1999-09-23 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
ALLEN ABBOTT
TIMOTHY BREWER
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROBERT PALING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ROUND-There is a slight change to our agenda tonight, that item two on the agenda, Donna
Hurley and Charles Wilkison did not obtain the variance necessary to move forward to through the
process. So they will not be entertained tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we still on with Mackey and Morgan?
MR. ROUND-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-99 TYPE II ADIRONDACK SEAFOOD CO. OWNER: MICHAEL
J. WILLIG ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 115 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 975 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 22-95, AV 80-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX
MAP NO. 112-1-60 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-79, 179-60
MIKE WILLIG, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-99, Adirondack Seafood Co., Meeting Date: September 23, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing restaurant
and expand the parking. The proposed project received an Area Variance approval in August of
1999. Staff Notes: The applicant has submitted an application with plans that meet the site plan
review requirements. The applicant met with Staff to review the site layout. Although there is no
scale identified on the plan, the applicant confirmed the size of the parking spaces meet the standard
and handicap area requirements. The applicant did not submit a stormwater management plan, but
has indicated the parking area will be graded and black topped to maintain stormwater on site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything from the County on this one?
MR. ROUND-The County Planning Board recommendation is No County Impact, signed Terri
Ross, Chairman of the Warren County Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. ROUND-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. WILLIG-Hi.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. WILLIG-Mike Willig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, Mike?
MR. WILLIG-Yes. I’m trying to expand my parking by another 10 spaces. There’s 10 there now,
and I want to build an addition on the northwest side of the building, to have a lounge. It’s almost
1,000 square feet, just under, and I already went for a variance, because it encroached on the
setbacks, and I guess for site plan the biggest issues were probably stormwater, and I addressed that
by grading the black top to allow the stormwater to run into a drain in the back of the property
where it could disperse in the ground there. I’m going to clean up the property a little bit, where the
green area that’s going to be overtaken, I’m going to trim up the trees and just kind of make it look a
little more presentable there. That’s basically all we want to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-The proposed parking on the west side of the building, will that have
egress/ingress onto Warren Street, or is it going to be like just a circle pattern, or what?
MR. WILLIG-You can still, there’ll still be a drive around, yes. The parking spots will mainly be
parallel spots instead of straight in drive spots, but there’ll still be a driving area, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the two proposed handicap parking spots, that’s, you feel that’s closer for
handicap access to the main entrance to the building than on the other side, the original side?
MR. WILLIG-Yes. I have one existing in the same area. So I’m just basically adding one to that
same spot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board members. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question. I guess on the backside of the building, does it have a
proposed drain? This is where you’re talking about grading your black top and so on so it runs back
into that drain, and then I guess you’ve got that field in the back as a buffer to that drain?
MR. WILLIG-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-My problem is, I don’t have any data on the drain. I mean, it’s a circle on this map.
It doesn’t say how big it is, how deep it is, how much water it’ll hold. There’s no sketch to show
that.
MR. WILLIG-Okay. They didn’t tell me I needed that. If they gave me some kind of specs to go by,
I’ll definitely conform to whatever it is. They didn’t tell me a size. They just said I should have a
drain there.
MR. VOLLARO-In order to ensure that no water runs off the site, you know, you’ve got to either
have a retention capability or a drywell like you show here with the capacity to handle that, and it’s
got to be handled, I guess, on a 50 year storm basis, and so on. There’s a regular stormwater control
document, I guess, that people use to develop that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments to that, Chris?
MR. ROUND-We typically, depending upon the magnitude of a project and the extent of the
improvements, the increase of impermeable area, we look for various levels of documentation of
stormwater management on the site. This project was relatively small in magnitude, and I’m sure,
well, I did not work with Mr. Willig, but Laura has worked with Mr. Willig, and that the increase in
impermeable area is minor, relative to the existing site, and there’s not existing stormwater problems
on the site right now, so that the improvements that he’s identified seem to be sufficient, in the eyes
of the Staff member.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a standard, though, that Staff recommend?
MR. ROUND-There’s a standard for subdivision requirements. There’s not a standard for this type
of particular project, but there are some best engineering practices that you can, that I think Mr.
