2005-03-22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 2005
INDEX
Subdivision No. 5-2005 Gregory White
1.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 252.-1-52
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 4-2005 Nasreen Khurshid 4.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17
Site Plan No. 9-2005 Arrowhead Equipment, Inc. 34.
Tax Map No. 309.9-2-7
Subdivision No. 3-2005 Thomas Ross
43.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 302.8-1-33
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 10-2005 Robert & Janice Grillo 48.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-51
Site Plan No. 11-2005 Vortex Technologies LLC 57.
Tax Map No. 309.10-2-28
Site Plan No. 13-2005 Hars Pars Inc. 68.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50
PZ 5-2004 Town Sponsored Rezoning – Underground Utilities 78.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION Town of Lake George Proposed Amendment
79.
to Zoning Ordinance
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
RICHARD SANFORD
MEMBERS ABSENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN
ANTHONY METIVIER
GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. VOLLARO-We have a few housekeeping things I just want to get over with real quickly
before anything else. There’s a couple of things on the agenda. Is anybody here for Jelenik
Construction to speak to that? Because that isn’t going to be on for tonight. They didn’t get
through their ZBA requirements, their Zoning Board of Appeals.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED GREGORY WHITE PROPERTY OWNER: SCOTT MC LAUGHLIN AGENT:
VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5 & LC-10 LOCATION: BAY & WOODCHUCK HILL
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. LOTS ARE
TO BE +/- 10 ACRES AND +/- 24.27 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE TAX MAP NO.
252.-1-52 LOT SIZE: 31.77 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
GREGORY D. WHITE, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-And Gregory White, anybody here for Gregory White? The sign wasn’t
posted.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s incorrect information, sir.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO- I was there on Sunday. I didn’t see it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-The sign is posted directly (lost words) on Bay Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Not by me. I walked all around the property, did not see it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I have pictures of it, and I have Mr. Cowles here who uses that driveway
on a daily basis and will attest that that sign has been there since March 12.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, sir. I was there on Sunday, and I got out of the car, walked all
around the property and did not see the sign. My wife was with me. I didn’t see it. I was
around the mailboxes and all the way down the mailbox line.
MR. WHITE-Just south of Woodchuck Hill on Bay Road there’s a right of way driveway, that is
the entrance to the subdivision that I’m proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-And it would be on my left.
MR. WHITE-On your left.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. WHITE-The sign is there, sir. That has been there since March 12. I have a picture of it
th
and Mr. Cowles uses that driveway on a daily basis and will attest that that sign has been there.
I don’t know how you didn’t see it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, there were four sets of eyes on it. Two were mine, and two
were my wife. We both didn’t see it. So I’m sorry.
MR. SANFORD-Do you have that picture with you?
MR. WHITE-Yes I do, sir. It is on my digital camera, but I do have it here with me.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I think it would be helpful to see if he has it on the digital camera.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it could have been taken today. I’m sorry. That’s how I feel.
MR. WHITE-I have a witness that says the sign has been there since March 12, who uses the
th
driveway on a daily basis.
MS. RADNER-I think we have to defer to our Chairman if he wants to proceed or not proceed.
MR. VOLLARO-I do not. I did not see the sign. I’m sorry, sir. I didn’t see it.
MR. WHITE-Mr. Vollaro, I don’t understand how you could not see the sign. It’s plainly visible
from Bay Road at the entrance to that driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-How far to the north or south of the mailboxes was the sign?
MR. WHITE-It’s probably 250 feet or so south of those mailboxes. The mailboxes are you
referring to, are they on the corner of Bay and Woodchuck Hill?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. WHITE-Just south of there, about 250, there’s a dirt driveway that goes up into the
property that I’m proposing to subdivide, and at the entrance of that driveway is the sign.
Clearly visible from Bay Road.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Sure looked there and didn’t see it.
MR. WHITE-I would love to show you the picture, if I could. I did take the picture this evening.
I only found out this afternoon that there was an issue with this. I ran up here as soon as I
could to take a picture, and I have it with me if that’ll help. It has been posted since March 12.
th
Ten days.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t even have your application in my stack here, because I left it home,
because I didn’t see the sign. I’m so sorry, but that’s my position.
MR. WHITE-Okay. Where does that leave me?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll have to table it, until another date.
MR. WHITE-Could you explain what tabling means to me?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to bring you back. It’s not that we’re going to deny you the
application.
MR. WHITE-Okay, but when?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to talk to the Staff and I’ll determine when, and you’ll hear it, if you
want, we can talk about it now.
MR. HILTON-I mean, it’s really up to you at this point. I think that we probably are right on
the border of the 14 for April.
MR. VOLLARO-We can fit it in to April?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-April 14 would be.
th
MR. HILTON-Well, I meant the 14 items for April, but either meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-The Planning Board is on 19, put them on 19 April, and see where we go with
that.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-On the 19 of April you’ll be back.
th
MR. WHITE-Okay. Is there something else that you want me to do with the sign? I don’t know
what else to do. It’s clearly visible.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go back up tomorrow morning in my own vehicle and I’ll see the sign.
MR. WHITE-Okay. It’s on a big piece of plywood. It’s on a tree. It’s probably six feet off the
ground. It’s right there visible at the entrance to that driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I went up the driveway, and I don’t want to belabor this whole thing, but I
went up the driveway that says Woodchuck Hill Road. Went up to that, turned around in the
turnaround next to the house, came back down, went south on Bay Road and kept looking all
the way down south and couldn’t find the sign.
MR. WHITE-It’s right there. It is right there at the entrance to that driveway just south of
Woodchuck Hill.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-You said you saw that sign?
MR. SEGULJIC-I saw it this morning. Chris saw it. Chris, when did you see the sign?
MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to say it was over the weekend, but it might have been before that.
MR. VOLLARO-I went up Sunday, Sunday morning, and I couldn’t find it. I didn’t see it.
MR. WHITE-When did you see it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I saw it this morning.
MR. WHITE-I was in Albany this morning until four o’clock this afternoon. I didn’t put the
sign up today. The sign has been there since March 12. I have the local resident who uses that
th
driveway every day.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. I don’t have the application with me. We’re going to table you
until April 19.
th
MR. WHITE-Okay. April 19 then again here at seven o’clock?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. WHITE-The sign should remain posted?
MR. HILTON-You’d have to change the date to indicate that the meeting will be held on April
19, on the sign.
th
MR. WHITE-Can I just take a marker and change the sign on the sign?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. WHITE-That’s not a problem?
MR. HILTON-No.
MR. WHITE-Okay. I understand that you didn’t see it, but it’s hard for me to believe that you
didn’t. It’s right there in plain sight. I guess I’ll see you in April.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, does the applicant get a copy of the Staff notes that we get in our
package?
MR. HILTON-I believe he should have them already but if not, we can give them to him.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. WHITE-Yes, I have a copy that was just sent to me on Saturday of the Staff notes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Just so that you could be prepared to address those when you see us
next.
MR. WHITE-Right. Okay. Let me just jot down the date. That was April?
MR. VOLLARO-19.
th
MR. WHITE-April 19. Okay.
th
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don’t want to belabor the point either, but it would
behoove you to review the Staff notes on this, because one of the concerns we had was with the
slope of the property, and any potential runoff from the driveway onto the road.
MR. WHITE-Absolutely. I will be prepared to address those issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. I’m sorry.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, as far as the Jelenik application, I think you’ll probably want to
specify, or have the Board specify a date, as well, when you’re tabling it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Jelenik is going to be heard tomorrow night by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And so we won’t know whether they make it or not make it. So we can table it,
but I’d like to know what the Zoning Board of Appeals comes up with before we set it into
position, unless you think it’s a good idea to put it in now and just take it out if they don’t make
it.
MR. HILTON-Either way, I guess, without a specific date, we would have to re-advertise, or the
item would have to be re-advertised.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I would say we set a date on anticipation of Variance approval, Bob, and
then if it doesn’t happen it’s a moot point.
MR. VOLLARO-Make it April 26?
th
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’ll get started with a couple of things. We want to take an
approval of the minutes of 12/21 and 12/28. The previous vote did not have a quorum. So we
have to go through that again.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
12/21/04: NONE
12/28/04: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 12/21 AND 12/28/04, Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The first application that’s up tonight is for Nasreen Khurshid.
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NASREEN KHURSHID AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: RT. 9 JUST PAST
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
WALMART PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6700 SQ. FT.
RESTAURANT ALONG WITH AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, NORTH OF WEEKS ROAD. RESTAURANT AND HOTEL
USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-05, SP 58-04, AV 67-04, SP 70-89, UV
114-89, SP 7-93, AV 7-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17
LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-The Staff notes tonight are rather extensive. I’d like to ask the Board, has
everyone read them and familiar with our Staff notes?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The applicant has read and understands the Staff notes as well?
MR. BORGOS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-George, I don’t think there’s any sense in reading them. They’re rather long.
MR. HILTON-No. That’s fine. If you have any specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just quickly. The public hearing on this application was left open the
last time, and so at the end of discussing with the applicant I will open the public hearing and
continue it. Okay. For the record, you are?
MR. BORGOS-Attorney Michael Borgos, for the applicant. I’m here with Tom Jarrett from
Jarrett-Martin Engineers. I’d like to pick up where you left off with that public hearing being
left open. I believe at the last meeting, the only comment that was received by the Board was a
letter from the owners of Roberts Garden North Apartment complex.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BORGOS-We took it upon ourselves to meet with the owner, Richard Paulsen of Paulsen
Development, and his attorney, Scott Davidoff, who has penned that letter to you.
MR. VOLLARO-What date of the letter are you talking about? There to him, Mr. Paulsen, I
believe.
MR. BORGOS-I believe it was dated January 25, 2005.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s a letter from Mr. Jarrett to Mr. Paulsen?
MR. BORGOS-No, that was a letter from Mr. Davidoff, the attorney for Mr. Paulsen, to the
Board itself.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BORGOS-And I was just able to receive a letter from Mr. Davidoff this afternoon. I
provided copies to Mr. Hilton for your review. Essentially it sets fort that they are supportive of
the project, since we were able to meet with them. We addressed their concerns about some of
the transient traffic from the guests of the current Budget Inn through their property,
apparently there were some cut thrus to Wal-Mart, things like that. The revised plans that Tom
will walk you through in a minute will show you the privacy fence that we’ve agreed upon to
install on the back as well as the hedge to the rear of the restaurant, and I think we’ve met all of
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
their concerns. They’ve assured me that we have, and the letter clarifies and confirms that. The
one issue in Staff notes was something I thought was clear but I brought in a colored rendition
of the fence so everybody could know what we’re talking about. I’d be happy to show that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that was also tied to the letter to Mr. Paulsen, wasn’t it, a copy of that?
MR. BORGOS-That’s correct.
MR. BORGOS-There’s a colored version of it, the good neighbor fence, which appears to be the
same for both sides. It’s a very attractive cedar fence. The rest of the issues that were raised by
the Board the last time I believe we’ve addressed through the revised submissions, and I’d like
to have Mr. Jarrett walk you through all those different changes. For the record, there’s an
asterisk next to the top picture that describes a good neighbor privacy panel.
MR. SANFORD-Do we have a copy of this letter?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was going to have it read into the record, Mr. Sanford.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we normally don’t like to get information on the date of the meeting, but
I would like, we’re not going to each get an individual copy?
MR. HILTON-That’s up to you. The Board’s policy has been not to accept information the night
of a meeting, but I have it, in case you want it.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked through the attorney’s letter. I saw it was rather short. I didn’t see it,
but I could see from you holding it up that it was a rather short letter. I’d like to have it read
into the record, if you would, and we’ll go from there. Do you want to read it in?
MR. SANFORD-Just one quick question. Is this letter in response to the February 22, ’05 letter?
MR. VOLLARO-I believe so. The February 22, ’05 letter was from Mr. Jarrett to Mr. Paulsen.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The issue was raised initially at the public hearing previously, and then we
wrote to that neighbor and provided some mitigation, and this is in response to that.
MR. SANFORD-All right. If you want to proceed with it, Mr. Chairman, I’d be interested in
hearing the letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HILTON-The letter reads, “Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: As the Board is
aware, I wrote previously on behalf of my client, Robert Gardens North Apartments. In my
letter dated January 25, 2005, I raised certain concerns expressed by my client concerning the
above referenced project. Since that time, both I and principles of Robert Gardens have met
with the owners and professional advisors of the applicant. We have been provided with
copies of revised plans setting forth the fencing and spacing that we suggested, and are
confident that the revised plans will constitute a substantial improvement to the property.
Accordingly, I am authorized to inform the Board of our support of the proposed
redevelopment. Respectfully submitted, Scott S. Davidoff” And the letter is dated March 22,
2005.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Mr. Jarrett.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. JARRETT-Okay. The submission that we made to you on February 15 is in this bound
th
document, and it addresses two levels of issues, one concerns or questions raised by the
Planning Board, and the other level, the other issues were raised by C.T. Male. The concerns by
the Board, raised by the Board included the DOT approval, and to date we do not have a final
signoff from DOT, although we have a draft letter from them that was received today, was
provided to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Their letter was commenting on the CME report?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it was, and it was essentially saying they still feel that a dedicated right turn
lane, they feel would improve the situation of this site because they’re afraid of impacts to the
Route 9 traffic. We’ve proposed a mitigation to them of a delayed traffic signal and I think
they’ve received that favorably, but we don’t have a signoff on that yet.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s still some discussion to take place between you and the Department
of Transportation?
MR. JARRETT-They still have to signoff on that proposed mitigation. That’s right. Item
Number Two was the Weeks Road connection, and that was provided as really a suggestion to
the Town that the Weeks Road connection would be a benefit, although we have no control
over that. We cannot provide that connection directly that goes through the neighboring
property. Number Three is a technical discussion where they disagree with our calculations
regarding the pole strength for the traffic signal, and they are now providing us with
calculations and we will review our calculations versus theirs and come to some meeting of the
minds on whether that pole needs to be replaced. Issue Number Two regards C.T. Male, and
we can defer that for a second. Issue Number Three is the future interconnections to adjoining
properties and we’ve now shown those on the plans. I believe Staff has commented on those
interconnections.
MR. VOLLARO-They have.
MR. JARRETT-Number Four is a revised lighting plan that was attached to the document that
you received in the February submission. In that plan, and Staff has commented on, we
provided statistics that show that the uniformity ratios meet or come close to complying with
Town standards. However, the average intensity in the parking lot is slightly higher than Town
standard.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s two and a half to one that we have in the parking lot.
MR. JARRETT-Two and a half is the standard.
MR. VOLLARO-The only uniformity ratio that I had a problem with, I think you did a nice job
on the lighting, is I think at the southern end it’s 1 to .8, I believe.
MR. JARRETT-On that southern end?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I can look that up. Now, we worked with Staff extensively on this plan, and we
looked at a number of alternatives. In fact, at the time of our review, we had an alternative that
showed compliance with the average intensity, but non-compliance with the uniformity. We
had an either/or situation. Since then, that was commented on in Staff comments. Since then,
we’ve worked with the lighting plan further, and we’ve gotten to a point where we’ve very
close on average intensities and very close on uniformities, but to do it, we’ve had to add
fourteen fixtures, including seven poles. We throw that out for the Board so we can discuss that
later or now, as you wish.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s hold that in abeyance. What we’re going to be doing is going
through a checklist that’s been prepared, and I’m going to go through that list, we usually do
that, and when we get to lighting, we can discuss that.
MR. JARRETT-Get to that, sure.
MR. VOLLARO-At the south entrance, the only one that I saw, it’s 1.8 to 1. It’s the only one that
sort of fell out of the target of four to one. That’s the only one I saw. Other than that, they all
look very close.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and that’s very close to uniform. Okay. We’ll defer that and come back to
that in a second.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Number Five, the issue behind the motel which has been designated as
future parking, we will designate it for employee parking, and we’ve shown it on the site plan
there. It’s in a lighter color, a white, essentially, toward the rear of the site. Staff has
recommended to you that it be subject to further site plan review, if and when it’s required, and
we will stipulate to that.
MR. VOLLARO-I also have that in my notes as well. Now that site plan review would come as
result of the expansion of the motel itself?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, not even at that point. We feel that the parking is not required.
Outback tells us they absolutely have to have it. We’re going to build these structures and
monitor parking, and if we need it, we’ll come back for site plan review. We feel there’s a
diversity in parking, and they’ll be combined uses and we won’t need all the parking, the
additive parking.
MR. VOLLARO-I believe that future parking shows 22 spaces back there, for future parking.
We’ll talk about that when we get to the parking section. I’ll discuss that. I don’t want to
disrupt your train of thought.
MR. JARRETT-Right, and that was subject to a zoning variance. The Zoning Board did approve
that. Number Six, we amended the site plan to show the structures on adjoining properties,
Robert Gardens North and the existing vegetation tree lines on the adjoining properties and
that’s shown on the plan that you have in your packet as well as on the Board there. The dark
green shows the existing and proposed buffers.
MR. VOLLARO-And the blue at the top are the Robert Gardens buildings?
MR. JARRETT-The blue is the building, the Robert Gardens buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-And what’s the dimension of the green, for example, to the left?
MR. JARRETT-It’s roughly 200 feet between Robert Gardens and our restaurant, or slightly over
200 feet?
MR. SANFORD-I thought it was 250? From the restaurant actual building to the Robert
Gardens, not to the property line but to the actual physical apartment, I thought it was 250 feet,
what I measured. Is that accurate?
MR. JARRETT-I believe that’s pretty close.
MR. SANFORD-I’m probably close.
MR. JARRETT-You’re probably close. I don’t know as I remember the exact figure.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s not exact. I measured it with a ruler.
MR. JARRETT-Item Number Seven, we provided color schemes in your packet for the two
buildings, and I’ll show you. This is the color scheme now proposed for the Outback. It now
has the compliant, or more compliant roof color that you requested, Adirondack Green roof
with a light color siding.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to talk to that as well, when we get through this checklist, but I
guess I can ask a couple of questions. I’d like that Board to chime in on this, if they would. I
noticed that this building is white, and the motel itself is a different color, and I’m looking to
bring both up into a taupe or some sort of a beige, with a green roof on each, so that these two
things are tied together. That’s something that I, that’s not something I, this is one seat talking
now, there are four other seats that have to speak to that issue.
MR. JARRETT-We can come back to that. I would like to hear the rest of the Board comment.
We have some feedback from the operator of the motel as well as the architect, but let’s come
back to that issue. I think that’s an aesthetic issue that we can talk about. Item Number Eight,
the tree buffer along the rear western property line behind the motel is controlled by the
applicant, and that will be maintained. This buffer here is controlled by the applicant, and
that’s to remain. This buffer is on the adjoining property. We have no control over that. That is
a commercial use adjoining a residential use and would be subject to site plan review, at the
time, if that property is ever re-developed and you have buffer requirements for that property.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is that the property that’s owned by the car wash?
MR. JARRETT-Correct. What we’ve done, as a pro-active measure, is provide an additional
hedge along the rear of our restaurant, to make sure there’s positive vegetation on our property.
I presume that you won’t denude the vegetation on the adjoining property at your site plan
review in the future, but we’ve provided this step to assist.
MR. VOLLARO-While we’re there, what does Ermiger plan to do with the tradeoff of about, he
picked about a third of an acre in that tradeoff. It’s a little under a third, but do you know what
his plans are for that? Just as an aside? I know that’s not something that you need to answer,
but.
MR. BORGOS-Yes, he’s got no current plans for it. It’s just an idea to make it more valuable for
the future. That’s all.
MR. JARRETT-He acknowledges that this helps him greatly with this shared entrance here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I had.
MR. JARRETT-Item Number Nine, the site development data has been corrected, the site
development sheet.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I checked that. It looks good.
MR. JARRETT-Number Ten, the landscaping plan was modified to be more compliant with
Town suggested species, and Staff has commented that I believe you feel that it’s closer in line
with the Town request. Pedestrian walkways, Item Number Eleven, have been added to the
plan, from the restaurant and the motel to Route 9, and jumping into the C.T. Male comments, a
lot of these are related to stormwater. I don’t know if you wish to go through them individually
or not. We may want to have Jim Edwards speak to that at this point, or.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Maybe, Bob, we can wait until we go down the checklist. I don’t know if you
had issues on that. I didn’t have many.
MR. VOLLARO-The only issue I had with that, frankly when I looked at the size of the book
and the amount of stuff I have to do, I said we’ll let Mr. Edwards tackle that one.
MR. JARRETT-And he let Jim Houston review it. Okay. Then you have another packet that
was received last week, Friday, or actually Monday, that addresses, essentially, C.T. Male
comments. That’s another bound document that you have and it’s a repeat of the calculations
for stormwater management.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s in this one. I’ve got February 11, 2005. Is that the one?
MR. JARRETT-There’s actually two more of those that were resubmitted on Friday night,
Monday morning, two more of these bound documents.
MR. SANFORD-We’ve got them all.
MR. HILTON-Again, this is something that came in past the Friday deadline. I have it available
here to hand out to you, if you’d like, but again, understanding that your policy is not to accept
information the night of the meeting.
MR. SANFORD-I thought we got them? We didn’t?
MR. VOLLARO-What’s being said by the applicant, Mr. Sanford, is that these are modified
from the ones that we got.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. JARRETT-They are the C.T. Male comments on the stormwater plan. We got the comments
on Wednesday. We re-did the calculations, had them Friday afternoon. I talked with Craig
Brown. Craig suggested we drop them off Monday morning. So, as you wish.
MR. VOLLARO-What happens in that, we get our Staff notes mailed to us, and then we pick
them up usually in our mail on Saturday. So they have a drop dead date of Friday, and they
mailed our stuff, and when they mailed it, of course, that modification wasn’t in it, since it
didn’t get in until Monday morning.
MR. EDWARDS-We’ve been through the modifications to all the stormwater calculations. I can
summarize those at some point if you want to, where we stand with those. We’ve been through
it.
MR. SANFORD-Do you want to do it now?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you might as well do it now since we’re on the subject. Let’s go forth.
MR. EDWARDS-Let’s see. Going back to the, let’s see, the latest comment letter was March 16,
th
and in going through that, jumping to grading and stormwater plan drawing C-3, comment ten
was concerning a deep test pit that was more located inside the site away from Route 9. The
applicant provided data on the sewer line installation along the Route 9. We suggested doing a
deep test pit somewhere in the site off of Route 9. I think we all know there’s going to be a lot
of deep sands out there, fairly dry, but we suggested doing a deep test pit further inside the site.
The response to that was when they removed the pool, Tom, correct me if I’m wrong, a deep
test pit will be dug then and confirmed that the soils are, in fact, sandy.
MR. JARRETT-That’s right.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the things you wanted on the drawing was to show the location
of the sewer line on Route 9. Was that something that you had asked for? I think that was a
suggestion.
MR. EDWARDS-I thought that was put on, wasn’t it, eventually? That’s been put on, yes.
That’s where the data came from originally from the soils was that the contractor installing the
sewer main put it down probably 10 feet or so, and it was definitely sandy conditions. So in all
likelihood it’s going to be the same condition on site, but that’s one way to confirm it is to
actually do a test pit during demolition to confirm that, those sandy soils exist out there, which I
believe they do.
MR. JARRETT-A representative of our firm was out there during those excavations to witness
that, purposely for that, and we’ve also done a number of investigations nearby on sites in this
general area and it’s consistently deep sand, unsaturated.
MR. SANFORD-It’s sandy soil out there. Anybody who’s lived around here knows that that’s
sandy soil.
MR. VOLLARO-And the excavation you’re talking about is putting the sewer line along Route
9, when they excavated for that?
MR. JARRETT-Exactly, and then also a sewer line was put down Weeks Road.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, we were there for both of those installations. So we confirm that.
MR. JARRETT-And we have stipulated that when the pool is removed, we’ll do another test pit.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. I understand.
MR. EDWARDS-So I’m fine with the test pit. Comment Eleven, this is the only outstanding
comment that we have based upon the resubmitted calculations, it’s Comment Eleven. The
mottling’s going to require some fine tuning, and it’s a number of outlets from the chamber
system and the drywells. It’s complicated to get into in detail, but there’s basically too many
outlets mottled in the Hydro CAD mottling that they put together most recently, so it may or
may not result in any additional chambers, as far as length or layout, but it needs to be fine
tuned before it’s signed off by us.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that was mentioned in the comments that I’ve got from Jim Houston as
well.
MR. JARRETT-If I can air some dirty laundry, we discovered that we had several of the
drywells mottled with multiple bottoms, and I think we can all attest that each drywell has one
bottom. We had mistakenly mottled it with multiple bottoms. There’s a multiplier in the
Hydro CAD software that allows you to multiple structures and we checked it off as more than
one by accident, which was picked up by C.T. Male. In order to mitigate that error, we’ve had
to add a couple of chambers to the system, and we will relay that to C.T. Male tomorrow.
MR. EDWARDS-There’s room on site to add chambers. It’s not an issue, but it needs to be
addressed in the review. Comments Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen have been addressed, and
Comment Fifteen related to we felt was kind of an excessive slope on the pavement by the south
end of the restaurant, and I believe that’s been addressed, keeping the cross pitch at five percent
or less now.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we did modify that slope.
MR. VOLLARO-Was that at seven percent before?
MR. SANFORD-It was in excess of seven, I believe.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. EDWARDS-It was seven and change, seven point something, and we felt it was a bit steep,
so we had them bring that down to, what is it now, Tom?
MR. JARRETT-It’s under five. I think it’s three or four.
MR. EDWARDS-Three or four percent, and that’s it for stormwater comments. That’s all we
had. Other comments we had have been addressed, except, I had one comment on site layout
that I addressed to Tom, this was last minute stuff, but it’s regarding some parking spaces, as
you enter the site, on the south site, and we can discuss that now or later, if you want to. It’s
more of a personal preference, but I conveyed that to Tom as well.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re on it, why don’t we go through it now. Why don’t we do
this? We’re going to go through our checklist, and each member of the Board is going to have a
chance to talk to this checklist, and when we get to that part, we’ll talk to it, and I’ll take the
Board through the checklist and they can comment on it. Let me ask the Board, are there any
questions, so far, that you would like to ask, other than us going through our checklist?
MR. SEGULJIC-Our checklist is fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s do the checklist.
MR. SANFORD-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Does the applicant want to say anything else before I start with this
checklist?
MR. JARRETT-No, I don’t think so.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On design standards, does anybody have any comments on design
standards?
MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure if this fits in, but my main concern on this application really was
the odors that a restaurant like this may emit, and I recall, when Kentucky Fried Chicken was at
its prior location, how when you were at the lights, you know, you felt you were ready some
chicken. 24/7 that would be a problem, and so my concern was the proximity to Robert
Gardens, and I called Staff and left a voice mail message, and I understand that Mr. Baker was
out of town. So he never got back to me, but I wanted to know if there were any guidelines that
he may have encountered throughout the country in terms of location of restaurants of this
nature in terms of proximity apartments or residential areas, and I’m very encouraged that you
received a signoff, if you will, from Robert Gardens. Let me ask you this. Where is the exhaust
system for the restaurant located on this Outback Restaurant. Is it coming from the roof or from
a side area of the actual building?
MR. JARRETT-I’m not sure, offhand. I’m not sure that I’ve seen the building plans to know
exactly where it is, but I can check what we have in our photos. While I’m looking for that, we
promised you at the last Planning Board meeting that we would have a representative of
Outback here tonight, and I have to apologize, they told us this morning they would not be able
to get a representative here. They had to get somebody out of Florida and they could not do it.
They did provide me with an e-mail written comments addressing those concerns regarding
nuisances, including odors, if you wish to see it.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would. I mean, again, what I would hate to have happen here is that we
give an approval and then find out that the people living in that closest apartment building are
subjected to odors on a continuous basis, and it looks like the owner of the apartment complex
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
seems to be satisfied by the basis of that letter, but I’m not sure that the people living in that
apartment complex will feel equally as satisfied. So that’s my concern.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a valid concern. I just had one line on this, under environmental,
under air quality, under odors from the kitchen, and I had a word down there that said filters.
There are certain filters that can be put on exhausts from kitchens that catch a good deal of that.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I was wondering if any.
MR. JARRETT-Including carbon filters, as required.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-You see, we’re reading just the first paragraph. My familiarity with Outback is
typically, when you go to Albany, I think they might have one on Wolfe Road or they’re
typically located in these kind of commercial plazas and what have you, and in this particular
case it is a very much commercial road, but right behind it is residential, and so I don’t know is
the problem what the impact will be, and that causes concerns, and having said that, I’m not
sure if there’s a body of literature that could lead me in any kind of a right direction in terms of ,
well, you need to have X number of feet from a residential area in order to have proper screen.
So I’m kind of in a Catch-22. I just don’t know what is the right thing to do, and I’m encouraged
that at least the owner of the apartment complex, for whatever reasons, appears to be
reasonably satisfied, and so that goes a long ways, but I was hoping to get some additional
information to address this issue. That was really my problem.
MR. JARRETT-If you read Paragraphs Three and Four, I think they more specifically address
the concerns the Board raised.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He said our goal is to completely eliminate the static odor that might be
present at competitive businesses. I don’t understand that one. At competitive businesses.
MR. JARRETT-I think he’s comparing his operation with.
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody else. It’s not well constructed.
MR. JARRETT-It’s kind of throwing stones maybe, and it’s maybe not such a good idea.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-He obviously has some pride of ownership there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but he doesn’t say what he’s going to do to eliminate that, and I wanted to
tie it down to some sort of a filter that we could hang our hat on for, there are filters of this type,
I know. I just don’t know what they are or what their specifications are.
MR. JARRETT-The odors that I’ve typically experienced, and this is personal experience, but the
odors I’ve typically experienced are based on doors and windows open in the restaurant that
are allowed to stay open, and food waste that resides on the site outside for any length of time.
They’ve told us here that they plan to leave the doors closed. It’s a security issue for them.
They don’t want to leave doors open at all, and that their food waste is removed daily.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I read that, but I also know that a kitchen under full bore is putting out a.
MR. JARRETT-You’re right. Exhaust fans can be laden with odor.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-That’s my issue, Bob, as well, because I don’t consider this a true fast food
restaurant, but, boy, when they’re cooking up the onions and all of that kind of stuff in those
grease vats, you know, there’s going to be odor emission. I’m just wondering if 250 feet is going
to be a proper screening from the apartment complex, and I guess the bottom line is we just
don’t know. Though Robert Gardens owner doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned at this
point.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to just explore, and I don’t know whether the rest of the Board is
with me on this, but I’ll just put my feeling out, is to stipulate that we’d like to have some sort of
a carbon filter. Carbon will take a good deal of the odors out, and there are carbon filters that
are utilized for that purpose now. Whether or not we want to specify or ask that the carbon
filters be installed is entirely up to the Board, but that would be my take on it.
MR. SANFORD-Does C.T. Male have any knowledge on this particular topic?
MR. EDWARDS-Not a whole lot on restaurant type odors, no.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-We’ve dealt with wastewater plants, and there certainly are carbon type filters.
They’ve got to be maintained. You can install them once and let them go. They have to be,
every so often, replaced.
MR. VOLLARO-They absorb all they’re going to absorb and then they’re done, yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Right. There’s a useful way to them, and there’s no question something could
be used on the exhaust, I’m sure, but I don’t know, with restaurants, what it would be, to be
honest.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, I’m not sure where we want to go with it, but I will say this, I think
that the applicant put a nice packet together, and that was my main primary concern, and I’m
still not totally comfortable with it, but I’m not sure if I ever will be.
