09-25-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
INDEX
Site Plan No. 58-2012 Curtis & Tamara Carstensen 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-60
Site Plan No. 40-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 3.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7
Site Plan No. 55-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 4.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12
Site Plan No. 59-2012 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 4.
Freshwater Wetlands 4-2012 Tax Map No. 296.15-1-2
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Site Plan No. 53-2012 Kenneth White Heidi Taflan 8.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-5
Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 9.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2
FWW 1-2011
Site Plan No. 54-2012 NSB Hospitality 19.
Tax Map No. 288-1-56
Site Plan No. 56-2012 Thomas Valentine; John Celeste 20.
Tax Map No. 227.18-1-12
Site Plan No. 60-2012 James Valastro d/b/a Adirondack Bar& Grill 24.
Tax Map No. 279.-1-9
Special Use Permit No. 72-2012 Mike Barbone 28.
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.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
BRAD MAGOWAN
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday September 25, 2012. For members of the audience
there's copies of the agenda on the back table. For many of our items this evening there are
public hearings scheduled. There's also a handout back there for public hearing procedures. If
you plan to speak during one of the public hearings, I would ask that you read that and
familiarize yourself with the process. I will provide more direction when we open the first public
hearing later in the agenda. The first item on our agenda are Planning Board recommendations
to the ZBA. There's two of them. The first one is Site Plan 58-2012 for Curtis and Tamara
Carstensen.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA:
SITE PLAN NO. 58-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 18
HOLLY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE
WALK AND STAIRS AND REPLACE WITH NEW PATIO, STAIRS AND DRY LAID STONE
WALL RESULTING IN +/- 564 SQ. FT. OF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF SHORELINE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF
SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
SHORELINE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE A V 49-12 WARREN
CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.12-2-60 SECTION 179-9
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-As mentioned, it's Curtis & Tamara Carstensen. This is a recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. The
location is 18 Holly Lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type 11 SEAR.
Warren County Referral is a No County Impact. Engineering review is attached. Project
Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing concrete walk and stairs and replace with
new patio, stairs, and dry laid stone wall resulting in +/-564 sq. ft. of total impervious surface.
Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline
requires Planning Board review and approval. Nature of the Variance is as follows: Shoreline
Setback - Request for 38 feet of shoreline setback from the 50 requirement and Permeability -
Request for 564 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an overall impermeability of 2,327
square feet or total site permeability of 68%. What follows is Site Plan Review, and again we
are here for recommendation to the ZBA, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. Our clients, the Carstensens
on the east side of Assembly Point, Holly Lane, would like to put in a patio on the lakeside of
their cottage. They would remove an existing sidewalk and existing stairway and put in a new
stairway along with an associated patio. Even though the Town Engineer has concluded that
the project is exempt from stormwater under the Queensbury Code. We feel that stormwater is
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
a good idea because of the proximity to the lake, and we propose it underneath the patio, and
the system we propose would also handle the lakeside roof of the house as well as the sidewalk
that's existing on either side of the patio. The lawn area on either side would also be removed in
favor of native plantings. We think this is a benefit to the neighborhood and the lake and we
hope you agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Did you see the comments about the use of the permeable pavers to reduce the
total amount of?
MR. JARRETT-We have, and has become my habit, I'm disagreeing with Staff. Our calculations
show that we would still need a variance, a lesser variance, but still need a variance for
permeability, and we still need the setback variance. So frankly our clients would like to build
the patio with impermeable joints. If the Zoning Board tomorrow night, feels that we have to
have a permeable surface, I'm sure they would agree, but they'd prefer not to, and that's why we
put stormwater management underneath.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SIPP-How much of the green area here will be removed?
MR. JARRETT-Just a small, the edge of it toward the house would be removed for the new
patio, but most of that juniper stays intact. Probably 90% of it stays intact.
MR. SIPP-Ninety percent.
MR. JARRETT-That's a rough guess, but it's, the vast majority of it stays intact.
MR. FORD-What is the rational for the decision on permeable versus non-permeable?
MR. JARRETT-They want to put in flagstone pavers but they want to use a polymeric sand in
between rather than a permeable sand. They think it's more stable, and I'm not sure of the
rationale beyond that.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? Comments? Well, this is a recommendation to the Zoning
Board. If there are no further questions or comments, I would entertain a recommendation, if
there is one.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#49-2012 CARSTENSEN
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to
remove existing concrete walk and stairs and replace with new patio, stairs, and dry laid stone
wall resulting in +/-564 sq. ft. of total impervious surface. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet
of shoreline and hard surfacing within 50' of shoreline requires Planning Board review and
approval. Variance: Shoreline setback and permeability relief. The Planning Board shall make
a recommendation to the ZBA.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS AN AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2012 CURTIS & TAMARA
CARSTENSEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-If it please the Board, I said I would do this and I forgot. There were two
items on the agenda this evening that were tabled by the Zoning Board. I offered the applicant's
agent to hear those next.
TABLED ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; MICHAEL BIRD, ADIRONDACK DESIGN
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 1,076 SQ. FT. ONE BEDROOM
BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF HIP ROOF AND RECONFIGURATION OF
LIVING SPACE RESULTING IN A +/- 786 SQ. FT. STUDIO WITH +/- 290 SQ. FT. SUNDECK.
BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. _CROSS
REFERENCE AV 33-12, AV 9-08, SP 14-07, AV 59-96, SP 44-92 WARREN CO. REFERRAL
YES APA, CEA, OTHER APA, LGPC, LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-9
MR. OBORNE-This is for tabling?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. This project was tabled by the Zoning Board to October 17, 2012. Staff
has recommended that we table it to November. The only issue is the public hearing that was
left open. Is there anyone in the audience that's here to address the Board on that project?
Okay. We will leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-This is Bitner.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What date in November?
MR. OBORNE-The 15th would be recommended.
MR. HUNSINGER-November 15tH
MR. OBORNE-Please.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP #40-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes renovation to existing 1,076 sq. ft. one bedroom boathouse to include
installation of hip roof and reconfiguration of living space resulting in a +/- 786 sq. ft. studio with
+/- 290 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in the WR zone requires PB review and approval.
PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7/17/12; the ZBA tabled the variance to 10/14/2012,
A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/24/2012, the application was tabled to 9/25/2012;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER,
Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
To table it to the November 15th meeting.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 SEAR TYPE II THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK AGENT(S)
ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 15
CHESTNUT ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ.
FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NOW
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: SIDE SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, FAR RELIEF, AS WELL AS
EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE A V 45-2012, AV 73-90, SP 35-
88A, AV 1415; BP 91-379, 88-832 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN
LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION
179-9
MR. HUNSINGER-This was also tabled by the Zoning Board to their November 28th meeting.
So Staff has suggested that we table it until a December meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Either the 18th or the 20th
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 55-2012 THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes 168 sq. ft. addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non-
conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA tabled the variance to
11/28/2012;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK, Introduced
by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
To table it to the December 18th meeting.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-1 neglected to mention the public hearing, if there was anyone here to
address the Board on that project? And again, the public hearing will be left open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA:
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS,
LLC AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
O-OFFICE LOCATION GENTRY LANE EXTENSION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF 176 APARTMENT UNITS IN 29 BUILDINGS. MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN AN OFFICE ZONE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50
FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100' FEET OF A REGULATED
WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE:
SHORELINE SETBACK RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-12 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 28.1
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-2 SECTION 179-9; CHAPTER 194
TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Legacy Land Holdings is the applicant. Again, this is a Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. Location is Gentry Lane
Extension. Existing zoning is Office. SEAR Status Unlisted. Long Form has been submitted.
Warren County Referral is a Yes, there was a stipulation, at this point that's not anything to
really worry about. Engineering review is attached. The Project Description: Applicant
proposes construction of 176 apartment units in 29 buildings (7 8-plex's, 16 6-plex's and 6 4-
plex's). Multi-family construction in an Office zone and hard surfacing with 50 feet of a shoreline
requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100'
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
feet of a regulated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval, and the variances are
as follows: These are all, for the most part, shoreline relief for Buildings One, Two, Three, Four,
Five, and Seven and Ten, as well as the pump station. I did qualify and quantify the amount of
relief, and this is specific to shoreline setback relief to the wetlands, and with that I'd turn it over
to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. BORGOS-Sure. Michael Borgos, attorney for the applicant. I'm here with Tom Jarrett, the
project engineer, and Dan Valente, the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could tell us a little bit about your project.
MR. JARRETT-Sure. We have an overhead, I think, that might be helpful. Just before Mike
starts, I'll highlight the project area is right here, the left side of that diagram, left side of that
map.
MR. BORGOS-The Board will recall that we were here in early January of 2012, just as a sketch
plan type meeting, to get some of your feedback, and then we took that information and actually
with met with some of the neighbors in Baybridge in June, discussed it. We revised the project
slightly, reduced the density a little bit. We had some additional wetland delineation done during
that timeframe. What you see today here is a complete application, and we're here tonight
looking for a recommendation for tomorrow night's Zoning Board for those variances that have
just been listed. This is an application that hopefully you're familiar with. I won't belabor it too
much. We'll certainly accept any questions you have. I think Tom has a little bit of an overview
he can give you from an engineering standpoint.
MR. JARRETT-Keith, could you go to the third drawing in? Yes, that one. Thanks, Mike. We're
here tonight to talk about the variance requests, which are basically one variance in eight
locations on the site. Following our delineation of wetlands, and that's DEC and Corps of
Engineers wetlands, we modified the concept that we presented to you in January, as Mike said,
and basically move the buildings to avoid wetlands as much as we could. There are eight
locations where we could not, in all practicality do that. The existing wetlands, the DEC
wetlands are along the west side of this project, in the upper part of the drawing. The Corps of
Engineers wetlands are largely concentrated right here in that lower left corner of the project.
This area is all high ridge line, very high and dry and good soils. This area tends to start getting
lower down towards Baybridge. It's low and wetter. The variances that you see in front of you
are basically for the pump station, which is in that corner, and these buildings right in here and
then one of the buildings right in here. I think it's that building. We feel that there is no impact,
there will be no impact to the wetlands, but we've gone above and beyond what is normally
done, and we've provided or proposed a buffer, a 10 foot buffer, as well as a shallow berm to
protect the wetlands wherever our buildings are within 75 feet. So we feel we've provided a
good design from a surface water perspective, and we're, from a stormwater perspective we're
infiltrating water to match the pre-existing pre-condition runoff rates and volumes. So
essentially were going to be mimicking the hydrology that the wetlands have seen all along. So,
with that said, I guess we can entertain questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-To what extent was the project modified?
MR. JARRETT-Keith, if you go to the, I think it's under presentation, back to the directory,
actually go out one more level. You will see original concept, that first PDF file. Right there. If
you would open that up. This is the present, this is the site, the project that you saw in January.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We've reduced density, essentially spread out the design from this lower left
corner that you saw in January. Now the design spreads out through the entire site. It costs
more money and there's more impervious area, but it's protecting the wetlands more than the
original design. There is a reduction in density. There has been, I think, 10 units reduced. The
calculated allowable units went down and the proposed units went down. We're below the
allowed density now still, but both allowed and proposed went down as a result of the re-design.
MR. FORD-It went down by how many, please?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. JARRETT-Originally the calculated was 196 and we proposed 188, and now we're allowed
186 and we went down to 176. So we're 10 below the density, 10 below allowed. Now under
the, actually we can pass these out. We have some photos of the wetlands that we're talking
about here. These are not classic wetlands. They are not bogs or marshes. These are shallow
groundwater areas during a portion of the year, essentially the Spring, sometimes in the Fall, but
they're shallow groundwater areas. They're vegetated as brush land right now, and these
photos will help illustrate that, as well as your packets I think have pictures in them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments?
MR. JARRETT-The terrain looks like a lot of other areas in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know it's not really part of the discussion this evening, but have you
received and reviewed the engineering comments?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we have. Actually I was quite pleased. They're largely perfunctory.
There's some detail we need to provide regarding construction scheduling, how we design some
of the infiltration systems near the roadways and buildings, but largely it's minor detail that we
need to address, in our opinion.
MR. KREBS-And of course we'll address those when you come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We've actually started to address them already.
MR. BORGOS-I don't know if this is an appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to, before
we leave tonight, as the Board for any other input outside of the scope of this, so before we
come back we could be prepared to address it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's partly why I asked about the engineering comments. Yes. Were
there any site review projects that the Board wants to, questions that the Board wants to put on
the record for the applicant? You've provided us with building elevations. Is this a fair picture of
the colors?
MR. JAR RETT-Representation?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Dan, do you want to address that? There is a photo in that, if you go to the
variance directory. You can find it there.
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-I can't say that those are the exact colors that we would be using throughout the
subdivision, but I can tell you there'll be all, the majority will be all neutral colors. I haven't
decided whether I want to do them all one or try to mix it up a little bit with a little variation, you
know, so it's no so mundane, but definitely all very neutral, soft colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Earth tones.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, feedback from the Board?
MR. SIPP-You moved more housing over to the right hand side which would be the east side.
MR. JARRETT-East and north, correct.
MR. SIPP-It's a dead end in there, is it not?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. All the access would be off Bay Road.
MR. SIPP-All the access would be off Bay.
MR. FORD-Was consideration given to the project being designed so that it would not have any
impact on the wetlands at all?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. JARRETT-Yes, actually we paid quite a bit of attention to that matter, and Dan did his best
to structure the project to avoid wetlands and so did we, and he's gotten it down to where he
feels he's.
MR. VALENTE-Part of the reason why I'm asking for this variance is I feel, I think, it's very
important that that road makes a continual loop. From the inception of Baybridge, back in the
80's, that road has always been intended to make a connection back to where it is, and mostly
the way we have re-designed it, we've had to adjust the road based on the wetlands, but for the
most part it's always been a connection. I think it's very important for egress, obviously, that we
have two entrances, exits. So part of this is to maintain that road to go all the way through.
Obviously we have applied for an Army Corps permit to cross a narrow part of the wetland there
to be able to do that. If I don't do that, then you would end up with a dead end loop, more or
less, out in the field there. So part of this relates to that egress and being able to connect the
roads from Point A to Point B.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you can come in from Bay Road and go either way.
MR. VALENTE-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-With 176 units you almost need to do that, for emergency access.
MR. JARRETT-If they had not done it, this Board would have asked us to provide some kind of
second connection.
MR. VALENTE-I would think. Yes, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know us well. Other questions, comments? If there aren't any, I would
entertain a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#43-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of 176 apartment units in 29 buildings. Multi-family construction in an Office zone
and hard surfacing with 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval.
Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100' feet of a regulated wetland requires Planning
Board review and approval. Variance: Shoreline setback relief. The Planning Board shall make
a recommendation to the ZBA;
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS AN AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2012
SITE PLAN 59-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thanks very much. We'll see you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR. VALENTE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience that were here for that project, there will be a
public hearing when we do the full Site Plan Review. There is not a public hearing for a
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
recommendation to the Zoning Board. There will be a public hearing tomorrow night at the
Zoning Board meeting, though, as well. Okay. Thank you for coming.
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN NO. 53-2012 SEAR TYPE II KENNETH WHITE HEIDI TAFLAN OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 50 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A LIKE-KIND REPLACEMENT OF A 546 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A 510 SQ. FT.
SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2012-336 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA,
CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-5 SECTION 179-5-
060
JOHN TAFLAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-This is a boathouse in a WR zone which requires Planning Board review and
approval. 50 Russell Harris Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a
Type II SEAR. Warren County Referral was a No County Impact. Applicant proposes a like
kind replacement of a 546 square foot dock with a 510 square foot sundeck. Boathouse in a
WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. This is expedited as it does not need
any Area Variances. It does not have any cooking or sleeping arrangements or anything along
those lines, and as such it is eligible for expedited review. There is some clarification to some of
the square footage that I'll need. I don't think it's anything that's unobtainable, and with that I'd
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. TAFLAN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. TAFLAN-I'm John Taflan. I'm the spouse of Heidi Taflan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything that you wanted to inform the Board on your project?
MR. TAFLAN-Thank you. The project is a replacement of an existing dock structure, and there
are very few changes, with the exception that we decided to put a deck on top instead of an
existing roof, a corrugated metal roof. The difference in the square footage was initially we
planned to just put the, make the width of the deck about 11 to 12 feet to just cover the structure,
cover the space where the boat would be, but our neighbor to the south built a dock and we
were doing a mirror image of that dock and we decided to cover one of the docks so that you
could walk out of there. So we increased the width, and that increased it from the calculation of
345 to 510, and I think that's the only difference.
MR. OBORNE-Just clean it up on the application when it comes in for final.
MR. TAFLAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That's not a big deal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board.
MR. KREBS-Is this dock already under construction?
MR. TAFLAN-No, it is not.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It's right next to one that is.
MR. KREBS-That is.
MR. TAFLAN-The one on the south side.
MR. KREBS-I was just wondering.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have a permit from the Park Commission for this?
MR. TAFLAN-We do.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no questions or comments, we do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEAR. So, with that, unless there's questions or comments
from the Board, I'll entertain a motion for approval.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #53-2012 KENNETH WHITE HEIDI TAFLAN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a like-kind replacement of a 546 sq. ft. dock with a 510 sq. ft. sundeck.
Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2012 KENNETH WHITE, HEIDI TAFLAN,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans
4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. TAFLAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FWW 1-2011 SEAR TYPE TYPE I
VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE
MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT IND. LOCATION QUAKER RD./QUEENSBURYAVE.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO
FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.50 ACRES TO 30.10 ACRES
WITH 10.36 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF
QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF
LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER
WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS [BIG
CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39& 84 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MARY BETH SLEVIN & GEORGE TURNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Obviously we received that letter today that's before you. Hopefully the
Board has had time to digest it a little bit. I'm sure the applicant will run through a presentation
and give you a little bit more guidance on what transpired recently with the Warren County
offices. So there's really not much more that I could add. So I'm just going to turn it over to you
guys.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the
record.
MS. SLEVIN-Good evening. Mary Beth Slevin, counsel for the applicant, and George Turner is
here with MJ Engineering and of course Mr. Macri with VMJR Companies. We did submit a
letter to the Board today. I apologize for the late notice of it, but we thought it would help to
understand where things stood and to provide that before the meeting. Essentially we were
here in August requesting that the Board take a look at the scope of improvements that would be
needed for access for the property for a secondary means of access. We understood from the
Board's direction that a full access would be required in order for the application to proceed. Mr.
Macri did meet with the County executive and members of the County Planning Department on
September 14th, and as a result of that meeting, we understand that the County is prepared to
cooperate with the applicant to assist in the development of a full two lane access road along the
lines of the existing County road that was developed that we discussed last time, which is
providing access to the emergency training center. We must say for the record that we still have
the reservations that we expressed when we were here in August, but nonetheless, in order for
the application to proceed, we understand that the only way for that to happen at this point at
least is to report to the Board that we are prepared to move forward with the application,
including a full two lane access road. Plans for that work will be submitted. They're underway
right now, and they will be submitted hopefully in time for the Board's November meeting in
order to move forward, if we're able to give you a complete submission, completion of the
review.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's great. It's great news. Thank you. You don't have to apologize. We
gave you up `tit the meeting to provide the information. So, thank you.
MR. FORD-A welcome letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Was there anything else that you wanted to add?
MS. SLEVIN-That was it, unless, Mr. Macri?
VIC MACRI
MR. MACRI-No, I think when we left the meeting we wanted to come back quickly. We know we
have some deadlines that we're trying to achieve and hopefully we can move things forward
now.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you say the second phase of the project, Wal-Mart was the first
phase?
MS. SLEVIN-No. It's the same two phases that we discussed with the Board when we received
approval for the waiver back in January.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you say it's a secondary road. Does that mean it doesn't go all the way
through and connect to the road at Wal-Mart?
MS. SLEVIN-No, it will connect, ultimately, to Wal-Mart through the internal road system for the
project.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I meant.
MS. SLEVIN-Yes.
MR. MACRI-It won't be a convenient route that'll be available.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What do you mean?
MR. MACRI-It'll loop around in order to get to it. It's not going to be a direct route because the
direct route that you had requested, the Highway Department frowned upon us making that
crossover road, so it has to loop around to go back out.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, but in comes in from Quaker Road?
MR. MACRI-It comes in from Quaker Road, right.
MR. FORD-And connects to Queensbury Avenue.
MR. MACRI-It's the same plan. It's just that that one connector road the Highway Department
asked us to remove it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't want it to be a speedway I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. FORD-Remind us of the potential sequence for Phase I and Phase II.
MR. TURNER-The sequence for Phase I would be to bring in the boulevard, extend that to over
the NiMo right of way. From there you would have a two way road that would go up to a four
way intersection, and then from that intersection you wouldn't have that continuous loop to the
second phase. It would just spur off and you would end up taking an immediate right to loop
back out to the other parcel to provide access for that. That would be Phase I. From the
previous plans we had one continuous road that looped around and didn't make it to an
intersection, but this plan was basically just to stub that four way intersection without the loop up
top for the remaining lots. Phase I I would be to bring in the loop and connect out to Queensbury
Ave.
MR. FORD-And the time sequence for Phase I and Phase II?
MR. TURNER-The time sequence?
MS. SLEVIN-It's really tenant driven.
MR. MACRI-It's all going to be driven based on economics.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the way you've presented it, you could build Phase I and never build
Phase II?
MR. MACRI-It's feasible.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there never would be a road going through.
MR. MACRI-It's feasible.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is right back where we were.
MS. SLEVIN-Well, the waiver that was approved by the Board had limitations on it, and we still
understand that those limitations are still binding on the project.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MS. SLEVIN-So we still rely upon that waiver.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So if you're doing Phase I, the road should at least go all the way through.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MS. SLEVIN-I believe that there were conditions that the Board already adopted with respect to
the connection to Queensbury Avenue, in conjunction with the waiver, and we understand that
that's still part of the project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board. We also have a public hearing
scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-We'll leave the public hearing open. Is there a preference to which
November meeting, Keith, 15th or 27 th?.
MR. OBORNE-I think the 15th is fine. I think the applicant would prefer that one. Does the 15th
work for you, as opposed to a later meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that preferable?
MR. MACRI-I'd defer to George.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I think that would be fine. I think we've expressed before that, you know,
we're willing to cooperate with the Board and put this new plan in action. We still have to do the
infiltration for that stormwater, for that portion of the road, and if the Board would entertain that
we not follow through with the actual infiltration testing and provide updated plans, you know,
showing the full build out and we could follow up with that infiltration at a later date, just to meet
the deadline.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's just the infiltration on the road?
MR. TURNER-Yes, and do the stormwater testing for just that portion of that road. That is the
only thing that would hold us up, other than providing (lost words).
MR. TRAVER-Would that pose a problem for SEAR? I mean, that's a question of segmentation,
then, I think.
MR. TURNER-We've done several, I mean, more than several, probably around 40 infiltration
tests on the site itself. The County itself probably had to conduct tests to put in their road as
well. I'm just wondering if that information's available and we could piggyback what their results
were for that road to bring at least a clearer direction to the Board on whether or not those soils
are adequate to support what we're planning.
MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this is another opportunity to have the applicant consult
with the engineer before bringing in the proposal? I know we've done that with some projects to
try to eliminate, because that's really the question that some testing has been done. Whether or
not it's going to meet the engineering requirements is really not one that we can answer, but to
facilitate them moving forward, maybe we could suggest that they go ahead and meet
aggressively with the engineer to work that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that's a good, I mean, if it's agreeable to you. We always give
the applicant the choice. We're not going to force you to go that route.
MS. SLEVIN-That certainly makes sense. When the County put their road in, they did comply
with NEPA, since it was a Federally funded project. So there has been an environmental
review, even if, not necessarily on the same scope that SEAR would be, but that was
completed, and they did confirm that they would provide us with the information that they had
already developed in conjunction with that road. So I know that MJ's been trying to get that
information for some time now, and hopefully we can move that forward, and it probably would
be useful to meet with Chazen before the meeting.
MR. TRAVER-It could certainly save some time because, you know, we're not going to be able
to respond to engineering requirements.
MS. SLEVIN-And we can understand what their parameters are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and just to explain the concept, basically what we're suggesting is that
you meet with the engineer, and when you work out all of the engineering questions, then you
come back for the Preliminary subdivision approval, but not before those engineering questions
are addressed because that way, let's just say hypothetically you come back in November and
there's a bunch of engineering questions. Well then we're going to table you for two more
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
months. This way, you know, you deal with the engineering. You come here, you know, we'd
probably only be here for one meeting before the Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-It saves time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's an option to save you time is really what it's for.
MR. KREBS-And the procedure is that we don't get the engineering comments until the Friday
before the Tuesday meeting.
MS. SLEVIN-We understand that. We get them the same time you do.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that means we may not see your project until December. That's the only
thing.
MS. SLEVIN-If it's a more efficient review, then I think that that's certainly in everyone's interest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we think it is, but, you know, we tend to be biased.
MS. SLEVIN-We're all for saving everyone's time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of a tabling motion, how would we?
MR. OBORNE-You would direct the applicant to basically follow the procedure that you just laid
out, which basically is have engineering flat, follow proper guidelines and protocols for dates for
submission. Any changes to the plan will have to go through my office so I could forward it.
That's just the typical protocol.
MS. SLEVIN-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-So get the engineering flat, get you on an agenda, and hopefully we can
commence SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-And in terms of the process to get on an agenda, we set the agenda the last
Thursday of the month. So, you know, assuming, you know, you would have the engineering
approval prior to the last Thursday of the month, that's how you would then get on the Board, on
the agenda for the following month.
MS. S LEVI N-Understood.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's no longer the 15th. So it gives you a couple of more weeks also, which
I think is to your advantage.
MS. SLEVIN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-But just to keep in mind.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I respectfully disagree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry.
MR. OBORNE-Only because the 15th is the deadline.
MS. SLEVIN-For submission.
MR. HUNSINGER-For submission.
MR. OBORNE-Now the final agenda meeting is the last Thursday of the month, or the fourth
Thursday, whichever it lands on, and we're building the agenda from the deadline date up to that
date, okay. So we have to have those applications in on the 15th
MR. MACRI-Well, we could submit the applications but still be working with the engineer to
resolve some of the comments by the agenda?
MR. OBORNE-Well, what they're directing you, just to make sure we're on the same page, is to
have all the engineering comments taken care of, so we could go forward with SEAR. All right.
So, again, it's the proper protocols and the like. I highly recommend that you discuss all these
engineering problems with Sean, obviously.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the final signoff from the engineer, just so I understand,
because we haven't done this in.
MR. OBORNE-Once maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Six, eight months.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-When is the deadline for them to get the final signoff from the engineer so
that they can then get on the agenda? That's really the date that I was trying to find out?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it would just follow proper protocols, because you're directing them to work
through the engineering problem. So it's a nebulous state.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Once they could get finished, let's say it's on the 30th, they have to submit by the
15th or if they get it finished on the 14th, by the 15th.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So it's just typically follow the same submission guidelines.
MR. MACRI-But prior, we would submit by the 15th, we get the engineering comments two days
prior to the meeting and have to respond to them by the meeting.
MR. OBORNE-You're not going to submit until engineering is.
MR. KREBS-What I'm suggesting is prior to that, that you and your engineers get together with
Town Engineers, resolve all those problems.
MR. MACRI-Right, but what I'm saying is.
MR. KREBS-So hopefully we won't get any conflicting.
MR. MACRI-We don't want to force ourselves on the agenda if we're not going to be ready, but if
the agenda is not going to be set until later than the 15th, and we're still working with the
engineer, we could withdraw at that point. So, is that acceptable?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. MACRI-It's not? Okay. I don't understand.
MR. TRAVER-There might be a situation where you submit plans by say the 15th, and
sometimes there are, and you can look at the comments that you received recently, there are
engineering questions that are relating to calculations or technical details that don't change the
underlying plan of what's submitted to the Town. In that case, there might be some flexibility.
MR. OBORNE-If you so direct, that's fine. At this point, the direction is to have engineering flat
before you submit and get on an agenda. To me, that's black and white.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So before the 15th, they need to have all the engineering, the plans
submitted that satisfy the engineer would be the goal.
MR. TURNER-Is that from the previous submission? What if we have new comments based on
what's generated from their review?
MR. OBORNE-You shouldn't be submitting anything to me for an agenda item unless the
engineering's done.
MR. MACRI-Our engineering would be done.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. MACRI-But the problem is we still have issues to work out with the engineer. Okay. What
we were talking about was meeting with them directly.
MR. OBORNE-The Board is directing you to work through all those issues before you submit.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. MACRI-Right.
MS. SLEVIN-And my question is, we certainly met with the Town Engineers in the past, and the
process has been they then, they discuss issues at the meeting, but then we still get comment
letters afterwards. So we need some support, I guess, from Staff, to give direction to the
engineers to say that the purpose of the meeting is to is to really work to the end of comments,
not to have an opportunity to discuss and then generate another letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's the whole purpose, you avoid that bounce back.
