Staff,
Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, because it’s a proposed draft, and it was to be discussed among the
Planning Board first, and then forwarded on to Staff.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, I thought you were looking for a resolution tonight.
MR. SANFORD-We are.
MR. VOLLARO-No, well.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like to move it tonight. That’s the way we left it at the workshop.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I would have hoped that Counsel would have had an opportunity to
look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably not drafted correctly. I don’t believe that the Whereas’s and the
Now Therefore’s and so on are in the correct positions.
MR. RINGER-Go ahead with your reading it, or you can read it, Bob, if you would, and Counsel
can follow you, along with George.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It says, “Whereas the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby petitions the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to introduce a resolution at their
next regular meeting, to institute a three month moratorium for the following:” Now, so the
corrections were, rather than use the word “introduce”, the Chairman had given me an e-mail
and said, consider. Consider, rather than introduce a resolution, and he suggested a six month
period for this moratorium. I think that’s a little long, but that’s the Chairman’s suggestion.
MR. SANFORD-When you say the Chairman, you mean Craig MacEwan?
MR. VOLLARO-I mean Craig MacEwan sent me his, because I said in the e-mail feel free to
add, subtract, modify, deny, whatever, whatever is the will of the Board. I’m just, what I’ve
really done here is put the straw man up for people to look at and try to understand, and see
whether the sense of the Board is that they’d like to send this message to the Town Board, in
terms of a resolution, and of course, to introduce a resolution for the following, proposed
moratorium would include residential subdivisions, recommendations from the Planning Board
to the Town Board on residential rezoning, and related site plans, and that’s what it would
include. So, as Larry pointed out, I have, this moratorium would not apply to industrial or
commercial applications, maybe that’s a superfluous statement since it’s been covered in the
statement above, but the meat of the thing starts as the Whereas the reasons supporting this
Moratorium are, and I did have some, again, some changes from Mr. MacEwan that, his
changes were on Number One, he said expedite the completion of the ongoing build out of
analysis for purposes of, and then go forward, evaluate the impacts on the Town infrastructure
and other municipal services, evaluate the impacts on school districts, Queensbury and Lake
George, and evaluate the impacts on fire and emergency, but that was the end of his changes.
From Number Two to Number Six, he said he agreed with those positions. So he’s kind of
modified the words a little bit, but not the intent of the resolution.
MR. METIVIER-Bob, can I ask you a question?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. METIVIER-Why is it only a three month? If we’re going to do this, wouldn’t you want to
give us enough time?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was Craig’s position as well. He modified my three to six.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I was just talking about that. Gretchen doesn’t have to agree with me, but
you know what, if we’re going to do this, and even attempt to do it, I think that we should do it
for six months, for a lot of different reasons, the number one being giving us time. Number
Two, I truly believe that in six months you may see, with all the subdivisions going on now that
we’ve approved, it might buy us more time in that.
MR. SANFORD-I think Tony’s right. Three months, we’re not going to accomplish anything.
MR. METIVIER-You’re not going to accomplish anything.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I think if you ask the Town to do something for six months, you’re going
to get some real resistance, whereas if you ask for three months, and then ask for an extension, I
think you stand a better chance.
MR. SANFORD-120 days, four months. 120 days.
MR. METIVIER-We could do that.
MR. RINGER-Yes, I’m just thinking, you know, this is a request to the Town Board, and you’re
asking for something that could meet a great deal of resistance from a bunch of people in the
Town.
MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s not a voting year for them.
MR. SANFORD-120 days, I would recommend 120 days rather than six months.
MR. RINGER-Maria, we’re in a workshop session, too, so please, we’re no longer in a regular
meeting, we’re in a workshop session. It means we can turn the mic off. We’re in a workshop.
We don’t need to record this.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think it’s got to be a public hearing. I mean, the public’s not here, but I
think it’s got to be an open meeting.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think Larry’s suggesting it’s a closed meeting.
MR. RINGER-Right. I’m just saying we don’t need this to be part of our meeting. It’s just a
workshop.
MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the backlog, one thing has always amazed me. You approve these
subdivisions and one house goes in and you approve another subdivision. How many
subdivisions are out there? How much capacity do we have? Do we have any idea?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the build out analysis.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, do we have a rough idea on that?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think when the build out analysis is finished, though, it’ll tell us that, and
that’s something we’ll be looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, just tonight, tonight is a good example of where, I think Gretchen
put it best at the workshop, Tom, and our last meeting, which was, we don’t have a blue print
or a plan that we’re working on here, and we’re kind of just feeling our way through, and then
we get them and we spend a lot of time, I don’t want to use the words arguing amongst
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
ourselves, but we’re unclear about, a good example is the Freshwater permits, and so we’re
hoping that in this period of time we can come to a better consensus on where we wanted to go
with some of these applications. Right now we’re all over the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-And this won’t affect applications.
MR. RINGER-It won’t affect pending applications.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, but that’s not necessarily true. You have no idea what the
answer to that question is. It depends if the Town Board enacts a moratorium.
MR. SANFORD-How they do it.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if so, what they establish as a cut off, if you will. By law it could
absolutely affect pending applications, if the Town Board so decides. I don’t expect that the
Town Board would do that, but just be careful with your quick answer.