MR. SEGULJIC-In regards to odors, one of the problems with odors is, what one person likes to
have an odor, the next person doesn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think at this point I’d be uncomfortable requesting them to put carbon filters
on, because, A, we don’t even know if there’s really going to be an odor. So I think it would be
better if we put some provision in there, if there were complaints, that then they would, but
then again, I don’t think we want to tell them to put in carbon filters because there’s other
technologies they could use, like, for example, don’t put your fans blowing in a westerly
direction toward Robert Gardens. Have them go straight up. There’s, you know, you put a
stack within a stack that prevents rain from getting in there, having it go straight up and
accelerate it, so that then you have a column of air that goes up like 500 feet, and as the wind
blows it disperses it in a much better, you know, it gives it a greater chance to disperse.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s certainly a good thought.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the bottom line is that Robert Gardens seems satisfied in discussions
with the Outback and the fact that they must have talked about odors or he wouldn’t have put
it in the letter, and if they feel comfortable with it.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, on balance, I can’t see holding it up, because we have nothing to look, you
know, to deal with. I mean, I don’t have any literature on this.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-True, I understand that. Okay. Chris, do you have anything to add to that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s kind of the nature of the use. You go down to Lowe’s and you’re
in the parking lot and you can smell Applebee’s. You’re sitting at the red light on Route 9, and
you can smell Burger King. The question is, at what point does it become objectionable, and I
think maybe my concern might be, in our efforts to keep the odors away from Robert Gardens,
we might be putting it into the neighborhood that’s across the street on Route 9, but I think at
that point it would probably be dispersed enough so that it wouldn’t be noticeable, but again,
I’m kind of with Richard, you really don’t know. I think the bottom line, from Robert Gardens
perspective, is we’ve got a letter from their representative saying they have no further concerns.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I am as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think Tom was along the right frame of thought in just saying, you know,
no exhaust fans shall be along the western side of the building. I think that would help to
mitigate any factors, but the prevailing winds are going to determine which way the smell goes,
more than anything.
MR. VOLLARO-Usually the prevailing winds are from the west.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’d be blowing away from Robert Gardens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. They’re from the northwest.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I can’t tell you, you know, I was talking to Bob on it, and I said one
way to deal with this, I think you’ve got a place on Wolfe Road, don’t you?
MR. JARRETT-There is a place on Wolfe Road.
MR. SANFORD-Let’s go to Wolfe Road and sit 250 feet away and see if we can smell it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, does it pass the smell test, yes.
MR. SANFORD-But we didn’t do it. Now if Mr. Strough was here, he would have done that.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I think we’ve put that one to bed. George, do you have a copy of this
for the record? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think while we’re on design standards, though, that would be the place to
discuss the proposed colors.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it would be.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the difficulties I these color copies is, even though they’ve come a
long way, the colors still don’t come out exact, and I don’t, personally I don’t have much of a
concern with the colors on the steakhouse. In fact, I really like the proposed architecture,
although it looks kind of like a train station, more than anything else, I think, but, you know, I
like the railings that are there in the front, and, you know, the multiple gables, and certainly the
evergreen colored roof. I think Staff even had a comment about the color of the proposed hotel,
and again, I don’t know if it’s just a bad color copy or what the, you know, the proposed color
scheme really is.
MR. SANFORD-You see, I’m not so sure, from an aesthetic point of view, having it blended
with the hotel/motel makes a whole lot of sense, to be honest with you, because I think.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree with that. I think they almost should be different colors.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, I think the Outback Restaurant is going to be a destination for a
lot of local people, and if you homogenize it with the hotel, you’re suggesting it’s a proprietary
type of restaurant, which it is not, and so I’m not sure, based on the location on Route 9,
whether or not that’s really important, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a good point. I would like to see the motel go into some sort of a taupe or a
beige color, though, as opposed to that sort of olive green, if that’s a true representation of a
color, I’d like to see it more in an earth tone than that. That’s just one person’s opinion.
Gretchen, how do you feel about that?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not on the same page with you guys. I don’t think the Outback is
particularly pretty at all, and I’m not really thrilled with the color. So actually one of my
questions was going to be if the Outback had different design packages. I know a lot of the
other fast food restaurants have different kinds of packages that you can put together, and I
just, I didn’t think this was particularly pretty.
MR. JARRETT-This is very similar to the other restaurants we’ve seen and they have not offered
other design packages. In fact, if you recall from the last meeting, they had a lighter green roof
proposed, and their first response to us was they weren’t willing to change it but we told them
that you may not go very far if you don’t. So they’ve changed it to the Adirondack green roof.
They did not offer any other alternatives for the overall design of the building and the siding
color.
MR. VOLLARO-How do the Board members feel about the roof color on the motel as well? Do
you want to leave it in the gray?
MR. SEGULJIC-My problem is I can’t even match my own clothes. I mean, to me all I’d like to
see is something with more Adirondack, whatever.
MR. JARRETT-It’s interesting. We brought this up to the operator who’s here in the audience as
well tonight as well as the architect, because we received Staff comments that color might be an
issue with the Board, and both feel very strongly that they support this color scheme. They
want to be unique. They want to stand out in this neighborhood. They don’t want to be just
like every other building and every other structure in this Town and this neighborhood. The
architect strongly feels that this is a good color scheme for this motel. So I, frankly, it’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the color that we see there a true representation of what it’s going to be? I
guess that’s my question.
MR. JARRETT-That rendering was prepared by the architect. So I have to rely on the color
scheme that he’s given us in that rendering.
MR. BORGOS-I think it’s important to note that when he was defending his choice of color, he
said it was very deliberate that they did it this way, and I think he used the phrase earth tones.
So I don’t know if that is exactly an earth tone. It doesn’t appear that from that print, to me, but
if he’s defending it on the basis that is an earth tone, I think you’ve got to go with the
professional architects’ opinion on color more than.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have to go with anything. We have to really please what the Board
would like to see there, as a matter of fact.
MR. JARRETT-I mean, obviously, we would like to support the operator and the architect in
this situation, but if the Board, as a consensus, feels that we should scale it down to more of a
taupe color tone, then I think we can relay that.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s just one seat talking. The other four have to talk. We already heard
Mrs. Steffan’s position on this.
MR. JARRETT-Regarding Outback, did we hear what your position was on the motel?
MRS. STEFFAN-I wasn’t thrilled with the colors on that either, and it looks very bland to me. I
don’t think it does anything, aesthetically, for the corridor. Yes, we put a nice new building
there, but I don’t think that the design of this is going to be long lasting. It’s going to look nice,
long term.
MR. JARRETT-It’s very interesting. When we went to the Zoning Board last fall, we presented
this exact rendering to them, and they were thrilled with the design, and the color scheme.
Everybody has their own opinion.
MRS. STEFFAN-But if we’re trying to improve the corridor, that’s one of my concerns. One of
the other questions I had on design standards, with the zoning we’ve got here, if you look at the
way this parcel is laid out, and even though we’re looking at this as a complete design, is there
the opportunity, at some point in the future, to subdivide this parcel to sell off the restaurant
separately from the hotel? I know today we’re looking at this as a package. There’s parking
behind the hotel that supports the Outback, but could this be subdivided at some point and one
business sold?
MR. BORGOS-I would have to come back before this Board to do so, and it hasn’t been
contemplated, but I suppose, if it were to be done, there would have to mutual easements for
parking to address those concerns that you’ve raised, and again, we’d be here before the Board
before that would be approved, because I think it’s unlikely, based upon the way it’s been
packaged here.
MR. SANFORD-There probably wouldn’t be adequate parking and things like that if it was a
subdivide from where it is now. I mean, isn’t there overlapping parking that you’re dealing
with here?
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it’s very complicated to do it. I think in theory it might be possible. In
practicality, very difficult.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there an agreement between Mr. Khurshid and the Outback when you put
this together as to how this was going to work? In other words, is there a legal agreement that
binds these two folks?
MR. BORGOS-Yes, there’s a lease agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and for how long is that lease?
MR. BORGOS-Thirty years.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if we’re asking those questions, we did a subdivision for the Mall,
for Target.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, if you were to do something, it would have to be very similar to
what we did there, where there were cross agreements for parking and everything else.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering if there was an agreement in place now that sort of bound
these two individuals together, and he tells me there’s a 30 year lease agreement between them.
That says that they’re contemplating going that route, staying together, essentially, at least for
the foreseeable future, I would think.
MR. JARRETT-Outback hasn’t expressed any desire to own this at all, right?
MR. BORGOS-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess while we’re talking about the building, Gretchen, I wanted to ask the
applicant whether or not, in a past application which showed a neon, a red neon strip around,
has that been removed?
MR. JARRETT-Not in theory. We wanted Outback to represent that themselves tonight and
they’re not here to do that. We don’t even have any really good pictures to show that. I don’t
know how to present that to you.
MR. VOLLARO-The picture that you have, I looked at it pretty carefully. I don’t see any sort of
a neon thing there. We just don’t want that. No place up and down the corridor is anybody
stripped in neon, and I really would like.
MR. SANFORD-Where is it supposed to be, around the sign?
MR. VOLLARO-Right under the eaves, all the way around the building, a neon strip. It just
doesn’t look appealing to me at all.
MR. SANFORD-No. I don’t think this Board is going to approve an application with that neon
strip. So I guess the question is, where do we proceed tonight.
MR. JARRETT-I think we proceed and we’ll stipulate that we won’t include it if it’s going to be
a deal breaker.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, I think, you know, I don’t know where everybody stands on it, but
I mean, when I read the Staff notes I assumed that we were going to remove the neon strip.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, we have a picture of the Clifton Park restaurant which does not have
the neon it. So I think their support of the neon strip is probably waning.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean the folks at Clifton Park took the same tack?
MR. JARRETT-I think it’s harder for us to support it tonight to you if they have another
restaurant without it in Upstate New York.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The next one, I guess we take that that there won’t be a neon strip.
MR. SANFORD-When we get to that point of approval, we’ll condition it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-The approval that way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are we still on design standards?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If anybody else has any other thing on design standards, we can talk to it.
MRS. STEFFAN-The question that I have on that is phasing. We’ve talked, in the last meeting
we talked about that the motel would be a construction project. The intent was to have that
constructed after the restaurant. Do you have a project planned for when these things are going
to happen?
MR. JARRETT-The in-fill between the two existing motel buildings has to occur concurrent with
the restaurant construction, because the office has to be torn down to build the restaurant. So
the in-fill structure in the middle of the two motel buildings would proceed immediately. The
second story to the motel would proceed as funds allow. It’s anticipated within a year, but no
guarantee, and if we lose our approval, we’ll have to be back to this Board, and the Zoning
Board.
MR. VOLLARO-George, that approval’s for a one year period, is that where we’re at with the
approval on the second story? If we approve this design, we’re talking about a one year period?
MR. HILTON-Site plan’s do have a one year, I’ll say life to them, if no action is taken within a
year, and they have to come back, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’d have to come back after a year with that. Okay. Fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-So when you do the motel, and you do the in-fill, the façade’s going to be
upgraded at the same time?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the motel will be, the office will be put in the center of the two existing
motel units.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And then the facades will be changed on the front of the old building.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it will all look uniform.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s the idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The second story would not be added yet, but the overall façade upgrade and
color scheme would be made consistent right away.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re all finished with design standards. We’ll go to site development
design, which includes the parking field design, or other things that are in there as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was glad to see you added the sidewalks.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think they work pretty well.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SEGULJIC-In regards to parking. I believe your zoning says 67 and you’re proposing 125?
MR. JARRETT-Zoning is actually 67 for the restaurant.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the ZBA gave you, what, 166?
MR. JARRETT-They gave us 149, I believe, 169.
MR. VOLLARO-169, yes.
MR. JARRETT-149 currently and 20 to be added later, if required and we have to come back to
site plan review for site plan review.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess this ties in with the front of the restaurant and the strip along the street,
along Route 9, and we had discussions last time about this, and I apologize if.
MR. BORGOS-Yes, I believe Mr. Hunsinger brought that up last time. He wanted to see
continuity of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems like you have plenty of parking out back. Why can’t we, with the
parking out in front, make that, eliminate it or make it parallel with Route 9 to give us more of a
landscaping strip along Route 9. I mean, if you put it parallel to Route 9, I don’t know exactly.
You’d probably lose 10 spots there.
MR. JARRETT-Previously, the question was whether we could move the Outback Restaurant
closer to Route 9, and we have a setback issue here in this corridor of 75 feet. Moving the
parking by itself to add landscaping would just push more parking to the rear and closer to
Robert Gardens. I guess there’s a tradeoff. We felt this was.
MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t we have more than adequate parking?
MR. JARRETT-Again, it goes back to Town standards, and we’ve asked for a variance to
eliminate as much as we can. Outback says they need the parking, and we’ve gotten a variance
to eliminate 20, leave 20 for future development, but we may need the 20 for Outback.
MR. SANFORD-Honestly they did a pretty good job with this. I mean, I don’t know where
everybody else stands on the parking. We could tweak it, but I don’t have a major issue with it.
How about, you, Chris, I mean, what do you think?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s always, I mean, as the applicant said, I brought this up at
the last meeting, you know, the same question. I think it’s worth asking again. To me, it was
more of an aesthetic issue rather than a parking issue, and I’m sure that’s where you’re coming
from, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s where I’m, I’m just trying to get more green stripping along Route 9.
MR. SANFORD-Because in the front there’s not a lot of room. That’s the thing. I mean, they’re
putting that restaurant right at the perimeter of the setback. I mean, right at the end of the
setback. So, I’m not sure what you can do with landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, similar to what they’re proposing in front of the hotel. A green strip
instead of asphalt parking spaces.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, once again, if you were to put the parking, instead of having it
perpendicular to Route 9, put it horizontal, if I said that correctly. They would lose about 10
spaces or so, and the question is, is that too much to give up? It would seem to me no.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. JARRETT-From our perspective, maybe not. From Outback’s, yes. They say they need it.
They have the parking demand to warrant what they have on the drawing. So if we move the
parking to the rear, we’re cutting into the buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that the applicant has already gone through, however, this whole
parking routine with the ZBA who has authorized 169 spaces in their motion. So I don’t know
how far we can modulate that around.
MR. SANFORD-I hear what Chris and Tom are saying, but I look at some of the other
restaurants that have recently been constructed, and I’m thinking Uno’s, and boy they’re right
up on Route 9. Pizzeria Uno’s, but I mean, they’re not providing any kind of real green space
there.
MR. VOLLARO-I think if you go to the landscaping plan and take a look at what has been
proposed in the landscaping plan, there’s a fairly, it’s pretty well landscaped all the way. I
mean, they’ve got a lot of landscaping in there, and I thought it was fairly well landscaped
myself, personally.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think the landscaping looks great, but I think it could be better. I think there
could be more green space in front. Apparently there doesn’t seem to be much support for that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the renderings show it that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now those are holly bushes?
MR. VOLLARO-Where are they?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at your landscape drawing, and the sh’s are, Compact Shamrock
Holly’s.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would assume they’re very low growing shrubs?
MR. JARRETT-Thirty inches is what they’re.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess they’re designed to make a nice hedgeway along there, basically.
That’s what it looks like to me, but I thought, by in large, I thought this landscaping plan was
reasonable. Gretchen, what do you think?
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s reasonable for the site. I think that, you know, we’re trying to put an awful
lot on a little site.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, I’m evaluating it from the context of where it is, on what road, and
what the adjacent types of properties are, and, you know, I’m not trying to deviate drastically
from that vision, and I think it’s fine in that context. Now, if you’re saying that we want to all of
a sudden start now to re-address what’s going to, what’s happening on Route 9, I mean, you’ve
got a valid point, but I don’t think that’s where we’re going with this.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t, either.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m satisfied with it, with the exception of Staff’s comment on moving.
MR. JARRETT-There was one tree shown in the location of the proposed interconnect with the
car wash property.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. JARRETT-And there were three trees that were identified by Staff on the Ermiger property
next door that they wish to keep, excuse me, on our property that were previously on the
Ermiger property. We’ve now, we now agree with Staff and we’ve moved our landscaping to
coincide with the existing trees and moved that one tree that was in conflict with the
interconnect.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing I said is move it or leave it off. If it can be moved.
MR. JARRETT-We moved it. We’ve kept the tree and we’ve moved it to a better location.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’ll be on another drawing?
MR. JARRETT-That’ll be on, whatever action you take, it’ll be on the next plan you see.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. George, I think you talked about moving it to the north and to the west.
MR. JARRETT-That’s what we did.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I’m a little bit confused on the parking field design. Drawing C-
2 shows 22 spaces for future employee parking. Now, does that mean, the future employee
parking, is that, that’s that light space that’s in the back there.
MR. JARRETT-The white area in the rear.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. JARRETT-When and if that’s built, that will be used for employee parking.
MR. VOLLARO-And the when and if that’s built is when Outback proves, or somebody proves
that they need more spaces?
MR. JARRETT-That’s right, and we’d come back to this Board and show you a site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. So essentially that’s kind of a to be done kind of thing. Now, on the
current, C-1 states that there are 10 spaces for current employee parking, and I can’t find them
on the drawing, or are they dispersed among all of the parking spaces?
MR. BORGOS-Yes. It’s not currently defined. We put the tag on future employee parking in
order to address the ZBA’s concern about putting that space close to Robert Gardens. There
wouldn’t be any in and out traffic if the employees were there for the length of their work.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So right now the 10 employees that we’re talking about are dispersed
throughout the parking, they can pick a spot and just do it? That’s the way the plan reads, at
least.
MR. BORGOS-According to whatever the manager tells them to do, I guess, yes.
MR. JARRETT-But the intent is also to use the rear spaces. So, again, we’d minimize the
impacts to the neighbors to the west.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but I think what they’re saying is if they do the future expansion, they’ll
earmark that, and that’ll take the discretion of where the employees park.
MR. VOLLARO-Away. That’s correct.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Right, but until they do that, the manager may say, hey, park to the rear of the
building, but not designate, you know, specifically an area exclusively for that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thought that they might have left it off because they talked about a
discreet spot for future employees. I thought maybe it was left off this, inadvertently off C-1.
MR. JARRETT-No, it has not been.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is this whole lot going to be paved? How is this phasing going to happen?
MR. JARRETT-The area in gray is paved, on that plan.
MR. SANFORD-The white stuff will remain, what?
MR. JARRETT-The white stays as green, actually wooded until and if we need it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Traffic patterns is our next thing we’re going to talk about. My
comment is the DOT response to the CME traffic study, and you’ve said that they still have to
go with that.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, it appears that they’re comfortable with the traffic study and it was just
that they were trying to design information for the signal, the new signal, the fourth leg on that
existing signal.
MR. VOLLARO-What about this right turn that they’re talking about, right turn only?
MR. JARRETT-They feel that especially for the neighboring use, that a right turn lane is
appropriate, and they feel that it will help provide unimpeded traffic on Route 9. In other
words, if we have a signal, one exit lane with a trip signal, then it’ll be tripped so often that
Route 9 will be interrupted. What we’ve provided to them is that we propose to them that we
would have a delay on that trip. So Route 9 would not be impeded. People exiting the
restaurant would have to wait a few more seconds. They seem amenable to that, but they
haven’t signed off on it yet.
MR. VOLLARO-When I read that report, Shelly’s report on that whole thing, every report that
I’ve ever read, that comes out of any engineering company that does that kind of work,
Creighton Manning or whoever, it always winds up that there’s no impact, and as a driver, and
you as a driver, and the rest of the folks that drive these roads know that I’m beginning to see
impacts to certain areas, and I’ve been, from this seat and from the other seats I’ve sat on this
Board, I’ve talked about cumulative traffic studies, to see where we’re going, and nobody’s
really grabbed on to that yet. I mean, it’s always discreet to the site that they’ve been asked to
look at, and they say, well, no, it’s not going to, nobody’s going to LOSF, ever.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I understand where you’re coming from with that comment. If you recall
initially we proposed using the existing entrances, and even before we did a formal traffic
study, DOT worked with us and said, no, we’re not comfortable with that. So they proposed at
that time there was too much of an impact to that existing entrance, and that’s why we’ve
redesigned it. So I think you’re now seeing the tail end of our work with DOT, and I don’t
think, using this entrance, there’s going to be a major impact to Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have to tell you about all the stuff that’s on-line now from Home Depot
and from Wal-Mart coming down the pike. Great Escape, of course The Great Escape with the
overpass is probably going to help that somewhat. There won’t be any lights to impede traffic
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
there, but they’ll meet one up at Glen Lake. I’m just wondering how much the corridor can
stand, in terms of curb cuts, ins and outs, and traffic, before it becomes impeded.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I have some great concerns, but I don’t know, I don’t have any solutions,
and I don’t think Staff has any solutions. We’re looking at the additional traffic from the hotel,
The Great Escape hotel. We’re looking at light changes. The configurations are all going to be
different along that corridor from The Great Escape down to the Waikita Motel. There’s a
Waikita motel expansion going in. They’re adding a lot of rooms right there. There’s going to
be a different traffic light, and then we do a lot of traffic counts off season, and so there’s
nothing anticipating what it’s like on the Fourth of July, trying to get from Point A to Point B,
and then we’ve got this particular project that we’re looking at, the Super Wal-Mart, which will
be finished, and then in the summertime the movie theater’s open, and there’s a turning lane,
and it’s jammed in both directions for folks trying to get in the movie theater plus the
restaurants there, and so these cumulative impacts are not documented anywhere, but the
reality of the folks who live there is that there’s traffic jams there now. What are we going to do
adding more traffic to the pipeline?
MR. SANFORD-The problem is, and, you know, we’ve dealt with this time and time again, is
that the applicant hires the engineering firm to do the traffic study, and they’re not going to be
in business if they come back with a traffic study which says it’s going to be (lost words), end of
story, and that’s not just for this application. It’s with every application. I’ve never seen a
traffic study provided by an applicant that says, look it, it’s going to be terrible. It just never
happens. We’re never going to see one.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I know it feels that way to this Board, but we are looking at a slice of the
picture. We’re not looking at the entire picture. That’s not what we’re charged to do, and we
do come back with concerns, but we typically don’t come back with the concerns without some
mitigation. So that’s what you’re seeing is the end product, and it feels like there’s never a
problem, but we’ve tried to mitigate them along the way, but you’re right, we’re looking at one
project, and one intersection. So it’s not the same thing as looking at the whole section of Town
or the whole strip.
MR. SANFORD-It becomes an issue of fairness, too, as to how do you pick and choose? I mean,
I think if you look at the cumulative impacts, I mean, obviously The Great Escape contributes
the most to any kind of particular traffic influx into Route 9, at any given point in time. This,
the Outback is minor in comparison.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, but I know that if you start adding up all these minor points
over time, they begin to accumulate into a fairly substantial.
MR. SANFORD-And that’s why people in this Town are avoiding driving on the main roads.
They’re taking the side roads or they’re actually determining when they drive. It’s a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-That gets back to our responsibility as Planning Board members to look at
some of these cumulative impacts and how it affects our community and how we interpret the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan to see whether this all fits or not.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with you.
MR. VOLLARO-A solution to that might be, and I think, George, one of the things we could
bring up in one of our workshops is that the Town actually funds a cumulative study with CME
or anybody else to see what that, or that firm thinks about how Route 9 now operates. I don’t
know what that would cost, but certainly we spend a lot money doing a lot of things around
here. That might be one of the things we ought to do is take a look at the cumulative impacts,
from end to end.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. EDWARDS-Focused area GIS type thing, where you look at traffic and all the
environmental impacts for a certain area of Town, a certain corridor. That’s been done in
different towns, too.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ve gone to Saratoga from where I live, which is on Ridge, and it’s taken
me as long to get to the Northway from Ridge Road than it did once I got on the Northway to
go to Saratoga. That’s not really an exaggeration. That’s pretty much the way it is, all the lights
and the bumper to bumper.
MR. VOLLARO-Anyway, my recommendation would be on the record to have the Town to
look at an end to end study by some reputable firm such as CME or somebody else. That’s
something we can talk about. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not on site development.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, in the motion I would like, in the motion I have a note that the applicant
will consent to construct the interconnections to the north and south properties at such time as
those properties propose an interconnect, and that would be something we would put in the
motion. I have all the motion things tagged here, Chris, for you, so that, if we need to get those.
On lighting, I think we’ve already done some pre-discussion on the lighting thing. I’m pretty
much, in looking, in general, at the lighting, taking a look at it from, because this whole lighting
thing is not a very black and white spec. It’s not what I call a go/no go specification. It’s got
some slop in it for sure, and I thought it was pretty well done. I did want to discuss why, what
was the reason for the uniformity ratio to fall off so rapidly in that one area. It’s got a lot to do
with what you put into the computer. I’m familiar on how these things are done. You can
tweak a couple of things and everything changes.
MR. JARRETT-Change the wattage, the angle of the lights, the location, the height, all those
things.
MR. SANFORD-Can you get it to 2.5? Again, to some degree I don’t want to rush this through,
but, Mr. Chairman, I know you’re in charge of the agenda, but it’s approaching an hour and a
half with this application. I’m wondering, simple question of Staff notes saying that you’re a
little high on the lighting. I was wondering, we’d like to see it closer to the 2.5 required. That’s
not far from where you are now. Can you agree to that?
MR. JARRETT-Earlier in the meeting I mentioned that we looked at that and we can get closer
to 2.5, in fact we can meet 2.5 by adding 14 fixtures. It would require seven more poles, 14
fixtures.
MR. SANFORD-What you would do, then, is I guess reduce the wattage on the other ones?
MR. JARRETT-We’d reduce the overall wattage on all the fixtures, but adding a number of
additional fixtures.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I feel that’s the solution, don’t you? Or no?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t like a lot more poles, no, I don’t. I would go along with the uniformity
ratio as it is now. They’re pretty close.
MR. SANFORD-They’re only off by .5.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that one of the things we have, and I think, George, you’ve mentioned it
to me, we’ve held Wal-Mart to pretty tight standards here, and although.
MR. SANFORD-What’s Wal-Mart’s final number?
MR. HILTON-2.5
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-They were 2.5, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, they’re three here.
MR. JARRETT-Now, we did get the 2.5, in fact George looked over our shoulder on the
computer and saw it, but we are farther out on uniformity.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I can see where that would happen. It’s a tug of war.
MR. SANFORD-I hear you. I think I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-I would go, I always lean more toward uniformity ratios, because I think it’s
safer for the driver to have good uniformity ratio. That’s what that’s all about, the ability of our
eyes to accustom themselves to changes in light levels when we get on the road. We’ve been to
a very bright parking lot, then we try to get out onto the road, these two things aren’t changing
quick enough.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re comfortable with this?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the measurement on Route 9 from the street lights? Do we know?
MR. JARRETT-It’s low. I don’t have an exact reading, but driving through there it’s very low,
especially at the western drive.
MR. HILTON-I just had a couple of comments. In our Staff notes you said you saw that I made
a suggestion perhaps some fixtures could be removed or wattages reduced. In looking at the
plan, especially the southern end, it seems that there are quite a number of fixtures in the area of
the drive, and then when you hang into the parking area, I don’t know if that would have any
impact, but the fixture are downcast. I guess I understand what you’re saying about the
uniformity. The one thing I would suggest is that the spill be controlled with some shields.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some notes. There is some spill on Route 9 at the southern end,
recommended the A lights be fitted with downcast shields or reduced from 250 watts to 175.
That’s what I had in my notes.
MR. HILTON-And that’s all I have.
MR. JARRETT-In the Staff notes George mentioned, suggested adding shields. We actually had
shields on all the perimeter lights, which I think you missed some of those symbols. We have
25 fixtures right now. Twelve of them are shielded fixtures. They were missed, I think, in that
review, but if you wish that we drop some of the wattages on those lights near the southern
entrance, we can do that or at least review that with Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to take a look at those A lights and see whether, if they were fitted
with 175 watts, the two A lights that are down there, and I think that might do it. I don’t know.
MR. SANFORD-If we get to a motion, put it in the motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I have got in the motion is that lighting fixtures and poles to be
reviewed by Staff prior to installation. That’s something we would put in the motion, but we
have to do it in terms of what are they looking at.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think you just made a very specific recommendation that I don’t know if
anybody has a problem, and it reads the lights on the southern end would be reduced to 170
watts on the two A lights.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s where the most light spill is.
MR. SANFORD-If you can get specific, let’s just get specific with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll flag it for in the motion.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now that depends. I throw a number like 175 watts onto those fixtures, but
when they plug that in to their computer model, it might, you know, it might look terrible.
MR. JARRETT-Depending on what action you take, we’ll show it to Staff and Staff can show it
to you and you can decide what to do from there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On landscaping, the only thing I had there was the removing of the
Summit Ash on the north side, and I think that’s been already discussed. I don’t have anything
further on landscaping, unless some of my fellow Board members want to talk to it some more.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Jim, did you want to?
MR. EDWARDS-I had a comment about the parking layout. It just was not in the comment
letters. I caught today in review. It’s the first five spaces as you enter from Sweet Road.
There’s a fence that separates the entry drive, 12 foot wide entry drive.
MR. JARRETT-These five spaces that are very close to the southern entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-I had two concerns about that. One is, I’m afraid if you had a truck coming in
there, it’ll be too close to that fence. You’ve got a 12 foot wide lane there. You’re going to be
brushing against the fence, especially in the wintertime when you have some snow removal
issues. Also when you enter that right turn there, you’ve got to negotiate a ten foot radius, and
then make a hard right back to the front of the Outback, and I’m just concerned, is that too tight
of a movement, is it too tight against the fence. So, at this point, is there a better way to orient
those spaces and maintain?
MR. SANFORD-What would be your suggested better way? Do you have one?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, widen the right turn in, first of all. You’ve got a 10 foot radius, like I say,
at the island there. That’s one concern. I know you’ve got to keep room for stacking out to
Sweet Road. That’s very important, too, on the outgoing lane. So, do I have a solution right
now? Not a great one, but are those five spaces that important, I guess? I know they’re close to
building. They’re convenient.
MR. SANFORD-So if they were eliminated, then you’d be able to widen it?
MR. EDWARDS-Sure, if you put just a wider radius.
MR. SANFORD-Are you talking where that line is going to that ball in the diagram? You’re
saying that would be a wider area, and the spaces wouldn’t be there. Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. Just trying to widen that radius, as you enter the site, toward the front of
the building, you’ve got to run down the aisle, do a sharp right turn back toward the front of
the restaurant and.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t you just slide those five spaces to the east?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what he’s talking about there. I don’t know. Jim, I’m looking at
that radius, now, it doesn’t have a radius on the drawing I’m looking at, but that, as long as
we’re talking about the entrance opposite Sweet Road now.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the northern radius would move to the north, somewhat, that whole
thing would widen out some, getting rid of the five spaces, you’d make it a wider approach
here.
MR. EDWARDS-Or getting rid of a couple of spaces.
MR. SANFORD-If he gets rid of the five spaces, you’re going to make it very short. You’re not
going to have a proper queuing for exit, are you? That’s the other side of the concern, right?
MR. EDWARDS-You’d still keep the queuing. You could put an island there of landscaping or
something. Just make it more negotiable for a truck.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-Something like that. It’s a thought.
MR. VOLLARO-Move that radius east, slightly. That’s what you’re talking about, where the
parking lot, move the radius.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, exactly, reshape it and move it to the east, possibly.
MR. JARRETT-We had widened that entrance into the, throat into the site already. I hear Jim’s
concern. I don’t agree, but if the Board agrees with him, then we can modify it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what kind of truck traffic do you get in an Outback?
MR. JARRETT-Typically just delivery trucks, not full size tractor trailers.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what Jim is talking about is some tractor trailer guy on an 18-
wheeler decides he has to go to the Outback.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you move those five spaces down eight feet, that would make a huge
difference in that entrance. I’m just saying, you know, throwing a number out. I’m thinking
one width of a parking space.
MR. EDWARDS-I just think it’s an awkward right turn, sharp right turn in, to get back to the
front of the restaurant to park your car, and if you’ve got a truck there, a pick-up truck or a
large SUV, it’s not easy, especially when you’ve got some snow issues out there.
MR. JARRETT-If we slide the spaces to the east by at least one space, and then soften those
radii, I think that’s what you’re talking about?
MR. EDWARDS-That would help, I think, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it would help. I think it’s a good suggestion. You’re just dropping one
space out, really, by doing that.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. JARRETT-No, actually the suggestion was made to slide the five spaces to the east.
MR. SANFORD-I think what he’s saying is, you’re saying just remove one, and make it.
MR. JARRETT-We have three alternatives. Eliminate all five, eliminate one, or slide the five to
the east.
MR. SANFORD-I think what you just said was eliminate one, and I think you got some support
for that. I’m comfortable with that.
MR. JARRETT-I was going to slide the five to the east one space. I’ll eliminate one space.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s probably the best compromise, but unless you lay it out first, that’s
probably the best compromise, get rid of one and shift them to the east that one space, which is
going to be, what, 10 feet or so in width.
MR. SANFORD-It shifts to east how many, then, four? Or would it be shifted to five?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, it would be one parking width.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s shifting one parking spaces.