Vollaro’s referring to, as far as the volume of water that a particular structure can handle, based on
the percolation rate of the soil.
MR. MAC EWAN-Should we approve this site plan, is that something that can be done like at
building permit step, where they recommend a four foot diameter by six foot deep drywell?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. ROUND-I think that’s a reasonable approach.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The lot in the back, if we knew what the permeability of that lot was, in terms
of perc rate, that might help to mitigate this problem as well. Because you’ve got 44 feet between, 44
and some, between where you’ve got that drywell and the end of the property there. So what kind of
a field is that?
MR. WILLIG-It’s not clay. I could really get into what exactly the type of earth is there, but there’s
grass there now, some small trees. It was cleared when I first bought the property, but I haven’t
really done much with it. I would say it’s probably some kind of, not sand, but dirt kind of base.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess my only problem here is that, excluding that small field, this is practically a
100% impermeable lot. It’s covered by a house with a roof and the rest of it is black top, and
depending upon how you grade it, all that water has got to come to the back of this drywell, and
that’s my only concern, that because it is pretty near 100% impermeable, you’re going to get all of the
water, coming on pretty fast in a good storm. I just want to make sure that proposed drain can
handle that, and it doesn’t sheet over, and that’s why I asked you what kind of ground was in back of
that, because that velocity of water coming down that hill could sheet right across that 44 feet into
the next piece of property. That’s really my concern. So I would like to see something from
somebody that states that that drywell has the capacity to handle that, and that field also has that
capacity. That’s the end of my story on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Again, Staff feels comfortable that, should we approve this, that at building
permit application they can sit down with the applicant and design?
MR. ROUND-We can request confirmation from the Town’s engineer that the structure that’s
proposed is sized appropriate for the site conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-The applicant says he doesn’t have a drawing or a design for that. He just
mentioned that. He doesn’t have a set of specs or a drawing or anything to depict the design of that
drywell.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So he’d have to have that done before Levandowski or anybody could see that.
MR. ROUND-Before he could confirm that. Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-What seems to be the big sticking issue here is the drywell.
MR. WILLIG-Okay. They didn’t say anything about the specs on that. I would have gotten
something together, but I didn’t know. Is there a book or somebody I can talk to to get the specs on
that, so I can make a drawing?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the appropriate thing to do, at this point, I’m inclined to want to
table this application. We have a meeting next Tuesday, which would give you time to sit down with
Staff and take their recommendations, so that you could reappear here Tuesday, so we have a
definitive answer on the drywell. I think that’s the biggest hurdle we need to overcome, because I
agree with Mr. Vollaro, that you basically don’t have any stormwater containment right now on your
site, and now with this addition and the more parking spots that you’re going to put in there, you
need to have something that’s going to handle that.
MR. WILLIG-Suppose the new parking area was gravel, would that change things?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not drastically, because you are still putting an addition on the building. I don’t
think it’s a big hurdle for you to overcome. It just needs to have something definitive for us before
we move on it, and you should be able to get all that compiled before next Tuesday. Is that
reasonable?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. WILLIG-Yes. Is there somebody I can talk to to help me out?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would call Mrs. Moore tomorrow in the Planning Department.
MR. WILLIG-Okay, and she’ll give me kind of a guideline?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. She’ll be here later on, so I’ll make sure, after the meeting, I go over it with
her and let her know.
MR. WILLIG-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m going to do is open up the public hearing on this application. If
anybody wants to come up and comment, they’re welcome to. I’m going to leave the public hearing
open, though, and we’ll table this application until next Tuesday night.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 46-99 TYPE II CHRIS MACKEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A,
CEA, APA LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY LANE, OFF RT. 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 78-1999
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16, 179-79, 179-60
JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-99, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date: September 23, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing non-
conforming structure. The applicant received Area Variance approval on 9/15/99 9 (attached).