MS. SLEVIN-So we need some assistance in getting to that point.
MR. TRAVER-And we have used this methodology with other applicants in the past. There are,
from time to time, projects that have a significant amount of engineering involved, and in order to
avoid having to table applications, you know, time and again because there are outstanding
engineering comments, with projects like this one we often have suggested that you follow this
procedure because although, for example in this case, you may not have all of these things
worked out by the 15th, but you're still going to be way ahead of the game than submitting
something by the 15th and then get tabled. So regardless of how long it takes, this is going to be
a faster process for you if you just work with the engineer, and other applicants have gone
through this process with the engineer and it's worked quite well, actually.
MS. SLEVIN-And it makes perfect sense. Again, the only thing that we're asking is that perhaps
direction could be given to the engineers to help them understand that the end goal is to
complete the process so that we don't generate, don't have a meeting and then generate a list of
comments afterwards, because we're just in the same circle then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's exactly what this is designed to avoid.
MR. FORD-We're on the same page.
MS. SLEVIN-That would be wonderful.
MR. OBORNE-And what I would do is I would forward this resolution to him, and I talked to
Sean, because he has not been a part of this type of process I don't think.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 think he did one, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-He may have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-But it's not rocket science.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, to be quite honest, I mean, your project is engineering heavy, design
light. I mean, there's not going to be much change to the design.
MS. SLEVIN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's all engineering issues.
MS. SLEVIN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't need a lot of input and feedback from this Board. The work is
with the Town Engineer.
MS. S LEVI N-Understood. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make that motion?
MR. FORD-Could I ask one more question? How will this process impact your previous request
for not doing drillings and samples?
MR. TURNER-Well, if we're able to work with the Town Engineer and utilize some of the
information that was generated by the County's study, that we could possibly work through
these that way. I mean, we've already done testing (lost word) our road has overlaid theirs
almost exactly. There would be a small portion in front of our property from there to the end of
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
their road before it turns to the parking lot out back. That would be in question. We could get
that done quickly.
MR. FORD-I guess that was my point, not to delay that, if the engineering discussion does not
give a green light to that, then those, that testing would be done right off this Fall, get it done.
MR. MACRI-In the undeveloped portion. We've really got a (lost words), and there's new New
York State stormwater regulations that require us to do this ridiculous amount of testing for stuff
that really doesn't really have to be done until after, you know, the approval process. The
State's working through it and these guys are constantly dealing with it. It's a whole new set of
regulations. It just adds a whole part that nobody ever had to deal with. So we're trying to do
the best we can, but we've gone out there, 60, 70 holes that we've dug so far, because every
time we make a little move to the road, we have to go out there and dig more holes, do more
infiltration. It's ridiculous. Just because we moved it slightly, and the soils have proved that
they'll take the water, but the way the reg reads, if you move it, you have to go and re-test it. I
mean, it shouldn't take a leap of faith that somebody should say, okay, it works, let's just go
ahead, and then you can't really do anything or build the roads until you finalize the test pit,
okay, but that's not the way the reg reads, and that's not what Chazen will allow us to do. It had
been a struggle getting all the stormwater stuff done. So every time you see comments on the
stormwater, we've gone out there and dug (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-And these are the new State requirements?
MR. MACRI-Yes, and they've got us digging holes in areas of swamp land that we would never
get into. I mean, there are thickets out there, we're fighting just to get the holes dug. That's
crazy, before you could do five or six infiltration tests and you were fine, one large stormwater
containment area, and you'd be done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,
MR. OBORNE-If I could ask the Board, what do they feel about the plan, the location of that
road? Are there any issues with that? Are you okay with that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got to see it on a plan. When we see it on a plan, then we can tell.
MR. OBORNE-You won't see it on a plan until they get the engineering.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-My concern is they build Phase I and never build Phase II so you'll never
have a continuous road. So therefore you're not helping, there's no emergency access.
MR. TURNER-Is there something the Board could adopt to figure that out? There's got to be
something.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we'll see it when we see your plan.
MS. SLEVIN-It's already part of the waiver.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-So you're okay with the proposed location of it?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When I see the plan, I'll tell you.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you did see a facsimile last time.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're changing it slightly, because I want to see how it's going to
connect up and go all the way out. A one way road doesn't buy you much. We've already got
that now.
MR. TURNER-The location is going to be the same location as the County road. They're plans
have been submitted.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The County has a driveway coming in to the smoke training area. That's
all they've got there.
MR. MACRI-Yes, and then there's about a 40 foot difference between where our road ends and
their road begins.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but where does Phase I start and where does Phase 11 start?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. MACRI-Phase II is when they complete the loop, you can access that road. Otherwise,
you're.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does Phase II include access from the road now that comes in there?
MS. SLEVIN-No, the Phase I roadwork includes the area where the access road would connect.
Phase I I has nothing to do with location of the access road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Phase 11 is the access road?
MS. SLEVIN-No. Phase II is the development of the remainder of the internal road on the site,
and all the roads that are associated with it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So after Phase I do you have two methods of ingress and egress?
MS. SLEVIN-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought.
MS. SLEVIN-But the location of the access road will be established within the development of
Phase 1.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and you'll never have it unless Phase 11 is built.
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MS. SLEVIN-Right. Again, in accord with the waiver approval that was approved in January.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? Did we do the public
hearing?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. FORD-I would just like to get the rationale for not following the design and building the road
during Phase 1.
MS. SLEVIN-I'm not sure I understand the question.
MR. FORD-The road that's been in question for this last year.
MS. SLEVIN-If you'll recall, all we are asking for is a Preliminary approval for subdivision, and
that's the context that we discussed Phase I in. Depending upon what happens with that
Preliminary approval, and potential tenant interest, that will drive what happens with the rest of
this project for not only Phase 11, but a final approval even for Phase 1. So, the actual timing of
the connector road will be driven by the tenants. This Board has already addressed timing with
respect to the access road and its approval for the waiver back in January, and so we
understand, again, that that is part of the approvals for the project. So we are just looking for an
approval for a Preliminary subdivision for Phase I of the project, so that VMJR can begin to try to
market the project and to take advantage of the grant that it obtained almost a couple of years
ago now. That's been our goal all along. We've been pretty clear with the Board that that was
the direction that we were trying to move in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-I had a question for Mr. Oborne. I recall seeing, in some of the material on this
project at one point, that the Zoning Administrator with the latest submission had expressed an
opinion that possibly our early resolution on the waiver was no longer valid?
MR. OBORNE-That was predicated upon not having the road out.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we're okay.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. OBORNE-And they're stating the road is going through.
MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you for that clarification.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-And I think we have to understand that this is a Preliminary approval, that until Vic
has a person who wants to rent or buy the building, we don't know what the final design of that
building is going to be. It could be 55,000 instead of 50. It could be 40,000.
MR. MACRI-Nobody knows what the final design of the site will be.
MR. KREBS-Right. Exactly.
MR. MACRI-We presented this to you from Day One, it was let's grab all the impact. Let's get
the SEAR done. Let's get the site shovel ready so that we can bring new business into the
Town of Queensbury. That's always been the intent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. It's lines on the paper.
MS. SLEVIN-Yes, that's right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move the tabling motion?
RESOLUTION TABLING PRELIM. SUB # 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR
COMPANIES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
Tabled pending agreement with the Town Engineer (tabled to obtain TIDE sign-off prior to
placement on an agenda).
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-Move to table this until November 15tH
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we're tabling it pending engineering.
MR. KREBS-Table it pending agreement with engineers.
MR. HUNSINGER-With the Town Engineer.
MR. KREBS-With the Town Engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that clear enough, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there's no date?
MR. HUNSINGER-There's no date.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, when they get their engineering, then they'll come back to us and we'll
move.
MR. MACRI-We'll strive for November 15th submittal.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MS. SLEVIN-Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, you're welcome.
OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2012 SEAR TYPE II NSB HOSPITALITY AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES
OWNER(S) AFTAB BHATTI-QUALITY INN ZONING Cl LOCATION 1449 ST. RTE. 9-
RODEWAY INN SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 942 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO
EXISTING OFFICE/LOBBY TO INCLUDE A 164 +/- SQ. FT. HANDICAPPED RAMP AND 80 +/-
SQ. FT. CANOPY. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES 2,062 +/- SQ. FT. OF DECKS AND
LANDINGS TO EXISTING MOTEL BUILDING. EXPANSION OF A MOTEL IN THE Cl ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 48-12, SP 33-11, AV 24-11
WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288-1-56 SECTION 179-
9
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is the old Rodeway Inn. This is now site plan review. They did receive
their zoning approvals last week. You've seen this application a couple of times before. I
believe you're pretty familiar with it. They have one engineering item unaccounted for at this
point. They do have documentation on that one issue that will forwarded to the engineer. I
anticipate that taking care of his issues, but for the record, this is a, applicant proposes a 942
plus or minus square foot expansion to existing office lobby to include a 164 square foot
handicap ramp, and 80 square foot canopy. Further applicant proposes 2,062 square feet of
decks and landings to existing motel building. Expansion of a motel in a CI zone requires
Planning Board review and approval, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUGHES-Good evening. I'm Gary Hughes. I'm the agent for Sammy Bhatti, the owner of
NSB Hospitality, and we're here to answer any questions or clarify anything, any questions you
might have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. I think
everyone's very familiar with the project
MR. KREBS-Yes, we've been through this before. We've looked at the site before, and we've.
MR. TRAVER-We approved it.
MR. KREBS-Yes, we approved it before.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, you're looking.
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a Type II SEAR. So no SEAR review is required. If there's no
comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion.
MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Now we'll entertain a
motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #54-2012 NSB HOSPITALITY
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 942 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 +/- sq. ft.
handicapped ramp and 80 +/- sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 +/- sq. ft. of
decks and landings to existing motel building. Expansion of a Motel in the CI zone requires
Planning Board review and approval.
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance
requests on 9/19/2012;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2012 NSB HOSPITALITY, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping;
4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
8) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
10)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
11)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-1 hope you build it this time.
MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 56-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 THOMAS VALENTINE; JOHN CELESTE AGENT(S)
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 83C PILOT KNOB ROAD SITE PLAN:
APPLICANT HAS RENOVATED AND VERTICALLY EXPANDED A +/- 852 SQ. FT. EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A
CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: EXPANSION
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. THE PLANNING
BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 44-
12, BP 12-279, BP 93-170 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA,
APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-12 SECTION 179-9
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & BOB MANZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is Site Plan Review. 83C Pilot Knob Road. Waterfront Residential is
the zoning. This, again, is a Type 11 SEAR. Warren County Referral was accomplished. We did
not send this to the engineer. So there's no issues there. Project Description: Applicant has
renovated and vertically expanded a 852 sq. ft. existing residential structure. Expansion of a
non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff
Comments: There is no change to the footprint of the structure and as such the setback relief is
tied to the new roof configuration. The applicant has requested waivers from Stormwater,
Lighting, Grading, Topography and Landscaping. Site Plan Review reveals a no immediate
issue comment. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael
O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants. With me is Bob
Manz who is the engineer for the project. I think as Staff has indicated, the proposal here is to
approve the remodeling of an 852 square foot single story, two bedroom cabin with a kitchen,
bathroom, living room and dining room. The renovations do not change those facts. It still will
be an 852 square foot single story two bedroom cabin with a kitchen, bathroom, living room and
dining room. The only site disturbance will be removal of a small portion of a patio that's next to
this cabin and the disturbance of land for the construction of a new septic system that will serve
three of the structures that are on the property. We have requested a waiver from stormwater
plan, lighting, grading plan, contour, topographic mapping and the landscape plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. OBORNE-If I neglected, I apologize. They did receive Area Variance approval last week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. I'm never a fan of approvals after the fact, but quite frankly I
really don't have any issues with this. I think it's one of those weird items in the zoning code that
triggered you to be here. Is that putting it politely?
MR. OBORNE-1 think that's nice enough. I'm sure Mr. O'Connor has something to say.
MR. O'CONNOR-What triggered me being here was my retention. What triggered the applicant,
I'm not sure. That's something that's got to be changed, but I don't want to go off on my lectures
again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we need to give you the opportunity to do that, but not this
evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 have had on my tickler list literally for months to talk to Staff and the Board
about taking a look at the zoning code and land use plan, and, you know, there's a bunch of little
issues that I think we could clean up that would make life easier for everybody.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there are an awful lot of unintended consequences of language that
was used.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Modifications, internal modifications, raising a roof but not going above the
permitted height. You shouldn't have to have 14 copies, 15 copies here, 15 copies there, and
pay attorneys and engineers to sit here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. I agree. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-No.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that
wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments, Keith?
MR. KREBS-Mike, I was thinking, we'd be glad to have you come and help us do that as long as
there's no retainer fee.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have volunteered to re-write the application so that you have one application
where you have site plan and variance and you don't need to have 30 copies of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's an interesting concept. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, you have an application for a variance. You have an application for
site plan. Why not recognize the fact that a good number of variances require automatically site
plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it's a duplication of material, and it gets very confusing.
MR. OBORNE-This is a Town Board issue, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-Applications?
MR. OBORNE-No, applications would not be, but a change in the zoning code.
MR. HUNSINGER-A change in the code is, but just changing applications, I think that's
something we could probably work on. That's procedure, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's procedure and it's forms.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that's a great idea. Any other questions, comments from the
Board?
MR. OBORNE-I do have public comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Keith. Go ahead.
MR. OBORNE-That's okay. "Dear Mr. Krebs: We are writing you in regards to the above site
plan for 83C Pilot Knob Road. This site plan is set to be reviewed by the town planning board
on 9/25/2012. We wanted to make sure that we supplied our comments to the planning board
before or at this meeting. As we are the owners of 85 Pilot Knob Road, Tax ID 227.18-1-13, and
have been for many years. We have no issues with this request from our neighbors. Our
property use a shared driveway to access our home and we have to pass by the subject
property to get to Pilot Knob Road and our home. So we would have to view the subject
property on a regular basis. Thank you for your time and please advise the planning board of
our thoughts. Sincerely, Andrew Corona Susan Corona" And that's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEAR. So I will entertain a motion for approval.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #56-2012 THOMAS VALENTINE; JOHN CELESTE
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant has renovated and vertically expanded a +/- 852 sq. ft. existing residential structure.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and
approval.
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variances on
9/19/2012;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2012 THOMAS VALENTINE; JOHN CELESTE,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans, and
topography;
4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
7) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. KREBS-And we just want to point out again that engineering signoff is required prior to
issuance.
MR. OBORNE-No, it's not. It's not. It wasn't sent to the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Okay. I remove that.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Krebs, what were the waivers you granted?