MR. EDWARDS-One parking aisle width to the east.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d wind up with four, and the radii would be heading east.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s another concern that I have, as you come in, and if there were a truck
to come to deliver from behind the building, this driveway is only 19 feet wide right here, and I
just tried to envision a tractor trailer trying to make its way to the back of the building, and I’m
just not really sure whether that’s adequate room, because it’s a little short, require 20 feet. If
someone gets in there, will they get stuck and not be able to get out? And I did think of snow
removal, and if you’ve got a couple of extended cab pick-up trucks in any of those spaces,
you’ve got a jam right at the entrance, and it’s traffic flow.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you’re driving a big vehicle you might be trying to psych the place out
as to how you get in and I think what would happen is the evolution in the mind would take
you up to the northern entrance. That would be my thoughts.
MR. SANFORD-If they’re not using the big trucks for their deliveries, I don’t know, if you’re
talking about customers now, at this point, right, pretty much?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Or semi-type truck for deliveries you mean? If that ever happened, a box type
truck or something?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. A Sysco truck or a food delivery truck.
MR. EDWARDS-Could you throw on a radius for that, Tom, to see if it’s, make sure it’s going to
work?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Template. You could do that, just to make sure it’s going to fit through there.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because you’ll have garbage trucks coming in and you’ll have food delivery
trucks.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s a good point. It’s kind of a choke point there. It’s worth looking to
make sure you’ve got room.
MR. VOLLARO-You know where we’re talking about, Gretchen’s talking about that last
parking spot to the west of the Outback Restaurant there. There’s a whole line of parking to the
south of the restaurant itself, and the space that’s furthest west.
MR. JARRETT-There’s an island there, a landscaping island.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, she’s saying that between that and the property line you’ve got 19 feet to
get through, and negotiate that turn.
MR. EDWARDS-It’s based on the radius of that turn and the width. So it’s a combination of the
two factors that’ll determine whether a truck can fit through there.
MR. JARRETT-We actually have the ability to soften (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good point. It would be worth looking at. You don’t want to
build a choke point into the plan right after somebody gets on the site. So we’ve got two things
we’re looking at there. I think on this particular application, if the audience is thinking we’re
taking a lot, this is a big one, we want to be real sure that, we did this with Wal-Mart. We’re
doing it with this one, we’re doing it with every one that goes on, basically on Route 9. We’re
taking our time. It’s difficult to sit there and listen to all this, but that’s what we do here. Okay.
Under neighborhood character, all I had there, and I’ll open it to the Board, was the Robert
Gardens reply to Tom Jarrett’s letter, and it has been replied to, so I have, as far as
neighborhood character is concerned, I don’t have anything there. Now, I’ll throw that out to
the Board.
MR. SANFORD-No, I think they’re going to actually be improving the site from where it is now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-No question in my mind about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a nice project.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I had some other that I wanted to just throw out, not throw out, but the
Fire Marshal, first look at this was three months ago. How does the Board feel about the
changes that have been made now? Does the Fire Marshal have to take another look or do we
think that everything’s okay?
MR. SANFORD-I think everything’s okay. There’s not been a material change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree with Richard.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to toss it out. Now, in the motion, there’s going to be three
motions here, and I wrote them down.
MR. SANFORD-You’ve still got a public hearing, though, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do. I realize that, but I want to get this out. We have to have Mike
Shaw’s e-mail in there of 12/22, and the Water Department’s letter of 12/22 from Bruce
Ostrander. They should be part of the record in there. Mike made some, I can read those if you
want, and then we have to get final signoff from C.T. Male on their letter of March 16, 2005, and
that’s where I am on that, and then we can throw this open to public hearing.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Go for it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to get back with Mike? I can read Mike’s stuff off.
MR. JARRETT-I just don’t recall it offhand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go over it quickly with you so that you know what he has to say,
because we’re going to be putting his e-mail into the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just need to update the motion, and the motion says, the draft
motion says, inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing of, and it
had 3/18. All we have to do is change that to today’s date. It includes all that.
MR. VOLLARO-Did they pick up Mike’s stuff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not specifically, but it says, inclusive of all newly received information.
I mean, if you want that listed specifically.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s only because.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the date?
MR. VOLLARO-His date is 12/22/04.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s not on the list.
MR. VOLLARO-He says, the Planning Board approval should note that the sanitary sewer
connection needs the Wastewater Department’s separate review and approval of this project.
Our review will also include the internal plumbing. He makes a very specific note there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’m going to open the public hearing, and the public hearing
was left open, and does anybody in the audience wish to speak to this application? We do have
a couple of people who’d like to talk to it. The public hearing is now open for comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY ROWE
MS. ROWE-I have a couple of questions to ask. My name is Kathy Rowe. I live at 4 Cardinale
Court in Queensbury, and my questions start with answering some of your questions about
odors. Being a previous resident of June Drive, I can tell you honestly from living there for 11
years, that there are many odors associated with all of the restaurants in the area. Depending
on which direction the wind blows, it makes no difference. Your dinner is usually decided by
how the wind travels through the area. Burger King, Friendly’s, McDonalds, all of them reach
into that area, that residence back there, and I can’t honestly believe that the gentleman who
owns Robert Gardens, physically lives there, based on his quick approval of everything that I’ve
heard tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-He doesn’t live there. That I can tell you, because I see the address is Albany,
NY.
MS. ROWE-And the second thing I wanted to bring up is parking, and I keep hearing how
you’re going to eliminate this spot and that spot and whatever spot, and I’m not a big fan of
parking lots, and I do prefer to see some greenery in the parking lot, but one of my concerns is
just even this previous weekend with the basketball tournaments going on, we don’t seem to
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
make the applicants provide sufficient parking for times and periods like Mothers Day, Balloon
Festival weekend, etc., when the local community would like to participate in restaurants but
seems to be closed out by our visitors that come, that we’re asking to come to our area, and I
would like to see something designed where we’re adding more parking spaces to this, not
taking away from it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that is Wal-Mart’s position now, and that light, well, it’s Outback’s
position, I’m sorry. We do enough of these. The white space in the back.
MR. SANFORD-It was Wal-Mart’s position as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MS. ROWE-I have to honestly say to you that you’re talking about overlapping between the
motel and the restaurant, but since most of the businesses in our area put up signs that say that
we do not want you parking in our spaces if you’re not somebody residing at the motel
overnight, how would people know that it’s acceptable or reasonable to have to park in those
overlapping spaces? Are there going to be signs posted that tell them that that’s a possibility, or
are we just going to let them park in there and hopefully they won’t think that their car’s going
to be towed away while they’re eating. The fourth thing I wanted to ask about is talking about
this Compact Shamrock Holly going on, the alternative plantings, anybody suggest one? I’m
not sure that that’s hearty in Zone Four. What are they thinking if that’s not, and the other
thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I understand your question.
MS. ROWE-They’re talking about proposing a Compact Shamrock Holly to go out in front of
the restaurant to make it look beautiful. Is this thing going to be hearty for the snow, the salt,
the sand that’s going to be kicked up into it as everything happens year round? I’m not sure
that that’s hearty in Zone Four. Are they looking into something that’s truly hearty to be out
there along the road, or are we going to be looking at a lot of dead shrubs after a while?
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking Zone Four being our particular geographic zone?
MS. ROWE-Correct, technically we’re Zone 3, 4.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it’s a cold weather zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you this, that if the applicant does propose the planting, that then
later dies or doesn’t survive, that they would be required to re-plant it, and if it is something
that obviously won’t take, they would have to come back to the Board to have it reviewed again
in Site Plan.
MS. ROWE-And unfortunately, my last one, because I’ve worked so hard on the Red Lobster
issue, when that was proposed, my last one has to do with entering and leaving the restaurant.
You’re talking about dedicated right hand turns and so on and so forth. When the traffic study
was done on the Red Lobster, and we finally got to question the people who did the traffic
study, only three to four seconds, maximum seven, was allowed to enter and leave, ingress and
egress, of the Red Lobster at that time, and I’m curious to know, when they say this is safe and
that people would be able to come and go from this parking lot, what the actual figures are that
they have proposed as safe times for people to get in and out, because most of the people I
know take three or four seconds to look right and left, and have no clue and they start pulling
out, and they’re pulling out in front of you, and so, in the traffic studies that have been
proposed, have they actually said how many seconds, minutes, etc., for a right hand turn on
red, and so on and forth, that will be allowed for this? Because we already know many
accidents happen along Route 9. Many accidents happen going into McDonald’s, even. Many
accidents happen in front of the Mall. That’s why I moved from my location at 17 June Drive,
because Wal-Mart went in my backyard, 50 feet with their automotive center from my yard, and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
I have to tell you, all of this is becoming way too much with not enough thought being given to
all of this impacting or impeding on the neighborhoods and people that are here and the traffic
on the roads.
MR. VOLLARO-No question about it.
MS. ROWE-I already said, in a previous meeting, to all of you, I moved here to get away from
Long Island. It’s becoming another Sunrise highway out there, if you’re familiar with that, and
it’s not really a good situation anymore, and my children, I have to be honest with you, when
they turned 16, told them they couldn’t have their licenses until they were 18 and more mature
and able to handle the roads, because I’m afraid to let them drive out there. So, thank you for
listening, and hopefully you’ll consider some of the things I’ve said, as you go in, and the other
comment about the tour buses, you know, we have all these people that come up and down to
The Great Escape and stuff. Are there going to be tour buses stopping there like at some of the
other restaurants, unloading people? Are there sufficient spaces, you know, what’s going to
happen in that respect. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to answer your question on the turning delays, they do have a table in
their traffic study that does show what the delays would be. Average delays, depending upon
what turn you’re making from one intersection, it includes the north side driveway, Route 9
and Sweet Road, and then Route 9 and Weeks Road. So it really depends on which turn you’re
making.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
MICHAEL STERN
MR. STERN-Michael Stern. I live in Twicwood and I have an office in Northway Plaza. So I go
by this intersection four, five, six, eight times a day. I think the concern for this Board is the
traffic, not only on Route 9, but from Sweet Road. Sweet Road has become an alternate
highway, and with the condition on the road, I’m glad it’s bumpy because it keeps the traffic
speed down. Those people that live on that road are now going to face everybody coming from
the east are going to take Sweet Road out. It’s a great restaurant. I have nothing against the
restaurant. It’s the traffic on Route 9 which goes to this store.
MR. VOLLARO- I know. I travel Sweet Road a lot, and I very often am backed up at that light
at Sweet and 9 for at least two changes of that signal before I get a chance to exit onto Route 9
either right or left.
MR. STERN-And I heard this Board comment already what this is, this project, I think they’re
overdoing it. I think they’re really trying to put too much into a small space. It could be bigger
hotel or the Outback. I think that, you know, (lost words), you guys really have to look at that
and say are we too much with this small piece of land and ask this applicant if they can be
profitable with one or the other, but not both. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? With that, George, I don’t know whether I want to close the
public hearing or leave it open because I don’t know whether we’re going to close this tonight
or not. We’ve got a large motion to make with a lot of conditions, and I just don’t know if we’re
going to get all the way through it tonight or not.
MR. HILTON-Correct me if I’m wrong. Before you do SEQRA, the public hearing has to be
closed. So if you want to leave it open at this point and then when you do SEQRA close it, if
you do the SEQRA review. I don’t know.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d be looking for.
MS. RADNER-You might want to poll your Board members and see how the Board’s inclined to
go and then you can make that decision whether to table it one more time or to proceed this
evening.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good suggestion, Cathi. We’ll start off with Rich.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we have a lot of items that have to be included into the motion if we
proceed to conclusion tonight, but I’m not sure that they require additional work on the part of
the applicant, in terms of revised drawings and additional information. So my inclination is
that there’s nothing outstanding that necessarily prevents us from moving forward tonight. So
that’s my opinion that, since we’ve been at this for an hour and forty-five minutes, maybe we go
two hours and wrap it up. I mean, I think we have to hear the comments on the public hearing
and they were good questions, and I’m interested in hearing what the applicant has to say, but
if we do move forward, I can’t see why we necessarily have to table it. I don’t know what we’d
be tabling it for.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Gretchen, how do you feel?
MRS. STEFFAN-Ask someone else first.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, I think we have to table it. We can’t do SEQRA yet. There’s
enough issues left.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m more inclined to agree with Richard. I don’t think there’s anything
significant enough to table it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m tending to be along those lines myself. I don’t see any, you know, trying to
get to the tabling motion and talk to the reasons for tabling would be very difficult.
MR. SANFORD-What would we, Tom, what would we want them to provide additionally to
help us get through SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s the issue with the entrance still.
MR. VOLLARO-We can make that a condition of approval.
MR. SANFORD-I thought we had variations that we could condition? I mean, obviously the
new drawings would have to reflect.
MR. SEGULJIC-We still haven’t come to agreement on the building renderings, design.
MR. HUNSINGER-The one outstanding issue that I have in my mind is the color schemes and
building designs.
MR. SANFORD-Anyway, I’m just one voice, and that’s not a big issue for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my biggest concerns, you know, it’s a visible project, from Route 9, we
want to make sure it’s done right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s visible all right. No question about that.
MR. SANFORD-Again, ordinarily I feel comfortable tabling something if there is a material
revision that needs to be done for our consideration, i.e. the plans are all messed up and we
have to get them in order. Here, we’ve identified the revisions that would be required in the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
final drawings, before they were signed by the Chair, but it’s not like there’s inaccuracies that
need to necessarily be done, just tweaking.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s tweaking, fine tuning here and there, but to me, building renderings
are, I mean, that’s going to have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, are we going to be asking the architect to come back with a new color
rendering that we can approve? Is that what we’re talking about? We want the architect to
redo those?
MR. SEGULJIC-I thought that was the direction we gave them initially.
MR. SANFORD-You might have a split Board on aesthetics here. I mean, again, I don’t know
that for sure, but I know, you and Gretchen have some issues on aesthetics. I’m not sure the
rest of us are that uncomfortable with things.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t asked Gretchen yet. She’s contemplating.
MR. SANFORD-She, earlier, stated that she had some issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I guess one of the things I want to ask Jim and George, how do you guys
feel about it, that, you know, Jim, are you comfortable with some of the things that we’ve heard
about the driveway? Obviously you’re our engineer and you’re the one we rely on with the
changes that we’ve made to the parking and those kinds of things. Would you be more
comfortable seeing it?
MR. EDWARDS-I definitely need to see it before I sign off on it, but I’m quite certain that these
revisions are minor enough where we can make them work. The question you have about
getting a bus in there and getting around certain radius points and landscaped areas, is a good
question. I want to see a couple of turning templates which are just simulations of vehicles,
superimposed on these drawings to make sure there’s room. That’s a very good point. I think
it’s going to, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those, and that can be done after the meeting, if need
be. We can work these things.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not dug in to moving forward. I mean, if everybody, you know, if the
majority of the Board would feel comfortable in having these changes incorporated in a final set
of drawings, and then we move on it, I’m agreeable to that as well.
MR. VOLLARO-If they were incorporated, we could move rather quickly, I think, once they
were all put on. I mean, I’m pretty much, I’ll go along with the majority of the Board. Rich, do
you want to change your position on that?
MR. SANFORD-Again, I think we can do either one, and I think that we’ve got at least two
Board members that feel they would like to see the drawings incorporate our changes before
they move forward, and I’ll honor that request.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you have an opinion?
MR. HILTON-I guess, as far as the lighting goes, I don’t have a problem. There was some talk
about reducing the wattage on some of the poles on the southern side of the site. I certainly
don’t have a problem with Staff reviewing that for compliance. When you get into building
design and architecture and color, unless you have a specific color in mind, I’d be a little
hesitant to leave that up to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree. That’s why I talked about taupe or some sort of a lighter earth tone
that would go in there. Beige or taupe is what I was looking for when I reviewed it, but, you
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. EDWARDS-Focused area GIS type thing, where you look at traffic and all the
environmental impacts for a certain area of Town, a certain corridor. That’s been done in
different towns, too.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ve gone to Saratoga from where I live, which is on Ridge, and it’s taken
me as long to get to the Northway from Ridge Road than it did once I got on the Northway to
go to Saratoga. That’s not really an exaggeration. That’s pretty much the way it is, all the lights
and the bumper to bumper.
MR. VOLLARO-Anyway, my recommendation would be on the record to have the Town to
look at an end to end study by some reputable firm such as CME or somebody else. That’s
something we can talk about. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Not on site development.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, in the motion I would like, in the motion I have a note that the applicant
will consent to construct the interconnections to the north and south properties at such time as
those properties propose an interconnect, and that would be something we would put in the
motion. I have all the motion things tagged here, Chris, for you, so that, if we need to get those.
On lighting, I think we’ve already done some pre-discussion on the lighting thing. I’m pretty
much, in looking, in general, at the lighting, taking a look at it from, because this whole lighting
thing is not a very black and white spec. It’s not what I call a go/no go specification. It’s got
some slop in it for sure, and I thought it was pretty well done. I did want to discuss why, what
was the reason for the uniformity ratio to fall off so rapidly in that one area. It’s got a lot to do
with what you put into the computer. I’m familiar on how these things are done. You can
tweak a couple of things and everything changes.
MR. JARRETT-Change the wattage, the angle of the lights, the location, the height, all those
things.
MR. SANFORD-Can you get it to 2.5? Again, to some degree I don’t want to rush this through,
but, Mr. Chairman, I know you’re in charge of the agenda, but it’s approaching an hour and a
half with this application. I’m wondering, simple question of Staff notes saying that you’re a
little high on the lighting. I was wondering, we’d like to see it closer to the 2.5 required. That’s
not far from where you are now. Can you agree to that?
MR. JARRETT-Earlier in the meeting I mentioned that we looked at that and we can get closer
to 2.5, in fact we can meet 2.5 by adding 14 fixtures. It would require seven more poles, 14
fixtures.
MR. SANFORD-What you would do, then, is I guess reduce the wattage on the other ones?
MR. JARRETT-We’d reduce the overall wattage on all the fixtures, but adding a number of
additional fixtures.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I feel that’s the solution, don’t you? Or no?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t like a lot more poles, no, I don’t. I would go along with the uniformity
ratio as it is now. They’re pretty close.
MR. SANFORD-They’re only off by .5.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that one of the things we have, and I think, George, you’ve mentioned it
to me, we’ve held Wal-Mart to pretty tight standards here, and although.
MR. SANFORD-What’s Wal-Mart’s final number?
MR. HILTON-2.5
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-They were 2.5, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, they’re three here.
MR. JARRETT-Now, we did get the 2.5, in fact George looked over our shoulder on the
computer and saw it, but we are farther out on uniformity.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I can see where that would happen. It’s a tug of war.
MR. SANFORD-I hear you. I think I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-I would go, I always lean more toward uniformity ratios, because I think it’s
safer for the driver to have good uniformity ratio. That’s what that’s all about, the ability of our
eyes to accustom themselves to changes in light levels when we get on the road. We’ve been to
a very bright parking lot, then we try to get out onto the road, these two things aren’t changing
quick enough.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re comfortable with this?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the measurement on Route 9 from the street lights? Do we know?
MR. JARRETT-It’s low. I don’t have an exact reading, but driving through there it’s very low,
especially at the western drive.
MR. HILTON-I just had a couple of comments. In our Staff notes you said you saw that I made
a suggestion perhaps some fixtures could be removed or wattages reduced. In looking at the
plan, especially the southern end, it seems that there are quite a number of fixtures in the area of
the drive, and then when you hang into the parking area, I don’t know if that would have any
impact, but the fixture are downcast. I guess I understand what you’re saying about the
uniformity. The one thing I would suggest is that the spill be controlled with some shields.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some notes. There is some spill on Route 9 at the southern end,
recommended the A lights be fitted with downcast shields or reduced from 250 watts to 175.
That’s what I had in my notes.
MR. HILTON-And that’s all I have.
MR. JARRETT-In the Staff notes George mentioned, suggested adding shields. We actually had
shields on all the perimeter lights, which I think you missed some of those symbols. We have
25 fixtures right now. Twelve of them are shielded fixtures. They were missed, I think, in that
review, but if you wish that we drop some of the wattages on those lights near the southern
entrance, we can do that or at least review that with Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to take a look at those A lights and see whether, if they were fitted
with 175 watts, the two A lights that are down there, and I think that might do it. I don’t know.
MR. SANFORD-If we get to a motion, put it in the motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I have got in the motion is that lighting fixtures and poles to be
reviewed by Staff prior to installation. That’s something we would put in the motion, but we
have to do it in terms of what are they looking at.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think you just made a very specific recommendation that I don’t know if
anybody has a problem, and it reads the lights on the southern end would be reduced to 170
watts on the two A lights.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s where the most light spill is.
MR. SANFORD-If you can get specific, let’s just get specific with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll flag it for in the motion.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now that depends. I throw a number like 175 watts onto those fixtures, but
when they plug that in to their computer model, it might, you know, it might look terrible.
MR. JARRETT-Depending on what action you take, we’ll show it to Staff and Staff can show it
to you and you can decide what to do from there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On landscaping, the only thing I had there was the removing of the
Summit Ash on the north side, and I think that’s been already discussed. I don’t have anything
further on landscaping, unless some of my fellow Board members want to talk to it some more.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Jim, did you want to?
MR. EDWARDS-I had a comment about the parking layout. It just was not in the comment
letters. I caught today in review. It’s the first five spaces as you enter from Sweet Road.
There’s a fence that separates the entry drive, 12 foot wide entry drive.
MR. JARRETT-These five spaces that are very close to the southern entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-I had two concerns about that. One is, I’m afraid if you had a truck coming in
there, it’ll be too close to that fence. You’ve got a 12 foot wide lane there. You’re going to be
brushing against the fence, especially in the wintertime when you have some snow removal
issues. Also when you enter that right turn there, you’ve got to negotiate a ten foot radius, and
then make a hard right back to the front of the Outback, and I’m just concerned, is that too tight
of a movement, is it too tight against the fence. So, at this point, is there a better way to orient
those spaces and maintain?
MR. SANFORD-What would be your suggested better way? Do you have one?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, widen the right turn in, first of all. You’ve got a 10 foot radius, like I say,
at the island there. That’s one concern. I know you’ve got to keep room for stacking out to
Sweet Road. That’s very important, too, on the outgoing lane. So, do I have a solution right
now? Not a great one, but are those five spaces that important, I guess? I know they’re close to
building. They’re convenient.
MR. SANFORD-So if they were eliminated, then you’d be able to widen it?
MR. EDWARDS-Sure, if you put just a wider radius.
MR. SANFORD-Are you talking where that line is going to that ball in the diagram? You’re
saying that would be a wider area, and the spaces wouldn’t be there. Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. Just trying to widen that radius, as you enter the site, toward the front of
the building, you’ve got to run down the aisle, do a sharp right turn back toward the front of
the restaurant and.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t you just slide those five spaces to the east?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what he’s talking about there. I don’t know. Jim, I’m looking at
that radius, now, it doesn’t have a radius on the drawing I’m looking at, but that, as long as
we’re talking about the entrance opposite Sweet Road now.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the northern radius would move to the north, somewhat, that whole
thing would widen out some, getting rid of the five spaces, you’d make it a wider approach
here.
MR. EDWARDS-Or getting rid of a couple of spaces.
MR. SANFORD-If he gets rid of the five spaces, you’re going to make it very short. You’re not
going to have a proper queuing for exit, are you? That’s the other side of the concern, right?
MR. EDWARDS-You’d still keep the queuing. You could put an island there of landscaping or
something. Just make it more negotiable for a truck.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-Something like that. It’s a thought.
MR. VOLLARO-Move that radius east, slightly. That’s what you’re talking about, where the
parking lot, move the radius.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, exactly, reshape it and move it to the east, possibly.
MR. JARRETT-We had widened that entrance into the, throat into the site already. I hear Jim’s
concern. I don’t agree, but if the Board agrees with him, then we can modify it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what kind of truck traffic do you get in an Outback?
MR. JARRETT-Typically just delivery trucks, not full size tractor trailers.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what Jim is talking about is some tractor trailer guy on an 18-
wheeler decides he has to go to the Outback.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you move those five spaces down eight feet, that would make a huge
difference in that entrance. I’m just saying, you know, throwing a number out. I’m thinking
one width of a parking space.
MR. EDWARDS-I just think it’s an awkward right turn, sharp right turn in, to get back to the
front of the restaurant to park your car, and if you’ve got a truck there, a pick-up truck or a
large SUV, it’s not easy, especially when you’ve got some snow issues out there.
MR. JARRETT-If we slide the spaces to the east by at least one space, and then soften those
radii, I think that’s what you’re talking about?
MR. EDWARDS-That would help, I think, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it would help. I think it’s a good suggestion. You’re just dropping one
space out, really, by doing that.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. JARRETT-No, actually the suggestion was made to slide the five spaces to the east.
MR. SANFORD-I think what he’s saying is, you’re saying just remove one, and make it.
MR. JARRETT-We have three alternatives. Eliminate all five, eliminate one, or slide the five to
the east.
MR. SANFORD-I think what you just said was eliminate one, and I think you got some support
for that. I’m comfortable with that.
MR. JARRETT-I was going to slide the five to the east one space. I’ll eliminate one space.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s probably the best compromise, but unless you lay it out first, that’s
probably the best compromise, get rid of one and shift them to the east that one space, which is
going to be, what, 10 feet or so in width.
MR. SANFORD-It shifts to east how many, then, four? Or would it be shifted to five?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, it would be one parking width.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s shifting one parking spaces.
MR. EDWARDS-One parking aisle width to the east.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d wind up with four, and the radii would be heading east.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s another concern that I have, as you come in, and if there were a truck
to come to deliver from behind the building, this driveway is only 19 feet wide right here, and I
just tried to envision a tractor trailer trying to make its way to the back of the building, and I’m
just not really sure whether that’s adequate room, because it’s a little short, require 20 feet. If
someone gets in there, will they get stuck and not be able to get out? And I did think of snow
removal, and if you’ve got a couple of extended cab pick-up trucks in any of those spaces,
you’ve got a jam right at the entrance, and it’s traffic flow.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you’re driving a big vehicle you might be trying to psych the place out
as to how you get in and I think what would happen is the evolution in the mind would take
you up to the northern entrance. That would be my thoughts.
MR. SANFORD-If they’re not using the big trucks for their deliveries, I don’t know, if you’re
talking about customers now, at this point, right, pretty much?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Or semi-type truck for deliveries you mean? If that ever happened, a box type
truck or something?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. A Sysco truck or a food delivery truck.
MR. EDWARDS-Could you throw on a radius for that, Tom, to see if it’s, make sure it’s going to
work?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. EDWARDS-Template. You could do that, just to make sure it’s going to fit through there.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because you’ll have garbage trucks coming in and you’ll have food delivery
trucks.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s a good point. It’s kind of a choke point there. It’s worth looking to
make sure you’ve got room.
MR. VOLLARO-You know where we’re talking about, Gretchen’s talking about that last
parking spot to the west of the Outback Restaurant there. There’s a whole line of parking to the
south of the restaurant itself, and the space that’s furthest west.
MR. JARRETT-There’s an island there, a landscaping island.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, she’s saying that between that and the property line you’ve got 19 feet to
get through, and negotiate that turn.
MR. EDWARDS-It’s based on the radius of that turn and the width. So it’s a combination of the
two factors that’ll determine whether a truck can fit through there.
MR. JARRETT-We actually have the ability to soften (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good point. It would be worth looking at. You don’t want to
build a choke point into the plan right after somebody gets on the site. So we’ve got two things
we’re looking at there. I think on this particular application, if the audience is thinking we’re
taking a lot, this is a big one, we want to be real sure that, we did this with Wal-Mart. We’re
doing it with this one, we’re doing it with every one that goes on, basically on Route 9. We’re
taking our time. It’s difficult to sit there and listen to all this, but that’s what we do here. Okay.
Under neighborhood character, all I had there, and I’ll open it to the Board, was the Robert
Gardens reply to Tom Jarrett’s letter, and it has been replied to, so I have, as far as
neighborhood character is concerned, I don’t have anything there. Now, I’ll throw that out to
the Board.
MR. SANFORD-No, I think they’re going to actually be improving the site from where it is now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-No question in my mind about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a nice project.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I had some other that I wanted to just throw out, not throw out, but the
Fire Marshal, first look at this was three months ago. How does the Board feel about the
changes that have been made now? Does the Fire Marshal have to take another look or do we
think that everything’s okay?
MR. SANFORD-I think everything’s okay. There’s not been a material change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree with Richard.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to toss it out. Now, in the motion, there’s going to be three
motions here, and I wrote them down.
MR. SANFORD-You’ve still got a public hearing, though, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do. I realize that, but I want to get this out. We have to have Mike
Shaw’s e-mail in there of 12/22, and the Water Department’s letter of 12/22 from Bruce
Ostrander. They should be part of the record in there. Mike made some, I can read those if you
want, and then we have to get final signoff from C.T. Male on their letter of March 16, 2005, and
that’s where I am on that, and then we can throw this open to public hearing.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Go for it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to get back with Mike? I can read Mike’s stuff off.
MR. JARRETT-I just don’t recall it offhand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go over it quickly with you so that you know what he has to say,
because we’re going to be putting his e-mail into the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just need to update the motion, and the motion says, the draft
motion says, inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing of, and it
had 3/18. All we have to do is change that to today’s date. It includes all that.
MR. VOLLARO-Did they pick up Mike’s stuff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not specifically, but it says, inclusive of all newly received information.
I mean, if you want that listed specifically.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s only because.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the date?
MR. VOLLARO-His date is 12/22/04.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s not on the list.
MR. VOLLARO-He says, the Planning Board approval should note that the sanitary sewer
connection needs the Wastewater Department’s separate review and approval of this project.
Our review will also include the internal plumbing. He makes a very specific note there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’m going to open the public hearing, and the public hearing
was left open, and does anybody in the audience wish to speak to this application? We do have
a couple of people who’d like to talk to it. The public hearing is now open for comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY ROWE
MS. ROWE-I have a couple of questions to ask. My name is Kathy Rowe. I live at 4 Cardinale
Court in Queensbury, and my questions start with answering some of your questions about
odors. Being a previous resident of June Drive, I can tell you honestly from living there for 11
years, that there are many odors associated with all of the restaurants in the area. Depending
on which direction the wind blows, it makes no difference. Your dinner is usually decided by
how the wind travels through the area. Burger King, Friendly’s, McDonalds, all of them reach
into that area, that residence back there, and I can’t honestly believe that the gentleman who
owns Robert Gardens, physically lives there, based on his quick approval of everything that I’ve
heard tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-He doesn’t live there. That I can tell you, because I see the address is Albany,
NY.
MS. ROWE-And the second thing I wanted to bring up is parking, and I keep hearing how
you’re going to eliminate this spot and that spot and whatever spot, and I’m not a big fan of
parking lots, and I do prefer to see some greenery in the parking lot, but one of my concerns is
just even this previous weekend with the basketball tournaments going on, we don’t seem to
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
make the applicants provide sufficient parking for times and periods like Mothers Day, Balloon
Festival weekend, etc., when the local community would like to participate in restaurants but
seems to be closed out by our visitors that come, that we’re asking to come to our area, and I
would like to see something designed where we’re adding more parking spaces to this, not
taking away from it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that is Wal-Mart’s position now, and that light, well, it’s Outback’s
position, I’m sorry. We do enough of these. The white space in the back.
MR. SANFORD-It was Wal-Mart’s position as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MS. ROWE-I have to honestly say to you that you’re talking about overlapping between the
motel and the restaurant, but since most of the businesses in our area put up signs that say that
we do not want you parking in our spaces if you’re not somebody residing at the motel
overnight, how would people know that it’s acceptable or reasonable to have to park in those
overlapping spaces? Are there going to be signs posted that tell them that that’s a possibility, or
are we just going to let them park in there and hopefully they won’t think that their car’s going
to be towed away while they’re eating. The fourth thing I wanted to ask about is talking about
this Compact Shamrock Holly going on, the alternative plantings, anybody suggest one? I’m
not sure that that’s hearty in Zone Four. What are they thinking if that’s not, and the other
thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I understand your question.
