1996-03-19
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARChi! 191;, 199.,f:?
INDEX
¡I-',: ¡
I:
I'!
",
site Plan No. 4-96
Tax Map No. 107-1-47, 48
TPI
. } ~"','
", ; ,I >':"1 : i
! :
site Plan No. 6-96
Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1
Ken Ermiger
Petition for Zone
Change - P2-96
Michael & Paulette Sundberg
Tax Map No. 46-2-9.'1
46-2--13
1.
7.
38.
:-¡ .,' '~/, , ...;¡,,,
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISION WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
~lINUTES ., 'I;
; I ..' ¡~,\ ¡ ,
j'1
¡ (
~ HI
. 'ti
, I{ '1
I':! .::, i,
¡ Ii I'
!V
! ,...¡' I;
I"
:!/I!ì ,i
~ t ,
¡" -i
'J.'
; .. ~ j ..
, ,
, ,
,',j (', ~;
'1
>I
ro',
'i') '1"
¡ ~ - ¡ I ~ ~. ;
r~¡ '-,·í í ! '1 i ¡ ~,.
. ':ì )
IIi'''!
':1<+
, ¡ ~ j
,
~ ",. :
:11
!tv,
, i:
!' :
-..../
~ ~
(Queensbury Plànni ng Board M'eet~i ng 3/'19/96)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 1996
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
GEORGE STARK
ROGER RUEL
TIMOTHY BREWER
CRAIG MACEWAN
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES OBERMAYER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI
PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 20, 1996: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20. 1996, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 4-96 TYPE II TPI OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: 275 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO EXTEND OFFICE SPACE BY
ADDING A 1,008 SQ. FT., TWO STORY ADDITION AND TO ENLARGE PARKING
AREA. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN
REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 136-1992 SP 57-92, SP 31-94
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96
TAX MAP NO. 107-1-47, 48 LOT SIZE: 50,280 SQ. FT. SECTION:
179-23
JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-96, TPI, Meeting Date: March
19, 1996 "Staff has reviewed this Site Plan in accordance with
Section 179-38 and has the following comments. The applicant is
proposing to construct 1008 square feet of additional office
space to the existing TPI on Bay Rd. There is enough parking on
site to accommodate this expansion and the building density will
not exceed the maximum allowed in the HC-1A district. The only
issue appears to be stormwater management associated with the
additional structure. The applicant has proposed a series of
gutters which will drain into dry wells around the addition.
This system should adequately manage stormwater so that it will
- 1 -
(QueensbuTY Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
not effect adjacent properties. Staff would recommend approval
of this Site Plan."
MR. HILTON-I also have a letter submitted today, and I'm going to
read it into th~ record. It is from Thomas and Darlene'Clark,
dated MaTch 19, 1996. It reads as follolrJs, "Dear Sirs: I'm
writing to voice our concerns about the proposed enlatgement of
the TPI parking lot located at 275 Bay Road in the Town of
Quee~sbury. Our work schedules prevent ué from 'attending
tonight's hearing, but we would like to be heard before any
decisions are made by the Planning Board. Previous expansions
have caused us concern and have infringed on our privacy, and now
that they want to expand directly behind our home, we request
that TPI be required to do the following: 1. Erect an 8~ tall
stockade fence on the south side of their property to give us
some privacy. We request that this fenc~ be er~cied on their
property, not ours. (Previous TPI-built fences wer~ erected on
other Homer Avenue property owner's land,) 2. Any planned
spotlights be directed down on the parking lot, not out into our
windows. (Other property owners have told us of their problems
with spotlights shining i~to their wind6ws all night.) 3.
Before any parking lot is put in, we request that the old car
that was buried in the ground years ago and used as a septic tank
for the trailer that was located thete be dug up and filled in
for a stable base for the fence we request. This buried vehicle
is located on the south side of the property where the fence
would be erected. (1 grew up at 275 sa) Road and know whcit's
under there.) Thank you for this opportunity to voice our
concerns about this proposed expansion. Sincerely, Darlene A.
Clark Thomas A. Clark 4. Clean up after constr."
MR. PALING-They're on the south side of the property, I take it?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. We've got those three items.
you have anything else, George?
Okay. Do
MR. HILTON-¡ have nothing, except that Warren County heard'this
item on March 13th, and there's a letter to that effect in here,
stating "No County Impact".
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. HILTON-Beautification Committee, on March
viewed this, and they made a motion to accept
same evening.
11, 1996, also
as submitted that
MR. PALING-Well, it's a little contradictory there, I think,
because they ask for some modifications and then make a motion to
accept it as submitted. I think they really mean that they ~ant
planting bed to be extended and similar plantings, in other
words, the way the previous part of it reads, I think, is what
they really want.
MR. RUEL-Isn't that the way it's shown ori the plan?
MR. PALING-Planting bed to be extended. I don't know.
MR. RUEL-Yes, it is extended.
MR. PALING-Si r, could you identify yÒursel f, please. I thi nk IrJe
have a question for you.
MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I'm the agent, contractor for TPI.
MR. PALING-Did you see or read the Beautification Committee
comments?
- 2 -.
---../
''---" '---./
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MR. PALING-Let me just read it to you. "John Matthews presented
a site plan and proposed addition. Deck/ramp to be removed and
moved to side of building with pressure treated lumber." To be
built with pressure treated lumber, I think they mean. "Planting
bed to be extended. Similar plantings to the ones on site to be
installed surrounding new addition also." Can you do this, as
they're asking?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. Basically, the addition is going to go where
the deck was. So the plantings that are there now will either be
replaced or stay.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now you're going to build a new deck, or the
deck'no longer exists?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, there's no longer a deck.
MR. PALING-There's no longer a deck. So that's not an issue.
MR. MATTHEWS-Right. The ramp is going to be incorporated behind
a wall down in the south.
MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Then I
Beautification Committee requirements.
think he's meeting the
Okay.
MR. RUEL-I have some questions.
MR. PALING-Yes, go ahead, Roger.
MR. RUEL-It has
two additions.
1,008. Do you
feet?
to do with the plan that you submitted that shows
One addition. The other one's new addition,
mean that these two together are 1,008 square
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
two years ago.
The one with the slashes through it was done
MR. RUEL-I see, yes, but 18 by 28's not 1,008.
MR. MATTHEWS-Two stories.
MR. RUEL-Two stories. Okay. That's the addition then?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. RUEL-With the porch right next to it.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
document that you
think you have some
a copy of this.
setbacks?
The other question I had had to do with the
filled out here, site development data. I
inaccuracies there. I don't know if you have
Do you have it? Do you see under building
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. RUEL-You see, front yard? You have 17 feet, and then you say
proposed 25'6". You don't mean that, do you? Shouldn't that be
down under side yard one?
MR. MATTHEWS-Right. Correct.
MR. RUEL-AIl right. That should be moved down.
MR. PALING-The 25.6.
- 3 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. RUEL-Should be on the third line.
MR. PALING-Yes, right.
MR. RUEL-Okay, and also, your rear yard is not 630 feet. It's
612, because if you add up the 17 and 7 and 54 and 36, and
subtract it from the overall 726, it's 612 rather than 630.
MR. MATTHEWS-I won't object to that. You're probably right.
MR. RUEL-Yes, well, it should be corrected, I think.
MR. PALING-Yes.
change this. Okay.
It should be
Good.
accurate
ties, þut
it do~sn't
MR. RUEL-It's probably an over~lght, and 1 just
that the record is straight, that's all. So
taken care of, right, and this plan does
drywells, right?
want to make sure
the RJanning was
not indi~ate any
MR. MATTHEWS-There's an existing drywell that was put in when did
the other addition, for gutters.
MR. RUEL-But Mr. Hilton had
drainage requirement, in the
drywell.
indicated that perhaps additional
form of guttefs and ¿dditional
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, we are going to put gutters in, but we're ~oing
to run them into.
MR. RUEL-The same drywell?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. RUEL-It's not shown on the plan.
MR. MATTHEWS-I attached a separate plan that showed that.
MR. PALING-I dòh't think we have it.
MR. MACEWAN-Drywells shown on the plan.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. HILTON-We received a plan showing the drywells, and I thought
it had been distributed to you through your packets. Evidentally
not. If you have a copy, I can pass it around and show you right
now.
MR. RUEL-Okay, as long as it's part of the record, and the
lighting. Do you have any lightihg in the extensive parkihg area
in the back?
MR. MATTHEWS-There is existing lighting.
MR. RUEL-There is? That's not shown either.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well,'there's a spotlight that's been on the trees
there for years.
MR. RUEL-Didn't you read ~ letter about some complaint about
lighting?
MR. PALING-I think that antici~ated additional lighting. I don't
think it sald anything about the existing ,lighting.
MR. RUEL~I think they're talking about existi~g.
- 4 -
,--'"
-'
'--- ....--
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. GORALSKI-I think both.
MR. RUEL-How could they anticipate what the lighting will be?
MR. MATTHEWS-There are spotlights on the building.
MR. HILTON-It says that any planned spotlights should be directed
down on the parking lot.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. HILTON-So I think they're anticipating further, you know,
future lighting.
MR. RUEL-It will be shining down?
MR. PALING-Well, are you going to put new lighting in?
MR. MATTHEWS-I didn't plan to. They haven't said anything about
it.
MR. PALING-Then I don't think we really have an issue.
MR. RUEL-They're just complaining about anticipating some planned
lighti ng .
MR. PALING,-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay. We should drop that one.
MR. PALING-Yes. The two items in that letter were the fence and
the old car. Do you have a comment on those?
MR. MATTHEWS-I know nothing about the old car.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-It could very well be there for all we know.
MR. RUEL-What is it, an old car?
MR. MACEWAN-Do they give in that letter any specifics about where
the buried treasure's supposed to be?
MR. MATTHEWS-I'm sure we could find it easy enough. I don't know
anything about a trailer that used to be there either. That's
way before our time.
MR. PALING-Okay. That doesn't seem to be an issue we need
addressed, unless, Mark, would you comment otherwise on that?
MR. SCHACHNER-The letter and the buried car and the septic and
all that?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it doesn't seem like much to go on.
MR. PALING-Yes. It sure doesn't, because we don't even know
where it is. All right. I'm going to pass on that. Do you have
any comment on the fence that they were talking about?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, we had no problem with the
putting a fence up. I didn't realize that it
property. I was quite certain that it was on
There was a fence there in the past that we
Whether that is the fence that they're talking
know, but I'm sure that they would go along with
last addition,
wasn't on TPI's
TPI's property.
lined up with.
about, I don't
a fence by this
- 5 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
par cel .
MR. PALING-Okay. Do you intend to put one up?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, thi~3 is the first time that a,nyqne's said
anything about it. I mean, we put one up the last time because
other neighbors asked for a fence, we put one up.
MR. MACEWAN-Remember when you did that additio~ two
remember that we made it part of our agreement that
a fence up, but I don't remember how long a run it
remember?
yeaTs ago. I
you would, put
I--Jas . Do you
'iI
. <·l"11 ~ ;.
, !
MR. MATTHEWS-It was about 50 feet. One s~all lot
Avenue, and there was another section in there that had
thai's been there for years.
on Homer
a fence,
MR. PALING-What kind of business is involved?
talking about for a business here?
What are we
MR. MATTHEWS-It's an office that does payroll processing.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Another question. You show a dumpster.
a fence around it, or shrubbery, be fenced in?
Wil.l that have
MR. MATTHEWS-It was fenced in once, and then they moved it so
many times that we haven't fenced it in yet. I think now that
they're pretty well established, it's going to have to have
something around it, and it'll probably go right where I have it
~~hown now.
MR. RUEL-You mean you're not going to ~dd on next year, and the
year after? You've got 700 feet to play with.
MR. t1f1CEWAN-:-,TÞ~Ff,e nei~,~b9~~ .~!ì<1. ?T e r,€;!quest,~ ng
You ~.rlol~~"1e'~fT))anq',-9r <, aPR~9X1Q1a~¡1lY. ho'(J ,wlde
1 ¡ ne thé .t àb¡lJ.ts. the' TP¡, : Property?, " ' ,). ,"
¡: ' 1:''1 ',',,' '.":.";;" ,; 'J I ;'1'
',J ·.ì~, ;¡ ...¡ '':, , ; t! I.l'., ¡.'
MR. MATTHEWS-I thi,r¡k 'th'osè" ~qt~ .r;io 50 :'f'eet.
, "I 'j ¡ .
~1R. MACEWAN:-WÓuÎd you ,éj.gi'¿ei"t;.o PL,Lt; qp: af¡ addif~io'i¡'~1'5Q¡foot rÛn?
th,e, scre.en~n~. do
'~~, tn¡~' p)'bp,~rty
, ,; ¡I, ' I '
!;
,~ i. ¡ ',,' " i;'
MR. MATTHEWS-Sure.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments ,fPT now? We
have a public hearing on this matter tonight, so ~h)'d6ri't we
open the public hearing. Does anyone care to talk about this
matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-Okay, and w~'ve got the SECRA here.
MR. RUEL-It's Type II.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-What's that, Short?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Type II,'you don't have to do it.
- 6 -
,--,'
"----" -----"~
(Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. SCHACHNER-Type II is no SEORA review.
MR. RUEL-Don't need it. Okay.
MR. PALING-All right. For this, I think we ought to waive, then
lets not do it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-We don't need to, so you don't have to waive it.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can go right to a motion, then.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-96 TPI, Introduced by
Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
Roger
To extend office space by adding 1,008 square feet two
addition and to enlarge parking area, with two conditions.
is a fence, approximately 50 foot long, 6 foot high, on the
side of property, and enclose the dumpster.
story
One
south
Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Pal i ng
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay. On we go.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 TYPE II KEN ERMIGER OWNER: SAME ZONE:
HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, WEST SIDE OF ROAD JUST NORTH OF AGWAY
PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GO-KART TRACK AND OFFICE/ARCADE
BUILDING. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 1-1996 SP 58-95
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96
TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6--96, Ken Ermiger, Meeting Date:
March 19, 1996 "The staff has reviewed this Site Plan in
accorda nce with Section 179-38 a nd has tl-¡e follÇ>vJi n9 comments.
Section 179-66B4 requires that a physical divide)" be provided in
the ingresslegress lane of commercial properties. A divider
needs to be provided as a part of this Site Plan. I do not feel
that this should cause this item to be tabled. I would recommend
a stipulation that a revised plan be submitted showi~g a divider
prior to the issuance of a building permit. To the north of the
access drive for this site, an existing curb cut is indicated.
This access point is to be abandoned per a stipulation for the
final plat for this land (Subdivision 1-1996). This site plan
should include a note indicating that the access point is to be
removed. The Site Plan indicates 103 parking spaces to be shared
by this site and the adjacent 'Pirates Cove' recreation center.
The site plan also indicates an area which is shown for future
recreational uses. The Planning Board should determine if this
amount of parking is appropriate to serve this site and the
'Pirates Cove' site", and any additional recreational expansion.
"There may be some concern about noise associated with the use of
- 7 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
the go kart track. The applicant plans to discuss this issue
with the Planning Board. The Planning Board may recommend that
more landscaping be used next to the go kart track on the south
property line in order to provide a better noise buffer. The
addition of more coniferous vegetatio~ around the site would
provide a year round buffer from adjacent,uses."
MR. HILTON-I have a letter here which is to be read into the
record. It's from the Lake George Campsite and R.V. Sales
Company. It's dated March 18, 1996. It says, "Dear Mr. Paling:
Since I am unable to attend the public hearing 011 March 19, 1996
concerning Site Plan No. 6--96 on the application of Ken Ermiger
for construction of a go-kart track and office arcadß building,
and since the proposed development is on property adjoining mine
which has operated as a campsite for thirty plus years, I would
appreciate the reading of this letler at the public hearing and
consideration of the following items by you and the members of
the Planning Board: 1. The Lak~ George Campsite prop~rtj is
already adjoined by a go-kart business on the southe~n end. Over
the years,~e have developed ,a good cooperative relationship with
the owriers of that busines~. However, there have been times when
for good reason such as after-prom parties, we wer. able to þlace
campers away from the area adjoined by the go-kart buäiness by
using the north end of our property. If a go-kart track is
approved as proposed, we will no longer have that' option. 2.