MR. HUNSINGER-The ones requested.
MR. KREBS-We granted waivers, I did it in a little different direction, but we did stormwater,
grading, landscaping, lighting plans and topography.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
SITE PLAN NO. 60-2012 SEAR TYPE II JAMES VALASTRO D/B/A ADIRONDACK BAR &
GRILL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LOCATION 982 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENLARGE A 567 SQ. FT.
EXISTING DECK BY 1,002 SQ. FT. RESULTING IN AN OVERALL OUTDOOR SEATING
DECK OF 1,569 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN AN NC ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 03-971, 02-048
WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 2.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-9 SECTION
179-9
JAMES VALASTRO, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review. This is 982 State Route 149. This is in the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning. This is a Type II SEAR. Project Description: Applicant proposes to
enlarge a 567 sq. ft. existing deck by 1,002 sq. ft. resulting in an overall outdoor seating deck of
1,569 sq. ft. Commercial expansion in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and
approval. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater, grading, lighting landscaping
and E&S requirements. Site Plan Review reveals the parking is adequate with the expansion 43
spaces would be required, and 45 currently exist. So that's a good thing, and the 16 proposed
additional spaces will need to be accessed by a 20 foot drive aisle or eliminated as they are not
required, and that's totally up to what you want to do. Any proposed lighting should be downcast
and cut off as per Code. There may be one question of clarification would be live music outside,
but short of that, I have really no issues whatsoever. So I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. VALASTRO-James Valastro, Adirondack Bar& Grill. Like he said, I just want to expand my
deck for more seating. So far that's about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Can we ask that question, will there be any live music outside?
MR. VALASTRO-Eventually I probably would have a guitar player or something.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments?
MR. TRAVER-So the, if you eventually have a guitar player, that music probably wouldn't be
amplified then? That's the concern, would be noise.
MR. VALASTRO-Some of them are. We could keep the noise down. There's only like one
house there. One neighbor, but.
MR. MAGOWAN-Who's probably sitting listening, too.
MR. VALASTRO-Yes. Exactly.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You couldn't overcome the traffic noise there if you wanted to.
MR. VALASTRO-Well, that's it. 149 is, especially in the summertime, is a little noisy anyway.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a raceway.
MR. VALASTRO-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I think it would be nice, especially with a lot of the fundraisers you've been
having lately up there.
MR. VALASTRO-Well, that's just it. I have fundraisers. I have bands out there, and I haven't
gotten a complaint from anybody. No one, and like I said, my one neighbor usually comes over
and joins or sits in his backyard and listens to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any plans to put new lighting in?
MR. VALASTRO-I'm going to light the deck, yes. I'm going to put the deck lighting and I have
spotlights out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can we talk about the spotlights a little bit? There is a lighting code in
the Town that limits lighting to, you know, what we consider downcast lights. Certainly I think
your deck lighting would be okay. What kind of deck lighting is it?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. VALASTRO-I really haven't picked out anything yet because I'm like, I wanted to get this
approved before I went and got lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, but would it be something typical you would like put on your house? It
wouldn't be, you know, commercial floodlights?
MR. VALASTRO-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like railing lighting?
MR. VALASTRO-Yes, railing lighting.
MR. MAGOWAN-Rope lighting around the railing.
MR. VALASTRO-Rope lighting under the railing or, you know, on the post, some little square
deck lighting. The step going up to the deck, which is only one step, I want to light up the steps
and stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. Okay. So is there existing floodlights there?
MR. VALASTRO-There's spotlights. The lights you put on garages there, the ones that go on at
night.
MR. MAGOWAN-Like the mercury vapors?
MR. VALASTRO-Yes. They've been on the building for 10 years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, they're not overly excessive.
MR. VALASTRO-Right.
MR. KREBS-But it's enough light so if you go around the back of the building you can see where
you're walking.
MR. VALASTRO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Has anyone ever complained about the light?
MR. VALASTRO-The lights? Like I say, there's nobody there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't complain from the landfill either.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's pretty quiet.
MR. VALASTRO-From the back of the restaurant where the deck is, to my only neighbor that's
there, it's all trees and the same thing to the east of me, it's all buffer, about 75 foot popal trees.
MR. HUNSINGER-And there's just the one light?
MR. VALASTRO-I have two lights on the back of the building. I have them, of course, in the
front, but as far as the back is, I've got two of those mercury vapor lights.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't drive by there at night to see what it looked like.
MR. KREBS-I go by there frequently.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'll rely on your expertise, then, to.
MR. KREBS-Yes, it's very nice. You don't have to worry about, I was going to kid and say that
the only complaint came from Toby across the street at the Getty Station that there wasn't
enough light to help him out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I remember when we approved the lighting for Stewarts, we
specifically requested that they have lesser lighting than at some of their other stores because,
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
you know, it is so rural out there, and we didn't want to have overkill. So I think the fact that no
one's ever been alerted or noticed that your lights are excessive that.
MR. KREBS-I would still say that Stewarts is significantly greater lighting than.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I think you get light from Stewarts.
MR. VALASTRO-Probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. KREBS-I have one question of Staff. It says and E & S requirements, on the draft. Is that
engineering and staff requirements?
MR. OBORNE-No, no, that's the requested waivers.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What about it?
MR. KREBS-What is E & S?
MR. OBORNE-Erosion and sedimentation.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, can you spell it out a few times so we know what it is?
MR. OBORNE-1 am appalled.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. "I have no objections to the proposed addition, but would have a stipulation
that there be no outdoor amplification of music etc." Mr. Benjamin Aronson. 1516 Ridge Road.
That's the only comment I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is he your neighbor?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the number on Ridge Road?
MR. HUNSINGER-1516.
MR. OBORNE-1516.
MR. MAGOWAN-Ridge Road, right?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's not that house, then.
MR. VALASTRO-Is that to the north?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm thinking it might be north.
MR. VALASTRO-It's beyond Toby's.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other side of 149, maybe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's nowhere near your place that number.
MR. OBORNE-1516 Ridge Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-We're just trying to understand where it is.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure where Ben lives, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you know, if they have concerns about noise.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that's 1470 right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it's the other side of 149.
MR. OBORNE-That's 1508. So we're cruising down the road. So it's one of these guys down
here.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly would have to be amplified.
MR. OBORNE-It's this parcel right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're there, and it's up there in that highlighted.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-It's pretty dense growth in between, too.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think he'd hear more noise off of 149.
MR. HUNSINGER-149. I guess it depends on the time of year, too.
MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure why he was noticed, either, because it's beyond 500 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe a neighbor told him or something. Yes. Anyway, I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And if there's any final questions or comments from the Board. If not, it's a
Type 11 SEAR. I'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 60-2012 JAMES VALASTRO d/b/a ADK. BAR & GRILL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to enlarge a 567 sq. ft. existing deck by 1,002 sq. ft. resulting in an overall
outdoor seating deck of 1,569 sq. ft. Commercial expansion in the NC zone requires Planning
Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2012 JAMES VALASTRO d/b/a ADIRONDACK
BAR & GRILL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad
Magowan:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type 11 SEAR;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans, and
E & S requirements
4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. VALASTRO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Thank you.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 72-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MIKE BARBONE AGENT(S)
SKI WEST MOUNTAIN OWNER(S) EAST SLOPE HOLDING, L.P. APPLICANT PROPOSES
A MULTI-DAY MUSIC FESTIVAL OUTDOOR CONCERT, FOOD & MERCHANDISE,
VENDORS AND CAMPING. AN OUTDOOR CONCERT EVENT IN THE RC ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-11 WARREN
CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 365.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29 SECTION 179-10
MIKE BARBONE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is Special Use Permit 72-2012 for Mike Barbone. Requested action is
an outdoor concert event in the RC zone, and that, as such, requires Planning Board review and
approval. Location is 59 West Mountain Road. Existing zoning is Recreation Commercial.
SEAR status is Unlisted on this project. We do have a Short Form submitted. Project
Description: Applicant proposes a multi-day music festival with outdoor concerts, food &
merchandise vendors and camping. Staff Comments: Review has been accomplished using
the Special Use General Criteria as per §179-10-060; Please see attached description for the
General Criteria for this project. Per code a Special Use Permit will require one of the following
terms of validity: Permanent, Temporary, or Renewable. Staff recommends a Temporary
approval for this one-time event. If the applicant is planning additional events over time, staff
recommends a detailed, cogent professional site plan that can be utilized on a recurring basis
over a set period of time and is "malleable" depending on the event. What follows is the criteria
for a Special Use Permit. I don't know if you want me to read that into the record, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's pretty extensive.
MR. OBORNE-It basically mirrors that last page that we provide you for the Special Use General
Permit criteria, and I accomplished my review based on that. We had to turn this around quite
quickly, obviously. So if you could digest some of that it would be greatly appreciated, and with
that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. BARBONE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. BARBONE-Mike Barbone, owner of West Mountain Ski area.
SUE SCOTT PARKER
MS. PARKER-Sue Scott Parker, director of Sales and Marketing, Ski West Mountain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to tell us about your project?
MR. BARBONE-Well, we're bringing in a promoter to host a four day event, four days of music,
three nights of camping. There'll be vendors, food, and hopefully we get to see some people.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else?
MR. BARBONE-No, that's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board.
MR. TRAVER-You mentioned having vendors at the event. Do you know if they have applied
for permits?
MS. PARKER-Ski West Mountain is in the process of applying for the merchant vendor permit.
We're going to umbrella them all under us so that we have insurance certificates on file,
appropriate Federal ID numbers, State tax numbers, etc., and we were directed also by Mr.
Oborne and Mr. Brown's office in a variety of things needed for that, and we will have that in to
Mr. Brown's office tomorrow. We're just gathering a couple of more things. Discrepancies in a
couple of vendors are from Queensbury. Just one vendor actually sent their application which
they thought was, you'll love this, gentleman. They called the County who said that they needed
to notify the City of Glens Falls, and so they have applied for their vendor's license through the
City of Glens Falls, versus the Town of Queensbury. So there's been some logistical issues that
we've been working on continuously with this.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-How involved are you with the actual event itself? Since it's a promoter that's
putting it on. I know a lot of times, I mean, if you own the facility and there's a promoter that
comes in, you basically just hand them the keys and, you know.
MR. BARBONE-No, I don't. I actually will pitch a tent. I'm going to stay there for four days. I
intend to be there for four days, and we don't hand them the keys. They use the facilities,
parking. So we're going to keep good track of what's going on.
MS. PARKER-And we are extensively, we have been extensively involved with this for some
time, and it was an unfortunate issue that brought us to this late tardiness. We honestly did not
realize that it was needed. So therefore we scrambled and got everything together. We've been
involved with every aspect of it, from making sure his vendors are, you know, in compliance. My
marketing assistant has been involved with the line of the bands, who they are, you know, if
they're appropriate for our area, etc., things of this nature. So we really have many, many hours
working on this to make it absolutely acceptable, and in compliance, as you see even in your
packets. Everybody that's in there, I have received copies of contracts, you know, mapping,
examples of certificates of insurance, State liquor authority permits, etc., to be in compliance
with the Town of Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you worked with Event Medical Service before?
MS. PARKER-We, personally, have not, and he is actually here for public comment as well. We
have a letter in front of you, in your packet, from the West Glens Falls Fire Chief, Mr. Mike
Gordon, and we also have, and I apologize it didn't get to you prior, gentlemen, we had gotten it
from the West Glens Falls Emergency and Rescue that they also are aware, and they've worked
with Travis in the past.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, Event Medical, I think, is BLS only. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think that's what it is, but if you're working with the ambulance corps, they do have paramedics.
MS. PARKER-Yes, and I'll let Travis speak for that at public comment, but all of his staff, and he
can tell you more appropriately because I don't want to speak out of place as to what licensing,
but they are appropriately licensed. Copies of that is on file, etc. All of his people that are
working for him. We've worked with security details, 24 hour securities. We hope we've
covered every angle. Numerous things were brought to our attention that we will even go
forward as we say our goal is to get through this and then go forward with a more blanket
application to allow us to do these types of events for the future as well, and in that everything
that, you know, from the port-a-potties, Department of Health, we're working on a future camping
permit, you know, for things of this nature. Unbeknownst to us, even to allow boy scouts to
camp we need to send this, and we're fine with that. We're happy to comply with the permits
required.
MR. FORD-I notice that you have the main stage, and I see that depicted on here, and then an
indoor stage. Then you talk about a third stage from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m.
MS. PARKER-Correct.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. FORD-Where is that?
MS. PARKER-The third stage, as you see on our map, you'll see the main stage where the tent
is, and then you'll see the lodge, and then to the left of that is the third stage. So I don't know if
anyone's familiar with West Mountain, but that is, if you will, that is really snugged next to, by the
tubing park area. So you also have that natural barrier. All music will face the mountain.
Nothing will protrude into the parking lot. Obviously it'll be heard, but direction is to the
mountainside, and that stage is, and the third stage is actually encompassed in that little area by
the berm of the tubing park.
MR. FORD-Is it depicted on the map?
MS. PARKER-It is. It is, you see main tent and then look left bathroom, security and then stage,
far to the left.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the main tent is where the primary stage is?
MR. FORD-I see stage.
MS. PARKER-Yes, well here's main tent, and that's the main stage. So it's not with sides, it's
protective awning, and then the other stage is here, and then the third stage is (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-So this is the third stage, this is the main stage.
MS. PARKER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you respond to the memo that you got from the Sheriff's Department?
Basically what he's looking for is a traffic pattern. Can you respond to that.
MS. PARKER-I apologize to you, gentlemen. I have no knowledge of a memo from the Sheriff's
Department whatsoever.
MR. BARBONE-Not at all.
MS. PARKER-I have not received anything. I can certainly respond to traffic pattern in that, as
in on a busy Saturday or in the winter, there are cones. There's a definitive, as you're familiar,
inbound entrance and an exit. There will be security at all points as well as in the main gates
from the parking lot.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's looking mostly at moving traffic and parking. I'll just give you a
couple of things that he wants to make sure are in place. He wants to make sure that the
attendance is capped not to exceed the parking capabilities of the site, which is always a
problem, but you're not young enough to have been to the big one, I mean, you're not old
enough.
MS. PARKER-I'm not going to go on age, gentlemen, but I am young enough to let you know
that it is, I have been skiing for more than 50 years.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I'm talking about the big concert.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Watkins Glen was the big one. It just wasn't as famous.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, no, before that, 1969.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, Watkins Glen was bigger.
MS. PARKER-Well, actually I have with me, you'll appreciate this, I have with me a comment
that someone sent to me from Florida that even stated that our respected honorable Judge John
Hall was even at Woodstock in 1969.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I'm talking about.