MS. ROWE-They’re talking about proposing a Compact Shamrock Holly to go out in front of
the restaurant to make it look beautiful. Is this thing going to be hearty for the snow, the salt,
the sand that’s going to be kicked up into it as everything happens year round? I’m not sure
that that’s hearty in Zone Four. Are they looking into something that’s truly hearty to be out
there along the road, or are we going to be looking at a lot of dead shrubs after a while?
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking Zone Four being our particular geographic zone?
MS. ROWE-Correct, technically we’re Zone 3, 4.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it’s a cold weather zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you this, that if the applicant does propose the planting, that then
later dies or doesn’t survive, that they would be required to re-plant it, and if it is something
that obviously won’t take, they would have to come back to the Board to have it reviewed again
in Site Plan.
MS. ROWE-And unfortunately, my last one, because I’ve worked so hard on the Red Lobster
issue, when that was proposed, my last one has to do with entering and leaving the restaurant.
You’re talking about dedicated right hand turns and so on and so forth. When the traffic study
was done on the Red Lobster, and we finally got to question the people who did the traffic
study, only three to four seconds, maximum seven, was allowed to enter and leave, ingress and
egress, of the Red Lobster at that time, and I’m curious to know, when they say this is safe and
that people would be able to come and go from this parking lot, what the actual figures are that
they have proposed as safe times for people to get in and out, because most of the people I
know take three or four seconds to look right and left, and have no clue and they start pulling
out, and they’re pulling out in front of you, and so, in the traffic studies that have been
proposed, have they actually said how many seconds, minutes, etc., for a right hand turn on
red, and so on and forth, that will be allowed for this? Because we already know many
accidents happen along Route 9. Many accidents happen going into McDonald’s, even. Many
accidents happen in front of the Mall. That’s why I moved from my location at 17 June Drive,
because Wal-Mart went in my backyard, 50 feet with their automotive center from my yard, and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
I have to tell you, all of this is becoming way too much with not enough thought being given to
all of this impacting or impeding on the neighborhoods and people that are here and the traffic
on the roads.
MR. VOLLARO-No question about it.
MS. ROWE-I already said, in a previous meeting, to all of you, I moved here to get away from
Long Island. It’s becoming another Sunrise highway out there, if you’re familiar with that, and
it’s not really a good situation anymore, and my children, I have to be honest with you, when
they turned 16, told them they couldn’t have their licenses until they were 18 and more mature
and able to handle the roads, because I’m afraid to let them drive out there. So, thank you for
listening, and hopefully you’ll consider some of the things I’ve said, as you go in, and the other
comment about the tour buses, you know, we have all these people that come up and down to
The Great Escape and stuff. Are there going to be tour buses stopping there like at some of the
other restaurants, unloading people? Are there sufficient spaces, you know, what’s going to
happen in that respect. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to answer your question on the turning delays, they do have a table in
their traffic study that does show what the delays would be. Average delays, depending upon
what turn you’re making from one intersection, it includes the north side driveway, Route 9
and Sweet Road, and then Route 9 and Weeks Road. So it really depends on which turn you’re
making.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
MICHAEL STERN
MR. STERN-Michael Stern. I live in Twicwood and I have an office in Northway Plaza. So I go
by this intersection four, five, six, eight times a day. I think the concern for this Board is the
traffic, not only on Route 9, but from Sweet Road. Sweet Road has become an alternate
highway, and with the condition on the road, I’m glad it’s bumpy because it keeps the traffic
speed down. Those people that live on that road are now going to face everybody coming from
the east are going to take Sweet Road out. It’s a great restaurant. I have nothing against the
restaurant. It’s the traffic on Route 9 which goes to this store.
MR. VOLLARO- I know. I travel Sweet Road a lot, and I very often am backed up at that light
at Sweet and 9 for at least two changes of that signal before I get a chance to exit onto Route 9
either right or left.
MR. STERN-And I heard this Board comment already what this is, this project, I think they’re
overdoing it. I think they’re really trying to put too much into a small space. It could be bigger
hotel or the Outback. I think that, you know, (lost words), you guys really have to look at that
and say are we too much with this small piece of land and ask this applicant if they can be
profitable with one or the other, but not both. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? With that, George, I don’t know whether I want to close the
public hearing or leave it open because I don’t know whether we’re going to close this tonight
or not. We’ve got a large motion to make with a lot of conditions, and I just don’t know if we’re
going to get all the way through it tonight or not.
MR. HILTON-Correct me if I’m wrong. Before you do SEQRA, the public hearing has to be
closed. So if you want to leave it open at this point and then when you do SEQRA close it, if
you do the SEQRA review. I don’t know.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d be looking for.
MS. RADNER-You might want to poll your Board members and see how the Board’s inclined to
go and then you can make that decision whether to table it one more time or to proceed this
evening.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good suggestion, Cathi. We’ll start off with Rich.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we have a lot of items that have to be included into the motion if we
proceed to conclusion tonight, but I’m not sure that they require additional work on the part of
the applicant, in terms of revised drawings and additional information. So my inclination is
that there’s nothing outstanding that necessarily prevents us from moving forward tonight. So
that’s my opinion that, since we’ve been at this for an hour and forty-five minutes, maybe we go
two hours and wrap it up. I mean, I think we have to hear the comments on the public hearing
and they were good questions, and I’m interested in hearing what the applicant has to say, but
if we do move forward, I can’t see why we necessarily have to table it. I don’t know what we’d
be tabling it for.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Gretchen, how do you feel?
MRS. STEFFAN-Ask someone else first.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, I think we have to table it. We can’t do SEQRA yet. There’s
enough issues left.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m more inclined to agree with Richard. I don’t think there’s anything
significant enough to table it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m tending to be along those lines myself. I don’t see any, you know, trying to
get to the tabling motion and talk to the reasons for tabling would be very difficult.
MR. SANFORD-What would we, Tom, what would we want them to provide additionally to
help us get through SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s the issue with the entrance still.
MR. VOLLARO-We can make that a condition of approval.
MR. SANFORD-I thought we had variations that we could condition? I mean, obviously the
new drawings would have to reflect.
MR. SEGULJIC-We still haven’t come to agreement on the building renderings, design.
MR. HUNSINGER-The one outstanding issue that I have in my mind is the color schemes and
building designs.
MR. SANFORD-Anyway, I’m just one voice, and that’s not a big issue for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my biggest concerns, you know, it’s a visible project, from Route 9, we
want to make sure it’s done right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s visible all right. No question about that.
MR. SANFORD-Again, ordinarily I feel comfortable tabling something if there is a material
revision that needs to be done for our consideration, i.e. the plans are all messed up and we
have to get them in order. Here, we’ve identified the revisions that would be required in the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
final drawings, before they were signed by the Chair, but it’s not like there’s inaccuracies that
need to necessarily be done, just tweaking.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s tweaking, fine tuning here and there, but to me, building renderings
are, I mean, that’s going to have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, are we going to be asking the architect to come back with a new color
rendering that we can approve? Is that what we’re talking about? We want the architect to
redo those?
MR. SEGULJIC-I thought that was the direction we gave them initially.
MR. SANFORD-You might have a split Board on aesthetics here. I mean, again, I don’t know
that for sure, but I know, you and Gretchen have some issues on aesthetics. I’m not sure the
rest of us are that uncomfortable with things.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t asked Gretchen yet. She’s contemplating.
MR. SANFORD-She, earlier, stated that she had some issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I guess one of the things I want to ask Jim and George, how do you guys
feel about it, that, you know, Jim, are you comfortable with some of the things that we’ve heard
about the driveway? Obviously you’re our engineer and you’re the one we rely on with the
changes that we’ve made to the parking and those kinds of things. Would you be more
comfortable seeing it?
MR. EDWARDS-I definitely need to see it before I sign off on it, but I’m quite certain that these
revisions are minor enough where we can make them work. The question you have about
getting a bus in there and getting around certain radius points and landscaped areas, is a good
question. I want to see a couple of turning templates which are just simulations of vehicles,
superimposed on these drawings to make sure there’s room. That’s a very good point. I think
it’s going to, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those, and that can be done after the meeting, if need
be. We can work these things.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not dug in to moving forward. I mean, if everybody, you know, if the
majority of the Board would feel comfortable in having these changes incorporated in a final set
of drawings, and then we move on it, I’m agreeable to that as well.
MR. VOLLARO-If they were incorporated, we could move rather quickly, I think, once they
were all put on. I mean, I’m pretty much, I’ll go along with the majority of the Board. Rich, do
you want to change your position on that?
MR. SANFORD-Again, I think we can do either one, and I think that we’ve got at least two
Board members that feel they would like to see the drawings incorporate our changes before
they move forward, and I’ll honor that request.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you have an opinion?
MR. HILTON-I guess, as far as the lighting goes, I don’t have a problem. There was some talk
about reducing the wattage on some of the poles on the southern side of the site. I certainly
don’t have a problem with Staff reviewing that for compliance. When you get into building
design and architecture and color, unless you have a specific color in mind, I’d be a little
hesitant to leave that up to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree. That’s why I talked about taupe or some sort of a lighter earth tone
that would go in there. Beige or taupe is what I was looking for when I reviewed it, but, you
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because you’ll have garbage trucks coming in and you’ll have food delivery
trucks.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s a good point. It’s kind of a choke point there. It’s worth looking to
make sure you’ve got room.
MR. VOLLARO-You know where we’re talking about, Gretchen’s talking about that last
parking spot to the west of the Outback Restaurant there. There’s a whole line of parking to the
south of the restaurant itself, and the space that’s furthest west.
MR. JARRETT-There’s an island there, a landscaping island.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, she’s saying that between that and the property line you’ve got 19 feet to
get through, and negotiate that turn.
MR. EDWARDS-It’s based on the radius of that turn and the width. So it’s a combination of the
two factors that’ll determine whether a truck can fit through there.
MR. JARRETT-We actually have the ability to soften (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good point. It would be worth looking at. You don’t want to
build a choke point into the plan right after somebody gets on the site. So we’ve got two things
we’re looking at there. I think on this particular application, if the audience is thinking we’re
taking a lot, this is a big one, we want to be real sure that, we did this with Wal-Mart. We’re
doing it with this one, we’re doing it with every one that goes on, basically on Route 9. We’re
taking our time. It’s difficult to sit there and listen to all this, but that’s what we do here. Okay.
Under neighborhood character, all I had there, and I’ll open it to the Board, was the Robert
Gardens reply to Tom Jarrett’s letter, and it has been replied to, so I have, as far as
neighborhood character is concerned, I don’t have anything there. Now, I’ll throw that out to
the Board.
MR. SANFORD-No, I think they’re going to actually be improving the site from where it is now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-No question in my mind about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a nice project.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I had some other that I wanted to just throw out, not throw out, but the
Fire Marshal, first look at this was three months ago. How does the Board feel about the
changes that have been made now? Does the Fire Marshal have to take another look or do we
think that everything’s okay?
MR. SANFORD-I think everything’s okay. There’s not been a material change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree with Richard.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to toss it out. Now, in the motion, there’s going to be three
motions here, and I wrote them down.
MR. SANFORD-You’ve still got a public hearing, though, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do. I realize that, but I want to get this out. We have to have Mike
Shaw’s e-mail in there of 12/22, and the Water Department’s letter of 12/22 from Bruce
Ostrander. They should be part of the record in there. Mike made some, I can read those if you
want, and then we have to get final signoff from C.T. Male on their letter of March 16, 2005, and
that’s where I am on that, and then we can throw this open to public hearing.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Go for it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to get back with Mike? I can read Mike’s stuff off.
MR. JARRETT-I just don’t recall it offhand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go over it quickly with you so that you know what he has to say,
because we’re going to be putting his e-mail into the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just need to update the motion, and the motion says, the draft
motion says, inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing of, and it
had 3/18. All we have to do is change that to today’s date. It includes all that.
MR. VOLLARO-Did they pick up Mike’s stuff?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not specifically, but it says, inclusive of all newly received information.
I mean, if you want that listed specifically.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s only because.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the date?
MR. VOLLARO-His date is 12/22/04.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s not on the list.
MR. VOLLARO-He says, the Planning Board approval should note that the sanitary sewer
connection needs the Wastewater Department’s separate review and approval of this project.
Our review will also include the internal plumbing. He makes a very specific note there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’m going to open the public hearing, and the public hearing
was left open, and does anybody in the audience wish to speak to this application? We do have
a couple of people who’d like to talk to it. The public hearing is now open for comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY ROWE
MS. ROWE-I have a couple of questions to ask. My name is Kathy Rowe. I live at 4 Cardinale
Court in Queensbury, and my questions start with answering some of your questions about
odors. Being a previous resident of June Drive, I can tell you honestly from living there for 11
years, that there are many odors associated with all of the restaurants in the area. Depending
on which direction the wind blows, it makes no difference. Your dinner is usually decided by
how the wind travels through the area. Burger King, Friendly’s, McDonalds, all of them reach
into that area, that residence back there, and I can’t honestly believe that the gentleman who
owns Robert Gardens, physically lives there, based on his quick approval of everything that I’ve
heard tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-He doesn’t live there. That I can tell you, because I see the address is Albany,
NY.
MS. ROWE-And the second thing I wanted to bring up is parking, and I keep hearing how
you’re going to eliminate this spot and that spot and whatever spot, and I’m not a big fan of
parking lots, and I do prefer to see some greenery in the parking lot, but one of my concerns is
just even this previous weekend with the basketball tournaments going on, we don’t seem to
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
make the applicants provide sufficient parking for times and periods like Mothers Day, Balloon
Festival weekend, etc., when the local community would like to participate in restaurants but
seems to be closed out by our visitors that come, that we’re asking to come to our area, and I
would like to see something designed where we’re adding more parking spaces to this, not
taking away from it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that is Wal-Mart’s position now, and that light, well, it’s Outback’s
position, I’m sorry. We do enough of these. The white space in the back.
MR. SANFORD-It was Wal-Mart’s position as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MS. ROWE-I have to honestly say to you that you’re talking about overlapping between the
motel and the restaurant, but since most of the businesses in our area put up signs that say that
we do not want you parking in our spaces if you’re not somebody residing at the motel
overnight, how would people know that it’s acceptable or reasonable to have to park in those
overlapping spaces? Are there going to be signs posted that tell them that that’s a possibility, or
are we just going to let them park in there and hopefully they won’t think that their car’s going
to be towed away while they’re eating. The fourth thing I wanted to ask about is talking about
this Compact Shamrock Holly going on, the alternative plantings, anybody suggest one? I’m
not sure that that’s hearty in Zone Four. What are they thinking if that’s not, and the other
thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I understand your question.
MS. ROWE-They’re talking about proposing a Compact Shamrock Holly to go out in front of
the restaurant to make it look beautiful. Is this thing going to be hearty for the snow, the salt,
the sand that’s going to be kicked up into it as everything happens year round? I’m not sure
that that’s hearty in Zone Four. Are they looking into something that’s truly hearty to be out
there along the road, or are we going to be looking at a lot of dead shrubs after a while?
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking Zone Four being our particular geographic zone?
MS. ROWE-Correct, technically we’re Zone 3, 4.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it’s a cold weather zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you this, that if the applicant does propose the planting, that then
later dies or doesn’t survive, that they would be required to re-plant it, and if it is something
that obviously won’t take, they would have to come back to the Board to have it reviewed again
in Site Plan.
MS. ROWE-And unfortunately, my last one, because I’ve worked so hard on the Red Lobster
issue, when that was proposed, my last one has to do with entering and leaving the restaurant.
You’re talking about dedicated right hand turns and so on and so forth. When the traffic study
was done on the Red Lobster, and we finally got to question the people who did the traffic
study, only three to four seconds, maximum seven, was allowed to enter and leave, ingress and
egress, of the Red Lobster at that time, and I’m curious to know, when they say this is safe and
that people would be able to come and go from this parking lot, what the actual figures are that
they have proposed as safe times for people to get in and out, because most of the people I
know take three or four seconds to look right and left, and have no clue and they start pulling
out, and they’re pulling out in front of you, and so, in the traffic studies that have been
proposed, have they actually said how many seconds, minutes, etc., for a right hand turn on
red, and so on and forth, that will be allowed for this? Because we already know many
accidents happen along Route 9. Many accidents happen going into McDonald’s, even. Many
accidents happen in front of the Mall. That’s why I moved from my location at 17 June Drive,
because Wal-Mart went in my backyard, 50 feet with their automotive center from my yard, and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
I have to tell you, all of this is becoming way too much with not enough thought being given to
all of this impacting or impeding on the neighborhoods and people that are here and the traffic
on the roads.
MR. VOLLARO-No question about it.
MS. ROWE-I already said, in a previous meeting, to all of you, I moved here to get away from
Long Island. It’s becoming another Sunrise highway out there, if you’re familiar with that, and
it’s not really a good situation anymore, and my children, I have to be honest with you, when
they turned 16, told them they couldn’t have their licenses until they were 18 and more mature
and able to handle the roads, because I’m afraid to let them drive out there. So, thank you for
listening, and hopefully you’ll consider some of the things I’ve said, as you go in, and the other
comment about the tour buses, you know, we have all these people that come up and down to
The Great Escape and stuff. Are there going to be tour buses stopping there like at some of the
other restaurants, unloading people? Are there sufficient spaces, you know, what’s going to
happen in that respect. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to answer your question on the turning delays, they do have a table in
their traffic study that does show what the delays would be. Average delays, depending upon
what turn you’re making from one intersection, it includes the north side driveway, Route 9
and Sweet Road, and then Route 9 and Weeks Road. So it really depends on which turn you’re
making.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
MICHAEL STERN
MR. STERN-Michael Stern. I live in Twicwood and I have an office in Northway Plaza. So I go
by this intersection four, five, six, eight times a day. I think the concern for this Board is the
traffic, not only on Route 9, but from Sweet Road. Sweet Road has become an alternate
highway, and with the condition on the road, I’m glad it’s bumpy because it keeps the traffic
speed down. Those people that live on that road are now going to face everybody coming from
the east are going to take Sweet Road out. It’s a great restaurant. I have nothing against the
restaurant. It’s the traffic on Route 9 which goes to this store.
MR. VOLLARO- I know. I travel Sweet Road a lot, and I very often am backed up at that light
at Sweet and 9 for at least two changes of that signal before I get a chance to exit onto Route 9
either right or left.
MR. STERN-And I heard this Board comment already what this is, this project, I think they’re
overdoing it. I think they’re really trying to put too much into a small space. It could be bigger
hotel or the Outback. I think that, you know, (lost words), you guys really have to look at that
and say are we too much with this small piece of land and ask this applicant if they can be
profitable with one or the other, but not both. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? With that, George, I don’t know whether I want to close the
public hearing or leave it open because I don’t know whether we’re going to close this tonight
or not. We’ve got a large motion to make with a lot of conditions, and I just don’t know if we’re
going to get all the way through it tonight or not.
MR. HILTON-Correct me if I’m wrong. Before you do SEQRA, the public hearing has to be
closed. So if you want to leave it open at this point and then when you do SEQRA close it, if
you do the SEQRA review. I don’t know.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d be looking for.
MS. RADNER-You might want to poll your Board members and see how the Board’s inclined to
go and then you can make that decision whether to table it one more time or to proceed this
evening.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good suggestion, Cathi. We’ll start off with Rich.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we have a lot of items that have to be included into the motion if we
proceed to conclusion tonight, but I’m not sure that they require additional work on the part of
the applicant, in terms of revised drawings and additional information. So my inclination is
that there’s nothing outstanding that necessarily prevents us from moving forward tonight. So
that’s my opinion that, since we’ve been at this for an hour and forty-five minutes, maybe we go
two hours and wrap it up. I mean, I think we have to hear the comments on the public hearing
and they were good questions, and I’m interested in hearing what the applicant has to say, but
if we do move forward, I can’t see why we necessarily have to table it. I don’t know what we’d
be tabling it for.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Gretchen, how do you feel?
MRS. STEFFAN-Ask someone else first.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, I think we have to table it. We can’t do SEQRA yet. There’s
enough issues left.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m more inclined to agree with Richard. I don’t think there’s anything
significant enough to table it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m tending to be along those lines myself. I don’t see any, you know, trying to
get to the tabling motion and talk to the reasons for tabling would be very difficult.
MR. SANFORD-What would we, Tom, what would we want them to provide additionally to
help us get through SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s the issue with the entrance still.
MR. VOLLARO-We can make that a condition of approval.
MR. SANFORD-I thought we had variations that we could condition? I mean, obviously the
new drawings would have to reflect.
MR. SEGULJIC-We still haven’t come to agreement on the building renderings, design.
MR. HUNSINGER-The one outstanding issue that I have in my mind is the color schemes and
building designs.
MR. SANFORD-Anyway, I’m just one voice, and that’s not a big issue for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my biggest concerns, you know, it’s a visible project, from Route 9, we
want to make sure it’s done right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s visible all right. No question about that.
MR. SANFORD-Again, ordinarily I feel comfortable tabling something if there is a material
revision that needs to be done for our consideration, i.e. the plans are all messed up and we
have to get them in order. Here, we’ve identified the revisions that would be required in the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
final drawings, before they were signed by the Chair, but it’s not like there’s inaccuracies that
need to necessarily be done, just tweaking.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s tweaking, fine tuning here and there, but to me, building renderings
are, I mean, that’s going to have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, are we going to be asking the architect to come back with a new color
rendering that we can approve? Is that what we’re talking about? We want the architect to
redo those?
MR. SEGULJIC-I thought that was the direction we gave them initially.
MR. SANFORD-You might have a split Board on aesthetics here. I mean, again, I don’t know
that for sure, but I know, you and Gretchen have some issues on aesthetics. I’m not sure the
rest of us are that uncomfortable with things.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t asked Gretchen yet. She’s contemplating.
MR. SANFORD-She, earlier, stated that she had some issues.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I guess one of the things I want to ask Jim and George, how do you guys
feel about it, that, you know, Jim, are you comfortable with some of the things that we’ve heard
about the driveway? Obviously you’re our engineer and you’re the one we rely on with the
changes that we’ve made to the parking and those kinds of things. Would you be more
comfortable seeing it?
MR. EDWARDS-I definitely need to see it before I sign off on it, but I’m quite certain that these
revisions are minor enough where we can make them work. The question you have about
getting a bus in there and getting around certain radius points and landscaped areas, is a good
question. I want to see a couple of turning templates which are just simulations of vehicles,
superimposed on these drawings to make sure there’s room. That’s a very good point. I think
it’s going to, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those, and that can be done after the meeting, if need
be. We can work these things.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not dug in to moving forward. I mean, if everybody, you know, if the
majority of the Board would feel comfortable in having these changes incorporated in a final set
of drawings, and then we move on it, I’m agreeable to that as well.
MR. VOLLARO-If they were incorporated, we could move rather quickly, I think, once they
were all put on. I mean, I’m pretty much, I’ll go along with the majority of the Board. Rich, do
you want to change your position on that?
MR. SANFORD-Again, I think we can do either one, and I think that we’ve got at least two
Board members that feel they would like to see the drawings incorporate our changes before
they move forward, and I’ll honor that request.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you have an opinion?
MR. HILTON-I guess, as far as the lighting goes, I don’t have a problem. There was some talk
about reducing the wattage on some of the poles on the southern side of the site. I certainly
don’t have a problem with Staff reviewing that for compliance. When you get into building
design and architecture and color, unless you have a specific color in mind, I’d be a little
hesitant to leave that up to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree. That’s why I talked about taupe or some sort of a lighter earth tone
that would go in there. Beige or taupe is what I was looking for when I reviewed it, but, you
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
know, color is something you can’t get agreement. You can ask people, five people on color,
you’re going to get five answers. That’s my problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of material would the siding be? Is it going to be vinyl siding?
MR. BORGOS-I believe it calls for a vinyl siding.
MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I mean, maybe the answer.
MR. JARRETT-Vinyl, apparently.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is vinyl? Maybe the answer is to bring a sample of the actual color, if we
do table this. Personally, I’m not inclined to want to table it, but I’ll certainly go along with the
majority of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s see what I’ve got. I’ve got a table. I’ve got a maybe table. I have a
table here. I think I’m going to ask the applicant, I think what we’re going to do is try to table
this, so basically our conditions get minimized the next time we do this, because they’re all
brought forth, as a result of the tabling motion we do now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want the proposed conditions, then, to become the items for the
tabling motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-First, though, I think, before we go there, we certainly need to ask the applicant
to address some of the questions raised in public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, but I’m trying to get the applicant, what’s the timeline here? Where
are you? Are you going to start breaking ground fast, or what?
MR. BORGOS-Well, I’d like to address each of those things, but first, as a procedural point, did
you close the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-Not yet. I think I want to leave it open because if we’re going to table, I want
the public hearing to be open.
MR. BORGOS-With regard to our timeline, we’d like to put a shovel in the ground as soon as
possible, but that’s not going to happen until we get the necessary approvals, of course.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand that.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s something that we spoke with George about this morning. We know
your schedule fills up very quickly, and April is maybe even already filled.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not too bad. I looked at it yesterday morning, I guess, and it doesn’t look
all that chock o block yet, or is it?
MR. HILTON-Well, the only thing I can say is with the two additions this evening, we are
getting to that 14 item threshold. So, I guess that’s all.
MR. BORGOS-Our concern is that Outback is going to need to retain the subcontractors
necessary to perform their work.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
know, color is something you can’t get agreement. You can ask people, five people on color,
you’re going to get five answers. That’s my problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of material would the siding be? Is it going to be vinyl siding?
MR. BORGOS-I believe it calls for a vinyl siding.
MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I mean, maybe the answer.
MR. JARRETT-Vinyl, apparently.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is vinyl? Maybe the answer is to bring a sample of the actual color, if we
do table this. Personally, I’m not inclined to want to table it, but I’ll certainly go along with the
majority of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s see what I’ve got. I’ve got a table. I’ve got a maybe table. I have a
table here. I think I’m going to ask the applicant, I think what we’re going to do is try to table
this, so basically our conditions get minimized the next time we do this, because they’re all
brought forth, as a result of the tabling motion we do now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want the proposed conditions, then, to become the items for the
tabling motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-First, though, I think, before we go there, we certainly need to ask the applicant
to address some of the questions raised in public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, but I’m trying to get the applicant, what’s the timeline here? Where
are you? Are you going to start breaking ground fast, or what?
MR. BORGOS-Well, I’d like to address each of those things, but first, as a procedural point, did
you close the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-Not yet. I think I want to leave it open because if we’re going to table, I want
the public hearing to be open.
MR. BORGOS-With regard to our timeline, we’d like to put a shovel in the ground as soon as
possible, but that’s not going to happen until we get the necessary approvals, of course.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand that.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s something that we spoke with George about this morning. We know
your schedule fills up very quickly, and April is maybe even already filled.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not too bad. I looked at it yesterday morning, I guess, and it doesn’t look
all that chock o block yet, or is it?
MR. HILTON-Well, the only thing I can say is with the two additions this evening, we are
getting to that 14 item threshold. So, I guess that’s all.
MR. BORGOS-Our concern is that Outback is going to need to retain the subcontractors
necessary to perform their work.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
know, color is something you can’t get agreement. You can ask people, five people on color,
you’re going to get five answers. That’s my problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of material would the siding be? Is it going to be vinyl siding?
MR. BORGOS-I believe it calls for a vinyl siding.
MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I mean, maybe the answer.
MR. JARRETT-Vinyl, apparently.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is vinyl? Maybe the answer is to bring a sample of the actual color, if we
do table this. Personally, I’m not inclined to want to table it, but I’ll certainly go along with the
majority of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s see what I’ve got. I’ve got a table. I’ve got a maybe table. I have a
table here. I think I’m going to ask the applicant, I think what we’re going to do is try to table
this, so basically our conditions get minimized the next time we do this, because they’re all
brought forth, as a result of the tabling motion we do now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want the proposed conditions, then, to become the items for the
tabling motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-First, though, I think, before we go there, we certainly need to ask the applicant
to address some of the questions raised in public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, but I’m trying to get the applicant, what’s the timeline here? Where
are you? Are you going to start breaking ground fast, or what?
MR. BORGOS-Well, I’d like to address each of those things, but first, as a procedural point, did
you close the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-Not yet. I think I want to leave it open because if we’re going to table, I want
the public hearing to be open.
MR. BORGOS-With regard to our timeline, we’d like to put a shovel in the ground as soon as
possible, but that’s not going to happen until we get the necessary approvals, of course.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand that.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s something that we spoke with George about this morning. We know
your schedule fills up very quickly, and April is maybe even already filled.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not too bad. I looked at it yesterday morning, I guess, and it doesn’t look
all that chock o block yet, or is it?
MR. HILTON-Well, the only thing I can say is with the two additions this evening, we are
getting to that 14 item threshold. So, I guess that’s all.
MR. BORGOS-Our concern is that Outback is going to need to retain the subcontractors
necessary to perform their work.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand.
MR. BORGOS-If we delay another couple of months, they may be unavailable until even next
year, it may put them out that far.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask the Board a question. If we were to break our seven rule by
injecting this application when they come back and get it done quickly, because we’re going to
be very familiar with it, or whoever sits in this chair will be familiar with it. I’m not sure who’s
going to sit in this chair the next time around, even.
MR. SANFORD-I think, to provide the comfort range that a couple of the Board members have
asked for, I think if they incorporate what Chris has prepared as the list, and come back with
clean copies, I think we ought to be able to do this in 20 minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Or less, and I guess that’s kind of my concern in tabling this. We gave them
a very specific list of eleven items at the last meeting. In my mind there’s only one that they
really didn’t address, in any great detail, and that’s the color schemes. I thought we were going
to get options when we asked for color schemes, not just, you know, one rendering.
MR. SANFORD-I thought they did a good job, too.
MR. JARRETT-It could be my fault. I thought it was just the roof of the Outback that you were
concerned with. I didn’t understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t remember the discussion. All I can tell you is in my notes I just
said color scheme.
MR. JARRETT-We know the roof of the Outback was a concern.
MR. SANFORD-Well, there’s a couple of other things, though, Chris. I think they did a great
job, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree, wholeheartedly.
MR. SANFORD-But they didn’t really address the neon lighting, although they’ve agreed that if
we condition it, they’ll have to adhere to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good point.
MR. SANFORD-There is revisions in the lighting, as Bob Vollaro pointed out, with the potential
reduction of wattage in the southern end. So the plans could reflect that. There is the parking
modifications, which I think are important to have them clearly understood. We could talk to
them, but it would be nicer to see them on a drawing, and that’s the southern entrance, and
also, I guess there’s another one, too, that Gretchen brought out that needs some work, in terms
of turning radius in the rear of the building. So, I mean, there’s enough outstanding items
where if they did all those revisions and came to us maybe with two options on colors, we need
to give them a little more direction on that, we could probably knock it off, and all feel
comfortable about it next time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I agree.
MR. EDWARDS-I just have one more comment, too. There’s still three DOT items that may or
may not affect the final site plan here, and one is probably, I won’t say farfetched, but probably
won’t happen, that is the access to Weeks Road. Who’s going to make that call, though, that we
support DOT’s?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. JARRETT-It can’t happen by us.
MR. EDWARDS-Understood, but this Board has got to make some decision on that, whether
they support DOT’s comment or not, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to understand DOT’s comment because I haven’t seen it.
MR. EDWARDS-You haven’t seen the letter, I guess, formally, have you?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. EDWARDS-So I guess you need to wait.
MR. JARRETT-They support, this was in a letter previously submitted from DOT. They
supported an interconnection directly to Weeks Road. We don’t have the ability to provide
that. They want a road from Sweet Road to Weeks Road through our properties.
MR. BORGOS-And through our discussions with DOT, we’ve tried to get the next best thing,
and that is the entrance at Sweet Road with the light, instead of the other existing curb cuts.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d have to see the DOT letter. I’ve got to see the letter and ponder on it a little
bit and try to get some idea in my own mind what they’re driving at and why.
MR. BORGOS-I think it’s DOT’s attempt to do some of that cumulative impact, long range
planning that you’ve been speaking of. Something that I know was raised during the Wal-Mart
review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BORGOS-It wasn’t required of Wal-Mart to do it then. We feel that we’re unable to do it
now. We’ve negotiated with the owner of the car wash, to the extent we were able to do the
land swap to get where we are, we’re not able to go beyond that and do an actual connection to
Weeks Road at this time. Certainly, if that car wash property gets redeveloped, as we suspect it
will be in the next decade, then that would be the time to make that change, and everything’s in
place, right now, the best we can do it, to prepare for that.