The question of adding another go-kart track so ¿lose to an
already existing one, especially when it will be the seçond
business of the same nature to adjoin a campground must be raised
in the interest of all the businesses involved. It could result
in a negative impact for all. 3. Camping is a very noise
sensitive business. The number of noise problems we face already
from existing businesses and' the Adirondack Northway make it
difficult to be enthused by yet another.' Experience has shown us
t.hat not only the noise generated by the go-karts themselves but
t.he screams of joy from the riders and their on-looking friends
combine to be heard for considerable distances. We ask that due
conside~ation be given to the fact that Lake George Campsite has
been in business for thirty plus years, and has enjoyed a
reputation for being sensitive to the needs of i~s customers who
are looking for peace and qu¡et. 4. In the event this proposal
is approved, we ask that con~iderati6n be given to controlling
business hours to respect the needs of campers, many who sleep in
tents which have little effect on sound penetration. There is
precedent for such coritrols. For exampl., the owners of the
Water Slide business w~ich adjoins our property agreed to opening
and closing hours of lÖ am aDd 10 pm respectfully. The. Town of
Queensbu+y included these operating hours in its approval of that
project. I ~ould ask that the same houfs be included in any
approval of this project.. I would also request that thø
developer be required to include perimeter fencing in such a way
as to prevent go-kart and arcade customørs from walking into thø
campground property. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully, Edward T. Gardner"
MR. HILTON-I'm going to have Bill MacNamara read the Rist-Frost
commønts into the record.
MR. PALING-Good.
BILL MACNAMARA, RIST-FROST, Town Engineer
MR. MACNAMARA-Thesø comments dated March 13th have already bøøn
reviewed over the phone with Tom, and he's already responded to
all of them. In fact, today we'd faxed over a much ,CRndensed
ver sion of the final notes on" it, and 1 wi II condense these
initial ones, also, because for the most part they've all been
addressed. Basically, we noted, first of all, the site plari is
being put together in 60~bination with the adjoining golf course
--8--
-----.,,'
-----
-----."
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96)
site plan of which we had looked at a number of months back. We
noted that there were some changes to the golf course layout that
was previously shown on the site plan that was approved, and I
simply raised the question, should the previous site plan
drawings be updated to reflect whatever changes may have
occurred. I don't know the answer to that, but I just simply
posed it.
MR. BREWER-It's a modification to it, isn't it?
MR. NACE-May I respond?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. NACE-It was a grading m6dification. For the record, Tom Nace
with Haanen Engineering, representing Ken Ermiger. The main
modification, there was no layout modification. It was simply a
grading modification to allow the site to work with the officel
arcade building. So we raised the highest spot of the parking
area, and then we put the two parking areas together and regraded
the parking. I've already provided the Pirates Cove people with
the modified grading so the construction bid can be coordinated.
MR. BREWER-Do you have some kind of an overlay that we could put
these two together?
MR. NACE-They are put together on the plan.
MR. BREWER-On the next one.
MR. NACE-Bill noted that in the back end we hadn't flushed out
some of the grading over on the go-kart site, and I have provided
him with a revised plan that does that, but they have been
married together where there's coordination.
MR. PALING-Bill, we're on the first paragraph of your letter now.
MR. MACNAMARA-Of the 13th, Bob?
MR. PALING-Yes. Tom, could we all benefit from that, maybe up on
the board please?
MR. NACE-Sure. This is the grading plan that we used, that we
revised and sent to Bill to answer his comments, but as you can
see, that grading plan does address all the grading over on to
the Pirates Cove site. The sites were married at the property
line here, and the parking for both sites is contiguous, so that
even though this is allocated to Pirates Cove and this is
allocated to the go-kart track, in essence, they will be shared
facilities.
MR. BREWER-I'm just conf0sed a little bit.
spaces do we have for Pirates Cove?
How many parking
MR. NACE~For Pirates Cove we have 25 and 30. We have 55.
MR. PALING-Excuse me, Tim.
the parking's way, could we
we're not wandering around?
Could we go by Bill's letter, because
kind of use that as a guideline, so
MR. BREWER-Well, they were talking about the grading and the
parking, I guess.
MR. PALING-Well~ okay. All right. Go ahead.
MR. BREWER-I guess the only question I had is we showed 55 for
Pirates Cove, and how many is on this map here?
- <:) -
(Cueensbury Plannin~ Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. NACE-For Ermiger, we have 33 and 15. We have 48. So there's
103.
MR. BREWER-And I
anything in our
have?
guess just the
Qrdinance that
only question I had, is
says how many spac~~ he
there
should
MR. GORALSKI-Not for this type of use.
Board to establish the appropriate use.
It's up to the Planning
MR. NACE-What I have done, Tim, with Pirates Cove, if you
remember, we used, they have a bunch of facilities,around the
cou ntry, around the east coast. We usèd thei r exper ience on hOIrJ
many (lost words) and that'~ where we came up with the 55. On
this, I have made what I feel is a conservative estimate of
turnover and the am~unt of car~ coming in and out ~f the site,
and that's what I used for t,his, and I have not takèn'any credit
for people going from one facility, parking their car, going to
one facility, and then going to use the other facility. N~r have
I taken any credit for the fact that. the peak u$e periods of
these t~o will probably be a little different. The g07kart's
likely to peak in the late afternoon, whereas the golf is likely
to peak in the early evening hours.
MR. BREWER-- T ha t leads me to my othe)- quøstion.
can be on the track?
MR. NACE--There a)-e 27 cars on thø track.
MR. BREWER-So 27 can be on there at one time.
How many people
MR. MACEWAN-Are we talking two different site plans here,
together as one?
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a go08 question.
MR. NACE-Well, they're coordinated. If you remembeT, when this
parcel was subdivided, the Board rightfully requested that they
have a common access. When they did that, it made sense, as
Pirates C6ve was developing and later, with this, it made sense to
marry the parking and the access road together, so that they are
common facilities. Okaj. The Pirates Cove facility, parking, as
I said, is on their side of the property line, and the go-kart is
on their side of the property line. However, in reality, people
are going to come and park as they please.
MR. MACEWAN-Just out of¿uriosity, ~hy wouldn't both of these be
submitted together for us to review as one?
MR. NACE-Because they weren't developed together. When Pirates
Cove was developed, it was totally independent. Okay. After
that, Ermiger decided he wanted to do the go-kart, and we worked
with Pirates Cove and ~àid, okay, since the access roads have to
be together, lets marrY ever~thing else together. We did
coordinate during the d~~ign. ' It~s just when Pirates Cove came
along, we didn't know for sure what was going to happen on the
other property.
MR. BREWËR-Okay. So the other site plan shows the parking laid
out like this, only half of it?
MR. NACE-Physically, yes. If you took the Pirates Cove site,
only chànges that I have m?de in the Pirates Cove site plan are
slight differences in the grading~ and I think'I've changed the
location of the drywell at the back of the parking lot. That's
It.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 10 -
'-
"--/
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
MR. PALING-Okay. Then I
and parking lot, I would
comments?
think, because we've
think. Bill, do you
covered drainage
have additional
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I'll try and be as brief as I can, but there
are a few more here. They're not big ones, either, but I mean,
just for the benefit I'll clear them out. We had some comments
about, questions about pedestrian crossover traffic between the
golf course and the go-karts, particularly during busy periods.
There's going to be a lot of people and a lot of cars going each
way, and we simply asked if any thought had been put toward
crosswalks, speed bumps, whatever, pedestrian/traffic control,
and Tom has indicated, in fact, he's showing a dedicated
crosswalk, increased some sidewalk access points for that. Our
next comment had to do with the entry and exit layout
arrangement, of which we understand the DOT is reviewing and is
going to have to issue some kind of a permit, and in a nutshell,
we had some concerns about site distance regafding particularly
traffic leaving this drive, getting out onto Route 9, and
specifically because there's going to be, essentially, a bank
that the go-kart is going to rest on top of. It's a pretty
decent height, eight feet, plus or minus, and it's fairly close
to the roadway, and so we've basically asked to confirm site
distance. In fact, we already touched base with DOT to make sure
that they know what our concern was, particularly because, and
this is our last round of comments, I don't know what the future
plans are for Route 9, but if in fact Route 9 ever gets widened,
it brings the travel lanes closer in to this constructed bank, we
feel there really maybe, potentially, an issue in sight distance
and we'd like to make sure it was looked at, and luckily enough,
the DOT has to issue a permit. So we're certainly going to ask
them to keep that in consideration.
MR. MACEWAN-Have you gotten any comments from DOT regarding that
question?
MR. MACNAMARA-No. I just, actually, sent, last week, we
initially posed the sight distance question, and today I tried to
call them back and ask them what kind of thoughts they may have
had, and it didn't seem like they were real close to even issuing
that, Tom? Maybe they are. I don't know if they are or not.
MR. NACE-We gave Kennedy the entrance on Pirates Cove, back in
November. He looked at it, made some initial comments. We
resubmitted it to him, and he wanted to coordinate it a little
bit with their, the entrance control study that they're doing
right now on Route 9. We haven't pushed him, because
construction wasn't eminent until spring. So now I'll get back
in touch with them, once this is approved, and make sure that it
gets issued right away.
MR. MACNAMARA-To just give
Tom, it's like 26, 27 feet
the travel lane is now?
order?
you a feeling of distances, I think,
maybe, the edge of the bank to where
Is that right, something along that
MR. NACE-I don't know what the exact number is. I think it's
close to 30 feet, but not quite, 26 feet, yes, 26 feet.
MR. MACNAMARA-Which if, in fact, the road ever got widened, of
course, would be somewhat less than 26 feet. We also mentioned
ingress/egress separation of which, quite honestly, for all the
years I've been reviewing these plans, I never really read that
section where it said the commercial, industrial applications
needed one, and quite honestly I'm not sure ever single one needs
one, but particularly in this case, I'm leaning toward the
feeling that George has, and that is ingress/egress separation of
some type may be beneficial, only because, again, if sight
- 11 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
distance is a concern, it may tend to keep cars from creeping
over into the other lane as they try to get out onto Route 9,
particularly if they're going to be taking a left. People tend
to get lazy and lean into the turn that they're going to make,
and if they get too far and someone's trying to turn in, of
course, you could have a 1~3ft turn conflict. We had, basically,
a comment about the go-kart use parking calculations, and again,
this is a difficult call because there's no set numbers for, how
do you determine parking lots for go-karts, and I think Tom has
addressed it pretty well. Our concern was, down the road, if
it's expanded, where would the additional parking areas be? I
mean, it's certainly been thought about that there's going to be
an expansion. So that's part of the package that ought to be
thought about.
MR. PALING-Well, that's that rookie go-kart and the batting cage
you're talking about now. So they evidentally do plan expansion.
MR. . MACNAM'ARA-And to fu'rther that poi nt, the neighbors across the
way, the ~olf course, I think they talked about possibly adding
another eighteen holes, if that's a successful venture. So there
could be quite a bit of u~e over there, if in fact it all
happens, hopefully it will, in terms of everyone doing well, but
just to throw it out. We had a comment about how the fence up on
top of the go-kart track was going to be fastened and how it
would appear 0is~ally, and I think Tom addressed that as well.
Again, that's pretty high. That was just an issue that it's
going to be seen pretty prominently. I had some minor notes
about gradin~ and stormwater issues, which Tom addressed, some
minor notes about sanitary system notes, DEC, DOH references,
things of that nature, some grading issues over the leachfield.
We sort of wanted to have clarified the ~ood preparation
facilities, just to make sure if a grease trap was needed they
had one, thing's of that nat.ure, and Tom has indicated that it's a
very'limited food service, and that also went toward our last
note, and that was, as with parking, it's a little tough to check
the design flow for sewage because there really isn't a lot of
go-karts that have had a lot of flow studies done on them. 50
Tom certainly took a whack at coming up with a flow estimate, of
which, again, our point isn't so much today, it's if, in fact,
the facility does well and they add on, is it big enough for the
added growth, and how much do they expect that growth to be,
things of that nature, and he has indicated that there is
additional room for additional leachfields if they were to
expand. So that gives basically two safeguards. One is that
there's more room to have an expansion, and two is that there's
a, I'm sure there's going to be some kind of a water meter that
can be checked, in terms of usage~ and you can compare right
away, if in fact, what it was designed for is what it's
receiving, and as long winded as it was, those are my notes.
MR. MACEWAN-Go back to the food preparation for a second, if you
would. Is there a difference in requirements based on the kinds
of vending that you plan on doing?
MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I mean, basically, the ~ore elaborate your
cooking items are going to be, in terms of things like grease
generation and flow rates, particularly if you're going to wash
dishes and things of that nature. That's where your flow numbers
can really be impacted.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the intentions, Tom?
MR. NACE-The intention is no kitchen type food preparation. It
would be maybe something such as these hot dogs on the little
rotisserie unit, whatever they are, something like hot cheese on
nachos, and the rest of it just coke, you know, soft drinks, and
chips and stuff, served directly from a bag. All the containers
- 12 -
-------
"- '-.-/
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
would be paper. So there would be very minimal water use for
wash up, clean up at the end of the day.
MR. BREWER-As far as, you don't show any, and maybe you do and I
missed it, any kind of a building for maintenance of the karts
and, they're going to be gas, I presume.
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. BREWER-I don't see a gas pump or anything, or a tank, or what
you're going to have.
MR. NACE-Okay. Underneath the bridge, in the kart staging area,
will be the area, in off hours, the karts are maintained. There
will probably be, as you see, in the staging area, the staging
lanes come off of here. This part of the staging under the
bridge, there will probably be a temporary winter or summer use
only canopy set up over this area, mainly to keep the sun off the
seats of the cars when they're sitting, so they won't get hot,
but the maintenance would take place off hours there, probably in
the morning before the karts are used. Karts that are not in
service at the time will be 'parked on one of the inner lanes out
of the way.
MR. BREWER-So they're going to do their maintenance outside,
essentially?
MR. NACE-Well, it's underneath. It's under the bridge.
MR. BREWER-Should we see some kind of a detail as far as the gas
tank or anything like that ón the plan?
MR. NACE-What they're anticipating is temporary container
storage. I can give you more details on that. I just don't have
them here.
MR. BREWER-Well, if you're going to have temporary storage, I
don't, I mean, is it a safe idea to have five gallon gas cans
around, or whatever they're going to use? I don't know.
MR. NACE-I'll have to find out for you.
MR. BREWER-I would like to know about that, and as far as the oil
and all that, I mean, only because of my line of work, I know
what is there.
MR. NACE-The track surface is
we'll be working on a concrete
word~) is fairly simple.
all concrete, okay. In essence,
floor. So that any spill (lost
MR. BREWER-I just have a concern for, if you're going to have
open storage gas, I want to make sure it's contained right.
That's all, for safety's sake.
MR. NACE-I'm
law requires.
sure the gas storage, we will have to
That would be safe, I'm sure.
do what the
MR. BREWER-I'm sure they have a plan. I just didn't know what it
was.
MR. NACE-I don't know exactly if they're five gallon containers,
or whether they're, you know, larger card board containers that
they use.
MR. RUEL-This is seasonal.
MR. NACE-Yes, this is seasonal.
- 13 -
(Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. RUEL-What months?
MR. NACE-May to the end of September.
MR. RUEL-And what are the hours of operation?
MR. NACE-We're proposing 10 o'clock in the morning to 11 at
night. These facilities, you know, once you close, your closed.
I think on the golf, they're stopping their ticket sales at 10
o'clock, anticipating that the last people would playoff the
course by 11.
MR. RUEL-The engines in the go-karts, one cylinder, two cylinder?
MR. NACE-They are five horse po~er Honda engines. The karts will
be.
MR. RUEl-Two cycle or four cycle?
MR. NACE-I believe they're four cycle.
MR. RUEL-Do they have mufflers on them, I hope?
MR. NACE-Yes, they do. I'll pass that around. That's what the
karts . look like. In there you'll find sort of a break down
picture of one of the carts. You can t~ll the engines are very
well shrouded around the back.
MR. RUEL-Do you have any information on the noise level, db?