MS. PARKER-And he even says I hope you do well, and he was like, it's not going to be
Woodstock, but I hope you do well, but with regard to your question as well, we have capacity
for over 510 cars in our main lot. We won't be using it, but, I mean, should there be, we could
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
have another lot, but we don't aren't going to use that because we don't want to have shuttling.
We don't want to have people on the other side.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He also asked that, he wants to know what the impact would be on
vehicular traffic on West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. Is there a lot of ingress/egress?
MR. BARBONE-You know, I'm interested about that because we handle, West Mountain in the
wintertime, approximately 2500 people at any given time.
MS. PARKER-With buses.
MR. BARBONE-With buses.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you're saying is no impact.
MS. PARKER-I believe there would be absolutely no impact. It's terrible I sit here and say it, but
I also say from the Sheriff's lips to God's ears, I certainly hope we have enough revenue that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was just going down the things that they've got, and he's looking for a
parking layout, simply I'm sure he's looking for that fact that there's no parking on the roads.
MR. FORD-Can you elaborate on security?
MS. PARKER-Yes, as a matter of fact I can. A minimum of four of the people are Schenectady
police officers who will be off duty, and therein his team, I'm guessing, is, and again his figures
will be in to me, he's looking at a minimum of a dozen people, 24 hours. There's an example of
a shift schedule in your packet as well to denote how they're going to schedule, who's going to
be, you know, contact, and with regard to that, too, they all have radios and communicate with
each other, and then additionally Mr. Barbone and additional West Mountain staff will be on
hand during the entire event, 24 hours, for additional, I'm going to use the word security needs,
in terms of question and answer, where is this, where do we get that, that kind of thing. We
won't be, I'm not going to be in the middle of security. I'll rely on our professional teams for that,
but certainly to help and assist in any way possible.
MR. FORD-So at any given hour, there would be how many off duty police officers present?
MS. PARKER-Four off duty, and they will be on site during the entire event, but as you know,
they'll be taking shifts during that.
MR. FORD-There will be a total on site of how many, then, at any given time?
MS. PARKER-I think it's going to be about 16.
MR. FORD-Sixteen. Twelve off duty and four on duty?
MS. PARKER-Correct. Four off duty police officers and twelve additional staff, for a total of 16
security.
MR. FORD-Can you be more specific about the 12 who are not off duty police officers?
MS. PARKER-I don't want to speak out of place, and I apologize. It is my understanding that
these are security teams that have worked and done professional security in the past, but he
didn't procure a company from me and I can certainly get him to provide me with more of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-In your application you talk about the hours of the festival and you say that
music will be performed from eleven to eleven p.m., and the eleven p.m. music cut off will be
strictly adhered to. When the Ski Center's open in the wintertime, how late is the Ski Center
open?
MS. PARKER-Well, we have a conundrum. The Ski Center itself and the lifts operate until
approximately nine p.m., and then there in the West Side Grille operates under its food,
beverage, we can, fire on the mountain, we've had entertainment until 11 or 12. We tend not to
surpass that 11 or 12 hour, for a number of reasons.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, mostly I was curious, because, I mean, obviously I know you have night
skiing, but I didn't know when it ended.
MS. PARKER-Yes, nine o'clock, and even our large, large events, you know, fire on the
mountain, our 50th anniversary, etc., you know, we've brought in audio stars, Burners UK, large
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
scale entertainment, inside of the log, you know, and that, the downstairs level, I believe, has a
capacity of over 300. The upstairs another capacity 170, and then obviously the main courtyard
area. I mean, you know, we've hosted Special Olympics, you know, a number of events that
handle large scale people, large amounts of people.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you had to guess how many people you expect for this event?
MS. PARKER-Well, originally if you had asked me that question, we were really hoping for about
500 people. Honestly, gentlemen, I don't think we're going to get near that with regard to, the
fact that having not gotten approval prior. In the future obviously we'll have more time to
promote and really, you know, we were hesitant to start selling tickets until we had approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, you know, I mean, I have to admit, I went to your website and I saw
the list of bands, but, I mean, just the number of bands and, you know, their staff and roadies, I
mean, there's probably 100 people there easy.
MS. PARKER-Exactly. Guests, paying guests, I think we're going to hit, we're going to be lucky
to hit 250, 300 at this late hour of opening up ticket sales.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Alonzo's going to do the fireworks?
MS. PARKER-Yes, and he has already procured the permit.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He always does.
MS. PARKER-Yes. He, spot on, procured the permit. I just got e-mail confirmation from him
that it's all in place.
MR. FORD-Admission charge will be how much?
MS. PARKER-I beg your pardon?
MR. FORD-Admission charge?
MS. PARKER-Advanced tickets are $40 dollars, and then the door they'll be $65 for the event
and people are certainly able to come on a day to day basis for $20. As we've stated our goal
is, honestly, as many people have sat before you, we're looking to generate some off season
revenue. I see articles in the paper recently that Exit 18 corridor, boy, where's the business.
We're with them. We're trying to offset a bad season, look for some revenue, operate on a year
round basis, and certainly be able to maintain the wonderful facility we've had in the Town of
Queensbury. We, alike, also are host to numerous charitable events, complimentary. Mr.
Barbone's been very generous, you know, the Cystic Fibrosis, the Walks of Life, the Waite
House, I mean, to name a few. I mean, I can't name the number of people that call us and say,
can we host this, so and so has cancer, so and so, and he certainly opens his lodge to that, free
of charge. We also, on a community basis, I probably receive on an average of three to five
donation requests a day, the Prospect Center, etc., you know, donating family passes, lift
tickets, dinners, gift cards. I cannot, I would cringe to tell you the amount of revenue, soft dollar,
that we donate to the community, in an effort to help and support these people. Skiing is our
livelihood. It truly is. We host about 16 to 1700 children a season for our lesson program, and,
that being said, we feel that we would like to be able to continue and offer things in the summer
for people. We have approval, as you know, we're still moving forward hopefully next year with
the zip line and all of these things that we've come before the Board on and sought and obtained
approval on. As you all know in this economy, it's been difficult to get the funding to do all that,
and this is simply a method of trying to achieve that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MS. PARKER-Honestly while providing entertainment and what we feel is a wonderful safe
environment for people in this area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. I have a feeling that several people might want to comment.
The purpose of the public hearing is to allow neighbors and interested parties to provide
comments to the Board. Anyone who wishes to address the Board, I would ask that you state
your name for the record. Speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the
tape is used to transcribe the minutes, which are then posted on line. The actual audio script
from the meeting is also available on line on the Town's website. I would ask that anyone who
wishes to address the Board address their comments to the Board and not ask the applicant,
directly, any questions. Good evening.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHY GRASMEDER
MRS. GRASMEDER-Could we go first?
MR. HUNSINGER-You sure can.
MRS. GRASMEDER-My name is Kathy Grasmeder. I'll speak first. I am a resident of
Queensbury, in the Bedford Close community, and what I would ask the Board is to be
cognizant that West Mountain is located amongst a residential area. It's surrounded by
residences. In the last concert that was held in August, in my opinion, you know, I live a pretty
good distance from West Mountain, but the music was too loud and it went on too late, and my
definition of too loud, I don't have a decibel reader, but when I have all my windows close and
the air conditioning on and I can feel the drumbeat in my kitchen, the music is too loud, and at
10, 11 o'clock at night, that's disruptive to me. We are big fans of West Mountain Ski area, both
of our kids have learned to ski. I took up skiing again at my age, and so we really like the fact
that it's a local ski area, that it has the, you know, the food and restaurant and that sort of thing,
but I would ask the Board also to, you know, I would hesitate in making it a concert facility.
There's many other avenues that you can use to generate off season revenue. I'm from the
Pennsylvania area, up in the Poconos they have these alpine slides. I understand it's a, you
know, probably some cost involved, but it's a huge draw for tourists, and if there's something
that is different like that, that would come to the area, and, you know, even in the winter there's
been some snow mobile activity that is very loud, and again, when all your windows are closed,
all your doors are closed, and you can hear this, it's very disruptive. So, you know, I'm really not
interested, as a resident of Queensbury and a neighbor of West Mountain, in promoting the
concert facility. That's all I can remember that I wanted to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just ask you a question? You said the concert that was held in August,
the music went on too late. Do you know when it stopped?
MRS. GRASMEDER-It was definitely past 10 o'clock. I felt like it was midnight. I was trying to
go to sleep, and maybe other people looked at their clock, but it was very late and I was trying to
sleep, and I could hear it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
JIM THATCHER
MR. THATCHER-Thank you very much. My name is Jim Thatcher. I live at 43 North Church
Lane in Bedford Close, and I am the volunteer president of the Bedford Close Homeowners
Association. We are an association, not as formal as some associations in the Town, but we are
a nonprofit, and we represent, or I represent 130 households in that neighborhood. I cannot
come here tonight and speak on behalf of all of those households with any definitive position on
the Special Use Permit because we have not had a meeting and I don't feel it's appropriate to try
to represent the opinions of all my neighbors in a formal way, but I do know the neighborhood is
certainly supportive of West Mountain as a business in the community. It's certainly a
convenience to skip over there in 30 seconds or a minute to go skiing and go to the restaurant
which has been a great upgrade in recent years, and I know I don't think there's anyone in the
neighborhood that wants to see the Mountain dormant or shuttered because of what it has to
offer for the community and the County and the region for that matter. However, I think there's
probably decent consensus among many of my neighbors for the Town and the Planning
Board's proper review of other non-traditional uses of the mountain through the right channels,
and I appreciated hearing the Staff comments about future events using some professional or
recommending some professional work to figure out how other uses of West Mountain have to
be through the site planning process, because as you heard the applicant's narrative, some of
the issues that come up in these kinds of businesses or activities require some expertise these
days that maybe the applicant doesn't have at the moment for this October event, and that's just
where we are. We're a very complicated society and planning and impacts are much more
complex than they used to be. So I appreciate that position that the Town may take or that you
may take or could take regarding the future. Certainly my neighbors are interested in what the
Ski area hopes to do with the facility on a year round basis and how that affects us. We are not
as close as some residents certainly, but we are right there. We are across West Mountain
Road, and again, 130 households kind of tucked away is not insignificant. I think the speed of
this event being planned and then having the applicants have to kind of come through the
backdoor to do their Special Use Permit is concerning, and I know folks have expressed their
concerns to the Supervisor and hope that the Town will continue to monitor this situation, so that
impacts don't get out of hand. I think people looking at worst case scenarios about parking
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
overflows and people parking on Founders Way, which is the closest street in our neighborhood
across West Mountain Road and garbage and smells and noise and things like that, I don't think
most people feel they'll be direct neighborhood impacts, other than maybe noise is the most we
could hear. I don't think we think people are going to walk through the neighborhood or cut
through. We do have speed issues on Revere Road as a cut through from Pitcher to Corinth
Road, but that's not a West Mountain issue. That's just people like to use that straightaway. So
long term is really my area of concern. We have one meeting a year for homeowners. I hope
not to have a special meeting about this issue because that's hard to get everyone together, but
next Spring we certainly would like to invite Mr. Barbone and others from West Mountain to our
meeting and maybe we could engage the neighborhood in a longer term discussion with the
owner about his plans, and maybe that would be a good way to share information and help him
plan as well for the future. So that's the extent of my comments at this point. Thank you very
much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a quick question. When you do have the neighborhood, the
Homeowners meeting, where do you hold it?
MR. THATCHER-We hold it at the West Glens Falls Fire Station.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. THATCHER-The bigger one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Thank you.
SARA CARPENTER
MS. CARPENTER-I'm not going to speak extemporaneously. I have a few notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before you read your notes, could you identify yourself for the record,
please?
MS. CARPENTER-Sure. My name is Sara Carpenter. I'm a Queensbury resident. I live at 1
Honey Hollow Road, and I want to thank you, first, for providing this opportunity to share our
opinions and concerns. I want to mirror what others have said. I believe West Mountain is a
community treasure and that we're very fortunate to have such a wonderful resource in our
Town. I've skied. My husband's skied. Even my 81 year old mother has skied there. She
particularly likes the new moving sidewalk that they installed a few years ago, and for several
years now my nine year old daughter Anna has been learning to ski at West Mountain. While
there are bigger, fancier ski mountains nearby, we choose to ski at West Mountain. I want to
see West Mountain be a successful, to prosper for many, many more years. I support West
Mountain's efforts to explore creative ways to increase revenue, including during the non-ski
season. However, I believe West Mountain must do so in a manner that does not negatively
impact its many residential neighbors. Concerts at West Mountain like the one held earlier this
summer, as well as the, I believe non-permitted snow mobile events held this winter and spring,
are negatively impacting us. The noise from these events, the throbbing base music, and the
loud drone of snow mobile engines have been heard at my house, which is by the bird flight
about a half a mile away, by driving the roads it's about a mile away, and that's even through the
wooded buffers that exist between West Mountain and our home. Honestly I would ask the
Planning Board to deny the request for outdoor music concerts and snow mobile or other
motorized vehicle events until West Mountain provides evidence of an effective plan to mitigate
the noise impact on residential neighbors. So if they can come up with some evidence based
way of minimizing the noise, I have less of a concern about it. Thank you for allowing me to
share my input with you tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good evening.
CAROL SCHNEIDER
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Good evening. My name is Carol Schneider. I live at 4 Tina Lane, which is
across West Mountain Road from some of the ski slopes. I'm here to speak because some of
the events that have been held, i.e. the concert this summer and I'm not sure if it's snowmobile
or ATM races that are on the mountain, the noise is quite disturbing and what I would consider
late at night, as late at nine, ten o'clock at night. I think West Mountain has offered a lot to the
community and I realize what a problem this winter has been for them. I would recommend, if a
variance is given so that they may hold the concert, that it's given as a temporary variance with
a review of this afterwards, because I have reservations about it. Not only is there the sound.