MR. VOLLARO-It appears that when we read the DOT letter it’s going to be our call as to
whether we agree with what they say or not.
MR. HILTON-As far as any interconnection to Weeks Road, I think, at the very least, should the
Board choose not to require a full vehicular connection to Weeks, that’s part of the reason why
we’re pushing the interconnect to that property to the south to eventually open up, you know,
should the property to the south be redeveloped, open up an alternate route for people coming
off of Weeks Road to get to that light. So at the very least I think we’re looking at addressing it
that way, but that’s not to say how you’ll act.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d certainly like to take a look at DOT’s letter, since it wasn’t submitted as part
of our package tonight, you know, I’d like to see what they’ve got to say on that and try to
figure that out a little bit. It looks like we are going to table this, and I’m going to just pick a
date on here, George, and table it to April 26.
th
MR. HILTON-Okay, can I make just a couple of other suggestions.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, you have identified a date. Secondly, since the deadline for
April has passed, we need a date when all new information would be received, and I would
suggest somewhere around two weeks beforehand, at least.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would ask the applicant, in order to fit the schedule, April 15 would be
th
the date to get on in May, but since March 15 has passed, which is the submission date, how
th
long do you think it’s going to take to do this? There’s quite a bit in here that we need to, and
when we get to our tabling motion, you’ll see all the stuff that’s going to come up.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, if I recall the list, I mean, I’ll hear it again in a second, but I would probably
say a week to ten days. If you give us, if you tell us to submit two weeks prior to the meeting,
as George just suggested, and would give us probably roughly 10 days.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would give you two and a half weeks.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, for an April 26 resolution, yes, and we should be out of here pretty quick.
th
I mean, it shouldn’t take that long. If everything is put together is put together on April 26, as
th
Mr. Sanford said, we should be out of here pretty quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll get it by Friday, April 9? Does that give you enough time? April
th
26. If we could get it by the 9, that gives you, I think, 17 days.
thth
MR. HILTON-Just a suggestion, you may want to take, and I know this has gone on a long time.
You may want to take just a couple of minutes to maybe recess and put your motion together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess what I was going to suggest was that I would start it out and
then people can add items if they desire. How’s that?
MS. RADNER-One final comment. You don’t need to do this tonight, but keep in mind, when
you do give an approval, if you do, if it’s your intention that the approval for the hotel
expansion will be lost if that’s not done in a year, you should specify that. So that the work on
the Outback wouldn’t be enough to keep the application alive. Do you follow me?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’re saying to couple it to the motel expansion?
MS. RADNER-Right. If it’s your intention that they’ll have to return if they haven’t done the
hotel expansion, in one year, specify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the Board’s feeling on that? I guess that’s something we could
address at the final approval.
MS. RADNER-Right. You don’t have to address it tonight, but I wanted to make sure it was on
the record, so that it didn’t fly under the radar.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will make a motion to table Site Plan 4-2005.
MR. SANFORD-Just one thing. We didn’t, actually, Bob, ask the applicant for their response to
the public hearing comments. I don’t know if you want to wait until next meeting for that.
There were some concerns.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, let’s clear those up now so that the next meeting is real clean and could see
what we’ve got. You took some notes on what some of the folks had to say.
MR. BORGOS-I did, and I think I can answer a couple of them by addressing the concern about
traffic and the impact on Route 9 by this. I think Mr. Stern made the comment about either
doing a motel or the restaurant. We talked about this with the ZBA with regards to the parking
and the utilization of those spaces. It’s our understanding that the Outback’s only going to be
preparing dinners. So it’s going to be just a dinner crowd, and certainly guests at the motel are
going to be there typically after that. If they’re going to be there at dinner hour, it’s most likely
that they’ll be frequenting the Outback for dinner. So there’ll be a dual usage, and not any
expanded use. So we think that traffic is not going to be affected as a result, to any great degree,
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
when you compare it to the concept of doing one or the other. We think that it meets all the
other site criteria. We’re fine with regards to that, because it is in the Highway Commercial
Intensive area. The odors we’ve discussed. I think the e-mail that we showed you from
Outback has addressed that. I remember speaking to the representative who was here back in
January. He didn’t address it in front of the Board, but we spoke privately, and he let me know
how important it is for Outback as a corporate culture to make friends with their neighbors.
The managers and operators live in the community, and they strive very hard to make sure that
they are doing things, they’re involved in the community, working with organizations and
being a good neighbor. So I have every belief that they’re going to continue to do that. If there
are complaints, they’re going to do whatever they can to address it. Before we come back next
time, we’ll find out about where those odors are going to be discharged from, if there’s a
venting system, and what other experiences that they’ve had with their 800 other restaurants in
the country. It’s a good bet that that’s probably our best source of information. We’d refer to
any type of text or treatise on that. That’s probably the best real life experience that we can
hope for in that type of a number of restaurants. So we’ll find out about that and report back.
MR. SANFORD-Could you research your plantings and how well they’ll perform in a cold
Zone Four, visa vie the road salts and things of that nature? Because you know we have had a
lot of problems where even at this Board level we’ve recommended certain plantings and, from
aesthetics, and yet they didn’t hold up well to the saltings and things of that nature.
MR. BORGOS-We’ll check with the landscape architect on that and report back on that issue as
well.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I think that’s pretty much what was raised.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there was anything else significant. Do you? Are we ready for
the motion? I think we are, because we’re going to have to put, go ahead and start off the
motion and then I’ll plug, or we can all plug in later on if we have to.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 NASREEN KHURSHID, Introduced by Chris
Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Until our April 26 regular Board meeting. The applicant shall provide all new information by
th
the close of business on April 9. Pending the submission of the following information:
th
1. That the site plan be modified to identify the privacy fence as the good
neighbor privacy fence, Item Z100ND.
2. There shall be no exhaust on the western side of the proposed Outback
Steakhouse building, and the applicant will provide information on the
location of exhaust stacks.
3. There shall be no neon strip on the Outback building.
4. The Summit Ash tree in proposed southern access drive shall be moved
slightly to the north and west.
5. The applicant shall identify on the site plan that they will commit to construct
the interconnects to the north and the south, if and when adjacent sites are
redeveloped.
6. That the applicant shall provide a revised lighting plan that shall reduce the
wattage on the Type A fixtures at the southern end of the building to 175
watts.
7. The applicant shall widen the radius of the right hand turn in by eliminating
one parking space along the southern boundary.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
8. The applicant shall provide the radius of the turn in the southwest corner to
ensure proper radius for traffic flow and shall soften the curve if necessary.
9. The applicant shall verify that the proposed landscape plantings are
appropriate for the climate.
10. That the applicant seek to obtain a final C.T. Male signoff.
11. For any draft resolution for the April 26 meeting, to make sure that the
th
12/24/04 memo from the Deputy Superintendent of the Queensbury Water
Department be added to the list of supporting documentation.
12. The applicant shall provide various color schemes of the building renderings.
The hotel shall provide an alternate that shows more of an earth tone. Bring a
sample of the sidings.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
MR. SANFORD-How about DOT? That’s still pending. What are we looking for there?
Because we really want to be able to respond to what they have to say. I’m not sure how to
phrase that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my feeling is during the discussion that it’s really pretty similar to the
discussion with The Great Escape, in that, you know, that’s something we don’t have any
control over. DOT approved this. I mean, if DOT proposes something that we can’t bind the
applicant to, I don’t know how we can accept their recommendation.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know where we want to leave it with the applicant at this point.
What’s the timeline with this, now? I mean, what’s the expected timeline with DOT?
MR. JARRETT-For DOT? The letter that we have a draft of will be in your hands by
presumably or the next day, but we’re trying to mitigate that further. So we’ll do our best to
have something by April 9.
th
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. JARRETT-We had submitted the traffic analysis to them six weeks ago, and just got a
comment today.
MR. SANFORD-This is tabled until what date?
MR. VOLLARO-This is tabled until the 26 of April.
th
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we’ll have something to review anyway.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. It was long, but it was a good review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was good. It’s going to be a good project.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM EHLERT AGENT: SCHODER RIVER ASSOCIATES
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 106 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 9,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE USED FOR THE REPAIR AND SALE OF
HIGHWAY TRUCKS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND
SERVICE IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 35-04, SP 8-98, 30-96, 86-90, 44-91, UV 47-96
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-7 LOT SIZE: 3.23 ACRES
SECTION: 179-9
SHAWN RIVERS & WILLIAM EHLERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Again, I’ll talk to Staff notes. Mr. Hilton has provided Staff notes. I guess
everybody’s read the Staff notes on Arrowhead Equipment, and has the applicant read the Staff
notes as well, familiar with them?
MR. HILTON-I’ll just give you a brief summary, a couple of comments I wanted to make. For
the most part the plan has been revised per the resolution, tabling resolution. A lot of my
comments focused on lighting and foot candle values being excessive compared to the Code.
The applicant did fax us over today some cut sheets that show shields going over the wall
mounted lighting. So I think that that’ll have a positive impact.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the B lights around the building?
MR. HILTON-Yes. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. For the record, you are?
MR. RIVERS-Shawn Rivers, from Schoder Rivers Associates.
MR. ELHERT-William Elhert, property owner.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you want to go forward with what you’ve done. I guess most of us
have looked at your drawing, at least I have, and I know the rest of the Board members have.
We have some, I have some questions that I want to mention, but anything you want to say
about the application?
MR. RIVERS-We could go over, if you want to go over, the latest C.T. Male letter, I guess, as a
starting point. I mean, basically almost all the items they agreed that we addressed. There
were a couple of minor points. We still had an incorrect date for Test Pit TP-1. I apologize for
that. They just suggested a minimum radius of 30 feet for the entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-Now are we talking your February 19 response to C.T. Male’s February 15
thth
letter? Is that where we’re at?
MR. RIVERS-I’m addressing, basically, their March 16 letter, which we could go over that, I
th
mean, but basically they’ve.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the only thing I have here from Schoder Rivers is a letter of February 19
th
to Mr. Craig Brown concerning the site plan for Arrowhead Equipment.
MR. RIVERS-Right, which addressed their.
MR. VOLLARO-Which addressed C.T. Male’s comments of February 15?
th
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that where we’re at? You say you’ve got something different. I sense
there’s another.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-No. I did not write another letter because I knew that you wouldn’t accept it
today. The latest C.T. Male comments I received Friday, I believe, which were based on our re-
submission.
MR. VOLLARO-Essentially, you are answering their February 15 letter? For example, we’re
th
starting with Drawing C-1.
MR. RIVERS-Okay. We can go back through that, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now what you want to read to us is an amplification of this or a continuation
of?
MR. RIVERS-If you want to start there, we could go through that letter, I guess. I believe that
the C.T. Male letter agreed that we basically addressed all those issues that were in our letter.
We could go back through that.
MR. EDWARDS-Have you got the March 16 letter, Bob?
th
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like I might be missing that, I don’t know. No, I’m sorry. I have March
5, this is to Mr. MacEwan.
th
MR. EDWARDS-No. We wrote a letter March 16, to Craig Brown, which gives updates to the
th
prior comments. It’s a two page letter.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t think I have it.
MR. VOLLARO-The letter I have, the C.T. Male letter, the last one I have is February 15. I do
th
have Schoder Rivers’ letter of March 5, yes.
th
MR. SANFORD-Did C.T. Male signoff on this? Are they outstanding items?
MR. EDWARDS-They’re very minor.
MR. RIVERS-It was very minor, three or four minor items. That’s what I was just proposing to
do is to address those three or four minor items
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we leave it at this and say that we’ll leave it at a C.T. Male signoff.
MR. EDWARDS-I didn’t realize you didn’t have that letter from us dated the 16, that explains
th
why you were grasping for what you guys were talking about. So, yes, there were just a few
minor things that go back to the prior comment letter. Everything else has been addressed. It’s
gone a long ways since the last submission, and it’s primarily a couple of radii type comments,
and a couple of, there’s one lighting issue, I guess, (lost words) on the employee parking lot in
the very back. That was our last comment that required addressing, and that was it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what we’ll do is leave this up to a C.T. Male signoff. If it’s rather minor,
I don’t think we ought to, you know, get into the details that you’re trying to get into. Let C.T.
Male give us, we’ve conditioned applications, approvals before on a C.T. Male signoff so we
could.
MR. RIVERS-There’s one C.T. Male Item 20 on that letter, vehicles exiting the western most
service bay and new addition may conflict with vehicles entering the southernmost bay of the
existing building. (This comment is under consideration by the owner and we are awaiting
resolution of it.), and I’m not sure what resolution we could offer on that. I mean, the owner
knows that he has a door here and a door here. There’s a potential for a conflict here. He’s still
evaluating his, the uses of his service bays. So I don’t know, it’s an operational issue. I’m not
quite sure what we can add.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Well, where is that even addressed? Are you talking about your February 19
letter?
MR. RIVERS-It was also (lost words), but it’s also brought up on their previous letter.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for Number 20, and the owner is aware of the conflict with the
service bay. Is that the one we’re talking about?
MR. RIVERS-Yes, that’s right. I’m just saying that that comment came back in the March 16
th
letter.
MR. SANFORD-Do we know why we didn’t get that in our packet, George?
MR. HILTON-No, I don’t. Fortunately, though, we do have Jim here to discuss it with the
Board.
MR. EDWARDS-As far as that comment goes, it was brought up in the prior comment letter,
and I was expecting a response saying we’ve thought more about it and perhaps we don’t feel
it’s going to be a conflict, but it didn’t really get addressed head on at the last go round.
MR. RIVERS-Well, I mean, we don’t feel it’s a conflict.
MR. EDWARDS-It’s an operational issue, and you’re aware of it, and if you can’t change your
building layout because of it, you’re going to be stuck with it, and you’re aware of it. Beyond
that, it’s an internal operational issue. Is it a safety issue? I don’t know that it is, but it’s
certainly an operational issue.
MR. SANFORD-Are you going to go through the whole list, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have much. I’ll go through it real quick. On design standards
everything looks okay to me there.
MR. SANFORD-I really have nothing to add on this, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Under site development, we’ve got test pit logs. We’re slowly getting there,
little by little. Now the lighting spill onto Luzerne Road, though, that’s something we really do
want to talk about. There’s not enough, we’ve got 1168 points to the entire site, in the lighting
plan, the total number of hits was 1186, and it’s very hard to do any calculations with that, in
terms of coming up with a uniformity ratio at the entrance, and that’s one of the things I’m
always looking at is the what is the uniformity ratio at the entrance and the exit. So that the
lighting is not so high on the site, and low on Luzerne Road. So when you’re coming out of a
well lit site you’re going on to a very dark road. Now your eyes are all closed down because of
the lights, and they’re trying to open up and see what’s going on on this dark road, and that’s
the reason for uniformity ratio. That’s what’s behind that term, so that people understand it,
and there wasn’t enough on there for me to come up with that.
MR. RIVERS-I guess I’m confused by when you say there’s not enough. I talked to George a
little bit about the lighting, and we’re more than willing to work with Staff to get the lighting to
the level you want it at. We can change the fixtures, change the wattage, but as far as the more
information, I’m a little confused on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you what I’m looking at. When you get on your C-4, and up in
the very left hand corner of C-4, they talk about horizontal foot candles. They give you the
average of .7, maximum seven and a half, minimum zero. Now, I can’t get a uniformity ratio
out of that for what I’m really interested in is what’s going on on the entrance. Do you follow
what I’m saying? I can’t come up with that.
MR. SANFORD-But, Bob, a quick question for the applicant.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Normally we get information on different portions of the site, as opposed to
the entire site.
MR. SANFORD-What the traffic pattern’s going to be like in the evening.
MR. RIVERS-I guess, we’re only lighting this part of this property. We’re not proposing to light
any more than that.
MR. SANFORD-This isn’t going to be heavily used in the evening, or is it?
MR. RIVERS-No.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, when we looked at this site, I just somehow didn’t think that there
would be a lot of use in the evening, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that might be true, and if it is, then, you know, if we say that lights are
going to be off by, they’re going to shut the lights down, or is that what you’re planning to do?
There won’t be any light spill onto Luzerne Road? Because the plan you’ve given us shows me
some light spill onto Luzerne Road.
MR. RIVERS-I agree that there’s some spill on Luzerne Road, and I’d like to work with Staff.
We will reduce that. What happened was, in the first go around I think there was some
confusion when we got our comments back from C.T. Male that we didn’t have enough light in
one corner. Quite frankly my lighting sub-consultant took that the wrong way I think and over-
did the lights. We have like .1 in the corner, which I think, in retrospect, was okay. As a result,
I think some of the things got a little overboard. So we would like to work with Staff to reduce
it to get it to the average one foot candle, and we can’t totally eliminate the spillage onto
Luzerne Road, but reduce it.
MR. VOLLARO-And that would be done by that, probably looking at.
MR. RIVERS-Well, this one fixture we could cut, my initial guess is Fixture A will shift to the
west a little bit, and also reduce the wattage of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, we, as I mentioned, do have cut sheets for the wall mounted
fixtures that show that they’re going to use shields, but I think that’s a good idea and we’re
more than willing to work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-And Fixture A was the one that caused the problem before, and you did
reduce the wattage from 250 to 150.
MR. RIVERS-Yes. We still seem to have problems.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s so close to the road that the isometrics are spilling over.
MR. RIVERS-Right. That’s what I’m saying. I think if we move it to the left, also, that will help,
and then it could be reduced further in wattage.
MR. VOLLARO-The computer should be able to tell you something about around the entrance.
You should be able to ask it the question of, based on the average and the min, and it’ll give
you, if you’ve got the same program I’ve seen, it’ll give you a uniformity ratio.
MR. RIVERS-Did you want both of those numbers on there, I guess?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The uniformity ratio doesn’t make much sense for the rest of the site, but
it does to me at the entrance on Luzerne Road. There’s 1168 points, but I was only interested in
most of them around the entrance.
MR. RIVERS-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The landscaping looks good. Environmental. I wanted to just talk, I
know the Chairman who normally sits at this seat who I’m taking over for occasionally talked
about, and I don’t like to use this word in an arbitrary fashion or one that would in any way
impugn anything, but there’s some material on there that should be removed to make the site
look, and the reason we’re talking about that is from the Northway, when you go over, you’re
looking right down on the site. We want to make sure that it looks as presentable as it can look.
So we’re talking about taking any type of material that’s kind of floating around that shouldn’t
be there off the site. That would be something that you’d have to go that goes and that goes
and that goes, you know.
MR. EHLERT-That’s the purpose of the addition, so we can get that material under the roof, for
one. Two, we’re going to be re-rotating what is left, and basically the customer, it’s equipment
for the customer, and we’re going to relocate that to the rear.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So some of that stuff is necessary equipment that will eventually be
refurbished, fixed up and go out.
MR. EHLERT-(Lost words) necessary, but most of it is in storage to be warehoused, and that’s
the purpose of it.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only other thing I had on here is the status of the fence under
Miscellaneous, where it says, the fence right now is on New York State property, and there was
some indication in one of the reports that the owner doesn’t have any intention of removing
that fence.
MR. EHLERT-It’s shown on the drawing as being removed. That always was.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure where you got that, Bob.
MR. RIVERS-I think the only thing we did add was with the graveled area we (lost words) this
filled over graveled area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The existing fence at the front of the property will be removed, and new
security gate and fencing will be installed. Okay. There was some place in there, it probably
was on a previous piece of paper that I wrote that it wouldn’t be done, but, okay, I see that now.
It’s part of your stormwater report.
MR. RIVERS-Yes. There was a comment. I amended the stormwater report. The stormwater
report was in conflict with the original set of plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Other than that, I don’t have any questions. I’m going to
throw this open to the Board. Does anybody else have anything that I might have missed or
that they want to talk about?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. The only thing that they didn’t address that we had asked them to,
well, they addressed it, they just didn’t complete it, was the lighting plan.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the key issue on this site, I believe.
MR. SEGULJIC-My only question would be, there’s going to be added lighting for the employee
parking, then? I got an indication of that.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. EDWARDS-The March 16 letter you guys did not receive did include one comment about,
th
asking why there’s no lighting behind the building where the employees park. I didn’t notice
that the first time through, I just added it the next time through.
MR. RIVERS-There is a light fixture off of the extreme northeast corner that would light that
area when it’s needed. I guess that we propose to leave that fixture there.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as we get a revised lighting, to get as much spill off Luzerne Road as
possible, and get a uniformity ratio to the entrance, I’m happy with this proposal as it’s
presently presented. At least I am.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m all set.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. SANFORD-You still have the public hearing open, I think.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have to open the public hearing. Anybody here that wants to talk to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll go into a SEQRA Short Form.
RESOLUTION NO. 9-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess we need a motion for the approval of Site Plan No. 9-2005.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just have a question on how we want to handle the lighting issue. Let me
offer some suggested language and see if it’s agreeable.
MR. RIVERS-Right now we show an oil/water separator. Our current discussions with DEC are
that the would not permit that, which means that we will not have any floor drain (lost words),
but right now they won’t permit those.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The drawing itself will eliminate that. Because it shows one in there
now.
MR. RIVERS-That’ll be eliminated.
MR. SANFORD-Will there be an additional final drawing that will reflect the new lighting, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-There should be, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Chris, wouldn’t that be the way to deal with it, that the final drawing will
show a reduction in spill to a certain level on Luzerne Road? One foot candle?
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me just finish this one thought. Well, the wording that I had is, and let
me run this by everyone, the applicant will work with Staff and C.T. Male to resolve the lighting
issue with the light fixture labeled A to obtain an overall, one foot candle in required uniformity
ratio.
MR. SANFORD-That sounds good.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the of course the final condition will be a final C.T. Male signoff. So, in
other words, you know, if you can’t correct the lighting plan, you won’t get the final C.T. Male
signoff.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you also, in your Staff notes you have two comments regarding the
lights. Do you want that as part of this conditional approval?
MR. HILTON-Again, I guess, well, I guess I’d have to see something, a revised plan to see what
impact the shields on the wall mounted lights, what impact that will have and review any
shields that go on that freestanding fixture. So I guess it’s a process to work with them to make
sure that it complies with the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the way that Chris has the condition of the motion written, I think,
covers that. The thing that I have in there is we’re going to be relying on Staff and C.T. Male to
determine that that’s satisfactory. As far as getting right down to one is concerned. I think
we’ve got to give the applicant a little bit of latitude, plus or minus, here, because I know you
can play with these adding wattage, taking lights away, turning lights, the computer model just
keeps moving around, you know.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HILTON-And I guess that’s my concern that you want to be pretty specific, because we can
look at this and work with it until it gets down to one foot candle in the parking area, one foot
candle up against the building, no spill, and, you know, be really by the book with it, but if
you’re going to focus on one area as opposed to the whole, you know, if you’re going to focus
just on Luzerne Road, as opposed to the parking area, I guess I would just be clear on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with the
language.
MR. SANFORD-Well, then is it a uniformity ratio that’s of paramount importance if we’re
talking primarily with Luzerne spill?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Uniformity ratio has, in my mind, has got little consequence on the site.
Uniformity ratio, by themselves, mostly to ingress/egress off sites. That’s how I look at it,
coming off a dark road to a light site, coming from a light site to a dark road, that’s where that
uniformity ratio plays. Let me ask Jim how he feels about that.
MR. EDWARDS-I’m not an expert, but it also prevents shadowing, too many bright spots
within a parking area. Not only are your eyes adjusting to the brightness, but it’s also safety
issue so you don’t have too much shadowing or dim areas, versus too many bright areas, and
it’s uniform spread of the light in a parking area.
MR. SANFORD-It would be within the site, though, I mean, not just the ingress and the exit. I
mean, you’re talking about the whole site. I don’t know if we’re particularly concerned about
the whole site.
MR. EDWARDS-Well, you ought to try to achieve a uniformity ratio on the site if you can.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. EDWARDS-As a rule of thumb, you should try to achieve that.
MR. VOLLARO-In the past, what we’ve gotten from applicants is a grid, you know, that shows
different portions of their site and the light applications at those portions, and the uniformity
ratio at the parking lot, uniformity ratio at the exits and entrances and stuff like that. So they
segment it a little bit so we can get an idea what’s going on.
MR. RIVERS-I think what, and I don’t want to mention a project, but there’s been a couple of
other (lost words) just like it, and as far as the information goes, the way it’s been presented to
them. I mean, certainly, if you want to stipulate a minimum, a maximum spill.
MR. SANFORD-I think Chris, the way Chris put it, following this discussion we’ve just had, is
fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I just made a slight change to that, so let me read it again. The
applicant will work with Staff and C.T. Male to resolve the lighting issue with the Light Fixture
Labeled A on the site plan, to obtain, and I changed this to an approximate rather than an actual
overall 1.0 foot candle, and the required uniformity ratio.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I think that covers it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you feel comfortable with that, Staff?
MR. HILTON-Again, I would specify, are you looking just at that immediate driveway
entrance, or are you looking for that entire front parking area?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s been pretty well talked about that we’re primarily concerned about
the Luzerne Road area.
MR. HUNSINGER-That Light Fixture A.
MR. HILTON-Well, again, when you say the light fixture, that, to me, is kind of vague. If
you’re specifying the drive entrance, I think that’s probably more.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s only one light fixture that’s labeled A.
MR. HILTON-No, that’s true, but again, when you’re talking about one foot candle, going back
to what you said, different service areas, are you specifying the driveway, are you specifying
the parking area?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the overall 1.0 foot candle is for the entire site, approximately.
MR. HILTON-Right, and if that’s your intent.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the issue with the uniformity ratio is in the entrance with Light Fixture
A.
MR. HILTON-Again, if that’s the area you’re specifying. I mean, uniformity applies to the
entire site.
MR. VOLLARO-It does.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s the area of most concern.
MR. HILTON-And I would just clarify that.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve gotten different uniformity ratios. In the last application we had
uniformity ratios for several areas for the front of the, we had about nine of them, and they tried
to keep those uniformity ratios constant throughout the site, and that’s what, and if I had to
vote on where I wanted it most, I’d want it around the Luzerne Road exit and entrance, yes. So
I think the way you’ve written it is fine with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will move forward.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2005 ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 9-2005 Applicant: Arrowhead Equipment, Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: William Ehlert
Agent: Schoder River Associates
Zone: LI-1A
Location: 106 Luzerne Road
Applicant proposes to construct a 9,000 sq. ft. building to be used for the repair and sale of
highway trucks and related equipment. Heavy equipment sales and service in the LI zone
require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SP 35-04, SP 8-98, 30-96, 86-90, 44-91, UV 47-96
Warren Co. Planning: 2/9/05
Tax Map No. 309.9-2-7
Lot size: 3.23 acres / Section: 179-9
Public Hearing: 2/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/18/05 & 1/27/05; and
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/18/05, and
3/22/05 Staff Notes
3/ /05 CTM engineering comment
3/7/05 Revised plans submitted
2/23/05 Letter to applicant+: PB resolution Tabled to 3/22/05
2/22/05 PB resolution: tabled to 3/22/05
2/22/05 PB minutes
2/21/05 Fax to CB from S. Rivers, Schoder Rivers Assoc: response to CTM
comments
2/22/05 2/19/05 C. Brown from Schoder River Associates: response to staff notes
and CTM comments
2/18/05 Staff Notes
2/18/05 Fax to applicant/agent: staff notes
2/15/05 CT Male engineering comments
2/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
2/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No County Impact
2/2/05 Transmittal to CT Male Associates: revised info
1/28/05 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on 2/22/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That the date be corrected on site plan for test pit number one.
2. That the applicant will work with Staff and C.T. Male to resolve the lighting
issue with Light Fixture A to obtain an approximate overall 1.0 foot candle
over the entire site, and achieve the required Uniformity Ratio, particularly at
the entrance.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
3. The applicant will remove the oil/water separator from the site plan, if not
permitted by DEC, or will label that.
4. That the applicant obtain a final C.T. Male signoff.
5. The applicant will make best efforts to remove the clutter from the site and
put it under cover.
6. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
7. Lighting to be downcast/cutoff.
8. All lights to be inspected for compliance by staff prior to installation.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
MR. RIVERS-The colors are on the drawing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I looked and I didn’t see them. They’re already on there. So I guess we
don’t need that mentioned again.
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-You’re getting there.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED THOMAS ROSS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES & NACE ENGINEERING
ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 111 EVERTS AVE., CORNER OF EVERTS &
HOMER AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO
TWO ONE-ACRE COMMERCIAL LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-33 LOT SIZE: 2.41 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; THOMAS ROSS, PRESENT
MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Tom Ross, the applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to go forward with this, Mr. Nace, and just give us a little
feel for what’s going on here.
MR. NACE-Briefly, Mr. Ross owns about 1.4 acres on the corner of Homer and Everts Avenue.
His office is along Everts down to the north of the intersection. He would like to divide up
approximately one acre on the actual corner to be used in the future probably for office, some
sort of professional office.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that probably answers part of my intent. The intent is to put some
sort of a professional office in this site, of some sort.
MR. ROSS-I don’t have that intent. My intent is to sell the parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay.
MR. ROSS-I will say, just to be totally open, I’m negotiating with a dentist to possibly put a
dental practice there.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. ROSS-But I don’t have a contract.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s always good for us to know. We don’t have to, by the way. I mean, we
can’t force an applicant to say what they’re going to do, but it’s nice for us up here to get some
idea of what’s coming down the pike. So that’s interesting. Okay. Tom, go ahead.
MR. NACE-Very briefly, there are no services or no infrastructure required for the subdivision.
It all fronts on existing streets. There’s existing water available, municipal water. There’s
municipal sewer. One of the questions that had come up is that I showed on the subdivision
plan a 10 foot buffer between this lot and the adjacent property. That, obviously, would depend
on what use, it’s a use buffer, not a zone buffer. So that would depend on what use the
property is put to. I believe that if it were a commercial use it would have to be a 20 foot buffer
anticipated a professional office, which would be a 10 foot buffer. The other question that came
up was this lot, this proposed new lot presently used for stormwater controls for the existing
development, Mr. Ross’ office building and parking lot, and it is not. The existing building and
parking lot, the stormwater does not go on to this lot.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s retained. What’s the way it’s retained, Tom? It’s got some retention basin?
MR. NACE-On the existing, it was developed prior to your stormwater controls. So like three-
quarter’s of the property is in Queensbury. It finds its way to some low spots and eventually
works its way through the system.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a ditch located on Lot Two.
MR. NACE-That must have been for some prior historic development. I’ve looked at it during a
rainstorm and it really doesn’t, it doesn’t have any flowing water. It obviously, being a low
area, if there’s surface ponding it collects a little bit, but it doesn’t seem to connect to anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it doesn’t connect to anything?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just a ditch.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Why couldn’t you make the lots a little bit, I guess you couldn’t, is the reason
you didn’t make the lots a little bit more uniform because you wanted to have more than one
acre?
MR. NACE-What do you mean by that?
MR. SANFORD-Lot Number Two, you know, you have a square and then you go over to the
side, then you have a small rectangle.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, it’s a one acre zone, and with the existing building and the required
setbacks, that simply was the way of doing it. Obviously, when we utilized this, since there is
only this area that’s really contiguous, the size of the building that goes on here would probably
be smaller than you would normally put on a full one acre lot.
MR. SANFORD-Well, going down to the land to the left of Judy Ann Pontiff, what, if anything,
can go on that little parcel of land?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. NACE-That’ll remain green. There’s really, we might use that for some of the stormwater
controls, but I don’t anticipate anything. What I anticipate would be a building in here. It
would have a rear entrance over on what is the west side of the property, and have a front out
to Everts Avenue, but not any parking on that side. It would have all the parking behind it
here.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now the Lands of Judy Ann Pontiff, is there a home there, a residential
home?
MR. NACE-I believe so. Tom, can you speak to that at all?
MR. ROSS-It’s an office on the first floor, a collection agency, and it has an apartment on the
second floor.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. My concern is that if it was being used, there are, Everts Avenue has
some people that are living there and it’s a lot of professional office, that kind of thing, and I
would have preferred to see a bigger buffer volunteered than the 10 foot, if possible.
MR. NACE-The site plan will come back in front of you and we can certainly take that into
consideration.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the little rectangle sitting in, the outline of that, what’s on there? Is
there something there now in that small spot that’s just to the left of Judy Ann Pontiff? Right in
the center I have a small rectangle.