MR. NACE-That's what I've got right here. Sure. Let me give you
each a copy.
MR. RUEL-Is that to be multiplied by 27 cars?
MR. NACE-No. What they did, they had, the people that
manufacture the cars had an independent lab do a noise study, and
the very last page of that, Page 7, is some typical, average
noise levels at 50 feet, and one go kart at full throttle is 62
dba. Ten of them at full throttle is 72 dba. As a comparison, a
light pick up truck going 35 miles an hour on the road, at 50
feet also, has a noise level of 72, the same as 10 of these go
karts. A medium to heavy duty truck at 50 feet has a noise level
of 84.
MR. BREWER-A back up alarm has 97.
MR. NACE-Yes, 72 is not very loud at all.
MR. RUEL-That's for 10 go karts, right?
MR. NACE-That's 10 of them at full throttle, all at full
throttle.
MR. RUEL-And you said that it's possible to have as many as 27?
MR. NACE-Yes, but they would not all be at the same location on
the track, and don't forget, noise decreases as the square of the
distance. So, if you doubled the di$tance to 100 feet, the noise
level goes down by a factor of four, and the idea of why they
tested 10 of these full throttle is that on any typical track,
even 27 of them, the likelihood of haVing any mOTé than 10 in one
area of the track, all at full throttle, would be minimal, okay,
if you watch these things go around the track. The track goes up
and down and tu)-ns. So a lot of the time, you know, the go karts
are not at full throttle.
MR. RUEL-Is it wide enough for two karts?
- 14 -
"--'
",--,'
"'---"
,--../
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. NACE-The track is 24 feet wide, yes, it's wide enough.
MR. RUEL-And what about the rookie one? That also will have go
karts, eventually, perhaps?
MR. NACE-If it's built. When we laid out the
the track in, the planner that was working
specializes in these tracks.
property and put
with this that
MR. RUEL-So you could have another 10 over there and you could
have say a total of about 37 or 40.
MR. NACE-Well, the ones over on the rookie track would not be
anywhere near as large. The smaller karts probably are one and a
half to two horsepower engines.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but it still would increase the noise level.
MR. NACE-Somewhat.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. NACE-But the noise levels we're
light. The typical snowmobile is
That's a big difference.
looking at are relatively
85 dba, and we're at 72.
MR. RUEL-George, do we have an Ordinance on noise levels?
MR. HILTON-No.
MR. GORALSKI-No, we don't.
MR. PALING-Tom, do you have an extra copy of this that you could
Just pass to the people? I think some of them might like to just
kind of look at those readings.
MR. NACE-Okay. Ken corrected me. Those karts are two cylinder,
and I believe the Hondas are four cycle.
MR. RUEL-Just five horsepower?
MR. NACE-Five point five.
MR. HILTON-George, I
cover at this moment,
Planning.
think we have two other things we might
Beautification Committee and Warren County
MR. RUEL-As far as the Beautification on the dumpster, I think
it's already on the plan. They have a stockade fence around it.
MR. HILTON-Warren County Planning, on March 13th, 1996, approved
it, and the comment made was, "With the condition that all
signage be per the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, with the approval
of the NYS DOT for ingress/egress and also all landscaping per
the plan is completed prior to the operation of the business."
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-That's Warren County?
MR. HILTON-That's Warren County, yes.
MR. RUEL-AII landscaping in prior to operation.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RUEL-But Beautification had recommended something else.
- 15 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
MR. PALING-Yes.
George.
Why don't you let George cover it.
Go ahead,
MR. RUEL-Ther~'s another letter 'there.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I'm just reviewing this real quick. It's kind
of lengthy. The Beautification Committee, on March 11, 1996,
reviewed this proposal. There was some discussion. Mr. Lorenz
questioned the sign and if it will include "Pirates Cove". The
end result was that they made a motion to approve as submitted.
It was seconded and approved on March 11th.
MR. PALING~Well,
little confusing.
around dumpster.
fencing around the
approved as submitted, once again, that's a
There's a.whole paragraph here, oka)', fencing
Now is there any problem with the stockade
dumpster?
MR. NACE-We've already shown it. It's ory the site plan.
MR. RUEL-Yes, it's on there.
MR. PALING-All right. Then the next thing is retaining wall will
be made of pre-set split faced stone concrete block.
MR. NACE-That's correct. That's what we had told them.
MR. PALING-That's okay. All right. Then the
we have a landscaping plan. Do we know if
this, from Beautification Committee?
landscaping. Now
that complies with
MR. HILTON-Yes, that's what they were reviewing.
MR. PÄLING-Okay. All right. Then I think we can go ahead.
MR. RUEL-I don't think it's a problem.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I have one other question. I look on your map and you
have a limit of tree clearing on here, Tom, and I .know that the
site plan's not in front of us for the future batting cages or
whatever, but what happens to that limit if you do decide to come
in for that?
MR. NACE-Then it gets modified with the new site plan.
MR. BREWER-So what'~ the purpose of hav~ng the limit?
MR. NÄCE-For this site plan.
MR. BREWER-Just for this?
MR. NACE-Yes. That's normal. If a site plan is approved, it's
for what is proposed at that time, okay. The future, we're just
trying to say that, yes, there may be something in the future.
We're not guaranteeing that there will or won't be.
MR. BREWER~Did we put a limit on Pirates Cove?
MR. NACE-For?
MR. BREWER-Limit of clßaring or whatever in the back?
MR. NACE-There was, yes.
MR. BREWER-My own personal opinion is I, when we put a condition
on it, I don't like to just take it lightly. I like to put it on
there and mean that it's on there for a feason, not just to put
- 16 --
''"---
~
'~
'--"
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
it on there, I guess, is what I'm saying. That's all.
MR. NACE-Yes. We've shown what clearing is necessary for this
particular site plan.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Is the divider on here?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. NACE-No. The divider, there's a couple of things that came
up in the comments here, let me respond to. The entrance
divider, I'll woyk with DOT. If they allow it, we will do it,
okay. I don't know, at this stage, whether or not they will
allow it.
MR. RUEL-What have you got there now, a planter?
MR. BREWER-Isn't it in our Code that he has to have it?
MR. GORALSKI-It's our Zoning Ordinance, says you have to have it.
MR. BREWER-You have to have it, not if they let you.
MR. NACE-Well, but DOT, controlling the entrance to the road, DOT
has the last say.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, you'd have to get a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals, then, based on that.
MR. MACEWAN-They didn't have a
didn't have a problem with Mt.
problem there?
problem with Wal-Mart.
Royal. Why would they
They
have a
MR. NACE-I don't know, but Wal-Mart wasn't a state road.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is, Wal-Mart.
MR. NACE-Wal-Mart. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of K-Mart. I'm
sorry. Okay. So we will provide one.
MR. RUEL-What about an additional buffer zone along the southern
end of the property to keep the noise level down?
MR. NACE-We do have a fence line here and some landscaping. I
don't think that, visually, there is a problem there. If noise
were to be a problem, we would certainly work with Agway, and
there are several things that can be done there, either a hard
noise buffer, i.e. some landscaping timbers that are put
vertically to, like along the highways, or a dense screen of
evergreens can also serve as a fairly good noise buffer.
MR. RUEL-Would you show that on the plan, the landscape plan?
MR. NACE-Well, what we propose is that we would do that if, after
we get into operation, if Agway, we'd work out a deal with them
now that we will commit to do it, if Agway feels that it's
necessary, once the track's in operation.
MR. RUEL-I'm not talking about Agway. I'm talking about the
Planning Board would like to see some shrubbery or some sort of
barrier there.
MR. NACE-There's two different things here, okay. There are two
different issues. The visual impact, I think, is not an issue at
this stage. We do have some landscaping. This is the section of
Agway that they use for outdoor storage of plants and sales area.
- 17 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
1 would envision, if there is an issue there, that it's noise,
and what we do for visual landscaping might be different than
what we do for noise buffering, okay.
MR. PALING-Yes. Lets let the public hearing take over, in so far
as that is concerned. Okay. Any other questions of the Board,
or comments? All right. If not, we will open the public hearing
on this matter, at the present time. Whoever would like to
speak, come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
J1 vI VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-Jim Valente. Co-owner of Agway.
MIKE VALENTE
MR. M. VALENTE-Mike Valente, brother of Jim, also co-owner.
MR. J. VALENTE-Noise is the issue with us. First of all, you're
saying you're probably going to be open, they sai~ ~h~t they're
going to be open at the beginning of May. That is not April.
That is May that they're going to be opening ,this go-kart track?
MR. PALING-We'll find out. Okay.
MR. J. VALENTE-Okay, and I'd also like to know the time of day.
What time are they going to open in the morning and close?
MR. PALING-Well, it was stated they would like to do 10 a. to 11
p.
MR. RUEL-Yes, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Ten to eleven, thirteen hours.
MR. J. VALENTE-Okay, and then we've got 27 cars that will be
running on the track, and they'll clust~r up a bit when they're
running around through the slow people. So there may be eight or
nine of them that are going to be together, at one time. That's
what 1 would (lost words) as far as noise.
MR. PALING-It could be.
MR. J. VALENTE-Now, what Mark had dropped off at the store, I see
they had a test run 10 feet away from the track, with one car.
Now, it looks like, what is the dimension here?
MR. NACE-It's about 10 feet.
MR. J. VALENTE-About 10 feet. O~ay. Now they did the test run
at 10 feet, with one car on a flat run surface, at 75 decibels.
. They have it here listed at one car running around the track at
75 decibels. That is correct there, on that test run?
MR. RUEL-One car?
MR. J. VALENTE-One car running around this track would have the
noise of 75 decibels.
MR. PALING-Are you referring to the sam~ report that was passed
out?
MR. J. VALENTE-Yes. This is a report. that they had passed out.
MR. PALING-Because it was 72, I thought.
- 18 -
""---'
---'
-..-'
'~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. RUEL-Sixty-two.
MR. PALING-Sixty-two, and then 10 was 72.
MR. J. VALENTE-At 10 feet.
MR. RUEL-This is 50 feet.
MR. J. VALENTE-Okay.
there, Page 5.
I'm looking at 10 feet.
Look through
MRS. LABOMBARD-I see it. It's 10 feet.
MR. GORALSKI-Here it is. He's right. Table 3-1.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Going up hill, it's 77.
MR. J. VALENTE-Going up hill, 77. Now as I read this, four cars
around this track, spaced out evenly, would raise the decibel up
to, on a flat run surface, to 81, up hill, 82.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. J. VALENTE-Now we take 27 cars running around this track,
which I imagine they're in a cluster of maybe 10 together, at
some curves and some points around this track during the day.
They')"e not going to all be running spaced out 27. I'm afraid it
would raise this decibel up to 85 to 90. Now, the decibels are
confusing with North, and I'd like to change this to logarithmic,
okay, and if we're speaking, here, I'd like to give you
something. Now with the foreign cars, now that is the GX-160
engine, the five and a half horsepower engine that they're using,
right? Okay. Also, I'd like to know, there are the sidekick
cars that they have on this. Are they going to be having the
sidekick cars where two passengers run? And if so, is that
sidekick going to carry that five and a half horsepower engine
also, because they do make another one for that one, which would
be the GX-240, which is an eight horsepower engine. Now, with
thé decibels at 80, with four cars, and we're speaking at 60,
logarithmic at 70 would be 10 times greater than what I'm
speaking at. At 80, would be 100 times greater than what I'm
speaking at. Now with the added cars clustering together, those
decibels could reach to 85 to 90 decibels, which would be 1,000
times greater than what I am speaking, at 90, and the problem I
have, this area through here is my nursery, a quiet setting where
people roam and shop for flowers and shrubs. I feel this noise
level, at 500 times of what I'm speaking, is a detriment to my
business, and my brother Mike has some concerns also on the noise
level. I'd turn this over to him now.
MR. M. VALENTE-Thank you. Well, Jim kind of said it all. We're
very concerned about the noise factor. We've been there for 10
years, and we do an awful lot of business April through August,
selling outside in our nursery area, flowers and shrubs. The
problem intensifies even more when you deal with elderly people,
because their hearing is not as good as somebody that's younger.
50 noise is a big thing. We're also, fumes is another thing, the
smell. I don't know what kind of smell this is going to create,
this whole project. That's another thing to think about.
Another thing is vandalism with young kids. It's already bad on
this road. That's not going to help at all. These are just
issues I want you guys to think about. That's all. Thank you.
MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay.
who would care to speak?
Thank you. Is there anyone else
MARIANNE MCDONOUGH
- 19 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MRS. MCDONOUGH-Hi. My name is Marianne McDonough, and I own and
operate the Greycourt Motel with my family, which is directly
across the street from the facility that's proposed. My husband
has his law office at the same location, and my daughter owns a
gift shop, and our main concern is the noise le0el. It's a
family motel which has been established almost 50 years, with
guests returning summer after summer because of the peaceful
atmosphere, and I think the attraction is great, but I just think
that the noise level generated by these karts is going to
adversely affect guests staying at our motel. If we can be
assured that it's not going to be a problem, I'll go for it. We
hear cars going every night and every day, but it doesn't keep
people upset or saying, God, do we have to listen to that for
another couple of hours? And I just think that they should take
this into consideration. Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
ART SMITH
MR. SMITH-My name's Art Smith, and 1 represent the Lake George
Zoo, and our only concern is what we had with the miniature golf,
the fence to keep their people away. The fence line will stop
right up there at the end of their boundary line, and I guess I'd
be asking to have Ken continue on with the fence, and I'll stress
it again. I am concerned about the drainage. I really am.
There's a deep hole, and their parking lot's going to be hisher
than some of!I!.l::. L3nd ,"ight now, and the noise level. I don't
know. It probably will be a problem, maybe, for me in the
evening. People hear my lion, when he roars, down in Glen Lake,
and people complain about it sometimes. My animals will probably
adjust to it, but our main concern is another fence continued on,
so that more people from the parking lot won't come over, because
if they stay o~en until 11 o'clock, .there's going to be, for the
go-karts, (lost words) more of your older people, and that's what
we're af~aid of. We'd like to see a fence c6ntinued on to the
end of his property.
MR. RUEL-Where is your property in relation to this plan?
MR. SMITH-North. This would be it right here.
feet from my fence line, this corner right here.
Now they're 80
MR. RUEL-Now whit fence would you like extended?
MR. SMITH-You've stipulated for Pirates Cove to put a fence in to
your liking.
MR. PALING-That's to protect the kids and all.
MR. SMITH-Right, to keep them from coming to me.
MR. RUEL-Yes, right.
MR. SMITH-And say Ken's line, this is the fence line right here,
that, their p~ope~ty line. So they've got to come up to here and
stop, and what I'm asking is for Ken to go on with the fence.
MR. RUEL-And you want the type of fence that people can't put
their arms through it, right?
MR. SMITH-Well, you guys stated, like, a five foot fence it's got
to be, but you didn't decide how far away it should be, and that
was left up to your opinion.
MR. PALING-I thought we did decide?
MR. BREWER-Yes, we did.
- 20 -
-/
~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. PALING-We did decide, chain link. I thought we decided the
height and the distance between it.
MR. SMITH-No, you didn't say how far.
MR. BREWER-Yes, I'm pretty sure we did. I think it was five feet
inside the line or something.
MR. SMITH-Well, they were against that.
MR. BREWER-I'm pretty sure that was a condition.
MR. SCHACHNER-We all think that you also specified.
MR. PALING-I think everyone's in sympathy with the fence. So
we'll address that issue. Yes.
MR. SMITH-And the parking lot, like I said, is higher than some
of my land right now, and they're taking a lot of trees out.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to talk?
KEITH FERRARO
MR. FERRARO-My name is Keith Ferraro. I'm one of the owners of
Skateland, which also operates a go-kart track right up the
street. One of the questions L have is, a few years ago when we
proposed our smaller kiddie track out in front, there was a 50
foot setback off Route 9 which we had to get a variance for, and
now I've heard that there's a 75 foot buffer from Route 9. Did
they receive a variance to be 27 feet off the road?
MR. HILTON-The determination has been made, in this case, that
this track is not a structure. Therefore, it doesn't have to
adhere to that setback.