There's some traffic and I'm also concerned about some of the sanitation issues with people
camping there for three nights. Port-a-potties do not solve the problem and will not take care of
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
garbage and waste and things like that, so I'm willing to see a temporary permit to give them a
chance and let's see what it's like, but I certainly would not, without further hearings, want to see
it become more permanent at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
ALAN REDEKER
MR. REDEKER-Good evening. My name's Alan Redeker. I live at 23 Honey Hollow Road and I
can see the Ski area and watch the skiers from my kitchen table. When we bought our home in
2000, we knew that we were buying lights, snow making machines, and slope grooming, and
that was just fine with us. However, this recent August concert was of a severe concern for my
wife and for me. According to the newspaper, it was supposed to have gone indoors, stopped at
ten p.m. and gone indoors. All three nights it went past midnight, and while I couldn't hear the
music, the only thing I could hear was the bass, and, frankly, ladies and gentlemen, it was like
having somebody with a bass drum in my backyard. It was very, very loud and very disruptive,
and it's the bass that's unbearable. The new permit is requesting from eleven a.m. to eleven
p.m., while the other one said that they were going to be finished by ten p.m. It went past
midnight, and if they did go indoors, then the bass notes were extremely loud, well past
midnight. So with a request to go from eleven a.m. to four a.m. indoors, if it's going to be with
the same lack of attenuation for bass, that's a problem. The way I look at it is that if we had, with
exactly what happened in August, had there been a permit for continuing concerts of this sort,
we would not have purchased our home. However, while I recognize that West Mountain is a
tremendous asset for our community, want to see it continue and prosper, I would request that
anything that is done first be temporary and second that there be some specific mitigation for the
bass note. Under their Section L, they address the matter of noise Page Five, Section L, they
addressed, yes, music faces uphill. My understanding that in August the music faced uphill.
Well, we couldn't hear the music, but what we could hear was the, yes, the ongoing bass beat.
So I would request that you, as the Planning Board, please address that matter. Thank you very
much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
DAVE HUBERT
MR. HUBERT-Dave Hubert, 112 West Mountain Road, the old curmudgeon. First of all, I'd like
to thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns and views regarding the concert in
August and the future concerts, if they're held, at West Mountain. I agree wholeheartedly with
many of the comments that the former speakers have mentioned. The promoters of the concert
showed very little consideration for the neighborhood where they performed. My biggest
disappointment was the way they pumped the loud bass noise the gentleman just referred to out
into the neighborhood of West Mountain Road, Bedford Close and Northwest Village. Why
should the effects of any performance extend so far from the center? My wife and I have lived at
our address about 300 years from the center for 47 years, and never have we felt so annoyed,
so annoyed and so abused by activities at the center, and we put up with a lot, the snow making,
the snow groomers, and yes the early snow making which was like standing behind a jet aircraft
when it turned around. We were unable to peacefully enjoy our swimming pool, our deck, and,
yes, most of all our home. We live in a wood frame home that was built in 1965. The bass noise
produced by no musician, that's a robo thing that goes from boom, constantly. It came through
our walls like there were no walls at all. Twelve hours of boom, boom, boom incessant, no
hesitation, from noon until after twelve o'clock every night. And this was after the agreement
that they had made with Mr. Stec and the Board that it would end at ten o'clock. It didn't
happen, and it was three days of that. You've got two unhappy homeowners here, and I know I
have talked to many of the residents in the area. Many of them have come to us, probably
because we've been there for a long time, wanting to know how it affected us. Well, it affected
us greatly. I will conclude with a couple of questions, and they are some of the same things that
the gentleman and ladies have addressed before. Based upon the August concert, is there any
real control once you give permission? There's no enforcement, time limits on volume, what.
I've understood the fact that the Town has no noise ordinance. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct.
MR. HUBERT-No noise ordinance. So they can make all the noise they want. Second question
I would ask of the Board to ponder as they go through this, will there be any limit to the number
of outside events in the future? After having listened to the presentation that they made, the
only thing that came to my mind was Forrest Gump and his box of chocolates. You never know
what you're going to get, because they don't know what they're going to get, and now I
remember Mr. Stec saying, before that last concert, well, nobody complained. Well, hell no, we
didn't know it was coming until the Post Star put something in the paper. We didn't know what it
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
was going to be. If I had known what it was going to be, I'd have been here. Someplace. I
thank you for giving me a chance to offer my views. I'd be happy to answer any questions you
gentlemen have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. HUBERT-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MR. HUBERT-Would you like a copy of anything or not? Is that too important?
MR. HUNSINGER-It's up to you, if you want.
MR. HUBERT-I've made my statement.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's on the record. Thank you.
MR. HUBERT-Thanks again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
TRAVIS DUNKLEE
MR. DUNKLEE-Members of the Board, good evening. Thanks for having me. My name's
Travis Dunklee. I'm the owner/operation manager of Event Medical Services of New York. Here
on behalf of both West Mountain and the promotion company coming in. First off I'd like to point
out the last concert at West Mountain was not done by this promoter. We didn't provide EMS
there so we can't say one way or the other. Our EMS team has had a chance, months ago, to
do a walk through for the property. I was a retired member of West Glens Falls Emergency
Squad. So I've been there both as a member responding to emergencies during the wintertime,
and a snowboarder at the Mountain growing up. So we do know the Mountain very well.
Looking at the entire area, we did a risk assessment, when the plan first came to us for us to
provide EMS services. We actually did a walk through with park members at West and voiced
our concerns where we saw them, (lost word) the promoter. We did our own risk assessment
map, which I believe was sent in in conjunction with the map that the engineers came up. I
apologize as far as it wasn't very good. We only have Google maps. We're not too
sophisticated, but we try our best to point out any areas that we see, from a medical standpoint,
that we might have an issue with. We have two letters, both of which are from Queensbury
emergency services. We have one from West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Dan Albert is
currently the Captain, acknowledging that the Medical Services of New York will be responding
on site with providers. We're going to have a four person team of strictly EMT's, which is, if
you'll excuse me for one second, New York State Department of Health Subsection 00-10 for
Emergency Medical Technician Basic. So I believe one of the Board members commented that
we're basic life support crew is 100% correct. We are. In conjunction with Dan Albert, we
respond immediately if there's an incident. There is no delay in care. We have a crew, 11 th
through the 14th, nonstop. We have a person that works the Albany County Sheriff's dispatch
unit is also a New York State EMT. He's going to be in the first aid unit. So if anyone comes to
the first aid unit while our guys are on consistent patrol, we're not worried. We have somebody
there. We've also invited both West Glens Falls Emergency Squad and West Glens Falls Fire to
attend the event and if they'd like to quote unquote hang out at the first aid station as they would
like to and bring in the apparatus they feel appropriate, if there's a need, they're already on site.
I talked to both Dan Albert and the Chief of West Glens Falls Fire. That invitation has been laid
out. It is their opportunity to fulfill it. We'd be more than happy with an ambulance on standby.
If they don't, that's fine with us. West Glens Falls is a busy district. They do a lot of calls. I can
speak from experience. As far as we're concerned, we're the best medical team for the job.
This is not our first rodeo, so to speak, with Event. We've done many events in the State of New
York for festivals in this manner and upwards of 15,000 people, with minimal impact to the
neighborhood and area. I can speak this way because I'm actually a resident of Queensbury.
So I understand the concerns people are having. I live right over by The Great Escape. So I
understand what noise pollution is like. It's not always great, but on the reverse side, we are
bringing revenue into the area. I can't speak for the promoter that I'm working for or for West,
but it's the good with the bad. We definitely are going to see an increase in people and the
businesses in the area. I think it's positive. As far as the promoter going out before they even
had a location and seeking an EMS company shows me that they're being proactive. Nine times
out of ten we're found three to four weeks before the event starts and then they start looking for
an EMS team. Then they realize that there's going to be a need for medical attention. This
promoter came to us at the beginning of the year, without any location, just to find out the way
that we would set up an event with our guys. We're Part 900 compliant, which, if you don't
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
realize what that is, Part 900 compliant states what an ambulance has to have in it to be
operating. So basically the ambulances driving down the road are Part 900 compliant. We don't
have to be, but we are. We go above and beyond what we have to do to make sure our patients
are held to the highest priority of care. Our guys go through monthly in-house training. They go
through State training. We're also recognized by New York State Department of Health. We
work with them a lot in Washington County for a different company I work for out there. We do
their evacuation plans. I've had a lot of chance and a lot of time to work with West, and I feel
that there's a big understanding of how we can all work together. We're utilizing our first aid
station. The ability that we have close EMS and close fire, that's awesome for us. Part of our
risk assessment that we sent to West Glens Falls Fire Department is on an as needed basis.
We have a landing zone set up. Most promoters would not allow a landing zone, even the idea,
because in their mind it concerns them. Our promoter openly accepted the idea of shutting
down a 200 by 200 foot area of the facility that was originally going to be used so we can set up
helicopter landings if needed. The criteria is very small for us to land a helicopter because we
have Glens Falls Hospital so close, but we plan for the worst, we hope for the best. We are the
only company in the world you want to hire to do nothing, and that is our goal, but when we are
activated, we respond quickly, we respond professionally, and we respond with the patient in
mind, regardless of politics. We hope that we have a chance to work for this festival, both
because we are local. We keep our business local, and we think this'll be good for the
community because this venue is different than the last one. It's a different company. It's
different people. It's a completely different state of mind. We've had a long time to go over
aerial views and risk assessments and point out different areas, and I believe that that promoter
is showing that he cares about the community that we're in, and I appreciate that fact because it
makes my job easier. I know I talked a lot. It's kind of what I do, but I'm open to questions from
the Board. Also if there's anyone behind me that has any questions about what we do or how
we do it, I'm more than welcome to open those questions up and I'll answer them to the best of
my ability.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have a paramedic on site?
MR. DUNKLEE-Because we respond with a BLS crew, New York State Department of Health
says we can only operate at that level.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. DUNKLEE-We're not allowed, even when we have a paramedic, we're not allowed to use
them as a paramedic per New York State Department of Health law.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Unless they come with the ambulance.
MR. DUNKLEE-Unless they come with the ambulance. Exactly. I have talked to Dan Albert.
He does know we're going to have BLS crew with materials on site, and those guys, when
requested, will come at their disposal. So if a paramedic ambulance shows up, we've already
started rendering care, we'd like to get them to the first aid station on the smallest impact. If we
can't, we're going to be in constant communication on Frequency 700, which is the New York
State EMS radio frequency. We'd use that for like an MCI, Mass Casualty Incident or something
like that. So we have constant communication with the incoming ambulance to say this is our
current location. This is the current patient's vitals or status, and this is what you're expecting
when you get here. Any priority one call, which would be like chest pain, difficulty breathing, a
burn, choking, anything for that matter, West Glens Falls Fire is already activated per the 911
system. So we can have consistent communication with our guys, West Fire and West EMS all
at the same time. So we have open communication. That way everybody knows what they're
coming to. They're not just getting a frantic 911 call. Also our guys are going to be on a
roaming patrol. We are going to actively be proactive. We know there's camping going on.
We're going to be out there. We've going to be very, very visible to the public. All of our guys
are wearing fluorescent green safety vests with EMS on them. It's very, very easy to spot us
from I think the farthest we saw somebody was 500 feet away, and that was just because we ran
out of road. So we are very proactive. We're out there. We're vigilant. This is what we do, and
we're very, very good at it. This is my first town meeting. So you've got to bear with me a little
bit, but I hope that answered your question in depth a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? Thank you.
MR. DUNKLEE-No, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the public? Any written comments, Keith?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. People's Best V, "Sirs: I wish to comment re.permit 72-2012. The
advertisement states that firewood is available on site. I seriously object to this being available.
This is a hazard to me. The drums need to be muffled at a reasonable hour. This is a
neighborhood of seniors and drums at 12:30 a.m. are not appropriate. Thank you. Margaret
Stuerzebecher 99 W. Mtn. Rd." September 20, 2012 Town of Queensbury Planning Board
West Mountain Music Festival "I have supported West Mountain Ski Area since its inception,
with one rope tow up the face of the Mountain, and will continue to support any Ski related or
other venue that does not cause any undue disturbance to the area. Based on the events of the
previous Music Festival, I do not support the upcoming event. Agreements as to noise levels
and hours of outdoor Band events were not adhered to and Sunday was the worst day of all.
Should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the entire area. As we continue to support
West Mountain Ski Area, we wish Mike our best for future success. Gabe Armando Neighbor" I
have one more. Town of Queensbury Community Development office, Don Krebs, RE: West
Mountain Multi-Day Music Festival. "Dear Mr. Krebs: In response to the public notice and
solicitation of comments regarding the West Mountain multi-day music concert, I would like to
express some concerns. I respectfully ask that the concerns documented in this letter are
included in the meeting discussion. First, I would like to address the fact that I have chosen not
to include my identity in this letter. I have chosen to remain anonymous because I do not want
my concerns to be grounds for future strained neighborly relations. Additionally, I would prefer
not to jeopardize my ability to use West Mountain Ski facilities in the future. Secondly, I would
like to state that I recognize West Mountain's solvency needs and I applaud their efforts to
maintain the business in a difficult economic climate. However, the methods the mountain
employs to generate revenue should not include activities or events which create unwelcome
and obtrusive outcomes for the neighbors in the vicinity of the facility. The proposed music
festivals can certainly lead to these outcomes when it comes to noise. 1, along with most
pragmatic neighbors understand the desire to host revenue generating events of this nature.
Most understanding neighbors will tolerate these type of events in the frequency of 3-4 a
"season", as long as they follow some respectful limits. Below is a list of concerns that I am
respectfully asking the Planning Board to consider: Quiet Hours After 11 PM (10 PM on
weeknights): Past musical events at West Mountain have led to loud noise well past midnight (
heavy bass). Although this is somewhat disturbing, most individuals can tolerate this for an
evening, maybe two. Even when moving the music "inside" the facility, the volume of the music
is still inappropriate in the late evening hours. Since Queensbury does not have a noise
ordinance, there seems to be no option for curbing this nuisance situation. Frequency of Music
Festivals: Although this concern may be premature, it is important to note that this public
hearing will set a precedent for the future. If West Mountain's intent is to host these events in a
"high frequency" (weekly or bi-weekly), then it will become a problem situation with currently
reasonable neighbors. The area surrounding the facility is zoned residential, and most residents
within the mountain understand that they are living in the vicinity of a ski area and expect "ski
area noises". This facility is approved as a ski-area and not a concert venue, it would be
inappropriate for the town to approve frequent use of facility for concerts or music festivals. I
think most neighbors in a similar situation would become frustrated with any neighbor who
repeatedly had loud parties at a high frequency. In close, I would like to thank the Planning
Board for hosting the public hearing and allowing the residents the opportunity to provide input.