MR. HUNSINGER-He’s just showing the setback requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what that is?
MR. NACE-This piece?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes. Those are the setback, the building setback lines.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-Again to show, as you’ve pointed out, that you really couldn’t put any sort of
building back there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, because I was wondering that, too.
MR. NACE-Okay. Those are the setback lines.
MR. VOLLARO-They have a water and sewer here, so they can tie into that. They’ve got all the
utilities. I see that, where Homer comes down, that the radii going out around on Homer, and
I’m just trying to look, I just didn’t understand this portion of the drawing.
MR. NACE-I think I see what you’re talking about, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Right here.
MR. NACE-The fact that the property corner is out in the pavement?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. NACE-That’s, evidently these were older subdivisions that formed these lots in the Town,
and that was before the corners of the lots were radiused the way they are now. So obviously,
you know, I suppose if you got down to technical issues, that portion would be a, wee little
triangle in there could be by use, disputably maybe Town property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There was a mention of an interconnect to Lot One, some sort of an
interconnect. I think I picked that up off the Staff notes, but.
MR. NACE-That could be a site plan issue.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a site plan issue, I’m sure.
MR. NACE-I wouldn’t anticipate an interconnect between the two lots unless they were very
similar uses or uses that were interconnected somehow.
MR. VOLLARO-I did have one question on the filled out portion of Part One of SEQRA. It’s
just that you’re anticipating the depth to the water table to be four feet. That would be picked
up, I guess, on site plan review.
MR. NACE-On site plan we’ll do a test pit. Realistically it’s probably maybe less than that, just
knowing the area.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Other than that, I think, I don’t have any other questions on this. We
have to go through a Long Form SEQRA because this is a subdivision. Before I do that, I’ll open
up the public hearing, if anybody wants to talk to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll go into our SEQRA Long Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 3-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
THOMAS ROSS, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll entertain a motion for approval of Preliminary Stage.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2005 THOMAS
ROSS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 3-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Thomas Ross
PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves & Nace Engineering
FINAL STAGE Zone: HC-Intensive
SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 111 Everts Ave., corner of Everts & Homer Ave.
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2 +/-acre property into two one-acre commercial lots.
Tax Map No. 302.8-1-33
Lot size: 2.41 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: 2/15/05, Tabled; 3/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received in 1/18/05, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/11/05, and
3/22/05 Staff Notes
3/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent
2/11/05 Staff Notes
2/8/05 NPHS
1/28/05 Meeting Notice
1/25/05 Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater comments
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
2/15/05; and
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary / Final Stage is hereby granted and is
subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning
Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and
Landscaping Plan]
2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2005 THOMAS ROSS,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 3-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Thomas Ross
PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves & Nace Engineering
FINAL STAGE Zone: HC-Intensive
SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 111 Everts Ave., corner of Everts & Homer Ave.
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2 +/-acre property into two one-acre commercial lots.
Tax Map No. 302.8-1-33
Lot size: 2.41 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: 2/15/05, Tabled; 3/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received in 1/18/05, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/11/05, and
3/22/05 Staff Notes
3/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
2/11/05 Staff Notes
2/8/05 NPHS
1/28/05 Meeting Notice
1/25/05 Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater comments
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
2/15/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary / Final Stage is hereby granted and is
subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning
Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and
Landscaping Plan]
2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. NACE-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2005 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO AGENT: SHAWN CALLAHAN
ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 121 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 600 SQ. FT.
EXPANSION OF EXISTING GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2004, BP
96-240 APA, LG CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-51 LOT
SIZE: 0.84 ACRES SECTION: 179-13-010
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT GRILLO,
PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening.
MR. GRILLO-Good evening.
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
MR. GRILLO-Robert Grillo.
MR. CALLAHAN-And Shawn Callahan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve been up to your site. I was up there Sunday to look at the garage
and so on. Is there anything you want to say before we get started here, about what your plans
are? I mean, it’s pretty straightforward what you want to do. You want to put an addition onto
the garage.
MR. GRILLO-Yes, exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to let some of the other Board members talk first. I do have some
problems with the Floor Area Ratio and the Site Development Data Sheets, but we’ll get to those
after, if anybody else has any questions. I guess one of the things I wanted to say was on the
pre-application conference that you attended with Mr. Hilton, it said show infiltration areas on
the plan. I didn’t see any of those. In other words, some sort of a roof drain or something like
that, so that the water wouldn’t shed off and roll down toward your house, because there’s a
difference in elevation between your garage and your home.
MR. GRILLO-Right. Well, we didn’t plan any drainage pits or anything like that, but we were
going to put gutters and leaders on the building.
MR. VOLLARO-But that would have to go somewhere, though. See, where we’re talking about
is when the water sheds from the roof and drops off the eaves.
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Off the drip line, you would have something on the ground to receive it, like a
French Drain, some stone so that the water would be able to perc quickly into the ground.
MR. GRILLO-I can install it. I mean, it wouldn’t be a problem. The rain falls on the ground
now as it is, and I really don’t have any problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re going to be putting more roof there.
MR. GRILLO-Right. You’re going to be shedding the water to the sides, yes, I understand that.
I mean, if I have to put a French Drain in, that wouldn’t be a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-It would benefit you to do that for the house down below, I think, and for the
lake, trying to get whatever water sheds off that gets into that French Drain, moves on down
toward the lake, but gets purified before it gets down to the lake.
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So, that’s one of the things. Does anybody else have any questions on this
before I get into my little drill here?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what’s the purpose? Are you going to be putting a workshop in there?
What’s the workshop for?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. GRILLO-Workshop, car storage. Right now I’m filled to capacity in that garage. I have
three snowmobiles, four quads. I park one of my cars in there. I’d like to bring another car up
there and park it, and that’s basically it. Strictly, you know, personal use.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Any other questions from the Board members?
MR. SEGULJIC-How about lighting on the garage? Any lighting proposed?
MR. GRILLO-Exterior or interior?
MR. SEGULJIC-Exterior.
MR. GRILLO-No, I don’t need it.
MR. SEGULJIC-No exterior lighting. Okay.
MR. SANFORD-I have nothing on this, Bob. We get a lot of these because it’s in a Critical
Environmental Area.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just want, when we do this I’d like to get some coincidence in numbers
between the Floor Area Ratio worksheets and the site development data. Now one of the things
I noticed was you have .84 acres here, and you had the number of, that the lot area was 39,110
acres. It’s really 36,560.
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And then a lot of your numbers after that were predicated on that. Now, I
noticed that the primary house, and I made this mistake when I looked through it. You were
saying that the first floor is 2001 and the second floor is 2001. So the whole house is 4002.
That’s the numbers you have here.
MR. GRILLO-Yes, that’s approximate, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-About 4,000 square feet, okay, and you do have enough land there to do this
600 square foot addition, that I do know.
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Except when I go to the site development data, you have the building footprint
as 1,000 square feet, and I don’t know how you got from 4002 on the primary house to 1,000
square feet on the site development data sheet which really impacts the percent non-permeable.
MR. HUNSINGER-They transposed the numbers, 2001, with 1002, probably.
MR. GRILLO-Probably, yes. I mean, the house is basically, it’s lost on the property, and the
property’s that big.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a transposition? In other words, should it be 2001 as opposed to 1,002?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what he said on the other sheet.
MR. VOLLARO-2001 and 2001, you know, that could be a coincidence. I just want these sheets
to reflect and add up to the same things. So the two sheets go together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. GRILLO-I’m guessing it’s a typo.
MR. VOLLARO-So that number should be 2001. Is that correct, is that what you’re saying?
MR. CALLAHAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that that’s done, I haven’t done that calculation on how that gets
down into affecting the non-permeable, but we can quickly look at that, I think.
MR. SANFORD-Is this house 4,000 square feet or closer to 2,000? I mean, I haven’t seen the
house.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I looked at the house, I live in an 1800 square foot building, and
when it said 4,000, I believed him because that’s what’s on, but I don’t think it’s a 4,000 square
foot home.
MR. SANFORD-You might be talking 1,000 feet of floor.
MR. VOLLARO-You said the first floor was 2001. The second floor was 2001.
MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, it’s got to be a lot less than that.
MR. SANFORD-How many bedrooms do you have in the house?
MR. GRILLO-Five.
MR. SANFORD-It’s probably a 2,000 square foot house, I would think.
MR. VOLLARO-All I want to do is, for posterity sake, I would like that these data sheets to be
correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you can get that data from the Assessor’s Office. You actually can
get it on line.
MR. HILTON-Yes, and it looks like, I mean, there’s no issue with floor area ratio or
permeability.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t look it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, he’s well within the requirements.
MR. HILTON-Right. So I guess the condition would be that a revised data sheet be provided.
MR. VOLLARO-Will you look at that when they come in?
MR. HILTON-If it’s a condition, sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay, because I would like both the floor area ratio worksheet and the site
development worksheet to be revised to in coincidence with each other. That’s all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s not unreasonable.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I had.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I hear you, Bob. Probably the numbers got inverted somehow.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, the only question I have on this application, there’s a dormer on the
garage. There’s no accommodations or anything on the second floor of this garage, so that folks
can sleep there?
MR. GRILLO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Just storage. That’s fine.
MR. GRILLO-A lot of old wood.
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the gutters and infiltration trench, do we only want to see it on
the addition? Do we want to see it on the whole garage or the house and the garage?
MR. VOLLARO-Right now I just want to see it on the addition, I think. It would be a French
Drain to catch the water coming off the drip edges eaves.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll specify the addition, if the applicant wants to do whole the garage, he
can.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SANFORD-The only condition that you want is a drainage trench, if you will. Is that it?
French Drain to collect stormwater runoff.
MR. VOLLARO-How are you looking at the peak on this? Is it going to follow the peak of the
other garage?
MR. GRILLO-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re just going to add on. The peak of the other garage goes,
because she makes a good point. The other garage has got a very, very close to the line.
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know how you’re going to get any kind of drain down in off that
drip edge, when you’ve got about, what, 2.36 feet to go to the property line.
MR. GRILLO-Well, I could run the gutter along the rear edge of the building and take the drain
diagonal to the front of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Just get some place where the drain gets caught, the drain water gets, sort of
like a basin.
MR. GRILLO-Well, if you saw my property in a heavy rainstorm, I don’t think you would say
water’s an issue, because I get runoff from the hill across the street, and that comes right down
my driveway, right down into the lake. So, I mean, we rarely get flooded there, because I do
have a large field between the garage and the street itself.
MR. VOLLARO-I see that, yes.
MR. GRILLO-And we rarely get flooded. Usually we just get a lot of overflow from the
properties across the street that runs right down my driveway. Basically that was one of the
reasons I had it paved, because it was deteriorating the dirt that was there. So by putting the
asphalt on top, it stopped the problem with the deterioration.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the things we try to do on site plans is to make sure that water
stays on the property that you build, so the folks across the way, had they been reviewed years
ago, would have had the stormwater retention capability on their own property.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Rather than running off on yours. Okay. I’m satisfied with this.
MR. SANFORD-No SEQRA, right?
MS. RADNER-No SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no SEQRA on this. I will open the public hearing if anybody wants to
speak to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GERALDINE MIDDLETON
MRS. MIDDLETON-Hi. My name is Geraldine Middleton. My husband and I own the
property to the north on the other side of that garage. The garage that is there now does not
have any drainage system. It comes off the roof, close to the property line. The proposed one,
the building itself is only 2.3 or 6.
MR. VOLLARO-2.36.
MRS. MIDDLETON-To the line. We do have a water problem. Our driveway becomes flooded.
MR. VOLLARO-As a result of shed from this roof?
MRS. MIDDLETON-That plus in the wintertime, we’re not always there in the winter because
our place is not heated, but it acts like a snow fence. The snow comes over there and drops. So
it’s usually deeper there, by that old garage. So that is a problem. We don’t get water from
across the street. We might get a little bit from the road, but there’s almost like a gully all down
the length of that property. At one time, back around 1997, there was piping underneath there,
and when they had to rebuild the garage, that was removed. We were there a long time before
the Grillos, but I assume that piping was for some kind of drainage down to the lower yard, and
also to what appears to be a catch basin, but which looks like a well now. If you’ve seen that,
and I think that’s where a lot of the stormwater went. Because it’s not a drinking water well.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I know. I see something on his drawing that’s called stormwater
diversion. It’s a line that goes off the corner of the newly proposed addition, and moves its way
toward the house. It’s right here.
MRS. MIDDLETON-I don’t know what that is. I know there’s drainage on the other side, the
south side of the property, because there’s a storm sewer out in the road. I assume it’s a storm
sewer, and it goes down underneath the ground in a pipe into the lake. Okay, but there’s
nothing on the north side. There’s just an indentation in the ground and water collects there,
and it just ends up seeping into the ground, but since the garage has been built and the concrete
pad, you probably couldn’t see that in your site plan, there’s a concrete pad that must be where
the new garage is going to be going. Now since that’s been put there, we even have more
water, because it’s not seeping into the ground, and I have been knee deep in water in my
driveway, only once or twice. Bob can attest to that, and you have. It’s in the record, but
mostly it’s hard rain, downpours, there is water there. There’s always water there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can’t do very much on this application about what’s on the existing
garage. What we can do is make provisions in our approval to get the water that comes off the
new addition to be put somewhere.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Right.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-He hasn’t got very much room alongside your driveway, at 2.36 feet, but he
can bring out some sort of a water retention capability to the west of his building, more toward
the road. That’s why I think what we had in the pre-application conference that Mr. Hilton
attended, I think Mr. Hilton saw the problem here and asked for some stormwater, what he
asked for, to show infiltration area on the plan. That was because the applicant has asked for a
waiver of stormwater. I believe there’s a waiver request in here someplace. I don’t know
whether he, do we have a waiver request in here, George, do you remember?
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe there was.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, a waiver was not requested for stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-There was not a waiver requested for stormwater management.
MRS. STEFFAN-But they didn’t put a plan in.
MR. VOLLARO-But they didn’t put a plan in. So we don’t have anything in this application to
deal with the stormwater.
MR. HILTON-Nothing shown. Again, our comment was that something should be added, and
it sounds like you’re going to be asking for that.
MRS. MIDDLETON-I might add that back in April of ’98 Dave Hatin was made aware of the
water that was sitting in the driveway, and at that time he wrote a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Grillo
requesting or suggesting that he put in a six inch pipe to take care of that water and the pipes
that were there, but that was never done, and we didn’t pursue it, and neither did the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, one of the rules for any of these site plans is that water that’s
developed on the property should stay on the property.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Should stay on the property.
MR. VOLLARO-And it shouldn’t be any more than it was in its natural state, and its natural
state, there’s some runoff. So there shouldn’t be anymore water coming off this property than
was coming off in its natural state. We don’t know what that was before, but I think we need to
talk about retention of any water coming off the new building, at least.
MRS. MIDDLETON-And as Mr. Grillo’s suggested, he would put it also on the old (lost words)
if need be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, Bob, I don’t know why we couldn’t, you know, if we
were so inclined, we could condition that the whole garage be addressed.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Because it’s going to be one whole building.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re not limited to just the addition.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. You said earlier that we could only address the addition.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, true. This is what’s before us now is this garage, and extending it to the
existing garage, the fact that it’s going to be tied to it and become one may give us some room to
say that there should be at least a drywell of some kind put in.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, technically or legally it opens up the whole site plan for review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-I mean, technically. Even though we may not feel that it’s a practical approach,
but anything is opened on this thing, once they come in with a site plan review in a situation
like this.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what we need here is some attention paid to some sort of stormwater
management plan, in the fact that it was requested in the preliminary and we didn’t get one. I
think the applicant has got to give us something to give us some level of comfort that you’re
going to retain the water that’s spilling off that garage, and you’re going to retain it on your
own property, through the use of a drywell or whatever. So I think that’s got to be specified, so
that we understand what you’re doing. I don’t know whether we can make that as a condition
of a motion, but I think I would like to see the drawing show how that’s going to be mitigated,
because right now it’s not clear to me how that’s going to be done.
MR. SANFORD-How about gutters that just flow into a drywell. Will that work?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that would work. Gutters would work into a drywell, so long as there’s
enough perc in the drywell. I don’t know what the percolation in this soil is.
MR. SANFORD-And plus in this climate gutters (lost word).
MRS. STEFFAN-But gutters are going to rip right off in the winter time.
MR. SANFORD-They don’t work very well.
MRS. STEFFAN-As he mentioned, a French Drain would work, if the two and a half feet behind
the house.
MRS. MIDDLETON-I don’t know what that is.
MRS. STEFFAN-A French Drain is when they dig a trench, it’s usually about four feet deep,
around a structure, and then it’s filled with small stone. So that the water comes through and
then flushes out in another direction.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-But if they get a real shed off that roof, a French Drain is not going to work.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not going to work as well as a drywell.
MR. VOLLARO-The drywell would work better.
MR. SANFORD-The problem with drywells around here is the drywell fills up with water, and
I remember we had a drywell once and the drywell would fill up with water in the springtime
and bring water back into the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s not much soil out there, either. Big problem.
MRS. MIDDLETON-No, a lot of bedrock. A lot of rock.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we condition this to have them submit a plan to C.T. Male and get their
approval?
MR. SANFORD-You’re talking a 600 foot structure here. I hate to go to town on this. I think
some kind of.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SEGULJIC-But isn’t it a critical area?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, it’s a critical environmental area, but what they’re trying to do
seems to be relatively reasonable. A 600 foot addition. It’s in the back of the lot, away from the
lake, and I think, you know, reasonable mitigation is what’s called for here.
MRS. STEFFAN-At the same time, according to this, five separate approvals, and this is a fairly
new structure. In 1997 was the first part that was built.
MRS. MIDDLETON-1997, yes, it was built. At that time, they should have put in the drainage,
or left what was there, but they didn’t. That was a replacement of a torn down, half-way torn
down, that did not have a pitched roof. It was just a little one-sided thing.
MR. VOLLARO-The thing this Board doesn’t like to do is design work. We should not be
designing things here for applicants. We should have the applicants come to us with a design
critique and let us look at it and approve it or disapprove it, and so what I’m looking for is the
applicant to probably get some, maybe some help, not C.T. Male, not, you don’t have to go to an
engineering loop and go through a lot of expense, but I think a reasonable approach has to be
presented to the board so we’re satisfied that the water is going to stay on the property. I guess
that’s where I am. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. After this lady gets there, you
will come up. Is that somebody you know?
MRS. MIDDLETON-Yes, he’s across the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. MIDDLETON-His water comes down directly onto his property, really.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MRS. MIDDLETON-But not completely because he’s got some kind of drainage.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if he’s flushing across this property, then you’re probably getting some of
his water, too. I can see that.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Not really. Maybe next door.
MR. VOLLARO-Anyway, what I’m looking for here, and I don’t know how the rest of the
Board feels, but I’m looking for some proposed mitigation for this. I think I mentioned before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-So then we could take a look at it and agree that that’s going to do the job
without getting into an engineering review.
MRS. STEFFAN-George, the November 17 variance, was that just because there’s not enough
th
setback for the addition?
MR. HILTON-Yes, it was setback.
MRS. MIDDLETON-That was another, I was simply amazed that the Board gave them approval
for a setback of over 17 feet. Two foot off our property line. Who’s going to say where that line
is?
MR. VOLLARO-Get a surveyor to tell you that. Another expense.
MRS. MIDDLETON-We had a surveyor, and we have some markers in the ground, but at the
point where he would putting the garage, there are no markers, until you get up to the road,
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
and there’s a marker there. Somebody’s going to have to put a line or something there, because
as it is now, the garage that they rebuilt came closer than it was originally anyway, but there’s
nothing there to say, okay, you’ve got to stop here.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about a ZBA decision.
MRS. MIDDLETON-There’s nothing you can do about that. I know that.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re a Board unto themselves, and they make their decisions and we
usually go by them at this point.
MRS. MIDDLETON-The only other comment I would like to make is we now are going to have,
with your approval, a 600 foot wall next to our driveway. This looks like a commercial garage,
even though he’s not going to use it for.
MR. VOLLARO-It won’t be 600 feet.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Well, whatever it is. It’s 30 and 55.
MR. VOLLARO-I think he’s talking something like 24. I think 24 foot is what you’re looking for
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty-five foot.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Twenty-five, and the addition is 25 also? That’s the new one. So it’s 25
and 30.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s how you get to 600 square feet.
MRS. MIDDLETON-I don’t know how to figure out square footage.
MR. VOLLARO-Just multiple the two.
MRS. MIDDLETON-But anyway, 550 feet of wall, right up against our driveway, and also my
question is, what about the trees? Do a couple of trees have to come down? Are they on ours?
Or are they on their property?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any trees on the site plan at all.
MRS. MIDDLETON-There’s a whole line of trees, right up the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Along that property line?
MRS. MIDDLETON-Yes. Very, very large pines and a couple of small.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s got to stay back 2.3 feet from the line, wherever the line is. I mean,
you folks know better where that line is than I do. It’s marked on here as a north 88 by 19 and
20 east. I mean, you need to get the surveyor to strike that line, unless you’ve got a marker up
at the road.
MRS. MIDDLETON-There’s a marker at the road and there’s several markers, at the bottom of
their property.
MR. VOLLARO-Between the two of you can decide where that line is, and measure 2.36 feet.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Because the line does not run parallel with the garage.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t. I can see that. So that’s all I’m saying. I’m going to ask the
applicant to come back here with a proposed stormwater mitigation plan to keep the water off
the garage, both the new and the old garage, and find a way to collect that water and maintain
it on his property. That’s what we’re going to do.
MRS. MIDDLETON-Right. Very good. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. This gentleman in the back.
BOB MARRA
MR. MARRA-I’m kind of neutral on both of these, because I’m neighbors and friends of both of
them. I’m Bob Marra. I own the property directly behind the Grillos, on the south, I’d be south
of Grillos. I’d look at the end of his garage, and with an addition on that garage, it wouldn’t
affect me a bit. I don’t object to it because he keeps his property in excellent condition, and
that’s the way it should be, and everything else, but I think the solution to this problem could be
done right tonight. You don’t have to wait. All you have to do is make them put a drainage
ditch where the eaves is, it’s going to be on the new garage, and continue it right down to the
existing garage, and carry it right down towards the lake, at a slow pace.
MR. VOLLARO-The only problem with that is there isn’t very much room on the north side of
that new building. He’s only got two feet to work with.
MR. MARRA-One foot is all you need. One by two. You could go down two foot or even a
foot.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t know that. Until you know what the capacity of the drain is, you
see how much water is coming off the roof, how much do you have to handle.
MR. MARRA-Right, but if you have a foot wide, it would cover the eaves, drip onto that, and it
would take it right on down, and there’s enough pitch that would carry it down a general slope
until it gets past the garage, and that’s where the drastic difference is, is after the garage going
towards the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-What I don’t want to do on this Board is design the system for the applicant.
MR. MARRA-Well, I’m just saying it would solve the problem quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-You and he can get together and you can decide how, but I don’t want to be in
a position to design something for this, and then later on it doesn’t work and they said, the
Board said to do it this way and it doesn’t work. What do I do now? So we’re not in the design
business.
MR. MARRA-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome, sir. Anyone else to speak to this application? Having
none, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And have the folks come back up again. I think what the general consensus
here is that we would like you to take a look at the water problem for yourself, make sure that
you, you know, and come up with some sort of stormwater mitigation plan, whether it be a
drywell. Whether you think you can get a French Drain back there, because the land generally
pitches toward the lake anyway. The gentleman may have a point. You might be able to do it
that way. We want to essentially see what you’re going to do. So I’m going to recommend that
we table this, and have you come back with a mitigation for stormwater.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. GRILLO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one other question. Do you have to cut down any trees for this?
MR. GRILLO-No.
MR. CALLAHAN-I think the trees that she mentioned are further up on the property closer to
the road. We do have maybe a half dozen large maple trees there. They’re not getting touched.
There’s a few little weed trees, the gooseberry bushes that grow wild. I don’t even want to chop
those down because I love eating those gooseberries. There’s already a slab there. So I’m really
not cutting any trees down, we’re just going on top of what’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to build on that slab. All right. Does everybody agree to table
this?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but the question I had, Bob, since we’re telling them that, you know, we’re
not asking them for a big deal, all right, whatever that means. I guess, when they do it, are we
going to have our Town engineer look at it to see if it makes sense? Because they could come
back with almost anything, and I’m not in a position to know if it’s going to work.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. See, what you’ve got to know is the capacity of the system to handle
the flow, and that’s what the engineers will do. They’ll take a look at the volume and see
whether this can store it for a period of time based on the perc. That’s how they do those
things.
MR. SANFORD-I know, but what we’ve kind of sent the message is that we’re not asking this
applicant to have to spend a lot of money for professional engineering services.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-So, he’ll come back with a mitigation approach. What are we going to do with
it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have to have the Town engineer look at it.
MR. SANFORD-All right. So C.T. Male’s going to take a look at it, and they’ll give us their
advice as to whether or not they think it’s adequate or not. I just want to make sure that we’re
clear here with everybody.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know if we were going in that direction or not. I, for one, am not going
to feel comfortable, I mean, I appreciate the simple approach. I’m not sure if I’m in a position
where I would know if it was going to effective. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’ll tell you what I think. If I were the applicant, if I were you, and
I was facing this Board with the contention that this Board is slowly coming to, I would get
some degree of professional help here to make sure that when our Town engineer reviews this
and takes a look at it, he says yes this will work. That’s what I would do.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s just my recommendation to you, if I were sitting in your seat.
MR. GRILLO-All right. Thank you.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-And when you come back with a plan, just note the trees on your plan, so that
we know where they are.
MR. HILTON-I guess my suggestion would be if you’d want to specify a date. At this point I
think we’re into May, and the deadline for this information to be received would be the April
15 deadline, it looks like.
th
MR. SANFORD-For what meeting, George?
MR. HILTON-At this point you can pick the first or second, first or second meeting of May.
MR. VOLLARO-May 24. He has to have your information in to us by April 15.
thth
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Do you want a motion, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2005 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO, Introduced by
Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Pending submission of a stormwater management plan for the existing and addition to the
garage. Such a stormwater plan should be received by April 15 so this can be placed on the
th
agenda for the second meeting in May. The site development data sheet and the Floor Area
Ratio worksheet shall be revised properly to reflect the correct numbers, and that the plan will
show locations of trees.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2005 SEQR TYPE II VORTEX TECHNOLOGIES LLC PROPERTY
OWNER: 52 MAIN STREET, WGF, LLC AGENT: MARVIN DOBERT ZONE: MU
LOCATION: 52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING
BUILDING AND DEVELOP NECESSARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR AN OFFICE USE
ASSOCIATED WITH A SECURITY SYSTEMS BUSINESS. OFFICE USES IN THE MU
ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO.
309.10-2-28 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MARVIN DOBERT & CHRIS CHIOVOLONI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to state, for the record, your name, please.
MR. MARVIN-My name is Marvin Dobert, owner.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Chris Chiovoloni, owner of Vortex.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve reviewed, been at this building, once for a restaurant and the
second time I looked at it on Sunday morning was for this application. So I’m familiar with the
surroundings of the buildings, and I’ve got some notes, but do you want to tell us a little bit
about? First, one of my questions, what type of business is Vortex Technology? What are you
going to do there?
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Vortex Technologies, we’re a systems integrator for a security systems.
Our major clienteles are colleges and universities. I’ve relocated my business here from
Rochester, NY to be centrally located between Dartmouth College, University of Vermont, RPI
and Union College, which is our four major clients in the area. We also do large retail stores.
Our clients being Golub Corporation, Price Chopper, Exxon Mobil stations, and we do, we
service a significant amount of independently owned gas stations and small c stores, as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Basically a security based system?
MR. CHIOVOLONI-It’s a security based system. We also do emergency telephones. We’re
diversified across Rochester, Syracuse, as well as here now. This site has been, primarily it is
going to be our corporate headquarters. One of the products that we service right now is video
monitoring. We remotely pull video over the Internet and we can, on an alarm condition,
monitor a site, or we can actually monitor cashiers remotely. So as part of the layout, the
building layout, there’s a middle section which calls, it’s a technical area where there’s going to
be a video monitoring center, a call center, that’s going to serve to do the remotely pulling of the
data and the video, and then it’s also, we have a full e-commerce page which represents about
30% of our gross sales, where it will be technical support for our web page.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now I guess now that you’ve said that, one of my comments had to
do with parking, I guess, and that is one of the things I wanted to talk about, but I’m going to
let, does the Board understand pretty much what the applicant’s going to do there? It’s pretty
benign business as far as impact on the community is concerned.
MRS. STEFFAN-Based on what you’re telling us, you won’t have too many people pulling up
and?
MR. CHIOVOLONI-No. We’re working into a 24 hour operation where we might have two
employees there during the nighttime, and during the daytime we will operate under a minimal
staff where I might have one technician, a receptionist, and then a couple of sales people there,
including myself. So we’re looking at a maximum maybe five to six people during the day and
two people during the evenings and night time.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, Mr. Dobert, will this be the only tenant in that building?
MR. DOBERT-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. A couple of things, I guess, I looked at. Does anybody else have any
questions on this? I didn’t subject this to our typical checklist because I didn’t think it
warranted it, to go all the way through all of that stuff, but I did have some proposals in my
own mind that I wanted to talk about. The parking right now, you’ve got right adjacent to Main
Street. There’s four proposed parking spots right adjacent to Main Street. I would propose that
you eliminate those and bring them up toward the storefront, put a planter in front of the
existing buildings with some plantings inside a planter, and that we get some green space up
front, alongside Main Street. There had been some discussion in Staff notes about putting trees
up there, but I’ve talked to Staff a little bit about that today. I don’t really know what’s going to
happen on Main Street. There’s a whole Main Street thing going on. We want to try and bring
Main Street to look like a real downtown Main Street, but I wouldn’t want to have planting
some real decent trees out there and have a bulldozer rip them off when Main Street’s becoming
Main Street. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So that was my idea. Just bring those four parking spaces adjacent to the front
of the building, and make that kind of green up front. Maybe, instead of planting anything up
there, you might want to put planters up there as well that are easily removed and are pretty,
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
and also block off, you want to block off that large curb cut that goes out onto Main Street. You
don’t want anybody flushing out onto Main Street there. Because the basic ingress and egress
looks like you want to come off Richardson. What I did when I went there, I came in to this
second entrance on Richardson, because the first one you’ve got blocked off right there.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And in order to get back out, after I walked around the building, I left my car
back there, in order to get out I just went through the other person’s lot next door and came out
on their curb cut. That’s how I got out, because it was the easiest way out. I would recommend
closing that off as a possible exit.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Right. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a recommendation that I would have. Now, being that this is the type of
business that it is, I’m not sure what the determination for the number of parking spaces, it’s a
technical office space, essentially, as I see it.
MR. HILTON-I believe it’s classified as office, but I can tell you that the Zoning Administrator
looked at this at the time of pre-ap and that we’re comfortable with the number proposed
meeting the requirement.
MR. VOLLARO-With the eight spaces.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. They’ve asked for a waiver on lighting. My note says that I don’t
want to give a waiver on lighting. It’s Main Street. When I went to the front of your, there’s
sort of a large façade going up front, what’s going to be on that façade? I mean, I can see that
it’s up there now, and you want to advertise your business, I would suspect, there.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And what kind of lighting do you plan to have in the front of the building?
MR. DOBERT-My goal was to change the look of the building from a service garage to a Main
Street design, and the lights are strictly decorative. I would request that landscaping and
lighting not be specified until the Main Street renovation is complete. There’s so many
unknowns, sir. I’ve tried to get design data from both the County and the Town. It’s not just
available. Even curb cuts are not available. So, I mean, you’re right. There’s going to be a lot of
digging, and all the services are going to be coming in underground, gas, the power, the
broadband, the telephone, and that’s going to be torn to pieces.
MR. VOLLARO-I had that fact as I said I would not recommend trees along Main Street until
we know what the accepted plan is for Main Street. The planters could be used out front, and
you can use something that can be moved around or be decorative, a wooden planter, and get
some shrubs in there. So that your thing looks attractive. I think you want to do that as well.