MR. PALING-Did something different happen with his?
MR. HILTON-I am not familiar with this application, was not here
at that time.
MR. PALING-Okay. I wasn't either.
MR. BREWER-It may not be a structure, but, boy, it's permanent to
me. I think, in my mind, I would want a setback.
MR. PALING-How far was a setback required of you?
MR. FERRARO-At that
variance off that.
time it was 50 feet, and
So we could go 40 feet.
we got a 10
foot
MR. PALING-So you did 40.
MR. FERRARO-Right. They allowed us to do that.
MR. RUEL-And this is, what, 27?
MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't know why the setback doesn't apply.
MR. FERRARO-The next comment is, we have a full time maintenance
person who works on karts all day long. Maybe the karts aren't
going to break down, but after a while, I know they will. So
- 21 -
~,
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
that that will need to be addressed as well, in the plans.
MR. PALING-From what standpoint do you mean? Why do we care?
MR. FERRARO-Well, they just don't have a shed to work on them.
They've got to work on them under the bridge.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. BREWER-I don't believe that, Bob. I mean, look at Story town.
They have a maintenance building for their things. Gaslight has
a maintenance building.
MR. PALING-If they want to do it under a bridge or under a
canopy, I'm not sure that we can.
MR. BREWER-I'm not saying we can stop them, but I just think it's
probably going to end up having to be some sort of a building or
whatever. That's why I wanted to know about the gas. I mean,
they're going to have to have places to put their tools, their
chemicals, their oil, their gas, their spark plugs, whatever else
they use. Are they going to leave that outside?
MR. PALING-Well, we'd be concerned mostly with fuel and oil
storage, that kind of thing. Where they put their tools, I don't
kno~..¡ .
MR. BREWER-I'm just giving that as an example as to what they're
going to have.
MR. PALING-Well, fuel storage I think is a very, very important
issue.
MR. FERRARO-The only other comment I have is, Ì'm sure all the
noise level tests and things are done on fairly new cars the
motors will last several years, which ours do. We use the same
kind of motor. We use the GX-140, which is slightly smaller.
It's only a five horse. It's not a 5.5, but over time, we only
have 15 karts that run, all right. They're proposing 27.
Mufflers aren't always brand new. As things wear in, I think you
need to consider the noise level that will apPßar down stream a
little bit as well.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right.
then we will close the public hearing.
If not,
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-All right. George, I think you wanted to, you had
some questions.
MR. STARK-Everybody's concerned about
already went into the noise a little bit.
the noise, Tom. You
What about the fumes?
MR. NACE-Okay. These karts, and I didn't make a xerox of that
portion of this for you, but the newer karts have the California
emission syste,m controls on them, which limit the pollutants from
them, much more stringently than the older karts. I don't have
any studies that I can tell you, blah, blah, blah, but they are
fairly strictly controlled with the California pollution
standards.
MR. STARK-Okay. Now you're putting in a concrete track, as
opposed to an asphalt track?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STARK-What's the depth of the concrete? How thick is it?
- 22 -
---
/
'---
~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96)
MR. NACE-Offhand, I don't know.
MR. STARK-The point I'm getting at is, what about the (lost
words) cycles cracking the, is it all rebar in there?
MR. NACE-Just reinforced concrete, the same as.
MR. STARK-Continuous pour?
MR. NACE-No, no. It looks like it's six inches.
MR. STARK-And that won't crack?
MR. NACE-Not if the Joints are well done, no.
MR. STARK-What's the distance setback from the Route 9 curb to
the start of the track, that furthest east point of the track?
MR. NACE-I don't have a scale with me. From the right-of-way, or
from the?
MR. STARK-From the curbing.
MR. NACE-From the curbing on Route 9 to the nearest point of the
track is about 40 feet.
MR. STARK-It's 40 feet.
MR. HILTON-It appears to be 35 feet. The property line to the
east, going to the edge of the track.
MR. NACE-No, what they asked was from
the white line, is actually 50 feet,
little narrower, between 45 ànd 50 feet.
the curb on Route 9, from
maybe down here it's a
MR. PALING-Forty-five and fifty, okay.
MR. NACE-To address the question that came up, we got into the
setback requirements on, if you'll remember right, on Pirates
Cove, because they have what could be considered a permanent site
improvement in their pond, okay, that comes within the 75 foot
setback on Route 9, and the determination was made by the Zoning
Administrator that that did not, nor does this site improvement,
constitute a building.
MR. STARK-Okay. What about the bridge? How high is , the bridge
off the surrounding area?
MR. NACE-It's about nine and a half, from the top surface of the
bridge to the surface of the track underneath is about nine and a
half feet.
MR. STARK-The track underneath dips down?
MR. NACE-Yes. This whole track goes up and down.
MR. STARK-Say you put a six foot stockade fence along the south
side, okay. How high above the fence would the bridge be?
MR. NACE-The top surface of the track is at an elevation 479.
The property line along the adjacent property line there, along
Agway is about 474 presently. So if you put a five foot fence
up, you'd be about even.
MR. STARK-So you if you put it six foot, it would block, of
course the cars are two or three foot high.
MR. NACE-Yes.
The car itself is probably two and a half foot
- 23 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
tall. There definitely are ways of mitigating that noise,
without a real high structure, noise absorbing material, not
necessarily a stockade fence.
MR. STARK-What I would propose, and this is just myself, Tom.
You're familiar with Wal-Mart's fence, the stockade fence?
MR. NACE-No, I'm not.
MR. STARK-You're not? It's eight foot high, and it's very good
quality. You look ~t some of the stockade fences, like the one
that was just here before us, TPI. They put a stockade fence up
two years ago, and the thing's fallirig'down. It's junk. I would
propose putting an eight foot stockade fence along the whole
south side, on your land, b(~tween you and Agway, put at least ~3i x
foot arborvitaes the whole way, so the people over there don't
even see the fence on the south side. I propose, on the north
side, putting, and I'~ not sure of what we approved on the north
side. I think it was six foot stockade fence.
MR. NACE-You're talking about to Animal Land?
MR. STARK-Yes. Where the parking is, I would propose extending
the fence the total length of the north sidi, to totally isolate
Animal Land from this two parcels of property, Pirates Cove and
the track, and I would also recommend that you put a building up,
some kind of a building, down low, to do your ~ork in arid to
store your gas in and everything, because if you store your gas
outside, the fumes are going to get outside also. Also, one
other thing, I would limit the operations to 10 o'clock at night,
not 11, 10.
MR. NACE-Okay. One thing, let me clarify, with the maintenance
on the karts, okay, there is an area, underneath the building,
that will be used for pull and engine, go rebuild th~ engine type
maintenance, in the basement of the building.
MR. PALING-The office/arcade building.
MR. NACE-In the arcade buildin~, okay. It's not ~n outside area
to take the kart into and tear the kart down, okay, but most of
these karts, now, are pulling the engine, pulling the engine is
fairly simple. The fence along Animal Land, okay, we will
certainly agree to do that, if we did any future development on
the site. I'm not sure that it's really necessary for what we're
proposing. The parking lot, the lower end of the paiking lot,
while I'm on the parking lot, let me address drainage. The north
side of the parking lot, the side closes~ to Animal Land, they're
concerned about drainage. We have that whole end of the parking
area that slopes toward the north, toward Animal Land, we have
the whole end of that parking lot curbed, and three drywalls
there that will take more than what drainage comes off that
parking surface. The parking lot is up at elevation 470. The
adjacent property line along Animal Land is down around elevation
460, 456. It's quite a bit lower, and we're not, you know, if
you look on the landscaping plan, we aren't even proposing
clearing. This is Pirates Cove property. Here's Animal Land,
and we're not even proposing clearing that area out there. I
think, in the future, if he develops more here, and we need the
additional and expand our parking up this way, or do any clearing
up in here, or any grading that would make it easier to get from
the parking lot to Animal Land's property, at that point, we
would certainly agree to fencing that property line. I'm just
not sure that it's really necessary at thii stage of the game.
MR. STARK-Okay. Now, do you, in your opinion, think that if you
did have an eight foot stockade fence, with the trees south of
the fence, between the fence and Agway's property, and you plant
- 24 -
--
---
---../
'~'
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
five or six footers and they grow fairly rapidly and everything,
you wouldn't even be able to see the people going over the bridge
over there?
MR. NACE-No. With the fence, an eight foot fence that close to
the people over in hé"e, the sight line would be way up. By the
time you hit the bridge, you sight line would be well above the
bridge. So, yes, I think, you know, doing some good buffering
here, we can certainly reduce the noise. Some of the noise
figures, I don't ~uite agree with the interpretation of them.
The figure at 10 feet away, for one or four karts, assumes that
you're 10 feet away from all four of those karts, and that's
pretty close.
MR. PALING-What George has proposed seems to be a good idea for
both sight and sound. Do you have any othér suggestion that
would be more effective for sound than what he's saying?
MR. NACE-Well, the fence, I'm not a sound expert, okay. The
fence, I would want to take a look at the stockade fence yoU are
referring to.
MR. STARK-It's much more expensive than what we're used to
putting up, a six footer.
MR. NACE-'I'd want to look at that and see what the sound, you
know, deadening characteristics of it are.
MR. MACEWAN-Go to electric karts and you'll solve 80 percent of
your problems right there.
MR. BREWER-They won't go as fast, though.
MR. NACE-The other thing I would like to address is that, as far
as the noise to the motel uDits, I think that we are at least
twice the distance from the motel units with the closest portion
of our track as Route 9 is. I think that if you look at the
noise figures, the noise from regular car and truck traffic on
Route 9, impacts that site, the motel site, a lot more than we
eVér could with the go karts. Another thing there is that, on
the go karts, these two turns are banked inward, that's another
thing to remember with noise. A lot of this track is banked to
the inside. It's quite good, on some of these tight turns,
there's as much as five feet of elevation difference across the
24 foot track.
MR. RUEL-What's the maximum speed of the go kart?
MR. NACE-Fifteen miles and hour.
MR. BREWER-In that booklet, the recommended speed is 15, but they
can go up to 35.
MR. NACE-That's one of the reasons, this is a (lost word) track,
okay. There's no straightaway here that they can, what makes it
exciting is the fact that with a lot of turns, you think you're
going faster than you are because of the tightness of the turns.
MR. RUEL-You have governors on them?
MR. NACE-I think they do, yes.
MR. STARK-Excuse me for a moment. I have a question for the
Valentes. Would that be agreeable to you, to have an eight foot
stockade fence with solid arborvitaes down the south side?
MR. J. VALENTE-George, I would need a study done on how many
decibels that's going to reduce it to the 10 feet, how many
- 25 -
(Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting
:3/19/96 )
, '
decibels. He's showing me. here, at 150 feet, with a design sound
wall, at 150 feet in here, it's dropping the decibels, ~ believe,
five. Still, like what 5katela~d said, with maintenance on these
things, with two, three years old, what I have said at 81 with 4,
that is going to go up. The design on that at 81 is at probably
top shape car, new. Now with the wear and tear, over a year or
two years, the sound's going to be up. Ît's like a push mower,
you know. It's nice when it's new. A few years down the road,
that thing starts making a lot of noise, and I don't think you
can drop the decibels, being 10 feet away from my nursery, that's
running all the way along that line, enough to satisfy me.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Could I ask a question? I know that Skateland
said that he only has 17, 15 operable at one time, and Ken is
proposing 27. 50 that means that it's conceivable that all 27
carts woul~ .be in operation at one time. Well, maybe we could
strike a happy medium here and not have as many cars on the
track.
MR. BREWER-How are you going to patrol that, Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Number One by the number of cars you own,
and by counting and seeing, okay, we've got this many out there.
We've got so much time left for this individual. I mean, I'm
just suggesting something here.
MR. BREWER-No, I'm guessing enforcement. I mean, if you tell
them they can only have 15 cars out there.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm not saying 15, but I'm just saying a lesser
number.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. 5TARK-I have a question for Bill.
expertise in sound reduction at all?
Bill, do you have any
MR. MACNAMARA-No, but I know there are ways of, whether it's a
real time simulation or using data that's out there doing it,
quite honestly, we didn't have any of the sound data ahead of
time. Should we have asked for it, probably, maybe not. I do
think it's a valid point. Number One, let me tell you my
concern, I think I me~tioned earlier. When you get into sound, I
think it would be important to look at like what a horn can do,
in terms of how 'loud a hor n is, in terms of decibels. I'm just
thinking with the number of kids walking back and forth, and we
already had some concerns about traffic getting out onto Route 9,
you know, the track is right on 'top of the access point. I'd
like someone to say that we looked at comparable noise levels and
that, yes, horns can be heard, ambulances can be heard, things
like that. I mean, it's pretty close.
MR. BREWER-How do we get that data to us?
MR. MACNAMARA-Well, do you want us to do it, or staff, whatever,
basically look to see someone with, you know, first hand
expertise in sound study.
MR. GORALSKI-I think we would want the applicant to provide.
MR. MACNAMARA-Whoever. I don't know all the logistics of it.
MR. PALING-We don't even have an ordinance to go by. Aren't we
getting into a dangerous area if we come out with noise levels
and we don't know what we're shootÁng for?
MR. MACNAMARA~AII I asked for, Bob. was some kind of comparison
of a traffic horn, ambulance, siren, based on the separation from
- 26 -
'''--"'
.-/
--.-/
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
the track to that access point. That's all I'm asking, and at
that point, I guess you could make some comparison.
MR. MACEWAN-Bob, it all falls under the powers of this Board. I
mean, we can require and request any information that's going to
help us come to some sort of conclusion for this. I mean, part
of the Great Escape roller coaster, that was part of their impact
study dealt with the noise and potential noise, and all sorts of
studies were done for that.
MR. PALING-Yes. I think also, you notice, going along different
highways, that they have barriers up where they're building
subdivisions, and this seems to be more for noise than it is for
anything else, and I wonder if we could ask that that avenue be
looked at, too, instead of the stockade fence, put up some of the
barriers that you see on the road, like through New Jersey and
all.
MR. RUEL-Bob, we're only guessing here. We ought to have experts
look into it, and we can have a study made.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what he's suggesting.
MR. RUEL-Well, he's suggesting some sort of a highway barrier.
MR. BREWER-I would suggest, in ~ opinion, that we have some kind
of data gathered for us and find out. I mean, there's got to be
other kart tracks around, and find out what they did.
MR. STARK-Mr. Ferraro, do you have any data on this for your, you
know, 50 feet away from yours, or 10 feet or anything like that?
MR. FERRARO-I haven't done any studies with decibels or anything
on ours personally, no.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. RUEL-I have a question for Skateland. You have 17 cars. On
an average, how many cars would you say are operating?
MR. FERRARO-It depends upon the time of day. We have a peak
time, which is normally in the afternoon and also in the early
evening. So it's quite possible that all of them would be
operating at those times, and also we havè the screams and such,
like the roller coaster, the people who are not only along the
fence watching their friends, cheering them on, as well as the
people that are on the karts making noise because they're having
a good time.
MR. STARK-You're open until 10?
MR. FERRARO-We're open until midnight, on our go kart track. The
water slide is directly behind our building. We agreed with the
Lake George Campsites to close that by 10 o'clock. That was
within our agreement.
MR. STARK-Do you do that much business between 10 and 12, with
the go kart track?
MR. FERRARO-There are times, yes.
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. M. VALENTE-Could I just add one thing to what my brother was
saying is outside, when we're doing business outside, April
through August, and dealing with all the different kinds of
customers, you know, we want to be able to talk to them and
communicate with them, and have to raise their voice to them, or
- 27 -
(Queensbu)"y Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
them raise their voice to us. That's a big concern of ours. We
don't want to have to be yelling back and forth to each other,
because I don't think it's good for them, and it's not good for
us either. That's one thing I wanted to say.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. NACE-First of all, as you've just heard,
track is open until midnight. We are, if you
we are separated from the campground, as much
the go kart track up the street. This is the
If you look on anything except the landscaping
the property line is way back here. It's over
back of the track to the campground area.
the other go kart
look at our track,
if, not more, than
end of our track.
plan, you'll see
300 feet from the
MR. MACEWAN-If you expand, which I'm hearing a lot of talk about
tonight, which direction are you expanding into?