Thank you. Sincerely, A Concerned Neighbor" And that's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. PARKER-I will agree wholeheartedly that this promoter is a different venue all together. I
will acknowledge that the last venue was more electronic and in the term of concerts it's called
techno. It was definitely more of a techno feel. This is not that event. These are live bands, and
we can certainly absolutely get with the promoter and let them know of the concerns on the bass
and the techno. I feel no problem with that whatsoever in doing that. From a personal
standpoint, I would say that I love the fact that people admit, yes, they purchase, West
Mountain's been there for 52 years, and they've purchased homes in residential neighborhoods
who have been developed in more recent years, and I agree. You bought, you know, it's like
buying your house across from the airport, you know, and I'm not saying that we're, snow guns,
yes. We have, that's part of operating a business. So I'm empathetic to that. Having worked in
the ski industry since '82, 1 can certainly understand the noise and the factor with that, and I can
certainly assure this Board and our neighboring residents that we will do everything to the
utmost to meet their needs as well as our own, and certainly comply with their desires, and we
can tell the promoter turn down the bass. We can certainly say we don't want the techno flare,
you know, in between bands, etc. We're certainly able to do that and help and assist to be a
friendly neighborhood, neighbor on top of it. We certainly do feel that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just, you know, frequently we have these issues with an applicant
before the Planning Board and, you know, where there are concerns or issues that come up,
you know, who should they contact. So, you know, maybe one of the things that could be done
is that there be some, you know, call so and so and either have a phone number, should they,
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
you know, if a neighbor thinks the music's too loud or the bass is too loud, you know, what
should they do? Should they call the ski center, you know, your number that's in the phonebook
or?
MS. PARKER-Absolutely. We are certainly happy to provide that. Obviously we'll be there, and
so the ski center number's available, and then well into the evening hour. I feel confident telling
you that Mr. Barbone would offer is own personal cell phone if one of his neighbors. I would
offer mine, and we're going to be on site. If someone has an issue, I have no problem in having
them contact one of us and say.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Speaking of that, in your last concert, I happened to be in a location where
I was listening in, between 9 and 11, 1 think it was either Friday or Saturday night I was listening
to the Sheriff, and I think, they only dispatched twice did they dispatch cars out there. One of
them stayed there for a while and they went around and talked to me, because I did hear one of
the dispatchers say, you know, that he was getting a lot of phone calls from people wanting to
know what was going on, etc., and he handled them, you know, he knew what the routine was
and he told people what it was and how long it would be going on and what was going on, but
there were no, you know, there was no anything where they called the police to do anything
dramatic. This was not Woodstock.
MR. BARBONE-This isn't our first concert that we've had at West Mountain in 53 years. We've
had, if anybody realizes, we've had Summer Jam there, in the past, and I think we've had four of
those, and if I can recall, we've probably had close to 10,000 people there, gentlemen.
MS. PARKER-Sheriff on horseback.
MR. BARBONE-If anybody's recalled, we've had bands there on Summer Jam many, many
times, and I've recalled stages, horseback, four wheelers, and when they left, the place looked
like it did on an every day. Place was clean, and the last event that we've had, when they left,
and there was campers, probably maybe a dozen campers that stood.
MS. PARKER-They even had showers. They even brought in portable showers, in response to
the sanitation issues.
MR. BARBONE-When they left, Monday morning, and I mowed the mountain myself, there was
not one can, not one paper bag that was left. Sanitary, they had Stone Industries there. They
were there every day. They washed the sanitation places down, they emptied them and they
cleaned them.
MS. PARKER-And hand washing stations.
MR. BARBONE-Hand washing stations. So, I mean, anything that I've done in the past have
never put anybody in jeopardy, not even my employees, nothing. So I'm, you know, to say that
not to have any events, I don't know, I'm kind of puzzled. To say that we can't have any events.
We've been having events. This is the first event that we've actually had to apply for a permit in
the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-How often do you have live music inside?
MR. BARBONE-Inside in the wintertime? Every Friday and Saturday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how late do they play?
MR. BARBONE-They play until one, two o'clock in the morning inside, upstairs in the restaurant.
MS. PARKER-Midnight downstairs.
MR. BARBONE-Midnight downstairs. We have our, what's called Fire on the Mountain, 10,000
people. I mean, we don't hear anything about it. Everybody comes, enjoys the fireworks that
we supply.
MS. PARKER-And this is fun, too, because that's where, the irony of this is the parking that
instills upon the road of West Mountain are locals coming out to enjoy the complimentary
fireworks, but not coming into the parking lot and not spending a dime at West Mountain. God
bless them. I'm glad we can provide it. Park there. See the free fireworks. Easter Sunday we
have an Easter egg hunt. You want to see our parking lot fill up from the locals who didn't even
buy breakfast, but there they are with those kids with that basket, which we provide, 3,000
Easter eggs. So, it's, we welcome them. The point is we welcome them. We're there for the
community.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. FORD-I have a question. The entertainment is going to start at 11 a.m., continue until 4
a.m.
MR. BARBONE-Inside.
MS. PARKER-Inside only.
MR. BARBONE-Inside only.
MR. FORD-No, but there's continuous entertainment starting at 11 a.m. until 4 a.m. Would there
be an objection to move it inside, the entertainment inside earlier than 11 p.m.?
MS. PARKER-No, there's no objection, and that would be something we'd have to do with the
promoter. As you gentlemen have said, you've been on the website and seen the number of
bands and the things he has scheduled. So I just think that would be some logistics on his part
in terms of there being continuous music. He has to reschedule, and these bands are not, I
liken these bands, some of these are very well, even though we don't recognize them, they're
very well noted names. Giving you that list of, I mean, we might as well have Jennifer Lopez
there, with the list of, I want Pellegrino and, you know what I mean, all their needs, you know,
we're talking, we've procured lodging agreements with, you know, Sleep Inn, you know, Country
Inn and Suites, Super 8 the bands are being housed at. So it's also spilling into revenue into
other areas. There's not just camping.
MR. FORD-I was just trying to address the neighbors and the noise level my assumption would
be would diminish if you were to take the entertainment inside earlier than 11 p.m., and so that
would be a consideration that I would like to have you consider.
MR. BARBONE-Absolutely.
MS. PARKER-We'll absolutely consider and we'll get with the promoter, and the only reason I
was mentioning that is I don't know what he's contractually contracted with these entertainers,
but I'm sure he can address that.
MR. OBORNE-If you are to go down that path, you're going to have to be specific as to what
time are you looking to have these indoor?
MR. FORD-10 p.m.
MR. BARBONE-We can make it happen.
MR. SIPP-1 think we've heard enough about how people in the area are using West Mountain in
the wintertime and they have no complaints, but the wintertime all your windows are closed.
Your storm doors are on, and it does alleviate some of the noise, but if you could move the
music inside at 10 p.m., I think this would make a big difference. I would say that somebody
ought to hire an audiologist or somebody who can run a decibel meter and have him available to
take readings at certain times during the day or night, and report back, and if it so please the
Board, we could limit the time that they could play outside and inside, and let this be a trial year.
MR. BARBONE-Absolutely. That's, I would love, because what's happening is, as everybody
knows, West Mountain is a site that everybody is looking at for all types of events. We've had
Warrior Run there. People are calling us over and over again on having all types of events here.
It's not going to be the only event as a concert. I mean, we've done Warrior Run that we took in
probably about 3,000 people that day. We had 1800 competitors.
MR. SIPP-Do you notify any police, sheriff, State trooper?
MR. BARBONE-Yes, we do.
MS. PARKER-Absolutely.
MR. BARBONE-There's nothing that we don't do in the wintertime that we would do in a summer
event, whether it's, I mean, West Glens Falls is at West Mountain in the wintertime every day.
We have our own patrolers in the wintertime, you know, we've had some serious accidents in
the wintertime where we've taken them, you know, we've had helicopters land at West Mountain
in the wintertime because we had some serious injuries.
MR. SIPP-Have you ever, has there been arrests made for intoxication?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. BARBONE-Not at all.
MR. SIPP-Any first aid problems?
MR. BARBONE-Nothing at all.
MR. SIPP-1 lived through my son and daughter playing that music as loud as they could, and
after a while you get spaced out, I guess would be the best word. I think a trial run here, with
setting standards of beginning and ending times, and where they are, outside or inside. You
could have a good rain spell that week in October.
MS. PARKER-Absolutely. You are so right. We could have a rain spell and this could all be
moot. We could have, you know, nothing.
MR. BARBONE-It's something that, we've taken two months, three months to put this all
together, applications, people, time. We're looking at, you know, making snow in the next
month, and it could possibly rain for three days on those days.
MR. HUNSINGER-What would you do if it rained?
MR. BARBONE-We'd cancel. There won't be anybody that would stand out in the middle of
October, gentlemen it's October. It's going to be cold.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it will be cold.
MR. BARBONE-It's going to rain.
MS. PARKER-That's another facet, too. I believe wholeheartedly if we were holding this event
in July or August, the camping would be astronomically different. You'd have people more
willing to camp. Thus the reason that we've had a number of people inquiry about area hotels.
They want to come, they want to enjoy the day, but, I mean, we have an agreement. We've
gotten coupons for Great Escape Six Flags at every event purchaser gets a discounted ticket to
there. So we're trying to have them do other things as well. We're not foreseeing, and I agree
with you wholeheartedly. We're not foreseeing that someone's going to come and stay there the
entire day, because we do have a re-entry policy. So if you want to come and listen to music for
a few hours, go to Great Escape. Go to the mall. Go down, do your business, come back and
maybe you don't want to see that band. You're going to see this band. The beauty of the
weekend ticket is you can pick and choose and re-enter as you so choose. So I don't think
camping will be as huge as if it were in July and August.
MR. BARBONE-And also, what we're also forgetting, the last event we've had, we've had
probably 250 people. Two hundred and fifty people, and I've walked around and spoken to area
businesses, just around the surrounding areas. There's only 200, we figured about 250 paying
people, because what we get paid by ticket. So we have a good idea what we had, and we had
gone to the surrounding areas and we had gotten a lot of thanks for what we'd done for the
surrounding areas.
MS. PARKER-The convenience stores, restaurants. Pizza Jerks delivered over 100 pizzas and
let us know. East Wok Chinese. Caesars. Stewarts told Mike Barbone outright they did over
3,000 more dollars per day in business, ice, they had to staff up. They thanked him. Papa's
Diner filled three times and he was just like, oh my gosh, this is great. So, there are, I'm in full
agreement. I can see the resident's point of view. There's pros and cons. Business wise, we
feel it's a pro. We feel it's good for our community, business wise, revenue wise. We're
certainly willing and able to work with our neighbors to make it not a horrific event for them. I'm
not going to say it's going to be enjoyable. I'm not going to promise you you're going to like the
music, as you said, but I certainly hope that, we don't want to create ill will or have bad vibes
from our neighbors. So we're willing to work with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-What you stated earlier that the August one was more techno, which is more.
MS. PARKER-Absolutely, bass, heavy bass.
MR. MAGOWAN-Which is the constant boom, boom, boom. I even have a problem with my
kids' music, and I remember growing up getting the same lecture from my parents.
MS. PARKER-Exactly. I have two children. I get it.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. MAGOWAN-But it was stated earlier that you didn't hear the music. You heard the boom,
boom, boom. So, I want to commend you for putting this package all together and all the hard
work that you've done, and all the enjoyment. I've spent many a summer up on the hill myself
with those band jams back in the 80's there and really enjoyed it and grew up with the Brandt
family. So the only thing I would really stipulate is if we could watch the bass boom, boom,
because it does echo up the mountain, because I used to live over on North Church Lane there,
and I know the sounds that come from the mountain, and I would like to see you continue for
many more years running the year. I know you've got everything into it.
MR. BARBONE-It's, you know everybody realizes what winter's all about, and, you know.
MR. MAGOWAN-And last winter was a tough one for you.
MR. BARBONE-It's a tough one. So, you know, we're looking, this is just, you know, a
beginning, and we'll learn a lot after this four day event, and we'll learn a lot, the promoter's
going to learn a lot, and we'll be able to put guidelines on it ourselves. So it's not just, we're
going to just let it run rampant. I actually camp there. So if anybody wants to come and ask me
a question, I will answer it. There is nothing out of the ordinary. I have a tent in the middle. I'm
there 24/7. 1 barbecued. I ran the bar. I cleaned garbage. I did it all. So if there's anybody that
wants to ask any questions about it and say that there's trash or if there is anything out there,
they've got a tough time arguing the issue with me.
MR. FORD-Do you play bass?
MS. PARKER-No, he doesn't play bass. I would also add one more comment if I may,
gentlemen, regarding snowmobiling in the winter. That as many of the residents know,
snowmobiling allowed on the hills of Ski West Mountain is not a normal thing. For years we
were the end result of the snowmobile trail that was connected, and that was a wonderful thing.
We actually had, as you know, the trails never opened, Warren County trails did not open last
year whatsoever, and we finally rescinded and finally agreed, after the snowmobilers were
begging and begging and begging, please let us get our sleds out, please let us play on our
sleds, and we even did that, in my opinion, greatly, in a safe manner, with regard to get the
skiers off, ski patrol sweep. Obviously when you think about it you can't mix the two, an hour
waiting, an entire meeting at the base with Mr. Barbone microphone, safety's of the utmost, you
know, if someone comes by and tags you, you're out, and so my point is that was a fluke due to
the snow season. We don't anticipate holding, you know, snowmobiles all over our mountain on
a routine basis. We hope it snows and they're on their trails, and skiers are on our trails. So
that's not a typical thing for West Mountain.
MR. HUNSINGER-So was that just a one day event type of thing?
MS. PARKER-There were like three Sundays.
MR. BARBONE-Yes. There were three. It was three weekends.
MS. PARKER-Three Sundays.
MR. BARBONE-We had the only snow on the mountain at the time.
MS. PARKER-It was even after, because we were greedy, with what little snow we had, it was
even after the February breaks and the holidays. So it was really the last Sunday in February
and two in March, and then it was gone. By St. Patrick's Day, we were done, this past year. So
it was three Sunday nights, and I know that everybody's clocks are different. I know people that
work at hospital's graveyard, you know, and they're asleep in the day, all times. So I'm
empathetic. I have children, too. Nine o'clock is their bedtime. So I'm empathetic to people's
curfews, but the snowmobilers certainly, you know they're on their trails until midnight. They just
happened to be on the mountain those three Sundays, and we're hoping for snow and that
doesn't happen. There's no need for that if there's snow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? I did not close the public
hearing yet. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This was an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Is the
Board comfortable moving forward with the SEAR review?
MR. FORD-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MS. PARKER-I apologize. The one map that Travis had made reference to that I notice you
were looking for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don't have that.
MS. PARKER-We were not allowed to submit that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. PARKER-Mr. Oborne and Mr. Brown felt that that was not adequate. Therefore we did the
map that we did based on the blueprints. We did try to submit that initially.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I guess a question for clarification, as we pursue and
consider SEAR, is the SEAR review, the SEAR review would just be for the specified event.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn't be for any additional events.