MR. DOBERT-Well, I’d like to make it attractive, but I’d like to be economical, also. I don’t
want to go out and spend $500 on planters and have them torn up. The project is supposed to
start this spring.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, I don’t think we want to see it in a position. I don’t know
when that’s going to start. I really don’t. I’ve got little or no opinion on what is going to
happen on Main Street.
MR. DOBERT-It’s not easy planning under these circumstances.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Mr. Vollaro, as far as the lighting is concerned, from what I understand, is
it the brightness of the light, or is it? If we specify that it’s for decorative use only.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’d need to know what the foot candles were going to be put on the
ground. In other words, I think we’re looking at, George, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think
we’re in the one foot candle position here on this parking lot?
MR. HILTON-For the building exterior. For the parking, it may actually be different. It may be
a little higher. Oddly enough, it may be as high as two and half.
MR. SANFORD-Are you (lost words) for the parking?
MR. CHIOVOLONI-My own thoughts are that I would, during the nighttime, the employees
are going to be parked in the back of the building. So we would have some lighting on the back
for security reasons only. On the front of the building, I would, I have no problem using it as
your discretion. I mean, I just want the front of the building, obviously, to look good and
professional, and that’s my only concern.
MR. VOLLARO-See, one of the things we don’t have in a plan view like this is some kind of a
visual presentation of what you think you’re going to wind up with, so we know, when we look
at this, this is how this is going to look. There isn’t any visual presentation here at all.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. We have quite a bit on this, but they don’t have a traditional light plan,
but I’m wondering if we could condition it no more than foot candle decorative lights in the
front and then come up with something specified in the rear and leave it at that, rather than
have them actually come in with a drawing, but I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it does say on the plan, you know, exterior lights are decorative style
75 watt rated. I mean, we’re not going to have a problem with 75 watt lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-No, and they do have a light in the rear as well. I’ve seen that. Sort of a goose
shaped light in the rear that gives them some light. So, you know, why don’t we just spec this
out and just say that it would be no more than one foot candle up front, and just let it go at that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t see making a big deal with it.
MR. VOLLARO-No more than, yes.
MR. DOBERT-At maximum, one foot candle.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think if you specify the wattage, you know, indicating that it’s going to be
decorative and no more than 75 watts, that’s fine. As far as the fixture in the back, if they’re
proposing any wall mounted or freestanding fixtures, those should be shown, and they should
be cut off fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is one back there, but I don’t see it on the drawing.
MR. HILTON-I’m talking any new lighting that’s proposed back there, if there is any new
lighting proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-There is one light back there.
MR. SANFORD-Is it possible for us, this is a question, I guess, for legal or Staff, is it possible for
us, I think we’ve done it before, I’m trying to have an appreciation for the landscaping dilemma,
but I remember when we were dealing with the old Martin Seeley Auction House, we basically
said, you know, you need to do it within a certain timeframe work. Is it possible for us to
basically move forward with an approval here, with a condition that the applicant will present
to this Board in nine months from the date of approval a landscaping plan for site plan review,
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
or can’t we do that? Because I see their point. I would hate to see them, I would hate to
discourage a start up business like this relocating to this area, have them do certain landscaping
and then find out it’s all going to have to be torn out, and on the other hand, I’d just as soon not
leave it as a situation, well, we’re not going to request anything because you’re likely not to get
anything. So what I’m trying to say is say, okay, look it, you know, we’ll give you a window of
nine months to see if there’s not a better sense of what’s going to happen on that corridor. Can
we, if the Board wants to do this? I’m not really asking you if you like it.
MS. RADNER-Right.
MR. SANFORD-I’m asking if we can do it.
MS. RADNER-You can do anything if the applicant’s willing to agree to it, but what you’re
doing is you’re almost setting up a second level site plan review, which isn’t what’s contained
in your (lost words).
MR. SANFORD-It is that. I mean, what we’re basically saying is, look it, we like the way you’re
building’s going to look. We’re okay with the lighting. We’re okay with the parking.
However, we’re giving you a window of time, basically, for conditions that they haven’t
established but are pre-existing upon them, to basically be able to digest what’s going to happen
on the corridor and then come back with a plan.
MS. RADNER-Right. If you’re going to do that, I would be very specific on what the additional
review is going to be, that they’re going to return to this Board for consideration of a revision of
the parking and the landscaping along the Main Street corridor, something of that nature.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. DOBERT-For your information, I talked to the Town of Queensbury, Marilyn Ryba, and
that corner is designated as a special designation called a Gateway.
MR. HILTON-Yes, but again, the locations are to be determined.
MR. DOBERT-And this is the problem. I have real difficulty with the nine months, because of
this construction that’s involved. I’m a good housekeeper. I like nice looking houses and places
of business, and I’m doing my best to conform. However, with all the unknowns, and I can’t
even get a design idea out of the Town what this gateway is supposed to look like.
MR. SANFORD-I understand. I don’t think we’re going to be inclined to want to basically do
nothing here with landscaping, and so what I was trying to do is, and the nine months wasn’t
carved in stone, but what I was trying to do is come up with a way in which we can address
what I think are very legitimate concerns that you have which is the complete unknown as to
what’s going to be happening there, but also at the same time to provide the right level of
assurances to this Town that at the appropriate moment you’ll landscaping it appropriate so
that we’re all happy with it, and that’s what I was trying to do, and that’s why I put the window
of about, you know, nine months in there. Probably in nine months they’ll know about as much
as they know now.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s probably true. I think if we could do this, if we could take the parking
spaces out of the front next to Main Street, put them adjacent to the building, and just put some
green space in there, some grass or whatever. It isn’t going to cost you that much to do that.
You’re talking about the auto accesses to be on the side.
MR. DOBERT-I think you’re referring to the area out near the road front?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, the Main Street road front.
MR. DOBERT-That’s agreeable.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Right out here. Take those four, put them back here. Put a little green space
up here. You can buy planters for $25 or so, and put them along here, so people don’t drive out
through this space, and that’s it, and then just wait for Main Street to come through.
MR. DOBERT-I would agree to that.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-So these would be like removable planters, that I would put in and then
just put whatever perennials?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-Just to really discourage any employees or customers leaving, exiting out
of Main Street.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, exiting out of Main Street, and then using the exits that you really would
like to have on Richardson here and here, and then I would leave it at that, the 75 watts.
MR. HILTON-Just for clarification. Are you talking about just raised planters, or are you
talking about removable pavement, creation of green space, and then the addition of some
planters or plantings? I guess I’m not sure if I follow exactly what you’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, right now what’s out here is kind of macadam in this area.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Move the spaces to the front, put your planters right here.
MR. HILTON-Okay. So no removal of the pavement and green space creation?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think it’s necessary at this point. I wouldn’t want to them to have
to excavate that out.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I just want to clarify.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, if he has to put $100 in planters and stuff, that’s not an awful lot of
money, to me. We’re opening a business here. That’s what I would do.
MR. DOBERT-No argument, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether the rest of the Board agrees that might be appropriate or
not. I’m just one man on this Board that has thrown up an idea. That way they don’t have to
come back in nine months. If the bull dozer goes through it, all they have to do is pull away
those planters and the guy does what he’s going to do on Main Street.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have anything better than that.
MR. DOBERT-The elevation drawings on your Town website are pretty descriptive.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re fine.
MR. DOBERT-That’s what’s going to be there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the artist’s conception, you know, of what’s going to happen. The
question is when. I don’t know when, you don’t know when. George really doesn’t know
when. So we’re all sort of slaves to the same problem. So that’s, what I’m trying to do is to give
you a way you can open this thing and feel decent about it and still comply with what’s going
to happen to you later on.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SEGULJIC-The one concern I have is, once Main Street does go through, how are we going
to get them to come back in?
MR. VOLLARO-I think they’ve got to comply, then, with the general Main Street, I think there’ll
be an overlay. How’s anybody going to do it on Main Street?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when they come for site plan review, but if they don’t have to come
back for site plan review, there’s no requirement for them to comply with any new overlay.
MR. SANFORD-But I don’t think, Bob, I think, that’s right. I think only when they come back
do we then look at that. I mean, I don’t think that all of a sudden it’s going to be a point in time
where, okay, now everybody plant your lawns.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can we do it this way, because the onus would be on them. They have, we
have them go, the applicant develops a landscaping plan. If it doesn’t work when Main Street
goes through, they have to come back to us to change it. If it does work for them, they install it.
MR. SANFORD-There’s too many unknowns, I think, Tom, to have to go through that exercise.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, for us asking somebody to do that without them having a blueprint to
work from.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but my point is, that way they have it. If it doesn’t work, they have to
come back to us.
MR. VOLLARO-When you mean, doesn’t work, you mean when Main Street goes through?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. If they layout a landscaping plan, and everything works out fine, and they
can do it, then they install it.
MR. DOBERT-I think I might be able to help you out. Did you notice the planter I have on the
corner now?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I did.
MR. DOBERT-I’d just extend that across the front.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re looking for something a little more than that. Once Main Street comes
along.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when Main Street comes along, that’s a whole other story, and I don’t
know how to integrate that into this application, because I don’t know anything about it. I
couldn’t take the test and pass. Could you?
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I’m not making sense.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I think you’re missing Tom’s point. Tom’s point is that, let’s say they do
the planters that all kind of make sense for a period of transition. Okay. So they do that. Main
Street comes through and now they’re not going to be subjected to the Main Street corridor
designs unless they have, something triggers it, which would be they have to come in front of
us again for some other reason. In other words, they’re not going to have to comply with it
unless maybe they want to do something different to their building, other than the fact that they
may choose to voluntarily do it because they’re a viable business and they’re concerned about
their image, but they’re not going to have to comply unless they come in front of us for site
plan, and they may never come in front of us again for site plan.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-So that Main Street would allow, assume that they want to leave it like it is,
and when the Main Street goes by, they’ll say, no, we’re not going to do it. We’re going to stay
like we are.
MR. SANFORD-And that’s going to be fine. They’ll be able to do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is one step further. If they come to us now with a plan, okay.
MR. SANFORD-A tentative plan.
MR. VOLLARO-A plan that fits Main Street?
MR. SEGULJIC-A plan of whatever, that they’ll do. If it doesn’t fit the design, once Main Street
comes, the onus is on them to come in and change the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want them to implement the plan, or just present it?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, just present it, and we say within such a time period to act or Main Street
goes through, they implement the plan, and if the plan doesn’t fit, then they have to come to us
and revise it. So the onus is on them. That’s the only way we’re going to catch them down the
road.
MR. SANFORD-We’re not really trying to suggest that you don’t have an interest in nice
aesthetics, but what I think we’re concerned with is trying to assure that your flower pots won’t
be left there once the corridor is developed, I guess.
MR. DOBERT-Is that your concern?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. DOBERT-Well, why don’t I put the planters in the proposed green space?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, see, we’re looking for trees, a nice tree lined street, with sidewalks and a
whole nice presentation.
MR. DOBERT-On a temporary basis?
MR. SEGULJIC-No. The problem is, we’re going to give you approval now, and there’s no onus
for you to come back.
MR. SANFORD-See, you only have to come back in front of us if you’re going to do something
that triggers a site plan.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-My concern is, and let me be clear, I shouldn’t speak for Marvin, so I won’t,
but my thing is that I just don’t want to put any halt in getting my business in that building,
getting it up and running. If that means that Marvin and I come back with a plan that says,
well, this is what we plan, this is our conception of what it’s going to look like, at Main Street,
and then you guys say, well, to get us to come back, your conception isn’t what we want, so
you’ve got to change it. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, no. What I’m saying is you have a plan. Once Main Street goes through,
let’s assume you’ve got very insightful and it works perfectly. Then you just do it, but let’s say
it doesn’t work for you, the onus, then, would be on you, because you have this plan saying you
would do these things. You have to come back to us to get it revised, to make it work.
MR. CHIOVOLONI-So before we actually implement the plan, we’d have to come back?
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Well, no, you’d be able to implement it if it works, and let’s say Main Street is
wider, cuts more into your land, and so your plan doesn’t work. You’d have to say, look it, this
is what we wanted to do. The Board thought it was good, but we can’t do it because we don’t
have enough space to plant these trees. Here’s what we now suggest. That’s what Tom’s
suggesting. It is a multiple step process, but what we’re finding, and you’re not the first people.
We want to try to hold applicants to the Main Street guidelines, and yet the Main Street project
doesn’t seem to move forward, and so what we’re doing is we’re making approvals left and
right, and the next thing you know, when they do it, no one’s necessarily going to be dressing
up their businesses to conform with what we are looking for. So I think what Tom’s suggesting
is this might be a possible way of doing it. I’m not sure, from a mechanical point of view, how
it all works with Staff, but I understand, at least, what Tom’s suggesting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does it make sense?
MR. SANFORD-The question is it makes sense if there’s, depending upon how many variables
can take place on what happens when Main Street goes through, and I don’t know what the
likelihood of being able to predict that.
MR. VOLLARO-George, do you have any inclination at all, of any sorts, of what kind of
requirements the Main Street project will have on residents currently there, so that their
residences and their buildings and whatever conform to that basic design concept?
MR. HILTON-Beyond the basic designs that are spelled out in the Code, I don’t have specifics. I
don’t, offhand.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the dilemma I’m in. We’ve got this Main Street coming down, you
know, with all kinds of good ideas. We don’t know when it’s going to be, and yet we’ve got
applications coming before us on Main Street that have got to tie into this Never never land
we’re talking about, and I just can’t connect the two in my head too easily at all, and I don’t, you
know, coming up with a plan like Tom is, and I think it’s very insightful. Tom’s got some good
ideas. The problem is developing a plan like that is not cheap. You’ve got to sit down and
you’ve got to bring a plan to us.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, not really. We’re just looking for green space, and I think, what’s the plan
say, it says a tree every 30 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, whatever it is, he’d have to take a look. What part of the Code are you
looking at, where are you?
MR. SEGULJIC-179-7-030.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would write that down, our Code number for our 179-7 what?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not that complicated.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I don’t think, just have him come back to us and say we’ll put the green
space here with the trees properly spaced, at least to get them moving down the line.
MR. VOLLARO-You want them to bring a drawing to us to show the results of that 179, based
on that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because we’ve got to start somewhere.
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. I can’t believe that Main Street, that whole Main Street concept, is
leaving out the idea of getting to every one of these people who live on Main Street to conform
with the Main Street design. Something’s disconnecting in my head, here. I just don’t
understand it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s like the Route 9 corridor design, Bob. You can’t force people to do
it until they come here for site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So what did we decide to do? I’m confused.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think where Tom’s going is to have them revise their plan, and show us a
site plan that meets the requirements of the Main Street corridor, and then after all the
construction is completed on Main Street, if they can’t implement their plan, then they would
need to come back for modification.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we’re approving this, we’ve got to, in other words, they come
back with a site plan that shows the requirements of the Main Street corridor. When we
approve their we’re going to say, by the way, we’re not really forcing you to do that, yet, until
Main Street is developed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they have a year anyway, you know, to complete their plan.
MS. RADNER-You could always make it contingent on a certain date, that they complete
construction within X number of months after the Main Street corridor construction.
MR. SEGULJIC-And just to clarify, I knew it was in here somewhere, but what it says is,
minimum three inch caliper trees should be planted every 20 feet in a five foot wide strip
located between the sidewalk and the asphalt, essentially. So that’s all I’d like to see. So, you
would need, what, six trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, five, if you start from the corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Five trees.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d need five trees on paper, understanding he’s not asking you to
implement this. We’re saying that you come up with the design, and the attorney has
suggested us putting a note in that says this plan will be implemented X number of months
after Main Street is complete, three months, five months, six months, whatever, but we’re not
asking you to do it now. Right now, the middle ground is put the planters in.
MR. DOBERT-So you’re looking for a design.
MR. VOLLARO-A design only.
MR. DOBERT-Yes, okay.
MR. SANFORD-A design for the future, after the Main Street corridor is done.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know why we need a plan that shows five trees every twenty feet.
We can just specify.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure we’re on sound footing here, you know, we’re making a big
assumption that this Main Street thing is going to happen.
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SEGULJIC-If it doesn’t, they don’t have to do it, then.
MR. SANFORD-But what you’re doing, though, is you’re making them come up with a design
and all.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. As Chris says, (lost words), but we’re building momentum for it, too.
MR. SANFORD-All right. If they’re willing to do it, it’s not that big of a deal, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-Propose a design in accordance with.
MR. SEGULJIC-179-7-030.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 179-7-030. Just read that, get a little creative as to what you want to put
on paper, and that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, why can’t we just approve it contingent on that tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know why we need a drawing that shows five trees.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I mean, he’s got to think about it. His thinking in the future, that’s what
he’s got to try and do, and we can say it right now, you know, put five, just the way Tom said it,
five trees with green space and.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if you’re going to make that a condition of approval, that’s fine. I
don’t have a problem with that, but I guess I would suggest that an actual plan be submitted,
because if this Board is going to be requiring something be implemented, three, six, nine
months after the Main Street plan is finally put in place, we’re going to need something to look
at to refer to.
MR. SANFORD-What I would suggest we do here, I would suggest we go forward with an
approval, right now, recognizing we don’t know what they’re doing, doing what Bob said,
temporary planters, okay. We act upon the good faith of the applicant and basically encourage
them that when, in fact, the Main Street corridor is completed, that they comply by referring to
the section, and they put in the strip of green space and plant the trees to be in compliance with
it, and take them at their word that they’re going to want to have a respectable looking
business, and leave it at that, because I think the kind of logistics that we’re talking about, with
all the hypotheticals is just too complicated and crazy to enforce.
MR. DOBERT-I’ll come up with a design. I’ll work with the Town. I’ll work with Planning on
it.
MR. SANFORD-No, but I mean, you know, it also seems to suggest that there’s this lack of
trust, and I think that this is a new start up business. I think they’re going to want to have a
respectable looking business.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure. When Main Street goes through, and you look to left and right, you’ll
be saying, you know, I want to look as good as those guys do, because I want my business to
stand on its own. You’ll do it voluntarily. That’s my impression.
MR. DOBERT-You might not be aware of it, but there’s another incentive, too, in that traffic has
a tendency to want to cut across that lot, from both directions. It’s a real serious problem. So
there’s an incentive to block that off.
MR. VOLLARO-To block that out, and the best thing to do is to put a big old planter there so
the guy doesn’t run into it.
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. DOBERT-Yes. I almost got cleaned off my front porch here a while back. That’s why I had
that barrier put there.
MR. VOLLARO-So what are we going to do, here? We’ve tossed around a lot of stuff here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have a public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do, but before we do that, do we have in our minds what we want to
go forward with, here, a little bit?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. With that, I’ll open the public hearing. Does anybody want to talk to
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll go forward with a recommendation on this site plan. I think what I
would, I would still like to stick to my own plan of moving these spaces back adjacent to the
building, putting some sort of a planter arrangement out front to prevent cars from exiting and
entering off Main Street, and then, as Richard said, have a good faith position that when Main
Street comes through this will be corrected to look like Main Street. That’s all I can say.
MR. SANFORD-I like that approach.
MR. VOLLARO-If I were running a business, I wouldn’t sit back and say, boy, I’m the lousiest
looking business on the block and I’m proud of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but you have to remember, there’s no impetus, now, for businesses to come
in and approve it until they come in for site plan.
MR. SANFORD-We understand that, Tom, but what I’m trying to say here is it’s almost crazy to
deal with some unknown potential future and go through all these gyrations. I think we just
have to respect, you know, and take the applicant at their word that they’re going to want to do
the right thing here, and I certainly do, and, I don’t know, you can poll the Board. I think
Gretchen kind of agrees with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m in agreement with that approach myself.
MR. SANFORD-The other approach is just.
MRS. STEFFAN-The way you laid it out, why don’t you just make the motion.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll do the motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is no SEQRA required.
MS. RADNER-You’ll want to remove that paragraph from your resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just about to say that. When you make your motion, you will want to
amend the draft resolution to delete the reference to the SEQRA.
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a reference to SEQRA?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on the second page, the second Whereas on the second page, just have
that deleted.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2005 VORTEX TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 11-2005 Applicant: Vortex Technologies LLC
SEQR Type II Property Owner: 52 Main Street, WGF, LLC
Agent: Marvin Dobert
Zone: MU
Location: 52 Main Street
Applicant proposes to use an existing building and develop necessary site improvements for an
office use associated with a security systems business. Office uses in the MU zone require site
plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05
Tax Map No. 309.10-2-28
Lot size: 0.19 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 3/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/18/05, and
3/22/05 Staff Notes
3/15/05 CT Male Engineering Comments
3/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation
2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on 3/22/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. With deletion, on second page of resolution, the second Whereas, referring to State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
2. That the applicant remove the four spaces currently shown on his drawing, dated
10/23/98.
3. That the parking spaces be moved adjacent to the front of the existing building.
4. That planters be placed adjacent to Main Street blocking off the entrance to Main
Street to this property.
5. That when the Main Street corridor is approved, that the applicant will, of his own
volition, agree to conform to the Main Street design.
6. That the applicant close off the exit that’s in the rear to the existing house next door,
so that traffic does not go through there to Main Street.
7. The exterior lighting in the back will remain. There is only one light in the back. It’s
a security light that can stay, and the lighting to the front of the building will have
decorative lighting, not to exceed 75 watts in each light.
8. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
9. All lights shall be downcast/cutoff fixtures.
10. All lights shall be inspected by Staff for compliance prior to installation.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, folks, you’ve got it.
MR. DOBERT-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve got more interest in making it look good than anything else.
MR. DOBERT-We won’t be disappointing. Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your new business.
MR. VOLLARO-And thanks for relocating here. I think it’s great that you came from Rochester
to this area. It’s something we’re really trying to do. I hope this has been a good experience.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HARS PARS INC. AGENT: MARK
UNGEHEUER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 168 SUNNYSIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO INSTALL LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES IN ORDER TO ALLOW NIGHTTIME USE
OF THE EXISTING SUNNYSIDE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE. LIGHTING FOR COMMERCIAL
USES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 290.5-
1-50 LOT SIZE: 10.69 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MARK UNGEHEUER, BOB BEATY & JIM BEATY & DOUG BEATY, REPRESENTING
APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I was up there today, walked around a little bit and talked to some of the folks
that play on that course. So I know what’s going on up there a little bit, and finally I was able to
orient your drawings as to where Sunnyside Road is, where Ridge is, where your place is, and
then identify where you clubhouse is and some of the other houses and looked at the course,
and we’ve been very critical in the Town about lighting up the night sky. It’s one of the things
that, you know, with Wal-Mart, you saw tonight with the kind of stuff we were doing with the
hotel and the Outback and so on. We want to try to keep the lighting of the night sky down, if
that’s possible. I’ve got to recognize that, and I understand you want a cut off of about 10:00, is
that correct?
MR. BEATY-We didn’t have a specific timeframe in mind. We didn’t, certainly we’re not going
to be running it late, but we didn’t have a specific timeframe.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a nine hole course.
MR. BEATY-It is. If we were to propose a league, and they start at 8:30, I would assume they’d
be off by 10:30, but the general public, if we would open it to them as well, I don’t see where
that would limit us to 11:00 or 12:00, to accommodate.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you see, we’ve got to be careful with that all night, getting into the
midnight area and so on. I’m looking for a rather, like a 10 to 10:30 cut off, in my mind,
anyway. I’m not speaking for the Board. That’s just me. Looking at the way the lights have to
be put on the course, it looks like all the lights will be facing inward.
MR. UNGEHEUER-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Shielded in the rear, so that the back scatter doesn’t get into any of the houses.
MR. UNGEHEUER-They won’t actually be shielded because they’ll be angled upward. So you
don’t actually have a back shield on there, but because they’re angled into the course, you won’t
have light spilling off the back of the fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-The fixtures will look this way, tilted up?
MR. UNGEHEUER-Yes. Upward a little bit to angle toward where the play is actually
happening. Otherwise, you wind up having substantially more fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-What you’re trying to do is really light up the tee.
MR. BEATY-Tee and green.
MR. VOLLARO-Tee and green. What you get in fairway is a result of just the light spill from
those two?
MR. BEATY-Yes, right. A typical hole is 55 yards, 60 yards, and there’s one hole that is longer,
but we’re going to move the tees up for the night golf.
MR. SEGULJIC-The lighting seems low to have it adequate. Is that?
MR. UNGEHEUER-Again, what we were trying to do was light the tees and the greens. The
low level lighting in between on the fairways, I think we’re around .1 foot candles. That’s
approximately three times what moonlight would, a full moon would produce. So it gives you
85
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
enough light to be able to see to walk around, to find the ball. That’s it. We’re not trying to
over light that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, like, if I’m reading your drawings correctly, like the greens are going to
have like 1.3, 3.3, is that what I’m seeing? I guess what I’m getting at, it just seems particularly,
I’m no lighting expert, but it just seems real low to me.
MS. RADNER-Can each of you gentlemen identify yourselves as you speak, so she can keep a
good record, since there’s four of you up there.
MR. B. BEATY-I’m Bob Beaty, one of the owners of Hars Pars.
MR. J. BEATY-Jim Beaty.
MR. UNGEHEUER-Mark Ungeheuer.
MR. D. BEATY-Doug Beaty.
MR. UNGEHEUER-Which area specifically?
MR. VOLLARO-Which one of these are the lights themselves?
MR. SEGULJIC-What are the circles on your drawings?
MR. UNGEHEUER-The larger circles indicate the greens, the smaller indicate the tees, and then
you have the light with the direction of each head indicated, where we’d be aiming those, and if
you look at the attached schedule, it gives a specific aiming of each head.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, for example, the head. We’re looking here. Assume that’s the head,
and part of it’s looking back at the tee, and the other part is looking back at the hole.
MR. UNGEHEUER-Yes. There’s two aimed towards that hole.
MR. VOLLARO-And one aimed toward the tee.
MR. UNGEHEUER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s how to break the code here. This is the light. One light’s going
toward the tee and the other two are lighting up the hole. That’s what we’ve got here, and all of
them, pretty much all of them seem to be facing inward from the perimeter. So that the scatter
at the perimeter is almost zero in all cases, except where you get into this western, I guess it’s
the eastern area of the course.
MR. SANFORD-The northwestern area from the clubhouse, possibly, I’m concerned about
who’s living along those, I guess they’re numbered, aren’t they? No, where the poles are, there,
I’m wondering if anybody from the audience is going to give public comment, but I’m
concerned, it looks like there are a couple of poles that near residences, and I’m wondering if
there’s going to be a problem.
MR. UNGEHEUER-If you reference this, the overhead from the County, this will, I think,
clarify, if you can match it up to the poles, yes. Okay. You don’t have a color one.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve the big color one here. That’s what I was turning around and looking at.
MR. UNGEHEUER-Okay. That specific area you’re talking about is in the left hand corner. The
residence is up by the road. There is vegetation as well along that back fence, as you can see
with the aerial, and our lighting scheme does not take into consideration any of the vegetation.
86
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I know there’s not going to be a problem in the southern part of the site.
I’m only concerned about the people on Sunnyside that are in, I don’t know how you’d describe
it, but the lot over here, the 95 foot lot. Maybe the 98 foot lot, and then up.
MR. BEATY-The two adjoining, right, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and then I don’t know about the 167 foot lot. They may be far enough
away. I’m not sure, but that’s my concern, those properties, really.
MR. BEATY-There’s actually, I mean, if you walk the course or come out on the course, you can
see there’s only two houses that have visual on the course itself, from their house.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that today, there’s only two, yes.
MR. BEATY-That’s it.
MR. SANFORD-I noticed this course did, at one time, have lights.
MR. BEATY-That’s create. The previous owners had it.
MR. SANFORD-So why are you here? Did you lose it?
MR. BEATY-No. They took them down. They were obsolete. They were no longer functional.
We still have the remnants of those taken down.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I guess you did your homework and you know you have to get an
approval, then. You can’t say, well, we had lights so we’re.
MR. BEATY-I assume that’s probably why we’re here.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, all right. I didn’t know. I mean, to what degree does a pre-existing
condition all of a sudden not be grandfathered in? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m
throwing it out there.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess the only thing I can offer is that, you know, again, our Zoning
Administrator reviewed this submission and determined that it requires site plan.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. BEATY-And to that point, the previous owners had let things run down poorly, had put
more interest into the bar area, where, the first thing we did, we hired a PGA professional.
We’re more interested in the golf course itself. We brought that back to life. We’re making it
more for family type atmosphere and things, and clubhouse being a clubhouse. We put
numerous renovations into that. That’s where we’re coming from.
MR. SANFORD-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, I talked to people who play the course, and they say the
thing they like about it is, A, it’s a family thing, and, B, it’s a good place for people to learn to
play golf.
MR. BEATY-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have, you know, scratch golfers coming through trying to push you
off the course. Personally, looking at this, because of what it does and the amenities that a golf
course like this puts into the communities, normally I would be hesitant about something like
this, of lighting up the sky. I know we’ve got some people here who would like to talk to this,
I’m sure, and I’d like to hear a little bit about what the public is going to say about it. I don’t
87
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
think it’s excessive. I think what you’ve done is, but, rather than dragging this out, since it’s
really about lighting, I’m going to ask, before I ask you gentleman to leave this, I’m going to
ask, is there anybody here that would like to talk to this application? I suspected so.
MS. RADNER-To answer your question. The discontinuance of a nonconforming use is
generally for a period of 18 months.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So then they haven’t had lights for quite some time. I understand.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. I do share a boundary line with the golf course,
and it’s southwest boundary line. I do have a good tree buffer. My concern is, though, the
hours it will be open at night. Sound does travel very far up there. The trees do not stop that. I
am concerned about the light pollution in the sky, but it’s mainly the time, because often the
later something like that’s opened, the more they’ve been to the bar, the more sometimes the
language and a few other things and the trespassing on your property, and I do go out and pick
up golf balls on my property, and the other thing I have a question about is, do they have
enough parking space. Because there has been times when people are parked along that road.
They’re not supposed to. That’s a road by use. The County only owns from one edge of the
pavement to the other. You get off it, you’re on somebody’s land, and also it’s a narrow road.
It’s hazardous if people are parking along the sides of the road, and, you know, I’ve lived there
all my life, or somebody in my family has, in this particular house. In fact, some of the golf
course land came from my family. So I know the history of it back from the Scherers, when it
first started, right through to now, and Scherers ran it very well. We did have some problems
with the manager of the last people that owned it, for various reasons that I’m not even going to
go into, but I think we are concerned that we not see those problems continue. I have had no
problems so far with the present owners, but as I said, it’s the light pollution, it’s the hours of
operation, and what the parking, where the parking’s going to, do they have enough parking
room on site.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. The parking issue is one I’d be concerned about, because I can
understand, on that road, it is pretty narrow and it is a road by use.
MRS. MONAHAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the question of the light pollution is whether we go forward and let
them put the lights on or not. Were you ever there when the original lights were on?
MRS. MONAHAN-Yes, because Scherer bought that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How did that affect the community?
MRS. MONAHAN-The Scherers, when they ran it, it was quite a quiet operation, and also they
had a restaurant at that time, but it’s part of the apartment houses, now, and that made a
change, too, you know, of how the land was used around there, what that was open for parking
and stuff. There’s been quite a lot of extra building that’s gone on there now, adding to the
original structure that, as I said, was a restaurant, with apartments for the owners upstairs, and
now that’s become like an apartment house and stuff, and so, you know, there have been some
changes there on that property, but, you know, when (lost word), as I said, ran it, it was quiet.
It finished quite early in the evening, but you find the general public, now, we find this in the
country. The general public that comes here from the city and stuff does not respect private
property like it used to, and that is a big, big problem, and so, you know, I would hope that
they would keep good control of their clients and so on and so forth.
88
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How do you really feel about the lights? If you were sitting here, Betty,
how would you vote the lights?
MRS. MONAHAN-Again, I would not have a problem with them if they were turned off at a
reasonable hour at night and the people were off the course. It’s not like, you know, we close at
such time, but you can finish. It’s, the lights go off. The people go off the course. It’s more the
sound and some of the language and stuff I would be concerned about, and, as I said, people
that don’t respect your property lines, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a good point, thanks, Betty.