MR. NACE-This way, but it would not be the same facilities, okay.
If you look at our expansion, what's back in here is a batting
cage.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but if you cut down trees to expand, you're
cutting down.
MR. NACE-Well, take a look at where we've shown that.
think you'll find.
I don't
MR. BREWER-Yes, you've cut them all, pretty much.
have a big problem with the limit of clearing.
the purpose?
That's wh)i I
I mean, what's
MR. NACE-Well, what we're here for is the site plan that's in
front of you.
MR. BRElrJER-Right, Tom, but what we're doing is planning, though,
aren't we, supposedly?
MR. NACE-Yes, we are.
MR. MACEWAN-But through your own admission, you've been talking
about expanding here tonight already. You're the one who brought
it up, not us.
MR. NACE-Correct, okay. The facilities we've shown are possible
future facilities. They're not something that we're proposing
here in front of you tonight to construct, okay. You'll have,
when we come back, you'll have data, if we come back for future
expansion, on how good a neighbor this thing is, how well it fits
in with the adjoining uses, okay. If, at that point, you feel
tha,t we haven't fit in, you don't have to approve anything we've
proposed, okay. What we're discussing is this. What I'm trying
to tell you, trees or no trees, that we are further away from the
campground facility.
MR. RUEL-Tom, I don't hea~ any comments from campgrounds, it's
all been from the southern part of the property.
MR. NACE-That's been brought ou't, an,d the hours of operation with
the other go kart track and ~he waterslide.
MR. STARK-The other track is open to 12, but there's not a motel
across the street. Mrs. McDonough has the Greycourt across the
street, and cars go up and down ~he road all night, but they're
not taking off from Agway. TheY'J~ not taking off from Suttons
or anything else around her property. If they're across the
street and you've got 10 people in there, and they come out of
there and they're going fast and they want to pullout and go
- 28 -
./
'-'
''"--''''''
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
left or pullout and go south, that's increased traffic at that
time of night to her motel.
MR. NACE-That amount of traffic, with what is the through traffic
on Route 9, okay, the amount of traffic in and out of this site
is a very insignificant portion of the total traffic. It's a
very small portion of the total traffic on Route 9, and all of
this traffic will be passenger cars. On Route 9, there is also
truck traffic, which is considerably noisier than passenger,
truck traffic, and we are far enough from the motel that our
impact of our noise will be much less than what's on Route 9
existing. As far as noise with Agway, we are certainly willing
to sit down, work with them, to come to a resolution of what is
the best type of noise barrier to construct between the two, and
have a fall back position that, if they don't like what we
propose, then we come back to what you suggested and use an eight
foot high substantial fence and landscaping.
MR. STARK-Well, lets propose this, okay. Why don't you meet with
Mr. Valente and his brother, and come back next week.
MR. NACE--Sur e .
MR. STARK-Okay. We've got a light schedule next week. I don't
think one week is going to matter, and then maybe you can also
get more information on decibel.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Could I also ask Mr. Valente, what are your hours
that your store is open? I mean, is it open longer in the spring
and summer?
MR. J. VALENTE-Yes. We're open until eight o'clock at night.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Eight, okay, and you open at nine in the morning?
MR. J. VALENTE-We're open at eight o'clock in the morning.
MR. PALING-I'm sorry, the public hearing is closed, but we've let
others comment. If you want to come up to the mic, go ahead.
FRED MOONEY
MR. MOONEY-Yes. I'm Fred Mooney from Lake George Campsites, and
Mr. Gardner gave you a letter on the sound from Skateland, okay.
You're saying that there's no sound that comes from Skateland,
but we do live in the white house at Lake George Campsites which
is over 600 some feet from Skateland. Skateland does make a lot
of noise, okay, with their go karts going around, and especially
their screaming, and when the cars smash together, that sound
travels. You can go to the other end of our campground where he
is developing, and you can hear that sound. So if they're only
300 and some odd feet from our campsite, okay, with all the
screaming and noise, there's no way we're going to be able to
transfer our people that are in the woods from the other sites at
160 all the way to the back side, and there won't be any way you
can hide sound anywhere. He's saying that we're not going to get
hit with any sound. That sounds travels miles, especially when
they smash into each other. They have signs up saying do not
smash into each other, ~nd they do penalize people, and they do
take them off the court, okay, but that sound travels, and he
does give us a call when they do have problems and they are
staying up late, so we can transfer the people from one site to
another. It's not the sound of the vehicles themselves. It's
the people that are screaming and smashing into each other,
especially the brakes when they put them on, and if they're
working on a vehicle, after hours or before hours, that means
that the people that are sleeping in our campground on the other
side, when they rev this vehicle up, or start smashing on
- 29 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting :3/19/96)
something because the metal's bent, this metal sound is going to
travel right through our campground, and that's what we're going
to hear from people. They're going to want their money back.
They're going to want everything, and the business is just going
to go down the tubes. I don't think it's proper and I don't
think it's right. That's all he wanted me to tell you.
MR. PALING-Now is there anyone else that wants to speak? Okay.
Come on back, and after this, we'll close, close the public
hear i ng.
MARK LEVACK
MR. LEVACK-Hi. My name's Mark Levack. I'm an agent here on
behalf of Ken Ermiger. I'd like to comment that I've heard a lot
of comments this evening on concerns from neighbor~ and I'd like
t.o say that I've had the p1easur(~ of working with Ken on a couple
of projects in the past, and if you take a drive through the D.P.
Dean Hotel, up at Lake George, or if you take a look at the
Boulders Hotel up at Lake George, or if you take a look at what
he's done with the Queensbury Carwash, I think we can all agree
that Ken is a quality developer, and as he sits here tonight and
listens to these comments, he's in agreement that there are
issues to be mitigated here~ He's only asking for what is zoned,
what is permitted. He's not seeking a single variance for relief
in zoning here this evening. He's totally prepared, 100 percent,
to work with the neighbors to address their concerns on noise,
but I'd like to just put in my vote for a recommendation that we
wor k out a W01:st case scenar io and just see how it goes, see if
their concerns are as large, a month from now, or a month after
the track is open, as they are sitting here tonight, not knowing
really what the decibels are or what the affect of those number
of cars will have on the track. I mean, to me, that's just
cooperation and working together and making sure that both people
can utilize their land as it's zoned, as it's permitted, to the
fullest extent, economic benefit to either one of them.
Personally, from a highest and best use, I don't see that large
signage, George, as being the total answer, because of your lines
of sight coming up Route 9. I don't think Agway wants its sign
in the front of its business buffered any more than Ken would
1i ke to see his operation buffered, but I thi nk wi th prope,-
landscaping and a "lets work together in the future" attitude,
which Ken is 100 percent committed to do for this project, I
think we might be able to address those concerns, rather than
make decisions on issues we don't have complete facts on here
tonight. Thanks.
MR. STARK-8ill~ George or John, do you have any ideas or comments
what we could ask the applicant to do before next week? Do yOU
have any ideas to ask for?
MR. PALING-I'll tell you what, come on up, and lets finish the
public hearing again.
MR. SMITH-Just one more question. I'm really concerned about the
fence. You iake from ten o'clock on, it's not mom and pop and
their little kids out the+e. I have trouble with the
campgrounds. We've kicked a few people out because of it. They
do come to my animals. You can't stop it. That's why I asked
for the fence on Pirates Cove, and with only 80 to 100 feet,
they're going to run right over it. I don't care if they're
sitting in the parking lot at 10, 11 o'clock at night. They're
going to be drinking, carrying on, and they're going to come
right to my animals. Please, I need the fence.
MRS. LABOMBARD-We also have to worry about the welfare of all the
people in the area. So I think you have a real valid point
there, and I don't think, don't loose any sleep over it.
- :30 -
-"
./
'--~
'---'"
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
MR. SMITH-Yes. I don't want their people to get hurt, and I
don't want mY animals to get hU1-t.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
worry.
That fence will be taken care of. Don't
MR. SMITH-Okay.
MR. PALING-Okay.
closed.
Then we'll consider the public hearing closed,
MR. STARK-I asked John or George or Bill if you have any comments
at all on this. What could we ask for?
MR. HILTON-I'm going to hand the mic over to Bill in a second,
here. I would be interested to see some kind of noise study,
some information on decibel levels on the property, how it
affects that intersection, how it affects traffic that comes into
the site on Route 9. We had some concerns, if you're sitting at
that intersection and there's an ambulance going down the street,
are you going to hear it? If there's, I don't know how many, 70
decibels going into your ear from a track that's 20 feet away. I
think we need to see some kind of noise data or some kind of
information that give the Board and ourselves here a better idea
of how the noise will affect the site and the overall area.
MR. STARK-Tom, can you get that done by next week?
MR. NACE-Okay. Let me make sure, you're
sitting at the intersection being able to
sounds out on?
concerned with people
hear safety related
MR. HILTON-That's one of the concerns.
MR. NACE-Okay, but that's something you brought up that's
different and apart from the other sounds,
MR. HILTON-That's one of !.!lZ concerns, yes.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. HILTON-As Bill mentioned, with pedestrians walking through
the site and the noise that will be generated, there may be some
safety concerns in that regard.
MR. PALING-Let me, I'm going to take a rather minority stand
here, I'm afraid, because you get involved with noise, which I've
been involved with somewhat in the past, and I don't know how
deep you're going to go, but you may be forced to go very deep,
if there's any questions, and I would rather see the different
parties get together and agree on some sort of barriers that
would mitigate the sound and probably make it right, you can't
know definitely, but to get into sound studies, I think you're
really asking for trouble, but if they can agree with Agway, and
we can agree at the zoo and perhaps a motel, that these measures
will mitigate the noise, I think we're far better off and on an
easier course.
MR. BREWER-Bob, how can, and no disrespect to anybody, but
somebody that runs an Agway store, somebody that runs a motel,
TOm is an engineer, and somebody that runs Animal Land, how are
they going to know what the decibels are and how to deter them?
I mean, if we have somebody that knows what they're doing, if
you've got a toothache, you don't go to a foot doctor, you go to
a dentist. That.'s!.!lZ opinion.
MR. NACE-Where's t.he Town Ordinance on noise that you're standing
behind?
- 31 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. BREWER-There isn't, Tom, but it's in our Ordinance that it's
the safety and the welfare of the community.
MR. NACE-I hear yoU, okay.
these people and work it out.
more productive.
Give us a chance to sit down with
I agree with Bob that that is much
MR. PALING-Let me make one more comment. I think, also, that
we're going to be setting a tough precedent if we require
extensive noise tests, which are going to be questioned, and
you're going to get in so deep you'll never get out, and I think
if you can satisfy the people who are concerned, we're fine.
Never mind all the tests.
MR. BREWER-That's fine. I agree with you.
MR. RUEL~Why can't we limit the noise study to the type of
barrier and the most effective one, rather than a noise study on
db level for the whole area. Lets let some experts tell us,
what's the best thing to put up there. I mean, you get these
people together, and George mentioned a stockade fence. That may
be good. It may not be. There may be something much better than
that.
MR. PALING-There are other barriers, yes.
MR. RUEL-All right. So why can't they have it?
MR. ~~ACE-Roger, that would be the first step, before we tal k to
these people, that would be the first step I would take.
MR. RUEL-Okay. That's the way to go. Once you have that
information, then you sit down with these people, because just to
si t down J...Ji th them, wi thout havi ng that background, is useless.
MR. NACE-I would not do that.
MR. RUEL-Okay. That's fine.
MR. BREWER-Get some kind of data that proves.
MR. STARK-Tom, if you could just meet with Mrs. McDonough, the
two Valentes and Art Smith and make them happy, I'm sure you'll
make the Board happy.
MR. PALING-Okay. I
think we talked about
We definitely have
addressing. Are there
passenger cars?
think we've covered everything. I don't
opening date, but that's not in question.
a noise question, which you will be
any plans to go to eight horsepower, two
MR. NACE-I think there would be a mix of two passenger cars. I
don't know, authoritatively, what the horsepower is, do you?
~ŒN ERM I GER
MR. ERMIGER-There's seven horsepower and (lost words). They're
for people who take their kids for rides.
MR. MACEWAN-That throws those numbers right out.
MR. BREWER-Yes, that's going to throw the decibels up. Is it or
not? So why don't we find out exactly what they're going to have
before we go through this, find out what they're going to have
for engines.
MR. STARK-He can tell us next week e~actly what it is.
- 32 -
',-,
../'
'-./
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
MR. PALING-All right. Would you address that? Okay.
MR. NACE-I hear what you're asking, and we'll obtain as much
information from the kart manufacturers and from other tracks.
MR. PALING-Now the fumes thing I'm satisfied with the answer in
regard to the California standards. If they meet that, I think
that we can go along with that. The fencing, I am in sympathy
with Animal Land. I would like to see the fence now, and maybe
that's another minority opinion. I don't know. Drainage, I
believe, has been addressed to the satisfaction of our staff and
Bill. I'm labeling that as okay. The hours of operation are
still in question. I think there's a feeling that they'd like to
see 10 to 10, rather than 10 to 11, but we'll wait to hear from
you.
MR. NACE-Our only request on that is, at this point, businesses
on that street, other businesses that do the same thing, are
running until 12, and if we could satisfy the noise issues with
property owners that are in particular to our site, then we would
ask that that other issue go away.
MR. PALING-There's no zoning violation or anything, but you do
get into conflict, as the gentleman said, when the cars bang
together and the kids scream, but you've got the tracks existing
already. Somewhere we've got to strike a happy medium on this.
MR. NACE-One of the things I would like to point out is the track
that we have, we have more cars because it's a longer track.
It's a wider track, okay, so the cars can safely pass each other
without banging into other cars or without banging into the side
rails as much.
MR. PALING-And 1 have a problem, unless you would specify how
you're going to store your gas and oil.
MR. NACE-I'll find that out.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Have some sort of a plan, or whatever.
MR. PALING-And then I think I'm going to
to staff than here. How do you feel
situation? It appears we're all right.
about that?
address this more over
about setback in this
Do you have any comment
MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Administrator has made the determination
that all the setback requirements are met.
MR. MACEWAN-Could you look into the situation with Skateland, as
to why they had to get a variance, if there was something unusual
about that?
MR. GORALSKI-It may be that, when was Skateland approved?
MR. BREWER-Different Zoning Administrator.
MR. MACEWAN-Could you look into that before next week?
MR. GORALSKI-Sure.
MR. BREWER-When are we going to have all this stuff to us?
MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I have to say, I'm not sure what
information is going to be submitted, but I'm not sure that, if
there's anything substantiative submitted, that we're going to
have time to review it.
"'" 33 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
MR. PALING-Or would change anything either, in regard to the
Skateland situation. '
MR. GORALSKI-No, that I can review tomorrow. I'm talking about
any new information that's submitted by the applicant.
MR. PALING-If they come up with any agreement with the different
people, then they're going to have to put that on to the plan, to
be incorporated into the site plan.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. l.Jhat I'm saying is, I'm not sure that we are
going to be able to review it by next Tuesday.
MR. NACE-I think the proof of the pudding will be if we come back
with a substantial agreement with the neighbors, okay. That's
really what you're looking for.
MR. RUEL-I think the kind of work you have to do here .is quite
extensive, and it'll go way beyond a week.
MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure that the record is clear.
There's been a lot of discussion, both from the Board's
standpoint urging the applicant to meet with some of the
commenting neighbors, and the applicant's own representatives
have indicated their interest in meeting with the commenting
neighbors, and I think that's all well and good, but one of the
Planning Board members made a statement, and it's been
characterized as sounding as if we are somehow stating that if
you solve the neighbors' problems or satisfy the neighbors, that
the Planning Board will approve this, and as a matter of law,
obviously, you 'can't make that commitment now. I'm all for
urging people to meet, and for what it's worth, the applicant
always has the option. The applicant can meet with the neighbors
and I think as a policy matter, we're all in favor of that, and
we all encourage that. By the same token, we can't force the
marriage. If they reach agreement, they reach agreement. If
they don't reach agreement, they don't reach agreement, and
either way, the ultimate decision rests with this Board, and we
can't commit today that you'll approve something, even if it
meets with the neighbors satisfaction. Hopefully, it'll all work
out, but we don't know.