MR. OBORNE-Because it's not listed under SEAR at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Hence the Unlisted designation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Okay.
MR. KREBS-So do we have to do it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have to do it.
MR. KREBS-Okay. This is the Environmental Assessment. "Does the action exceed any Type I
threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.47"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.67"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?"
MR. TRAVER-Yes, noise level.
MR. FORD-Yes, noise level.
MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by the applicant agreeing to move the music indoors at 10 p.m.
MR. FORD-10 p.m., right.
MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?"
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in
use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by
the proposed action?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?"
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused
the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-Therefore I guess we can move for a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 72-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MIKE BARBONE, 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.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
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 day of, February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess a discussion of conditions would be in order. We have waivers
requested. We have the, well, I mean, in your application you specified hours of operation, but
we then had a subsequent discussion about moving any music inside after 10 p.m.
MR. FORD-At 10 p.m.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-At 10 p.m.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. What did I say?
MR. FORD-You said after.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other special conditions that we talked about that should be
included in the resolution?
MR. KREBS-Well, I just thought that the condition that this approval is for October 11th to the
14th, 2012 only.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a temporary permit.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. KREBS-And then live music outside to be limited to 10 p.m. After 10 p.m., music can only
be played inside.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the logical question is, I mean, you don't have imminent plans for
future events, but if there are plans for future events, when would you likely submit some sort of
a?
MR. BARBONE-We're going to start working on it immediately because it had taken the file.
MS. PARKER-We had six meetings before this.
MR. BARBONE-So we understand that we need to start this process immediately to go for.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I have to admit. I was surprised at the number of permits that were
required and I realize a lot of them were because of the camping and the alcohol permits and
things like that.
MR. BARBONE-Absolutely. So we'll submit it, and you've always got to go for an alcohol. It
doesn't matter how many events that we have, it's always per event with the alcohol. They're on
us.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did close the public hearing, but I do see a hand up. If you want to make a
comment or ask a question, ma'am, I'll have to get you on the record on the microphone.
SARA CARPENTER
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MS. CARPENTER-I'm Sara Carpenter again. I just wanted, there was an offer made to do
something to mitigate the bass sounds and the techno noise. I'm just wondering if the permit
can include, in addition to the nighttime noise, the mitigation of the bass noise, because we hear
it during the day too, and if they're sincere in their offer, maybe we could include that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-My comment would be, if I were Mike and I wanted to do this again, I would make
sure that that is mitigated, because the ability for him to do another concert is going to be on
how satisfied the neighbors are going to be after this one.
MR. BARBONE-Absolutely.
MS. PARKER-I'm in full agreement. I would also pose, just out of theoretically. I live in the
Town of Bolton Landing where if you sneeze that you need a permit. So I guess it's more of a
question overall to the Town of Queensbury or statement. I'm surprised there is no noise
ordinance so you can say what decibel, you know what I mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. PARKER-So, I mean, my parents have been restaurantiering and bar for years, House of
Scotts, Algonquin, etc., and I can remember the guy sitting out there with a gun in the parking lot
to make sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Really?
MS. PARKER-Yes. I mean, so on a personal note I'm surprised that that isn't in place to help
your neighbors, etc., to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-We've had, on occasion, fairly extensive discussions about a noise
ordinance. A lot of it revolved around The Great Escape.
MS. PARKER-Not that I'm pro ordinance.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the comments that always, you know, the downside always is it's difficult
to enforce, and one of the things that we see, and again, you know, I hate to use The Great
Escape, but that's really the one place where noise has been discussed probably the most is, is
a lot of the noise is the background noise, and at any given point in time those residential
neighborhoods around Route 9, even though The Great Escape is causing noise, it's not heard
over the background noise from Route 9 and the Northway.
MR. FORD-Chris, you've got another hand up. I don't know if you want to acknowledge it.
MR. SIPP-It's a problem, because we tried about seven, eight years ago or longer to rein in The
Great Escape, and the problem is at one night you take a reading and it'll be such and such, and
the next night it'll be five. It varies.
MS. PARKER-That's so true. The guy with the guitar is much different.
MR. BARBONE-It would be the same way at West Mountain in the middle of the winter, putting
three grooming machines on the mountain in comparison to one one night, three the other night.
I mean, we've got, we have almost 60 snow guns. So maybe next year we'll have 10 more.
MS. PARKER-One snow gun, four.
MR. BARBONE-So I don't know where that noise ordinance will affect us in the long run.
MR. KREBS-Well, and not only that, but if your guns are working and it's snowing out, the sound
is not going to travel as far as if it isn't.
MS. PARKER-That really cold night you know you can hear forever.
MR. BARBONE-Many times I'll open up my window at night and make sure it's grooming, and if
I hear the machine moving, then I close the window and say, okay, everything's good. So,
noise, what's?
MR. HUNSINGER-Ma'am, did you want to make a comment? I'll need to get you on the
microphone.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think you'll see it in Queensbury, though, because the enforcement
is the problem.
MS. PARKER-Absolutely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I came from a Town where they enforced that. And they had the guns
and they would go. You only use it on parties and some college thing that's going on. You don't
put it on snow guns.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did officially close the public hearing, but I know you just walked in.
LISA COUTU
MS. COUTU-1 apologize, I was not aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MS. COUTU-Yes. I'm Lisa Coutu. I'm one of the neighbors. I live across the street from the
triple chair lift, and support West Mountain Ski Center in virtually everything that the do to keep
the business going year round, and again I apologize. I came in late. I did not know that the
public comments was closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay.
MS. COUTU-The concern that I had that I was hoping to hear about was about the camping and
specifically my understanding is that it's going to be both on the face and also over at Northwest
and so I was just wondering if Mr. Barbone wouldn't mind and if you all wouldn't mind just a
quick reiteration about how many people are expected and if there's going to be any
management of the campers while they're there.
MR. FORD-We can clarify, it's not going to be at Northwest.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. COUTU-It's not going to be at Northwest.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Two hundred fifty is the number, maximum.
MS. COUTU-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Keith, are there any other special conditions that we need
to include, based on your Staff comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, it's whatever the Board is going to enact at this point. I know Don had talked
about a decibel gun, but, short of that, I think that's the only other issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the Board's feeling on that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Make a motion, I think.
MR. FORD-Let's call the question with the stipulation of 10 o'clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Don.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP #72-2012 MIKE BARBONE
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a multi-day music festival outdoor concert, foot & merchandise, vendors and
camping. An Outdoor Concert event in the RC zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 72-2012 MIKE BARBONE, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
As per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans
4) This approval is for October 11th to October 14th, 2012 only,
5) Live music outside to be limited to 10 p.m. After 10 p.m., music can only be played
inside.
6) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
8) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and I guess I would just add for the public, you know, you heard
the applicant that if, you know, there are concerns during the event, feel free to contact them
and Mr. Barbone said he would be there. So you could always seek him out, and I guess we'll
go through this again at some future point, and there will be a public hearing and we will solicit
public input and comment. Good luck.
MS. PARKER-Thank you. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Before we consider an adjournment, Mr. Salvador had asked for
five minute of our time.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Shortly you're going to be reviewing the revised Site Plan for the Dunham's
Bay Resort up in North Queensbury and outdoor music will be a big issue. So I'll see how you
handle that one.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's nobody living near it.
MR. SALVADOR-Living where?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Near the Dunham's Bay Lodge.
MR. SALVADOR-They responded to a fire right across the street.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why we had the fire.
MR. SALVADOR-I noticed tonight that you approved a boat dock/boathouse arrangement. I
want to mention that many years ago, when we were in the debate about jurisdiction on the lake,
the DEC held public hearings before they promulgated the first 646 regulations, and the
Planning Board Chairman at that time, Dick Roberts, testified and submitted written comments.
Prior to his testimony, the DEC administrative law judge introduced the subject. He said early in
the development of this control program, that is the Part 646 regulations, both the Lake George
Park Commission and the Department of Environmental Conservation recognized that Lake
George and its shoreline required lake wide treatment as a whole as opposed to the patchwork
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
effort of individual towns, groups, counties and so forth. The patchwork manifests itself in the
Hoffman application. That hasn't been settled yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it hasn't.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it hasn't, and remember that Hoffman's defense is the Town has no
jurisdiction. That's Hoffman's defense.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wonder where she got that idea?
MR. SALVADOR-Anyway, and the problem with Hoffman, the reason they got into the big
problem was the criteria for the number of boat docks allowed by the Commission's regulations,
which you're supposed to abide by, and what we have written in our Code are different for that
length of shoreline. That's where the whole thing got into trouble, and the Park Commission
was able to grant them the approval for the boat dock scheme that they had because it met the
Commission's regulations. The only violation they have visa vie the Park Commission
regulations is the height, but at the Town, because of the way the Town wrote its boat dock
regulations as to the number of docks and type allowed, they needed variances, and they went
for these fluky variances that don't make any sense at all, but in any case, still to be settled.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. New subject. You recall your denial of the San Souci application last
week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-After that meeting, I started to think about things and I started to looked into a
few things. I'd like to share them with you. The first thing is, those holding tanks that were
approved by the Town Board as the local Board of Health, that approval is completely out of
order. The Town Board of Health, the local Board of Health, has jurisdiction over residential
wastewater less than 1,000 gallons.
MR. HUNSINGER-You had actually made those comments during the meeting, made that same
comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You said that at the Town Board meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, at our Planning Board meeting during the public hearing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He said it then, too.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. In any case, they don't have the jurisdiction. Now, the
jurisdiction is in this publication, and the DEC has the jurisdiction over discharges greater than
1,000 gallons, and this is not recognized by our Town. Not recognized at all. The other thing is,
the San Souci is a restaurant and a bar. They're regulated by the State of New York, the Health
Department and the Liquor Authority, and nowhere in our Code is there a requirement that that
facility as to conform to a site plan is conditioned on them having up to date and approved
permits from these two State agencies that have pre-empted the Town's jurisdiction.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They can't do that, John.
MR. SALVADOR-We just don't recognize it, and the thing that really bothers me about this
wastewater is I don't see how this Board can address the issue of a site plan approval without
recognizing the issue of wastewater. Wastewater and stormwater each have influences upon
each other on the same site in discharging into the same groundwater. Now the project across
the road here, you're worried about stormwater, stormwater because the wastewater's going
down a sewer, but that's not the case on these, where you have on site wastewater, and it's very
important. Nowhere is there a comprehensive review of these requirements with regard to
wastewater, stormwater. Nowhere is it done.
MR. KREBS-But, John, we have this problem in Dunham's Bay. You have Route 9L. It collects
water and it dumps the water directly into the lake. There's no, on Assembly Point, on Pilot
Knob Road, on the south end of Warner Bay, on the south end of Harris Bay. I don't know what
the answer is, but those create a significantly greater harm to the lake than an individual septic
system.
MR. SALVADOR-No, please, don't.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. KREBS-John, I was the EPA's Advisory Committee Chairman. You were around when we
looked at sewering. Right?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. KREBS-We brought the EPA's, what I call the snooper pooper boat but it was red
phosphorus. We went up and down the shoreline of Rockhurst, Assembly Point, and all of the,
all along the shoreline going into Lake George Village. Okay. Where we found the high
phosphorus counts were at the end of Warner Bay, at the end of Harris Bay, at the end of
Dunham's Bay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's from the marinas.
MR. KREBS-Well, it's not only the marinas, it's a natural phenomenon, because those swamps
that exist up beyond Sandy Bay, the trees fall, they decay, they create phosphorus, but we did
not find, and I'm telling you, you know, what is on the records from years ago, that there were
problems for the lake of any significance from septic systems along, and if you don't have a
problem with Rockhurst or Cleverdale, there aren't many places you're going to have a problem.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, there are investigations going on now where algae blooms are occurring
and they're able to distinguish today between an algae bloom that is caused by road type runoff
or septic systems, and the pattern is septic, okay. This whole concept of, think about it, this
whole concept of holding tanks at the San Souci, you know, they're not in yet. That was your big
problem. They're not in yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-And I don't think there ever was an intention to put them in.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I disagree with that.
MR. SALVADOR-Think about it. Three, 2,000 gallon traffic bearing tanks to be put in the ground
with level controls, okay, on them is a damn expensive operation, Number One. Number Two,
by their flows, they're going to have to pump at least twice a week, at least twice a week. That's
going to cost them over$1,000 a week. No way can you make it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a church, Ascension Church up here, that has two of them, and
they pump them once a week.
MR. SALVADOR-Which?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ascension Church up on Quaker Road.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. $400.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, what capacity?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean how big were the tanks?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know, I didn't dig them up. They just dug them up and put in a
septic system.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well, the going rate is about $200, $190 for a 1,000 gallon tank, and you
don't get 1,000 gallons, okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't have that much flowing out of the San Souci. I can tell you
that.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the design flow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's only open five days a week most of the year.
MR. TRAVER-Do we really want to be talking about this application when the applicant isn't
here?
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we already acted on it. There is no application.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I'm just saying, and it doesn't make any economic sense, and that's why
they're not in. Okay. That's why they're not there. The other thing, with those flows, and the
alternative is he'll have to buy his own truck.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's his problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Put that on the environmental review, the neighbor's going to want to see that
truck parked there all day? All night?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's his problem, John.
MR. SALVADOR-It's our problem in granting the permits. It's going to come back to you folks
who grant the permits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're right. Are you aware of the Park Commission public open house
coming up on Thursday at Bolton on invasive species?
MR. SALVADOR-I went to their meeting today.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you? Did you see the presentation, the PowerPoint where they showed
all the pictures and stuff?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unbelievable. Yes, I saw it last Friday. I passed the information out to the
Board before the meeting.
MR. SALVADOR-The interesting thing at today's meeting was, is it Saratoga Associates that's
preparing this? That's the firm I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Jim Martin, our former.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's LA Group.
MR. SALVADOR-LA Group, I'm sorry, it was the LA Group. They were there today making their
presentation and Jim Martin did the economic impact of the no action alternative. Okay. He
forecasts that property values would fall in Warren County 16%, if there's no action taken on
invasive species. Geez, if you're not intending to sell your property, that's good news.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right.
MR. KREBS-That is assuming that, what he's saying is that his assessment's going to go down,
but that doesn't mean the tax rate can't go up.
MR. SALVADOR-No, the values are going to go down.
MR. KREBS-Yes, so you're assessment's going to go down.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe.
MR. KREBS-Yes, maybe.
MR. SALVADOR-And the ones that don't go down, they'll pick up the slack. There's a silver
lining. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Thank you. Is there any other business to come
before this Board?
MR. FORD-I move we adjourn.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second.
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2012)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
25, 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
52