MR. RINGER-Well, I thought that if you had something.
MR. SCHACHNER-Many people are under the misconception that once something is applied
for, you can’t change the rules, and in New York State under law, that’s completely erroneous.
MR. RINGER-That was what I thought.
MR. SCHACHNER-Most people think that, and that’s not correct, under New York State law.
As a practical matter, legislation seldom does change the rule on a pending application, but it
could.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Tom, basically, when we had our discussion, about a year ago or last
winter, a few of us went to this meeting in Washington County and this kind of was the genesis
of some of this, and it was clearly explained to us at that meeting that it’s totally appropriate for
the Planning Board to approach the Town Board on any topic that they desire, for the Town
Board to consider, and so basically what has evolved is enough of a concern about a lot of these
subdivisions and wetland developments and what have you where, at the workshop last week,
or two weeks ago, whenever it was, it was kind of decided that we want to take this. We want
to present our concerns to the Town Board, independent of what action they might take, even if
they basically say we’re not interested in it, we felt it was important for the Planning Board to
vocalize some of the concerns we’re having, independent of what action they may take. It
turned out a couple of the members happened to be in the audience and were encouraged by
the direction we were going, but that’s independent of really what we’re trying to accomplish
here. We’re just trying to go on record in saying we think we need to take time to do a better
job in understanding and planning.
MR. RINGER-The Town Board members participated in the workshop. They were active
participants.
MR. SANFORD-So that’s the history behind it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to address the pending applications at all?
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s their decision. That’s not ours. That’s not our decision.
MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t want to give them any guidance?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think they really, they want to introduce a resolution instituting a
120 moratorium for the following reasons, and then they’ll have to understand that, whereas
this proposed moratorium would suspend Planning Board review for all residential
subdivisions, provide opportunity for the completion of proposed build out analysis.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-Bob, Mark had some editorial things.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’d like to hear that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, what are you reading from now? You’re not reading from what I have
in front of me.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m reading from, Craig MacEwan sent me what he thought might been a
little bit of editorial comment.
MR. SCHACHNER-I tried to make them as minimal as possible. The first thing I would do is
just cross out the four times that the word “Whereas” appears, and at the very top, the very top,
replacing that first Whereas, I would put the word “Resolved”, and then the other changes are
quite minor. I think, when you say the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby
petitions, to my lawyer’s mind, that’s a formal thing, and that doesn’t really apply here. I
would just say recommends, or requests, either way.
MR. SANFORD-Well, recommends.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I think you want to say to consider, instead of to introduce a
resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but Craig’s words were consider.
MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with that, and then your three month I think has become 120 days.
Is that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-120 days, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And then the only thing I would add is the word “Further” at the bottom,
after Now, Therefore, Be It.
MR. RINGER-Does that sound good? Any questions on it?
MR. ANDERSON-Before you do a motion, there was a thought here about when the
moratorium would begin.
MR. SANFORD-That would be Town Board again.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be the Town Board.
MR. ANDERSON-We wouldn’t make a recommendation?
MR. SANFORD-If they asked us for a recommendation. Who knows what they may do with it.
They may ask, they may come back to us and say we want your opinion on four or five
questions, or they may not. I think, we’re just getting this in front of them. I mean, we could go
on, and on and on on all the particulars, but I think, I’m just, and it may not go anywhere, but I
think that that would be really, that’s their decision.
MR. RINGER-Moratoriums are awfully tough. They’re very political.
MRS. STEFFAN-Bob, you made a comment earlier about taking out that sentence, this
moratorium would not apply.
MR. VOLLARO-Would not apply to industrial.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that that needs to stay there, just because it provides clarity, that we are
specifically not recommending.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I didn’t hear anybody talking about taking that out, but if you’re not
intending, I’m going to strongly agree with Gretchen. If you’re intending those industrial
commercial to not be included, then I strongly urge you to keep that in.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and I have a question for Mark. Does residential subdivisions include
senior housing and apartment buildings?
MR. SCHACHNER-Generally.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. I was just questioning that, and so we don’t have to do anything
residential.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have answered the way I did about apartment
buildings, not necessarily apartment buildings, an apartment building would not be a
residential subdivision, although it does say on residential rezoning and related site plans, an
apartment building would be subject to site plan.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we don’t have to.
MR. SCHACHNER-Why don’t you just say, I mean, if your goal is residential uses, why don’t
you just say all residential uses, if that’s your goal. I don’t know what your goal is.
MR. VOLLARO-It is the goal.
MR. SANFORD-Residential uses.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, why don’t you just say that, period, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Residential uses, period.
MR. VOLLARO-Rather than subdivision, replace the word with.
MR. SANFORD-Subdivision recommendations, we would go, would include residential uses.
MR. VOLLARO-Residential uses.
MR. SCHACHNER-Subject to Planning Board review, presumably. I mean, you’re not trying to
not let people build new houses on existing lots, I presume.
MR. VOLLARO-No, definitely.
MR. SANFORD-Right. Yes, we’re not.