MR. PALING-No question. Absolutely. All right, BillJ
MR. MACNAMARA-I have one comment, just looking down the road, in
terms of next week and time running short and what we may be
asked, or not asked, to review, but to Tim's point earlier, and
that is, if, in fact, some sound data comes out in decibels, and
I don't know what they're planning on doing., but it's.obviousb' a
concern from a lot of people, ind our firm is not equipped to
answer, with confidence, sound related questions. I'm telling
you that we may not be able to do that by next week.
MR. PALING-I wouldn't think you could.
MR. MACNAMARA-And all I can say is that everybody who's commented
has, essentially, had a noise concern, but we didn't have any
access to the noise data ahead of time, or even what type of
vehicles they were, so it's not like we could have really looked
into that ahead of time. One of the concerns that was brpught up
that we can't really even address was, things like lines of site
to the bridge elevation, to the neighbors to the south. There
isn't any grading whatsoever shown, but a very small portion for
the Agway site, and I thi nk it I.oJould be helpful for everybody,
the Board, the staff, everyone, to show some kind of a cross
section of what is proposed for a fence. If the goal of, the
fence is to offer either site or sound screening, that ought to
be shown in terms of how that's going to affect or benefit the
-- 34 -
-'
-"
'-"
'--'
(Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting
:3/19/96 )
neighbor. We really can't even address that. There's no grading
shown whatsoever.
MR. RUEL-Lets not rush this. I agree with you.
MR. NACE-Well, can I make a couple of points here? First of all,
the reason we are aggressively pursuing this is that the people
that actually build the track have one window of opportunity this
year to construct it, and that's in April, okay. So we would
like to, if there's any way feasible, to be able to satisfy the
concerns and be back at the next meeting, hopefully looking for
approval. If the people don't get April construction, it won't
be built this year, okay, but that's our burden. I'm just
saying, that's why we're here, trying to press the issue. The
issue of all the review of noise stuff gets back, I think, Bob,
to what yOU were saying, is that, with noise studies, you can get
very involved, and I'm not sure, in the end run, that it's not
too much different from traffic studies, that they can prove or
dis-prove something by numbers, and have very little theory in
reality. We will pull together as much additional data as we can
on the cars, but I think the real thrust of our work over the
next week is to make the noise buffering as good as feasible, and
try to come up with as realistic a number as we can to tell you
how affective that's going to be.
MR. PALING-Well, in so far as the time situation is concerned, if
you can make it so that we have a chance to review the data next
week, fine, but we'll be willing to call a special meeting also,
if it's going to be shortly after, that kind of thing, and too
late for next month. So we'll cooperate with you in any way we
can, in that regard.
MR. BREWER-Can I interrupt one second?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I think, I don't want you to misunderstand me, Tom. I
guess what I'm saying is, there has to be some source that you
can go to and say, here's what we're going to produce, how can we
eliminate that? Give us Some kind of a solution. I mean, it's
just like shading a lawn. You go to a landscaper and say, what
can I put there to shade it, and I think that's all I'm asking
for. I'm not asking for anything more or less.
MR. NACE-Okay. Then there's a misunderstanding. That's what
we're going to do, and we're going to sit down and talk with the
neighbors.
MR. BREWER-That's what I want you to do. I don't want you to go
get some detailed, with balloons and all that nonsense.
MR. STARK-How do other tracks eliminate, I mean, I'm sure there's
other tracks in the country that this guy sells.
MR. NACE-By next Tuesday, I will know.
MR. BREWER-All right.
though?
Can we have some time to review it,
MR. NACE-I will get the data for you as quickly as I can.
MR. PALING-Yes.
li t tIe review,
can.
Well, we'll have to allow time for us to have a
and we'll bring you up to speed as quick as we
MR. MACEWAN-How long do you think it will be before you hear from
DOT on the approval?
- 35 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. NACE-On the road entrance?
MR. PALING-Yes. You've got that.
MR. NACE-I don't expect to hear from them by next week.
do expect to hear from t.hem wit.hin two weeks, and I
know, obviously, any approval needed, like you did
Cove, would be contingent.
Okay. I
will, you
on Pirates
MR. MACEWAN-I think your best course of action
with it and during that two week period, maybe
could give you a special meeting and give you
time to gather all that data.
is take your time
call and ask if we
a little bit more
MR. NACE-Well, lets
At this point, I'd
can't get that back
special meeting.
see how quickly I can get data back to you.
like to be on next Tuesday's meeting. If we
to you in time, then we will table it for a
MR. PALING-Okay. Then we will also allow publi~ comment at the
coming meeting, whenever that's going to be. Is that okay?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We were just discussin~ that. I mean, I
think that what we were just talking about here was that it
sounds as if the applicant has offered to produce some additional
data of some sort, whatever it is, and the Board is ,-equesting
that. I think that you have to afford the public an opportunity
to comment on that data, and probably the easiest way to do that,
unless you want to go through a re-advertising process, would be
to re-open the public hearing and leave it open, so that nobody's
hung up with having to re-advertise things.
MR. PALING-All right. So I'll re-open it, and leave it re-opened
until the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. BREWER-When do we want the information for, Bob, Friday?
MR. PALING-When do you want it? Yes, okay.
MR. BREWER-Well, if they can't get it to us by Friday, then if
they get if they get it to us.
MR. PALING-It's nice to have the weekend to look at it.
MR. MACEWAN-What about staff?
MR. HILTON-Planning Staff point of view, we do need some time to
look at it. If I understand correctly, your intent is to review
some type of noise mitigation measures, possibly berms or some
kind of thing that will lessen the impact of the" noise. If that
comes to us in the form of a plan, I think we would need it
before Friday to review it for Tuesday's meeting.
MR. NACE-Well, it will come to you in the form of a document that
says, here is what we are proposing to do. Here is the typical
noise buffering allowed, or voice buffer affective for this type
of area.
1'-1R. BREWER-From some source, where you got your information from"
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. RUEL-And this is after meeting with the neighbors.
MR. NACE-This will be before the meeting with the neighbors.
When we get the information available, we'll concurrently meet
- 36 -
.-/'
,
"-.-./ '--'"
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
with the neighbors, too.
MR. RUEL-Okay. It'll be reflected on the plan.
MR. MACNAMARA-I do think it's important, though, that it be shown
on a plan, in terms of a drawing. We're talking about,
potentially, some significant elevations of whatever the sound
deadening method is. I mean, the bridge is 10 feet high, and I
think it's important that everyone understand that. The bridge
is at least 10 feet high to the elevation of it, in terms of the
neighboring Agway property. So I do think i~'s important that
whateve,- sound issues go on, I think you need to let whoever you
work with know that, hey, we've got a 10 foot elevation here. In
effect, it could actually be projecting sound, if you will. I
think that needs to be understood.
MR. GORALSKI-I think the other thing that you've got
understand is, you know, in order to review this properly, we
need some time to do that, and we may get here Tuesday night
tell you, we have not been able to adequately review
proposal.
to
may
and
this
MR. PALING-I don't think you're going to make it this Tuesday.
It would be great, but.
MR. GORALSKI-That's what they're suggesting.
MR. PALING-Okay. If you can do it, fine. We both have to have a
chance to review it, you realize that.
MR. MACNAMARA-Lets be realistic for a minute here. What Tom just
mentioned, with all due respect, is that he's going to work on
some proposal, send it to us, at the same time, concurrently I
think you said, you're going to sit with the neighbors. What if
the neighbors aren't happy and don't buy it, and they're lay
people and don't buy it, and we're goi~é to ipend time reviewing
something that may not even have been bought by the neighbors,
when we're relying on making the decision on whether it's going
to work or not.
MR. BREWER-I don't want to rely on the neighbors to make a
decision.
MR. SCHACHNER-No. We cannot force, nor is it appropriate for us,
to force the neighbors to agree to anything. The applicant has
indicated they want to meet with the neighbors. More power to
them, but I don't think the Board, legally, can pin that on the
neighbors. We can't force them to agree.
MR. BREWER-I want to rely on some source that knows about noise.
That's what I want to rely on. I don't want to rely on, and no
disrespect to anybody, neighbors or anybody else. I want to have
a concrete foundation. That's !I!.l::. opinion. I don't know about
anybody else.
MR. PALING-No. I don't agree with it, Tim.
MR. BREWER-Why?
MR. PALING-Because noise is not that kind of a thing. Noise is
not a black and white thing. It's not that easy.
MR. BREWER-Neither is traffic, but we do traffic studies all the
time, Bob.
MR. PALING-Noise is not like a traffic study.
MR. RUEL-Tom has very little faith in traffic studies.
He just
- 37 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
said.
MR. BREWER-I have 'little faith in them, too.
MR. HILTON-I would just stress again that I think it's important
that if you do get some data that says that maybe a five foot
berm, for instance. I'm not say that'~ what's gqing to be
required, but lets say, for instance, that's recommended for a
mitigation measure, we have to see that on a plan, for zoning
purposes, in terms of sight lines, or if there's plantings, we
have to review those in acco)-dance with our landscape ordinance.
We just can't have a document that sa>', we will do this, this and
this. We've got to have it on a site plan.
MR. PALING-Yes. I would agree with that, and I think the
applicant realizes that.
MR. HILTON-And I'm just cautioning you that I don't really see,
this coming Tuesday, a week from today.
MR. PALING-Then we'll have to call. a special meeting.
MR. NACE-Give us a chance to try, and if you're not satisfied,
table it, and we'll look for a special meeting then.
MR. PALING-All right. Then with the applicant's permission, we
will table this, and until a week from today, or shortly after.
MR. MACEWAN-Just so it's clear, they're looking for you to hand
them documents, site plan maps, by Thursday.
MR. PALING-Elevations.
MR. NACE-They said Friday.
MR. BREWER-Friday.
MR. HILTON-I said before Friday.
MR. MACEWAN-We're looking at Thursday.
MR. PALING-And then you'll get them to us Friday, too.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
PETITION FOR ZONE CH~NGE -
PAULETTE SUNDBERG OWNERS:
MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN RDS.
SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONING:
LOT SIZE: 9.66 ACRE
P2-96 TYP~: UNLISTED MICHAEL &
SAME LOCATION: NIE CORNER OF
RECOMMENDATION ONLY CURRENT ZONING:
SFR-20 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.1, 46-2-13
MICHAEL SUNDBERG. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, P2-96, Michael & Paulette Sundberg, Meeting
Date: March 19~ 1996 "The staff has reviewed the following
documents and maps with the Community Development Department in
preparation of these notes: 1. The Yown of Queensbury
Comprehensive land Use Plan; May, 1989; Frederick J. Holman
Associates. 2. Water Resources Map; Warren County Department
of Planning & Community Development. 3. Intrinsic Development
Suitability Map; Warren County Department of Plannirig & Community
Development. 4. Community Services Map; Warren County
Department of Planning & Community Development. 5. Terrestrial
& Aquatic Ecology; Warren County Department of Planning &
Community Development. 6. Street Hierarchy Map; Warren County
Department of Planning & Community Development. 7. Traffic
- 38 -
--'
--"
I
---...-"
""----'
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
Study Map; Warren County Department of Planning & Community
Development. 8. Historic Inventory Map; Warren County
Department of Planning & Community Development. 9. Soils
Analysis-Percolation Rate Map; Warren County Department of
Planning & Community Development. 10. Slope Analysis Map;
Warren County Department of Planning & Community Development.
The applicant proposes to increase the zoning of the property to
allow 20,000 square foot lots to be built. The applicant is also
proposing to build sewers and a road to serve the property. The
road would most likely be a cul-de-sac off of Cronin Rd." The
applicant has since indicated that it would come off of
Meadowbrook Road. "Economic development of the property would be
the main benefit of permitting increased density according to the
applicant. The existing zoning of this property is SFR-1A. SR-
lA zoning exists on the properties to the north, east and west.
Overall densities decrease along Meadowbrook Rd. as you travel
north from Cronin Rd. The type of density which is being
requested is incompatible with the existing land use patterns and
would put pressure on surrounding properties for increased
density in the future. The area in which this property is
located is in an area of Moderate to High Density Residential
according to the Town of Queensbury's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. To the south of the property is an area shown as High
Density Residential. The densities which are proposed as a part
of this zone change petition would extend the area of High
Density Residential into an area with residential densities of 1
acre, as shown on the Land Use Plan. Staff feels that Cronin
Road serves as a line separating high density residential land
use to the south and lower density residential to the north.
This proposed zone change would not be in conformance with
existing land uses, zoning patterns, and the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Portions of this property are shown as being an
'H.U.D. Flood Prone Area'. In addition, a sizeable portion of
the property is classified as a DEC wetland", which was brought
to my attention the map that is in your packets is incorrect.
The applicant has had it flagged, and the DEC wetland line runs
along the north property line. So instead of the larger grey
area that's indicated on your map, that line should affectively
run along the north property line of the applicant's property.
"This site in it's current state has a very high wáter table,
often with standing water on the property. If densities were
increased on this property there would be a higher potential of
flooding in each home constructed. Drainage, stormwater runoff
and flooding from any new road would be negative impacts of
increasing building density. Runoff from the increased
impervious surface would have a negative 'impact on the DEC
I,.oJet'land directly adjacent tQthis property. Staff ¡feels existing
densi ties are more àppropr:iate con'sider i ng the poten'tial for
flooding in the aYea~ The prop6sed zone c~apge would not be in
conformance with existing land use condiiións, zoning and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Increased densities would have a
negative impact on the physical and environmental characteristics
of the area. The proposed zone change would not be in
conformance with existing land use conditions, zoning and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Increased densities would have a
negative impact on the physical and environmental characteristics
of the area. Residential density of this nature should be
located in other areas of Queensbury with less development
limitations. Staff feels the overall interests of the community
would not be served by granting this zone change request."
MR. SUNDBERG-My name is Michael Sundberg. I'm the owner of the
property.
MR. PALING-Okay.
this?
George, were there any other inputs beyond
MR. HILTON-I don't have any other input, for the record.
- 39 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. PALING-Okay. Does the Board have comments and questions?
MR. STARK-Yes, I do. When you and I went out there thi~ weekend,
I'm talking to the Board, not really to the applicant. Where the
old MacDonald property across the street from Jane Potter's house
and Ted Turner's house, and that's even a higher elevation than
behind Turner's house, and that was a mud hole over there, and
then we looked behind Ted's house, and that elevation back there
looked to be, like, two feet lower, two to t~ree feet lower, than
his property, and there was standing water there when we were
there Saturday. I mean, I don't know how you can build over
there. It's a swamp.
MR. PALING-Yes. I kind of agree with Staff, and George and I
looked at it, and we looked at that area, quite a number of
different, because there's been other building projects to go out
there, and looked at it quite a bit, and I think we didn't even
need to go out there, and I guess IJ:!Z question is, why do you. want
to build in such a wet area? It looks like the homeowners would
have a tough water problem, and they have one today.
MR. STARK-If you elevate it, there's more water going on
everybody else's property on there.
MR. SUNDBERG-I was out there today, there isn't any standing
water. The standing water you saw was from frozen ground, when
it thawed, and the water came up through the ice. You'll find
that, if the elevation is 50 feet high. If you have frozen
ground, and then the snow thaws, the water will stand.
MR. PALING-Have you talked to any of the immediate neighbors out
there?
MR. SUNDBERG-I live there. I was born and raised
talked to the neighbors. I've talked to Ted.
Jane. I've talked to Jim Piper.
there. I have
I've talked to
MR. PALING-And they have basement water.
MR. SUNDBERG-Ted and Jane do.
MR. MACEWAN-The Jim Piper does, too. ' The last time we had a
zoning request in here, he said he did.
MR. SUNDBERG-Jim Piper is up on fill, up on a mountain.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-I'm pretty sure he said he had, because he's right up
there near the brook, near the Girl Scout camp. Correct?
MR. SUNDBERG-I was talking to him last night. He was talking
about what a joke it was that they made him get flood insurance
because he's so high and dry.
MR. BREWER-What is your reasoning for?