MARILYN SOMMERVILLE
MRS. SOMMERVILLE-I’m Marilyn Sommerville, and I don’t abut the course. I’ve been there
not as long as Betty, but since it was used before when they had the lights there. I hope the
guys do well. I hope they do well with the business. I am concerned, as Betty is, about parking,
a really big concern about that, because before, when they had the lights on and people were
playing there late at night, it got to be the point that people would park along the road, and
then occasionally there would be arguments at twelve, one o’clock in the morning. This wasn’t
great. I didn’t like that a whole lot, and I wouldn’t like it again. I know the boys are trying to
do a really good job with maintaining things, but I’m concerned about all the light. I’m
certainly concerned about the noise, because it used to, every once in a while, get really bad,
and we’re way at the far end. I’m on Ridge Road, and voices carry really, really well, and as
Betty said, the later it gets, and people have been inside and outside and inside and outside, and
I know they want to make it for families, and that’s another thing about kids running around.
So, mostly she said everything I had to say. It’s just traffic and lights and noise.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HILTON-I have a letter as well, just to let you know.
ELIZABETH MILLER
MRS. MILLER-My name’s Elizabeth Miller. I live on Ridge Road, and I just wanted to reiterate
whatever Mrs. Monahan said. My feelings are basically the same. I don’t think my land abuts
theirs, but you can hear it in the summertime. The noise gets kind of loud, and the light kind of
bothered me. That’s what struck me, as soon as I read the notice, that the light pollution would
bother me, but pretty much just the same as Mrs. Monahan. I’m just concerned. I like the fact
that there’s new owners and they’re making it look better and have it family oriented. I guess
the main thing is I would like a cut off at like 10, something like that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s something that Betty had mentioned as well. So we’ll talk about that
with the applicant.
MRS. MILLER-Yes, I would agree with that. Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. Okay. Do you want to come back up again, and I guess
one of the things we want to arrive at pretty quickly is the cut off time, and I’m sort of
suggesting a 10 o’clock cut off.
MR. HILTON-I have a letter to read as well. A letter from Susan Dougher, 1099 Ridge Road. It
says, “I’m very concerned about the negative affect that night time lighting at The Par 3 golf
course will have on my 1099 Ridge Road property for the following reasons: 1. A large chunk
of land which happens to be the best piece of my property runs along the golf course and will
be affected negatively by continuous night time lighting. 2. The Par has always specialized in
having golf leagues which means many more people on the golf course at night along with
regular non-league players. This will create more noise and activity that would be normal for a
commercial property zoned in a commercial area. 3. Although it is true that The Par is a
89
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
commercial business it is still zoned SR-1A and lies within a residential area. By allowing night
time lighting on the golf course you would be allowing a new business aspect to what is already
there which would have a definite impact on the neighborhood. 4. Past owners have tried to
get night time lighting on the golf course and were shot down and ultimately not even allowed
to have a broomball rink. Problems with these two things were seen in the past so why should
things be different now. 5. This property was purchased knowing that the previous owners did
not operate a night time golfing business. A night time golfing business should be operated in a
more rural area, not in the middle of residences and have enough lands so properties next to it
will not be negatively affected. There is no buffer zone between The Par and my property and
the golf course takes up most of the 10 acres that The Par is on therefore it is too small to be lit
up at night even if it’s only for 6 to 8 months out of the year. The effects from the lighting
would be huge. The bottom line here is the properties are just too close together to have one of
them lit up like a Christmas tree. Susan Dougher”
MR. BEATY-And if I can qualify that letter a little bit, in an attempt to clean up the atmosphere
of the bar itself, we’ve had to bar her husband. So that may be where that’s coming from, but
the lighting is minimal, as you can see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you talk about, not only proposed hours of operation, but also maybe
the months of operation, when you would start.
MR. BEATY-Yes, it would typically be your golf season here would hopefully start in April this
year, and then run until basically the first snow falls.
MR. SANFORD-How early can you turn off the lights? I mean, you’ve heard what people have
said. You were saying all different numbers at the beginning, but I think you’ve got to kind of
work with us on this. What’s reasonable to you?
MR. BEATY-We didn’t have anything set in mind. If we had brought in a league, initially we
were thinking 10:30 would be the minimum cut off that we would need for them to finish, to
start and finish.
MR. VOLLARO-What does it take the average golfer to go through, time wise?
MR. BEATY-About two hours.
MR. VOLLARO-About two hours. So, if you limited your tee off time to eight o’clock, you had
to tee off by eight, they would be off the course by ten.
MR. BEATY-Assuming they were in a shot gun.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, it’s interesting, you know, you get into autumn and the days are awful
short. So at ten o’clock time there we’d get them a lot more exposure to golfers. In the summer
time it stays lit close to nine, and it would only be an extra hour or so, but I’m thinking, you
know, ten, ten o’clock, like you were, was reasonable. I could probably see my way to 10:30,
but not really anything past that.
MR. VOLLARO-Anything past that. Yes. I’d like to cap it at 10:00 o’clock, if we could. I don’t
know. Do you think that that’s an imposition on your ability to make money?
MR. BEATY-I think practically, at the end of the season, most people, you’re not going to get
many people playing at night anyway, as it gets colder, and a peak time frame, in the summer,
it’s light out until about nine o’clock. So if we could run it until 11 for peak time in the summer,
that would give one last tee time there, and then people would take (lost words) it would only
probably be a month until 11 o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-So say for the months of July and August, you’d like to run?
90
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-I think eleven’s excessive, and I appreciate the job they’re doing there, and
they’ve got a good operation, and I want to encourage it, but it’s just too much of a risk. Eleven
o’clock you do run into probably, you know, the probability that some of the people might be
drinking and loud, and all the concerns.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand that.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like to have it shut before eleven o’clock. I can go 10:30.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-As a compromise.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Let’s put the parking thing, I prefer 10 o’clock, myself. That’s how
I’m looking at it, for one vote, but do we have adequate parking there?
MR. BEATY-We have an additional portion that we can develop in the parking, if need be.
We’ve had a couple of special events where there have been cars on the street. I’m not denying
that. They were usually typical, they were special function where there’s a birthday party or a
tournament that was excessive amount of people that we don’t have on a typical basis. It’s not a
weekly occurrence where we have somebody parking on the street, but there have been a few
times.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a way to make a provision for overflow parking for those special
things?
MR. BEATY-Yes, there is another area you can see here that is not developed currently that we
could use for parking. We have discussed that.
MR. SANFORD-When is parking a problem, typically when your leagues are playing?
MR. BEATY-Well, even with the leagues we don’t have it, no. We have enough room when we
have a tournament or something.
MR. SANFORD-Because I’m very familiar with your establishment. I haven’t too many parking
on the street. Maybe occasionally. So I was a little surprised. Now of course these people live
up there and they know far better than I do, you know, but I always thought that your lot
accommodated most of your flow. I would think when the leagues pile in, that you may have a
problem then.
MR. BEATY-Well, even the Tuesday night league, which is our most popular league, is, we
have 40 people, we don’t park on that road that night, and that’s our fullest.
MR. SANFORD-You actually can accommodate quite a few cars there.
MR. BEATY-That’s correct, but when we did have a special event, and like my brother said,
there was a few cars on the road, and it’s happened two or three times this last summer, the
ladies were correct then, but that, you know, I think it happened three times, maybe four at the
max, but I think it was three.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the objective of running this thing is to try to keep cars off the road if you
can. I think that’s got to be the objective.
MR. BEATY-The overflow parking, as my brothers were saying, is an option, too. We do have
that space, as you look down the.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was there today, and I looked around and I thought there was quite a
bit of parking available.
91
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Where’s this optional space you’re talking about?
MR. BEATY-Down the road, down by the fourth tee, if you just follow Sunnyside Road.
MR. SANFORD-The tees aren’t numbered on the map.
MR. BEATY-With 163 feet of frontage there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That 168 feet?
MR. BEATY-Yes. We were thinking about making that into some additional parking, and then
with either a footpath on the course itself or just follow the road up 100 feet to our main parking
lot.
MR. SANFORD-I see.
MR. BEATY-We started to clear it a little bit last year, just to see what the ground was like
there.
MRS. STEFFAN-And how many acres do you have?
MR. BEATY-A little over 10.
MRS. BEATY-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if it’s just overflow parking, you don’t have to pave it or you can put
gravel down or anything. You’re only going to be using it in July and August probably. The
ground will be hard enough. You can just park on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think understand what we’re doing. Traffic wise, I haven’t heard any
complaints from the people who live there that there’s any speeding or anything like that on the
road. So basically there may be more traffic, but I don’t think the traffic is hazardous at this
point. I don’t think I’ve heard anybody say that.
MR. BEATY-I think hopefully, anybody who’s gone up there, we purchased it at the end of
April last year. We changed over the clientele. I mean, it was a little rougher, when we got it, it
stayed open real late and so forth, and we don’t stay open until four in the morning. We don’t
stay open until three in the morning. We don’t even stay open until two in the morning. We’ve
changed the clientele. No one’s perfect, and I’m not saying that I am or they are, but I think you
see a little more disciplined clientele that comes in there now, and if a juke box is any indicator,
the songs in the juke box now represent the clientele, which are a little older, which are a little,
they go home earlier. They’re the older clientele.
MR. VOLLARO-I can understand that.
MR. BEATY-So hopefully you’ve seen that change if you’ve gone up there.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, my only issue is what’s a reasonable time, and we don’t have a
consensus between the applicant and my opinion of it. I’m willing, you know, to me, I
appreciate ten might be a bit early, but I don’t see anything later than 10:30 making sense to me,
and that’s just my own feeling. I think after that, you run into the added potential of some
rowdiness on the golf course, because they have more time to maybe have been drinking in the
bar, and they go out and they’re playing golf. I think, 10:30, I appreciate what you’re talking
about because in the summertime it stays light close to nine, and so you’re not really gaining
much, and that’s your peak season. So you get an extra hour and a half in there. I think that
would help you out, and it would help you out in the fall and the spring, but I think eleven’s
really pushing it. That’s my feeling. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels.
92
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I’d go along with 10:30.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about weekends?
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think if I’m a neighbor I’m going to have the same issue on a Saturday
or Sunday as I would on a Friday or a Wednesday. Simpler is better for me. Ten-thirty straight
through. Were you saying later on the weekends?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just thinking.
MR. SANFORD-People still have to sleep on the weekends.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I appreciate that. I was just feeling you out. I mean, I think most people
tend to stay up later on Friday and Saturday night. So I think there’s less of a potential conflict
if it were to stay open until 11:00.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know the golfing mentality. These people love to golf. I mean,
golfers just love golfing, and their leagues are mostly during the week. I don’t know what your
busiest time for your course. I’m not sure when that would be. It might be a Friday afternoon,
or I don’t know when your leagues are.
MR. BEATY-We stay pretty busy straight through. There’s no peak and valley, really. We’ve
got a lot of younger crowd this first year opening.
MR. SANFORD-I really, I’ve got to put myself in the position if I were a neighboring home, it
wouldn’t make much of a difference if it’s a Saturday or a Tuesday to me. I wouldn’t want the
lights on anything past 10:30.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m jumping in with you at 10:30. I even said 10:00, but I’d go along with 10:30,
because that’s as much as I’d push it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does 10:30 work for you?
MR. BEATY-It sounds like it probably will. It will have to.
MRS. STEFFAN-I like 10:00, but the fireworks ordinance on Lake George and the City of Glens
Falls shut off at 10, and part of that is, you know, the reasonable expectation of folks going to
work the next morning. This is zoned Suburban Residential One Acre. It’s surrounded by
houses, and if you have to get up and go to work during the week, you know, the weekend I’m
not so sure about, but during the week, if I live next to this and I want to go to bed, I’m going to
be really upset if I’ve got lights or noise in my neighborhood.
MR. BEATY-Gretchen, golfers are usually hooting and hollering. I mean, anybody who plays
the game, even if you have a beer or two, it’s not all that exciting of a sport that you’re doing.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t play golf.
MR. BEATY-But really, the lights, but I think Mark can attest, though, that the way he’s
engineered the lights and so forth, we definitely kept those neighbors in mind. That was our
first and foremost concern, and in fact when we had our first meeting we said, you know, that
was the first thing we talked about. How can we keep the lights on the course, so that it’s not
going to affect the neighbors, because we respect them, and we want to be good neighbors to
both Marilyn and everyone else who talked tonight, and even the ones who haven’t talked. So
I’m confident the way he’s engineered it that we’re going, they won’t even know they’re on. I
really believe that, because they’re going to be pointing right in on the tees, and on the greens,
and nothing’s going to be spilling out in back, as he showed you on the spillage chart.
93
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. UNGEHEUER-Keep in mind, we had two issues that we looked at when we did the
lighting layout. The two issues you really have to address is light trespass, which is the spillage
out onto other properties. I think we’ve addressed that fairly well.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks pretty good, yes.
MR. UNGEHEUER-The second issue that a lot of people like to throw out is light pollution as a
term, just lighting up the night sky. How does light pollution come about, is what you have to
take into account. How would this be developed at this site? Essentially that would be by over
lighting, because light pollution is caused by the lights reflecting and then the reflectants
coming back out into the night sky. We’re not over lighting. We’re keeping lighting levels very
low. So you’re not going to have this aurora effect that you see, you know, like if you drive up
to the Mall. You can see the Mall from miles away because you get a high level of reflectants off
the parking lot. We’ve really tried to contain that. So light pollution and light trespass to the
best that we could possibly do have been controlled.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, I think you’re right. I think you’ve made a big effort, in terms of the
intensity of the lights, keeping them as low as you possibly can, but still functional, and I think
that you’re being reasonable, that was the word that I think Betty Monahan used, in terms of the
10:30, agreeing to the 10:30 time. I think that, as much as Gretchen likes 10 o’clock, I could
appreciate, in June and July, that’s not really going to give you much more than Mother
Nature’s giving you. So the extra half hour will contribute, and, you know, I would feel
comfortable proceeding along those lines. Of course on this one we have to do a SEQRA, but I
don’t know if you want to poll the Board on it, but that’s my feeling on it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve pretty much summed up my feeling as well. I wouldn’t want to
deny this because of the lighting. I think that if they’re going to be good neighbors, and I think
the guy that did the lighting did a pretty good job. It’s going to be in. Grass doesn’t do a great
amount of light reflection. As a matter of fact there’s a lot of absorption in grass. So, I’m pretty
comfortable with it, except we have to specify the turn off time to be 10:30.
MR. SANFORD-The Beaty boys have a good reputation in Town. A lot of people speak highly
of them, and they’ve been around for a long time and I think they’re going to make a good go of
this club and refine it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve talked to a couple of people who play the course, and they really think it’s,
first of all, it helps young children, real first time golfers who don’t have to be intimidated by
scratch golfers being right in back of them, hitting the ball long and straight and all that sort of
stuff, and the people who are trying to learn get a place to go where it’s not so bad to do. So it’s
up to these fellows to keep the peace, not let it get rowdy, not let it get out of hand.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the lights will go off, at the end of the time, all the lights.
MR. BEATY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’ll have to be. Put them on a clock. Noise on the course is something
you’ve got to monitor. If you get, your two mark one ears over here say that you’ve got a little
noise on the course, somebody’s got to go out and hold it down.
MR. BEATY-I think the guy we have running it, Miles Nolan, is very conscientious. He has
small boys, and a five year old boy who loves to play, and he’s very aware of people who get
rowdy or something. He’s not afraid to go out there and reprimand them. So we’ve been very
happy with him. If he sees something that’s going to be a little loud, he’s not afraid to go out
there and talk to them. So we’re aware of that. Again, we want to be good neighbors. That was
a big priority with us when we purchased this thing, because I know they had some struggles
with the neighbors with this establishment before.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Does somebody want to make a motion?
94
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve got to do SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Short Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HARS PARS, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MRS. STEFFAN-Bob, what about the uniformity ratio? Have we identified that that’s okay,
based on the lights?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think in this particular case you’re going to be able to come up with a
uniformity ratio.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not applicable, the uniformity ratio. See, the idea of lights on a golf course
is to light it up.
95
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, uniformity ratio is directly opposite to what they’re trying to do. They’re
trying to intensify certain spots where the uniformity ratio is trying to equalize it.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, equalize it.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re at two ends of the spectrum.
MR. UNGEHEUER-The only way that could be done, as you had mentioned earlier, would be
to take an area and look at the uniformity of an area, because on outlying areas where the
spillage will cut to zero, there is no way to calculate a uniformity when you have a maximum to
a zero number.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. SANFORD-Are you looking for a motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2005 HARS PARS, INC., Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 13-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Hars Pars Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Mark Ungeheuer
Zone: SR-1A
Location: 168 Sunnyside
Applicant proposes to install light poles and fixtures in order to allow nighttime use of the
existing Sunnyside Par 3 golf course. Lighting for commercial uses requires Site Plan review
and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference:
Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50
Lot size: 10.69 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 3/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/18/05, and
3/22/05 Staff Notes
3/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation
3/2/05 CTM engineering comments
2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent
2/28/05 Applicant from C. Brown: application moved to March agenda due to
withdrawal of another item
2/24/05 Affected Applicants: originally bumped to April
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on 3/22/05; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
96
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That the hours of operation for the lighting of the course will terminate at 10:30 p.m.,
and that applicant will make best efforts to monitor noise and take corrective action, if
necessary, to keep noise levels at a reasonable level.
2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You got it.
MR. BEATY-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Before I can close this meeting, I think we have two things that they’re asking
us to do here.
OTHER:
PZ 5-2004 TOWN SPONSORED REZONING – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THE TOWN
BOARD IS SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT,
WHICH WILL COVER THE MAIN STREET, ROUTE 9, QUAKER ROAD AND AVIATION
ROAD CORRIDORS. TOWN COUNSEL CONSIDERS THESE TO BE NON-MATERIAL,
MINOR MODIFICATIONS.
MR. VOLLARO-One is the Town Sponsored Rezoning for Underground Utilities. Now, this is
the Lake George thing.
TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
MR. HUNSINGER-Cathi, what’s your feeling on this Lake George Proposed Amendment to
Zoning Ordinance?
97
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MS. RADNER-Well, we represent both municipalities, so I saw the Lake George amendment,
you know, as part of being Counsel to Lake George as well. I know their reasoning for doing it,
you know, to try and restrict the neighborhood houses that turned into boarding houses.
Whether it has any impact on Queensbury, I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re trying to restrict houses that get used for boarding houses.
MS. RADNER-They’re trying to clarify their definition of tourist accommodation.
MR. SANFORD-And they’re including single family homes that are rented.
MS. RADNER-Right. A single family home that’s being rented out on a weekly basis at this
point, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-I see. So if you have a single family house and you start operating it as a
tourist accommodation, then they can take enforcement action against you if you’re not zoned
correctly.
MS. RADNER-Right. There’s been a couple of problem properties where, you know, during
Americade week, you know, if eight people are staying there with eight motorcycles, and the
next door neighbors who live there year round, aren’t real happy about it.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that does happen that way.
MS. RADNER-Yes, and there’s some that are in otherwise residential neighborhoods that they
advertise them on the Internet, you know, vacation home, rent it.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of like those cases we’ve had here.
MR. SANFORD-So we’re actually on it. Why don’t we go with this one first. This is just if we
have comments.
MS. RADNER-Just if you have comments. Right. We’re referring, now, to the Lake George
Rezoning. Yes, if you have comments.
MR. SANFORD-I have no comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t either. I already asked my questions.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have no comment on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I think it makes sense. I don’t
have any comments one way or another myself. I think the definition is clear. I mean, I think it
makes sense.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think so, too. It sounds reasonable.
MR. SANFORD-I do have comments on the other one, though.
MS. RADNER-The other one is the zoning amendment that was recently passed, and of course
once put into effect, questions started coming up. So what’s being added here are two new
sections, Section F, which basically clarifies that if a single pole, or telephone pole gets hit by a
car, for example, that that doesn’t necessarily trigger the undergrounding provision, and, G,
which provides that basically it codifies the vesting concept that exists in law anyway, that if
you’ve got a project that’s already been approved, that’s already underway, the people have
already obtained rights, they’re moving forward on their project, they don’t have to go back
now and underground utilities when that wasn’t a part of the conditions of their approvals.
98
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. My comments are straightforward and simple, and it’s not as much
directed at this amendment as it was to, I recall vaguely the first time we were asked for a
recommendation on whether or not we thought it was advisable to go forward with the
underground utilities, and at the time I commented, we don’t have the tools, or we don’t have
enough information to make an intelligent decision. We don’t know what the costs are. We
don’t know who will incur the cost, i.e. the applicant or the Town, and the answer I got kind of
was, well, no one knows or something, and I think that that was inappropriate for us to give a
recommendation without enough information.
MS. RADNER-Well, I think as written, the law specifies that it’s not a Town cost, though
certainly I know Marilyn Ryba’s pursuing different kinds of grants and funds that are available
that could then make it at least partially subsidized, but as written, it is the provider, the utility
that has to bear that cost. Now, whether, and to what extent the utility, in turn, passes that on
to the customers is the part that none of us have any answers.
MR. SANFORD-Well, but that’s extremely relevant. I’ll give you an example. These corridors
are commercial corridors, and if, because of this requirement, a person can’t sell their business
to another person because they may have to do this, or a person feels it’s cost prohibitive to
build along here because of the cost, you know, I can appreciate that we needed to know that, if
it’s a modest fee, if it only costs $1,000 or so to do this, fine, but if it costs $50,000 to do it, we
may actually have made a recommendation that could have been very detrimental to the best
interests of Queensbury without this knowledge, and we did it, and now, with this amendment,
my only concern is, we live in the political environment here in Queensbury, and we get these
modest modifications, and I’m saying to myself, well, I would be interested in having a
complete list of who is in the pipeline to be grandfathered in. We don’t know, I have no clue
who some of these applicants or business owners may be that are, have substantially
commenced building, and again, I just don’t have enough information to make a decision. Now
I’m not going to vote against the recommendation. I’m not going to vote for the
recommendation. I’m just going to go on record as saying, I’m abstaining from giving a
recommendation. Now the rest of the Board can go forward and support it if they want, but my
recommendation to the Town Board is that in the future when they ask for our
recommendations they give us enough information criteria to make an intelligent
recommendation, and I look back at that other one, and I think it was very, very poor for us to
move forward when we made a decision. It’s like I told Bob. I said, you built a house recently.
Would you have designed your kitchen and your whole home without any kind of a cost
estimate? Of course you wouldn’t. Well, we said, hey, this makes sense. We don’t have an idea
what it’s costing. So, along those lines, I think I’d want more information before I give
recommendations. That’s my comment.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s pretty well put, Rich. I tend to agree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I respectfully disagree with his comments. It’s only required where there is
a construction project, or where new utility lines are being installed. I mean, clearly the costs
would be borne by whoever is putting the utilities in, whether it be Niagara Mohawk, or, you
know, the phone company or the cable company.
MR. SANFORD-If you build along these corridors, Chris, a new building, and Niagara
Mohawk’s not going to do it for free. They’re going to say, they’re going to charge that, I
believe they’re going to charge that business, the cost of putting those things under ground, and
they may be adjustable by the business but they may not. I don’t know what they charge for
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not how I read this.
MR. SANFORD-This is an amendment, but I’m talking about two things. First of all was our
original proposal.
99
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t read that this way at all. If I’m going to put a new building on Main
Street, I’m only responsible to put underground utility lines for myself. I’m not required to
bury NiMo’s lines and the cable as it crosses my property.
MR. SANFORD-Do you know, you don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just saying, that’s how I read this.
MR. SANFORD-That’s my point. You’re taking my point.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess your point’s well taken, then.
MS. RADNER-In Section D it says that if any utility lines within the utility overlay district are
required to be relocated in connection with any construction project, and any new utility lines to
be installed within the overlay district, they shall be underground, and then it puts the onus on
the utility companies to obtain the necessary approvals and permits. So, if you’re merely
changing the use, and it’s not going to impact where the existing utility lines are, no, it’s not
going to add any costs to it, but if you’re going to be moving the utilities, for example for the
Main Street project, if they expand the street, instead of just moving them off the right of way,
they’re going to move them, they going to bury them.
MR. SANFORD-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was the intent, was that when Main Street gets redone, all the
utilities would go underground.
MR. SANFORD-No, I’m not saying I object to it.
MS. RADNER-And that’s one of the corridors impacted.
MR. SANFORD-I’m saying I don’t think we had enough information to make a decision, let
alone an intelligent decision. To me, it’s, don’t ask me to give a recommendation unless I can at
least try to give you an intelligent recommendation, and we did. I mean, we all kind of said, at
the end of the day, yes, we recommend that the Town Board adopt this, and they did, and I
scratched my head when I got this, and I said, why in the heck did we do that. I don’t know
what the burden is to anybody. I don’t know if it’s going to cost them $100,000, or $10,000 or
$1,000.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, you’re right. The utility companies will pass the cost along
to the customer.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and so I said, look it, you know, from now on, I mean, I felt stupid by
recommending that they move forward with this, when, the same way I wouldn’t go buy a car
and not ask what the price is. That’s all, and now when they’re asking to grandfather, basically,
what they’re saying is well we’re not going to now require people who have already started, I
don’t know the background for that. I don’t know who’s been complaining. I don’t know
who’s affected by it, and I’m not naive enough, based on recent history, to believe that this is a
benign situation.
MS. RADNER-I’ll give you one example that came up. Great Escape. You’ve already granted
significant approvals, then they lost some trees, and they came back to you and asked for
approval just to remove a line of trees. The question then came up, well, does changing these
line of trees mean we now have to revisit the entire site plan again, and now require the
undergrounding of utilities. They had already gone through the entire permitting process. We
were now focusing on a line of trees.
MR. SANFORD-They also said that it would be outrageously expensive for them to pay the cost
of having those lines buried underground, and so again, it goes to my point. I said, how
100
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
expensive, we don’t know. My point is, they didn’t know, but they made a representation it
would be terribly expensive.
MS. RADNER-Yes. I’m just trying to let you know, because you said what is an example that
the question’s arisen.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think another example would be some guy who’s building a
commercial building along here and he’s already kind of, he’s at the twelfth hour and then this
gets enacted. He said, wait a second, I’ve already made arrangements for above line wires, and
the Town’s saying, okay, that’s okay. You’ve substantially completed your project, but again, I
would want to see a list of all the people who are affected by this grandfathering, okay, and I
don’t have that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me put my take in on this for a second. I read this letter from Marilyn,
and I left it home, because I said, this was kind of sprung on us that we had to take a look at this
underground utility, and this amendment, and I said I’d like to have time to really digest what’s
in here. I mean, I’ve got a million letters home in a box, pull one out. It takes time to read this,
try to digest, try to understand what it’s saying, and I said, there isn’t enough time between
now and the time we have to take on all these applicants and really read this. I had it in the file.
When I saw this, I pulled it out and I said, no, there’s just too much in here for me to digest in a
short period of time. These things can’t be, I just can’t sit and read these things and take them
on like that and say, okay, I’ve got them. We’ll approve/disapproved based on that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I still don’t know, Bob, if when we made our prior recommendation to.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s done, now, you see.
MR. SANFORD-But that’s the point. It is done, but I don’t want to continue.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to add insult to injury.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what I’m saying. There’s no way we’re going to go back and reverse it,
but by continuing, now, to approve modifications, all we’re really doing is, if we’re not
comfortable with it in the first place, we shouldn’t be approving modifications. I mean, my
opinion is I don’t know if I’m comfortable with it in the first place because I never had enough
information to make a decision.
MR. VOLLARO-Enough information, yes.
MR. SANFORD-And I think it’s probably all innocent enough, they’re looking to us for
guidance, but they’re not giving us any kind of tools to make a decision.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t even think they’re looking for guidance, to be honest, to be perfectly
blunt with this. They’re not looking for guidance. They’re looking for a recommendation in
saying the Planning Board said it was okay. That’s what they’re looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Whatever that means.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s any constructive input that they’re looking from the
Planning Board, not really, and if they were, they’d give us time to make some kind of, to do the
investigations.
MS. RADNER-No, I think they legitimately want you to focus on Planning issues, and if you see
something that might miss them, as Town Board members, as Planning Board members, they
want your input.
MR. SANFORD-Well, all right, I’ll give you an example of why I’m uncomfortable with this
without full disclosure. We were asked to give a recommendation on a zoning change that is
101
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
now in a lawsuit, and I guess it was LC-42 to LC-10, but it was on just Glens Falls properties,
and we did, we gave them a recommendation. I didn’t realize that this was a unilateral decision
by the Town Board without even having a conversation with the City of Glens Falls. Shame on
me for not asking the question or finding out, but certainly in our packet we weren’t presented
with, the Town Board is asking for your recommendation upon them taking a unilateral action
which is going to.
MS. RADNER-Again, let’s not get off on a tangent. Because that one is in litigation and I think
that that’s one view of it.
MR. SANFORD-But my point is, I’m not comfortable in rendering a recommendation unless I
feel I have enough information to do so, and lately it seems that we are asked to do this with
only getting partial information.
MS. RADNER-And it’s always appropriate for you to ask for further information for you to
identify areas of concern, and either to request it, for example, from Marilyn before making a
decision or as part of your recommendation to the Town Board say, we identify X as an issue,
and recommend that you look into it further.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think on my behalf, the first one, with this underground thing, I said it,
it seems to me kind of ridiculous to give you a recommendation when we don’t even know
who’s going to pay for it or the cost. That was in the record, but on this one here, before I
would even begin to render an opinion, I would want to know who are the affected businesses
and applicants that are looking to be grandfathered.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I would say here is that I would like the next time this Board meets,
whoever Chairs or whatever, but we’ll take a look at this zone change P-2004 and have an
opportunity to review Marilyn Ryba’s March 10, 2005 letter and come back with either we need
more data we understand what this is and we recommend or we don’t recommend it, but not
at, not trying to digest this in a short period of time. We don’t get enough time to do that. I
don’t want to make a recommendation for approval with, I’m kind of going along with what
Dick says here. I’m comfortable about saying yes, but I don’t know enough about the subject.
I’d just as soon say I don’t recommend it.
MR. SANFORD-The other thing is, Bob, you know, if it’s the grandfathering piece, if it’s going
to cost these people $100, I would say, hey, we’re not going to allow you to be grandfathered.
We want you to pay the $100 and have the lines put underground. If it’s going to cost them
$50,000, I may be more inclined to say, whoa, I’m more inclined to grandfather them. So I need
to have cost data on what Niagara Mohawk’s going to do, in terms of charging the customer for
the service, and if you don’t know it, then it was irresponsible for you to move forward with the
project to begin with.
MS. RADNER-Well, again, what NiMo does may not be within our control or purview, but you
may be able to find, and Marilyn may have information she can provide you regarding what the
cost will be, you know, per pole or per foot.
MR. SEGULJIC-They can’t give you costs.
MR. SANFORD-How can you make a decision to do this if you don’t know if you’re crippling
your business base in the Town?
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you might say, well, let’s not move the utilities. Let’s design around
that issue so we don’t have to move the utilities.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they’re in a overlay zone where they may have to comply.
MR. SANFORD-No, but what I’m saying is, that, to me, is nothing short of irresponsible. You
cannot make a decision without having some understanding of what it might mean. I mean, if
102
(Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/05)
you’re looking to have commercial development along these corridors, and we are, and if
you’re all of a sudden prohibiting it by passing a law that’s saying you have to do something
that’s cost prohibitive, then what the heck were you thinking without doing due diligence?
MR. VOLLARO-But with all of that, I don’t even know, Dick, that what you just said is a fact, or
true, but I need to know that.
MR. SANFORD-That’s it, I need to know it. It could be very reasonable.
MR. VOLLARO-It could be very reasonable, but we’re being asked to act and recommend on
something we don’t understand.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you that it’s more expensive than standard overhead lines. That
much I do know.
MR. SANFORD-But I don’t know how much standard overhead lines are.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the way this is written, because I went through it briefly before I got here,
is that there’s some broad interpretations that can happen. There’s language in here like may be
repaired or replaced, which has no teeth in it.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t know. For now I guess we’re not interested, I mean, at least if I’m
speaking for the Board, we’ll defer on a recommendation for it now.
MR. VOLLARO-Until we’ve had a chance to explore at least this letter, understand a little bit
better the language of what it says, and, you know, I’m not inclined to give my
recommendation on things I don’t understand. It’s bad enough when we do understand it. So I
would just, as Chairman for tonight only, I would just make the statement that the Board felt
that they needed more information to make a considered recommendation, and that’s where I
would leave it, and with that, I will adjourn this meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman
103