MR. ANDERSON-I don’t know, where are you, on that second paragraph?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Mark, could you read it how you would suggest that whole second
paragraph should read.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you could say this proposed moratorium would include all, if you
want to be as inclusive as you possibly can and to eliminate any ambiguity, why don’t you say,
and I’m just thinking out loud, Rich, you can do this or I can, the proposed moratorium would
include all residential uses including senior citizen housing, apartment buildings, and then pick
up what it says, residential subdivisions, recommendations, etc.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s good.
MR. RINGER-If we put it in that way, and they put a moratorium in reading that way, wouldn’t
that prevent any new house building permits to be issued?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s what I just said, I don’t think it would.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And not to mention they’d never, if the Town Board adopts something,
they’re not just going to take this piece of paper and enact it into law. It will be fine tuned.
MR. RINGER-You know, if something’s already been approved, we don’t want to stop all
building permits.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I just said that a minute ago, and you all said, no, you’re not trying
to stop that.
MR. SANFORD-They’re going to have, I mean, if they’re inclined to go in this direction, they’re
going to have their counsel fine tune it all out.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be Mark.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me see if I’ve got this right. This proposed resolution would include
all residential uses, including senior housing and apartments, recommendations from the
Planning Board to the Town Board on residential and related.
MR. SANFORD-No, you missed subdivisions.
MR. SCHACHNER-You also said this proposed resolution when you meant this proposed
moratorium.
MR. VOLLARO-Will include all residential uses including senior houses and apartments,
subdivisions, recommendations from the Planning Board to the Town Board on residential
rezoning and related site plans.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s it.
MR. RINGER-There’s an awful lot of stuff, Mark said just residential, and you added a whole
bunch of other stuff to it.
MR. SANFORD-No, that was Mark’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Mark put in senior housing and apartments.
MR. RINGER-Mark, did you, I didn’t get that, did you say put in senior housing and
apartments?
MR. SCHACHNER-My second version, yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Shouldn’t we say something about there being, I just can’t get over the fact, are
we proposing a moratorium on all development, or site plan review of all?
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. SANFORD-It’s really subdivision and site plan review.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You’re clearly not limiting it to site plan review, because your biggest
concern, it sounds like to me, is residential subdivisions.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-But the fact remains is that, are we saying that for the next 120 days you cannot
get a building permit?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No. For a single family home, you mean?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can get a building permit on an existing, and remember, it doesn’t
matter what you say, it matters what the Town Board enacts, if anything, but, I don’t think
anyone will misunderstand your recommendation to take it to mean that you’re trying to
impose a moratorium on the issuance of building permits on existing lots.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think it’s subject to that misunderstanding.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-That wasn’t the intent, either, when I put that together, Tony.
MR. SANFORD-Well, how do we proceed? If you want to make a motion and read this whole
thing, and then if it’s seconded, then we can vote on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
TOWN BOARD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
As follows:
RESOLVED,
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recommends the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury to consider a resolution, at their next regular meeting, to institute a 120
day moratorium for the following:
This proposed moratorium would include; all residential uses, including senior housing,
apartment buildings, residential subdivisions, recommendations from the Planning Board to the
Town Board on residential rezoning and related site plans.
This Moratorium would not apply to Industrial or Commercial applications.
The reasons supporting this Moratorium are:
1. Expedite the completion of the ongoing Build Out Analysis, then:
Evaluate impacts on the towns Infrastructure (Water/Sewer/Highway)
??
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
Evaluate impacts on school district(s) (Queensbury, Lake George & Glens Falls)
??
2. Review and update Subdivision Regulations (Chapter A183)
Clarify allowable densities
??
Identify developable land
??
Clarify wetland requirements
??
Estimate impacts on affordable housing
??
Incorporate new Phase II Stormwater Management Regulations
??
3. Review Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 179)
Professional Office
??
Multifamily Residential Housing
??
Incorporate appropriate language into Article 10 Special Use Permits
??
4. Complete Karner Blue Butterfly Protection Plan
Develop Karner Blue Overlay District
??
5. Review and modify the 1998 Comprehensive land use Plan
Incorporate appropriate changes resulting from the above activities
??
6. Evaluate Organizational Staff’s Capacity relative to:
Planning and Zoning
??
Building and Codes
??
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
We, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, hereby approve forwarding this resolution
to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for their action.
Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-This moratorium would include all residential uses, including senior housing
and apartments, subdivisions.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry to interrupt. I was hoping not to do this. When you say senior
housing and apartments, the Town Board might understand that to mean senior housing and
senior apartments, and I don’t think that’s what you mean.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-Why don’t you say senior housing, apartment buildings, and take it from
there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
Ringer
NOES: NONE
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Next month, site visits on the 12. Now we’re
th
probably going to have three, and maybe four meetings next month. We’ve got a lot of things
on the agenda, okay, but site visits on the 12. The two regular meetings on the 15 and the
thth
22.
nd
MR. VOLLARO-Has anything else been planned for anything else, besides 15 and 22?
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/27/04)
MR. RINGER-We don’t have any dates, but we had a lot of items on the agenda, and I don’t
know how many ended up actually making it because there was four we were trying to squeeze
in.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman
68