MR. SUNDBERG-I would like to object to this whole thing. I can
understand him saying he didn't approve it based on his
information. His information was all wrong. He thought the
wetland went half of the property.
MR. PALING-Okay. That's been clarified.
case.
told
never
SUNDBERG-They've known since December that
There's no excuse for that. He also told
that Halfway Brook floods this property.
floods this property. If you look at the
that's not the
me that he was
Halfway Brook
100 y.ear flood
MR.
- 40 -
.-/"
---- ~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
plain, it barely touches the corner, and if I were to believe
that the thing was half a wetland and was regularly flooded by
Halfway Brook, I would agree. I would disapprove it, too, but
that's just not the case, and now, and I've seen this 100 times,
people putting a position on paper, and then when they find out
that it's wrong, they don't want tó go back and re-Iook at it. I
think that they need to look at the thing, completely new, with
correct information.
MR. RUEL-George, were your comments based on this plan, or the
xeroxed copy?
MR. HILTON-My plans were based on that plan. The location that I
indicated of the wetland, in my opinion, would only worsen the
situation, but based on the DEC wetland line that is shown on the
overall plan, I believe that there would still be an impact from
runoff of the homes into the wetland.
MR. SUNDBERG-You attached this.
MR. HILTON-And I just clarified.
MR. SUNDBERG-This is what you used.
MR. HILTON-Well, no. I used the plan that was submitted with the
application. That was for graphic purposes, they were put into
the comments.
MR. RUEL-My only other comment is that theTe's a petition for a
change of zone, and on this petition, items three, six and eight
are 180 degrees from your comments.
MR. BREWER-Where are you, what page?
MR. RUEL-I don't know. Town of Queensbury at the top, Queensbury
Planning Board petition for a change of zone.
MR. HILTON-Those are applicant, the applicant answers.
MR. RUEL-I know, but it's
mentions that the proposed
zones, and it's appropriate
with the Comprehensive Land
really 180 degrees out, you know. He
zone is compatible with the adjacent
for the property, and it's compatible
Use Plan.
MR. HILTON-Well, that's his opinion, right, and
opinion, and he stated that in the application, and
differently because I believe differently.
that's his
I'm stating
MR. RUEL-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Roger, some of those things are not even just
matters of opinion. I mean, for example, whether the proposed
re-zoning classification is similar or different than the
surrounding zones, I think on that you can just look at the zone
map and compare and see if it's similar or different. I mean,
the applicant, obviously, any applicant, fills out an application
form putting their best foot forward, presumably.
MR. RUEL-To favor his side, naturally.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I'm not, and I know next to nothing about the
merits of this particular application. Obviously, I don't care
about it, nor would I have any input into it, but I have to say
that, to some extent, some of these things are not just
subjective, like to what extent it is or isn't similar to
surrounding zoning.
MR. SUNDBERG-Right. That's very easy to see from the drawing.
- 41 -
)
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. HILTON-The one comment I would have is that there are some
lots out there that are smaller than the proposed 20,000 square
foot building area that the applicant.'s proposing. However, it's
my feeling that the zoning is in place for reasons of protecting
the overall site that iSn't developed yet due to the
environmental factors, the flooding concerns that are out there
on the propert.y.
MR. RUEL-So, that's the primary reason then?
MR. HILTON-That's the primary reason.
MR. RUEL-Because we can't see what the adjacent properties are on
the various zones, but the applicant does mention that they are
compatible.
MR. HILTON-Well, I've included a map in the comments, if you
don't have it, I'll pass it around to you, that indicates that
it's a zoning map of the area.
MR. RUEL-Okay, and in your opinion, it would not be compatible to
have 20 versus 1?
MR. HILTON-Right.. In my opinion, as you move north from Cronin
Road, your densities, residential densities, seem to falloff. I
think that. if you look at it, it's clearly the zoning districts
around there are all SR-1A or SFR-1A, and to introduce the 20,000
square foot lot pattern int.o that area, as I've said, would put
pressures on the adjacent properties for further development. and
would be incompatible, based on t.he environmental conditions of
that area just to the north of that property.
MR. RUEL-Do you think that a zone change to dash 20 could
possibly affect the existing properties?
MR. HILTON-Yes, I do.
MR. RUEL-Properties within that area?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. BREWER-But isn't it right directly across the street, isn't
that SFR-20 now?
MR. HILTON-It's SR-1A.
MR. BREWER-No, it's been re-zoned.
MR. GORALSKI-No. Rich Schermerhorn's, wasn't that re-zoned?
MR. BREWER-Yes, we did.
MR. PALING-Was t.hat. re-zoned?
MR. BREWER-Did we do the whole property, I talked to Ted earlier.
Did we do the whole property or just those lots of Rich's?
TED TURNER
MR. TURNER-No, we did Rich's.
MR. BREWER-Just Rich's. MacDonald's is not.
MR. TURNER-There's almost six acres there.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. What happened, he has about six acres, and I
believe there's six lots, one of them, there's five lot.s and then
an extra lot that he can't develop. So, basically, it's one
-- 42 --
.-/
I
'----" ~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
acre, but it's clustered.
MR. BREWER-We re-zoned that, though. Didn't the Town Board re-
zone that?
MR. GORALSKI-I think they re-zoned it to SR, so that it could be
clustered.
MR. BREWER-Right. So it's not SFR. It's just SR.
MR. TURNER-It's SR with condition.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. RUEL-Could this property in question be proposed PUD?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can't increase the density
Ordinance. Any PUD has to meet the underlying
there.
under the PUD
zoning that's
MR. RUEL-It does?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I'm just trying to recall, when we had the MacDonald
property in, that also tried to go SFR-20, or am I wrong, Ted,
and we suggested that it should go to SR-20 with conditions.
MR. TURNER-He first wanted to build apartments there.
MR. BREWER-I know that they proposed one zone and we recommended
another zone, and ultimately that's what it ended up being,
didn't we?
MR. PALING-Well, I think it was a case of the density that we
were concerned with more than anything else. They ended up with
five lots, and then lots of space in the back there where it got
wet.
MR. BREWER-Well, he could have had lots anyway, because he had
six acres, didn't he?
MR. MACEWAN-He was looking in the neighborhood of getting like
nine or ten lots out of it originally.
MR. PALING-Yes. It was cut down to the five.
MR. RUEL-I have a question for the applicant.
many lots would be available under the lA zone,
Approximately how
versus the 20?
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, it's 9.6 acres. So, I could get nine or maybe
ten lots if I could get that.
MR. RUEL-Well, you've got wetlands in there, too.
MR. SUNDBERG-But they wouldn't affect the number of units I could
bu i ld .
MR. RUEL-They wouldn't?
MR. SUNDBERG-Not at lA.
MR. BREWER-How many units do you want to put on there?
MR. SUNDBERG-At 20, it'll reduce, I plan to put 14 lots in there,
under the SR-20. Because of the wetlands, I can't do 20,000, 20
-- 43 -
'-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
foot, otherwise, there'd be nine. If I had a full acre, then I
could incorporate the wetlands into the unused part of the
acreage. So we're talking a difference of nine to fourteen.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that nine's a realistic number, either,
because once you build your infrastructure in there to get to
those lots, you're cutting down on your usage in there.
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, I've got 9.66 acres. I'm only going to put
one road in.
MR. RUEL-But you'd have a
It would take away another
road, and a cul-de-sac or something.
acre, I guess.
MR. SUNDBERG-No, it wouldn't, maybe a half acre. Well, I've got
6.6 to play with.
MR. RUEL-So from the standpoint of what's more profitable, I
guess the 18 versus the 9 lots, 14 versus 9 or 8.
MR. SUNDBERG-The thing is I have to build a road along the back
side. It's going to cost me a lot of money to put that road in,
and if I can only put four houses on that road, it's going to be
awful hard to do that.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but'it's still usable land, and you could still put
seven or eight homes in there, right, and you'll meet all the
zoning requirements, and you'll meet the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
MR. SUNDBERG-But it isn't economically very feasible, when I have
to put in, and the problem I've got is if you look at the house,
at the lots in the area, the drawing that you've got there is my
island. It's the only SF-l Acre in the area. Above is it is SR-
1. To the west the same thing, to the east the same thing. I've
got the only zoning in that entire area, and of the seven.
MR. MACEWAN-There's an SFR-1A.
MR. SUNDBERG-Right. They're SFR, but I've got the only SF.
MR. MACEWAN-No. There's another one just UP the street from you,
across the street.
MR. SUNDBERG-Are you talking the MacDonald property?
MR. MACEWAN-Up farther.
MR. BREWER-Between MacDonald property and Guido Passarelli's
property. It would be, what, where the Girl Scout camp is. The
Girl Scout camp is SFR-1A.
MR. SUNDBERG-There's no houses there.
MR. BREWER-But that's a property zone.
MR. SUNDBERG-But that's not what I'm saying. The property zoning
is irrelevant. This whole property is SF-lA, and if you look at
the six lots that don't belong to me, there isn't a single one of
them that's an acre. There's only two of the six that even meet
the 20,000 that I'm asking for. If you go to this map, and you
continue up Cronin Road, all of those lots are 20,000 square
feet. If you go across the street, the four lots that they're
going to build on the MacDonald property are, 20,000 square feet.
The other lots that are existing are even smaller. There's not a
single lot anywhere on this map that comes close to an acre,
other than mine. So I don't understand how he says that by
putting 20,000 square foot lots in there I'm going to damage the
- 44 -
'---~
----
I
'---./'
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
3/19/96 )
characteristic of the neighborhood. Now I have heard that he
would allow me to go ahead and cluster and do the SR-1 Acre, but
I've talked to the neighbors, and as a neighbor myself, I'm going
to live on this property. I don't want clustered housing there.
I've talked to Ted. I've talked to Jane Potter. I've talked to
Jim Piper. They don't want clusters. They want it to be a
single family type atmosphere, and all I'm asking is to match
what everybody else has got.
MR. GORALSKI-I think you're misunderstanding the cluster.
MR. SUNDBERG-Townhouses.
MR. GORALSKI-No, not at all. Clustering would mean you would
have the same density that, say, whatever, nine buildings, but
you could put those buildings on smaller lot's and then have a
Homeowners Association that would maintain a green space that
would take up the rest of the area.
MR. SUNDBERG-But that doesn't fit this neighborhood, and if you
look up to the north, they built apartments there.
MR. GORALSKI-I still don't think you understand what I mean. You
could, what you could do is dedicate, when you cluster, you could
dedicate 20,000 square feet per house, okay. So you'd have
houses on 20,000 square foot lots, and the remainder of the
property would remain forever wild, as open space.
MR. BREWER-In other words, you don't have to put a house on
20,000 square foot.
MR. GORALSKI-You don't have to put a house on every acre.
MR. SUNDBERG-Right, but what I'm saying is, because of the nature
of this neighborhood, I can't afford to build the kind of house
that you would put on an acre. I can't afford to put a $150,000
house on an acre of prime land, because nobody's going to buy a
house for $150,000 in a neighborhood where all these little tiny
lots are. So doing what you're saying means I've got to put in
the infrastructure for a whole development, and only develop a
hal f of it.
MR. BREWER-You put in less infrastructure, use less land, put in
the same amount of houses.
MR. SUNDBERG-Very little less.
MR. BREWER-Not very little less. No, a lot less.
MR. SUNDBERG-Very little less. I've drawn it out. There isn't
much difference. To reach the far corner.
MR. BREWER-That's what we're saying, though. You don't have to
reach the far corner.
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, then you can't get 20,000 square foot lots in
there. You'd have to make them smaller than that.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. SUNDBERG-And the neighbors don't want that. The neighborhood
is.
MR. BREWER-You have to explain the whole concept.
MR. SUNDBERG-I understand the concept very well. I'm just
telling you that talking to the neighbors, they would prefer what
I'm talking about then to cluster houses in a little.
- 45 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. BREWER-Rich Schermerhorn is going to cluster across the
street on the MacDonald property that he bought.
MR. SUNDBERG-Rich Schermerhorn is putting four 20,000 square foot
lots in there, and then not using property that's unusable.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. BREWER-Exactly, and that's exactly what we're saying yoU to
do.
MR. SUNDBERG-You're asking me to take prime property and make it
unusable here, and I don't think that's fair.
MR. BREWER-Well, I don't understand why you would want to build a
house way in the back corner if you didn't have to. You could
still build the same amount of houses.
MR. SUNDBERG-Because I don't want to cramp them all together. I
don't like the way that looks. I'm gbing to live there, and the
neighbors don't like that either.
MR. BREWER-But what you just got done telling us was that the
whole characte,- istic of the neighborhood is aÙ small lots.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That there's no way you're going to be able to
sell 5150,000 houses on one acre lots.
MR. SUNDBERG-Four of the six of them are small lots.
26,000. Rozell's is about the same.
Piper's is
MRS. LABOMBARD-They're all half an acre or less.
MR. SUNDBERG-Those two are.
MR. GORALSKI-I think what the Board was getting at wa~ that if
the Town Board changed the zoning from SFR-l Acre to SR-l Acre,
you could do a cluster development similar to what Rich
Schermerhorn did, therefore saving the cost of building roadway,
and probably be able to make your money on the nine lots instead
of fourteen.
MR. SUNDBERG-Except if you look there, he's got roads already
there, and by letting him have small lots, I'm still going to
have to put a road in, well into this property, to put 20,000
square foot lots around, because I've got the wetlands there.
MR. BREWER-Could you show us on the map how you would put a road
in there?
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, you can see between Piper and Flynn. The road
would come along here.
MR. BREWER-And draw your lots.
MR. SUNDBERG-Two of the lots are on the road.
MR. PALING-Put it up on the easel, if you would, so we can all
see.
MR. SUNDBERG-Between Piper's and Flynn's, there's a 50 foot space
that was built, intended for a road. I would stretch that road
out most of the way across the, property.
MR. PALING-Okay. I see it.
MR. SUNDBERG-I would put four lots along the north side of that
road, one kind of to the east 6f it, and then four more lots
- 46 -
~
',---, -...-/
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
be I O"'J it.
MR. STARK-Here's the wetland, and here's the 100 foot, so you
can't build in here.
MR. SUNDBERG-Right. The houses would be built, basically, on the
edge of that 100 foot line, and the road would be set back.
MR. STARK-You have four lots to the north of the road, and how
many to the south?
MR. SUNDBERG-One to the east, and then one on the corner, one at
the garage, and then the rest of them would come down, would be
another four or five along there, and the driveway going down to
the other. Now I haven't put in a subdivision plan because I
didn't want to go to the expense of doing that at this point, but
to me, that's completely in character with this neighborhood.
That's the zoning that ought to be there. I could understand it
when there wasn't a sewer, that you'd need to have an acre for
your septic system, but now I'm paying all kinds of money for the
sewer, and I can't do it any way, and to me, this is the
appropriate zoning, based on the neighborhood and the fact that
the sewer system is in there to be used.
MR. PALING-All right. I think we're at the point that I, unless,
does anyone have anything new to add?
MR. STARK-One question. Right behind Flynn's house and Turner's
house and Potter's house, you don't plan on putting a building at
all?
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. There'll be a driveway coming down off that
road, to survey. I didn't draw it all out.
MR. STARK-The road will be right behind their house?
MR. SUNDBERG-The driveway. The driveway coming off of that road,
to a lot.
MR. PALING-Between Turner and Potter, is that what you're saying?
MR. SUNDBERG-No, no. The lot between Turner and Potter I would
propose to put one of the units.
MR. PALING-And the driveway from the road to there?
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. There'd be another house kind of triangular
from the corner of Turner's and the corner of Lashway's to the
corner of the barn. It would be going kind of right in the
middle of that place, and I would serve that with a driveway that
runs all the way up to that road.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. BREWER-I think John was just going to see if, as far as the
clustering went.
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. You've got apartments to the north of me.
You've got apartments to the south of me. You've got 20,000 foot
lots to the east, and you've got 20,000 foot lots to the west.
MR. GORALSKI-I think it's possible to get eight or nine lots,
without building a road, if you were allowed to cluster. I'm
just playing around here, and this is really the first time I've
looked at this in any length at all, but I think that there would
be a way to build eight or subdivide eight 20,000 square foot
lots out. of this property and probably not even have to build a
road.
- 47 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. PALING-But that's not 14, though. You're saying eight.
MR. GORALSKI-Right, without building a road.
MR. BREWER-Use common driveways. Is that what you're thinking?
MR. GORALSKI-I'm just looking at 20,000 square foot lots. If you
clustered it into 20,000 square foot lots.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Coming off the Cronin Road, is that what you're
saying?
MR. GORALSKI-With frontage on the existing roads. I'm not saying
that that's, I'm not saying that that's the way this should be
done, because like I say, I have not looked at this plan. I'm
Just saying that it's possible.
MR. SUNDBERG-None of that stuff meets the 200 foot lot width or
any of that stuff.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's why you'd have to cluster.
MRS. LABOMBARD-What I don't understand is, on your northern lots,
which you've rendered here, right there there's a little dotted
line that says that's the 100 foot setback from the wetlands.
MR. SUNDBERG-Correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, if you build on those proposed lots, you're
not going to be 100 feet anymo~e.
MR. SUNDBERG-Yes, well, you can see the 100 foot setback line.
That's where the 'houses would be.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's the back of the house?
MR. SUNDBERG-That's the back end of where the house would be, and
then that gives you your 100 foot to the wetland~ and then I
would have the setbacks from the front of the house to the road,
and that would be where the road would 90~'
MRS. LABOMBARD-And you don't have to worry about a septic because
there's all sewer.
MR. SUNDBERG-It's all sewered.
MR. RUEL-I have a question for George. You have mentioned on
several occasions, here, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Is
there a statement in this master plan about this particular area,
or does it just indicate that that's the zone?
MR. SUNDBERG-There is a map that indicates that north of Cronin
Road the proposed land use category is for a lower density
residential than that which is shown on the south side of Cronin
Road.
MR. MACEWAN-Did they cite a reason as to why?
MR. HILTON-In that section of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
there isn't listed a reason why, but I think with the proximity
to the adjacent wetlands, that land use category and the existing
zoning on the property is appropriate, due to the effects that
would result if you were to increase densities from runoff that
would affect other people's properties and the property, any home
that would be built within that land.
MR. MACEWAN-And that's all the land north of Cronin Road?
- 48 -
..-/
"'---' '--../
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. HILTON-North of Cronin Road.
MR. MACEWAN-Both sides of Meadowbrook?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RUEL-What is the date of this Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
MR. HILTON-I believe it's 1989?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. RUEL-'89.
MR. SUNDBERG-I'd like to respond to his worries about the
wetland. That's why you've got the 100 foot setback. I'm going
to put four houses along there. Each of them set back 100 feet
from the wetland. I don't know where the science is coming in
that says you need more than that, or you need whatever. I mean,
that's what the 100 foot setback is for.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And how many square feet, one story or two story
dwellings? Would they be on cement slabs or full basements?
MR. SUNDBERG-There would be no basements. I don't know whether
there would be a crawl space or a slab.
MR. HILTON-I have some concerns. Part of my concerns, that if
you were to permit 20,000 square foot lots out there, you would
be decreasing permeable surface of the land. You would be
putting in a road which would also put hard-surface on that
property. The effects of runoff into the wetland and into
adjacent property owner's basements, I think given the condition
of the depth to the groundwater on that property, I don't feel
that 20,000 square foot lots are appropriate, due to this
limiting factor.
MR. SUNDBERG-And the road is the same, whether it's 20,000 or an
acre. It doesn't make any difference. It's the same road,
regardless. So what we're talking about is the difference
between nine and fourteen houses that have a footprint anywhere
from 700 to maybe 1500 square feet. You~re talking four extra
houses of that much square footage, and that's insignificant,
when you talk about the affect of the wetland 100 feet back from
the back of those houses.
MR. RUEL-Which way does the property slope?
MR. SUNDBERG-It slopes toward the north, or northwest.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well,
taking a larger area
George is saying is
saying about that.
I think you'd be better off building up than
with a regular footprint on the house. What
so true. You've got to listen to what he's
MR. PALING-Roger, how do you feel?
MR. RUEL-About what, the whole thing?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL-I would deny it.
MR. STARK-You're making a recommendation.
MR. RUEL-Yes. So, you know, I would deny it on a recommendation.
Do you want to know why?
-, 49 --
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. BREWER-I don't know if
think that we could come up
allowed in SR-1A?
I'd just flat out deny
with some kind of a,
it. I would
is clustering
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Clustering is allowed in SR-1A.
MR. BREWER-If I were to make a recommendation, it would be to
change it to SR-1A and allow them the affordability to cluiter.
That would be the only thing I would offer. I wouldn't say to
change it to SR-20, if the applicant was receptive to that.
MR. PALING-It would be clustered to one acre standards, instead
of the 20,000 square feet, okay.
MR. STARK-I'd deny it.
MR. MACEWAN-I think to understand the applicant, I'd like to see
a more definitive plan, exactly what he wants to do. I mean,
we're sitting here scribbling on paper and talking about this and
that, and I'm really swayed by what Staff is saying as well, and
knowing the area up there, I'd really want to see a definitive
plan.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question.
clustering on one acre.
I don't understand the
MR. BREWER-He's in a zone right now, SFR-l.
allowable.
Clustering is not
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, but I misinterpreted it as each lot that a
house would go on would be one acre.
MR. PALING-No.
MR. BREWER-He could cluster if he was SR.
t1RS. LABOMBARD--I understand, but I think Craig has a good point.
I mean, who knows. Maybe you could put your head together with
some engineers, some people that are really, have done some work
on this, and come up with a real viable plan.
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, I am an engineer.
MR. PALING-My opinion is that, as submitted, I wouldn't approve
it. I'd recommend a denial, too, but I could go along with
something like what Tim is saying. I like Tim's idea, but as
submitted, I would not be in favor of it. No. I think that's
nearly a consensus.
MRS. LABOMBARD-As submitted, no, because nothing's really been
submitted.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to, either.
MR. SUNDBERG-I mean, I shouldn't have to put in a subdivision.
That's what you're asking for is to have a subdivision.
MR. BREWER-That's what I'm saying. I'm saying if he wants to
build the houses there, we could make a recommendation that if
the applicant wants to cluster, we would recommend to go to SR-
lA.
MR. PALING-Right. What we're saying, also, I think, is that we
don't want 14 houses on that land.
MR. BREWER-:Exactly, and I wouldn'tq.,ltow 114 "0R,uses if we we,nt to
--50 --
'--'
.../
J
----
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting
:3/"19/96 )
SR-l.
MR. PALING-That's right. That's what I think we're saying is no
14, but more like eight or nine, and then come up with a plan and
we could possibly recommend it's approval, but as submitted, no.
MR. BREWER-We still have to make a recommendation.
MR. STARK-Recommend to the Town Board that they deny it.
MR. PALING-Yes. Well, I like your idea, Tim.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I do, too.
MR. PALING-I think that's a good one.
MR. BREWER-I would just make a recommendation that the Town Board
and the applicant consider re-zoning to SR-1A, to allow for the
clustering.
MR. SUNDBERG-Well, SR-1A would be better than what I've got, and
if you could make that a recommendation, that would be fine.
MR. BREWER-That's my recommendation.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't know. That's kind of open-ended.
MR. BREWER-Why? We're not going to do anything.
Board's going to do it. That's our recommendation.
The Town
MR. SUNDBERG-Every other property around it is SR-1A.
MR. RUEL-SR-1A would allow you how many lots?
MR. BREWER-Nine lots.
MR. GORALSKI-Nine lots.
.
MR. BREWER-But he would be able to cluster rather than have to
build all the roads in there and everything.
MR. PALING-Does Staff have any comments on Tim's recommendation?
MR. HILTON-No. I have no comments.
MR. GORALSKI-I haven't been able to thoroughly.
MR. PALING-You wouldn't say yes or no, then? You're just saying
you want to think about it?
MR. GORALSKI-I'm just saying that I haven't thoroughly reviewed
the project. So I can't give you an answer.
MR. BREWER-I mean, bottom line, Bob, even if they re-zone it to
SR-"1A, he still has to come in with a plan that meets all the
requirements. If he can't do it, then it doesn't make any
difference.
MR. STARK-I'll go along with that.
MR. PALING-Okay. Tim, you want to make a?
MR. BREWER-I did.
MR. PALING-Why don't you just summarize it, so that everybody
understands what we're saying.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND. IN REGARD TO PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P2-96
- :::'1 -
(Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MICHAEL & PAULETTE SUNDBERG. THAT THE REQUEST FOR RE-ZONING BE
DENIED. AND TO HAVE THE TOWN BOARD AND THE APPLICANT CONSIDER RE-
ZONING THE PROPERTY TO SR-l. TO ALLOW THEM THE AFFORQABILITY TO
CLUSTER DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1996, by the following vote:
MR. SUNDBERG-Is that a vehicle that I can come out of the Town
meeting with a changed zoning to SR-1A?
MR. PALING-This is a recommendation.
MR. BREWER-We can't make a decision for them.
MR. SUNDBERG-But could I come out of that Town Board with that in
hand?
MR. PALING-I don't know.
MR. SUNDBERG-If they agree to do it. What I'm trying to do is to
short cut this process by several months.
MR. BREWER-They have to hold a public hearing and everything.
MR. SUNDBERG-All I want is the Town Board,to give it a shot.
MR. PALING-The Town Board is going to have a full hearing with a
public hearing, and then they're going to make a decision, and
ours is just input.
MR. GORALSKI-Something should be made clear.
legiilative action by the Town Board. They don't
anything.
This is a
have to do
MR. PALING-That's right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-They can entertain it.
going to act upon it.
That doesn't mean they're
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Stark
MR. SUNDBERG-Can I ask, when would the Town Board meet?
MR. GORALSKI-What I would recommend you do is get in touch with
Jim Martin and coordinate that through him.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. I've got four very quick items I
think. Okay. This is the second time in the recent past that
we've tackled a zoning recommendation without a public hearing,
and Craig pointed this out, and when I started to think about it,
I didn't like it at all, and I think I'm going to take Craig's
suggestion and suggest that any time that the Town Board requests
that we have a zoning change, that our meeti,ng include a public
hea1" i n9 .
MR. BREWER-I agree with you.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Just clarify that for me. Why don't we do that?
- 52 -
-
,--J
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. iGORALSKI-Because 'i td.oesn't say it in the Codes.
MR. MACEWAN-We would need t¿ amend the Cod(~?
MR. SCHACHNER-In order to make it mandatory, I would think so,
and you obviously don't have the authority to do that. That
would be the Town Board amending the Code.
MR. GORALSKI-You can hold a public hearing whenever you want to.
MR. PALING--I talked this over with Jim Martin, and he said it was
our option.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. PALING-To do it, and I think we're saying the option we want
to follow, if everybody agrees, is from now on, if there is a
zoning recommendation involved, we want a public hearing.
MR. MACEWAN-Can we simply do it maybe this way, is when an
applicant comes in, from an applicant who wants to hear a re-
zoning request from us, as part of the application, can we ask
them to notify the neighbors with a mailing, like they would for
a subdivision or a site plan?
MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board would have to do that, I believe.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I just think you're creating, I don't have
any problem with any of that. I just think if you want to do
that, then it should appear somewhere in writing that that's the
procedure, and the place for that to appear would be in the
Zoning Ordinance under the section about proposed amendments or
proposed re-zonings, and it doesn't appear there.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GORALSKI-I don't see why you guys couldn't pass a resolution
right now saying any time, the staff is instructed any time that
there is a zoning change recommendation forwarded to you, that we
advertise a public hearing for it.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Yes,
want to put it
You knolrJ what
notification to
but
in
I'm
the
we want to notify the
the classified ads.
saying? We should
immediate neighbors.
people. We don't just
Who's going to see it?
have some kind of a
MR. GORALSKI-Similar to a site plan review.
MR. SCHACHNER·'·Yes, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think
you can stick that to the applicant without it being part of the
Code.
MR. GORALSKI-No. We would have to pay for all that.
MR. SCHACHNER-And do it.
MR. GORALSKI-And do it, like we do for a site plan review.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. BREWER-How much does it cost?
MR. GORALSKI-It depends on how many people there
feet. You're talking 32 cents for each mailing.
right now, the $25.00 that we ask for site plan
cover our advertising costs.
are within 500
I can tell you
review doesn't
-- 53 --
',--
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. BREWER-So then lets ask the Town Board to put it to words in
the Code. I mean, in the mean time, we can always.
MR. PALING-Well, let me
resolution like John is
conditional, and, John, why
maybe Mark, and hash this
different recommendation, if
make a suggestion. Lets pass a
saying, and then lets make this
don't you and Jim and I sit down, and
thing out, and come back with a
need be.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine.
MR. GORALSKI-We can do that. I think you have two options. You
can either tell us that you want us to send out 500 foot notices
for re-zonings, or you can tell the Town Board that you want them
to change the Ordinance, or do both.
MR. BREWER-How many are there a year? Can there be a half a
dozen a year? I mean, that would be a lot.
MR. MACEWAN-I guess you have to look at
which would be the easiest course to take.
s mailing would be the easier thing to do.
the simplicity of it,
Asking you guys to do
MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's what I'm saying.
MR. PALING-Lets just pass a motion that
public hearing and mailings, too, and if
us down, so be it. Lets do it all the
objections?
we go full boat, with a
somebody wants to knock
way. All right. Any
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. PALING-Good.
MR. MACEWAN-I'll second that.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MOTION THAT WE GO FULL BOAT WITH A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAILINGS,
TOO, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Craig MacEwan:
Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer
MR. PALING-Okay. Oath of Office.
Craig and I were at the other day.
that we do take an Oath of Office.
piece of paper, and that is our
remember having signed it, but she
This came up at a meeting that
I'm advised by the Town Clerk
Once a year we sign a little
Oath of Office, and I can't
said, yes, you do every year.
MR. GORALSKI-You get it with your ethics packet.
MR. PALING-I'm going to pay more attention next time.
Garafolo letter.
Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-There is a new letter that I gave to Bob.
copies if anyone would like to see it.
I have
MR. MACEWAN-Since March 5th?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
- 54 -
-'
~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
MR. PALING-It's a little different letter.
MR. SCHACHNER-It's a very different tenor.
MR. PALING-Well, what the suggestion is, and I would say we
should go along with it, is that Garafolo wants to appear before
us to discuss the matter further next week.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what we asked him to do last month.
MR. BREWER-Okay. What's the last thing, Bob?
MR. PALING-Okay. Last thing is, I have this letter, which I said
I would do after elections, and it's after elections, and here's
the letter. If we all agree with it, we'll sign it. Okay. From
the Planning Board to the Town Supervisor. "For the last two
years, the election of the Planning Board Chairman, ~cheduled for
January, was put off because a full Board was not present, and a
majority vote could not be realized. It is recommended that the
election of officers be removed from January to December. This
would allow a better chance of full attendance and election
without postponement."
MR. BREWER-Who's to say somebody's not going to be here in
December?
MR. MACEWAN-I would make one suggestion to that. Move it back to
November for November elections. That way it gives you a full
two months, in case you don't have a full Board.
MR. STARK-Move it to November.
MR. RUEL-You're writing that letter because of one person.
MR. PALING-All right. Cathy, what do you say?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problems moving it to December.
Whatever is going to be the.
~ . ¡ . ., t <.' ' - ,
MR. RUEL-No, we said November.
MRS. LABOMBARD-November? Well, I'll be out of here in December.
Whatever you guys want.
MR. BREWER-Leave it as it is.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't like January. I like the end of the year.
MR. PALING-All right. Would you please sign the letter.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Do we all have to put our signatures on it?
MR. PALING-Yes. I'm going to change this to November.
MR. BREWER-I don't want to put my signature on it. I don't agree
with it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Don't then.
MR. RUEL-You don't have to sIgn it.
MR. PALING-You don't have to sign it, but it was a majority vote.
MRS. LABOMBARD-If I had my druthers, I would just have the Town
Board appoint somebody. Then we wouldn't have to go through that
crap.
MR. PALING-Those are all the items that I had.
- 55 -
....- .--'"
(Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/19/96)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Paling, Chairman
-. 5,6 -