Staff Notes: The applicant has met with staff on previous occasions to discuss the expansion of the
home. The applicant has provided a drawing describing the extent of the addition. The addition will
increase the existing living space area from 3,150 square feet to a total of 6,290 square feet of living
space. The existing dwelling is 52 feet long with a shoreline length of 204 +/- feet. The proposal
will add an additional 50 +/- feet of length to the home. This would appear to have a crowding
effect on the Lake. The applicant has provided information that indicates the site could
accommodate a larger addition. The applicant has also presented a location and septic system that
meets the zoning code requirements. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site
plan with consideration to the Board’s previous decision on expansion of non-conforming structures
located in the waterfront zone. In addition, Staff recognizes the site could accommodate a larger
addition than proposed. Staff also considered the site location as being secluded.”
MR. ROUND-County Planning Board recommendation, “No County Impact, with the condition
that the septic is updated and the stipulation that the neighbors have no objection to this project.
Board members ask that the Town keep the Warren County Planning Board apprised of any future
projects of this magnitude along the lake shore.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper from Bartlett/Pontiff/Stewart & Rhodes.
With me is Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership, and the property owner and
applicant, Chris Mackey. Although this is our first meeting to discuss this project with you, we’ve
been to the Zoning Board of Appeals twice, which resulted in some significant changes to the project
as it was first proposed. We’ve been to the County Planning Board twice to review the Area
Variance and also to review the site plan. In both cases, the County Planning Board deemed this No
County Impact, and after our second turn at the Zoning Board of Appeals, they were very positive
about the project. What we have is a building that current sits 12.5 feet from the lake, which is
certainly nothing that you could build today, but the reason for that has a lot to do with the
topography of the site, which is very steep. The only flat area of the lot is near the lake. The
building itself is a 1960’s style, flat roof, really a very unattractive structure. Chris has obtained
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
architects at substantial cost to design something that would be really spectacular, that’s going to go a
long way to improving the visual characteristics of this lot, and improving the neighborhood. Just to
begin with you, I presume that the Board members saw the home, did a site visit. When you look at
it from the lake, you see the concrete foundation and the concrete retaining wall, and that’s at eye
level. That is going to be replaced or faced with flagstone, which is going to be a major improvement
and a major expense. When we first proposed this, it was a three story building, which was
everything that Chris was hoping for, but after talking to the Zoning Board, they felt that that was
just too much building, visually, from the lake, and we took off the top story, and this is what’s
resulted, and Chris is very happy with this, with the compromise, and the Zoning Board was as well.
The Zoning Board asked us if the majority of the construction of the addition could be in a place
where it wouldn’t be visible from the lake. It’s not visible from the road because of the topography
and the distance from the road. So what’s going on here, and Dennis will go through the details,
most of the addition is directly behind the existing home, in the back. The other two parts of the
addition, there’s a very narrow entrance hall, which is in the center of that, not center, but to the left
of center, on top of where that retaining wall is. When you look at it two dimensionally on the plan,
it looks like the area to the left of the existing building is all the way up by the lake, but in fact, that’s
46 feet back. We moved that back. We moved the last addition, the garage addition on the left, back
as part of the compromise with the Zoning Board. The reason for putting the garage and the
entranceway there is two fold. Part of it is to balance out the house, make it look longer and more
attractive, because what’s there is not attractive, architecturally, to have the peak on the left side
match the peak feature on the right side, but beyond that, it’s very steep right now, where they enter
the property, and the garage is put in a way so that it can be back filled behind the garage, and that’s
going to reduce the slope and make it easier to access the house from the road, from the driveway.
There’s also a substantial area on the backside, on the non lake side of the house, now that’s paved.
With this addition, we’re removing a substantial amount of pavement that’s there now. Another
major feature of this is taking a septic system which is currently a few feet from the lake and certainly
not in compliance with deign codes, and putting a new system in that does comply, that’s beyond 100
feet from the lake. That’s something that the County Planning Board felt was a very strong benefit
to what we’re doing. With that general introduction, I’d like to ask Dennis to walk you through the
plan and the design.
MR. MAC ELROY-First let me give you a photocopy of the portion of the site plan which’ll
highlight the area of the structure, which is new. Okay. First, to orient you, Route 9L is out in this
location, Lake George here, the structure in this location, again, approximately 12 feet from the
shoreline. On this drawing, this presents the existing conditions, the existing structure and driveway
down to that structure. This view provides the enlargement or the alteration of the structure with the
corresponding areas that have changed from the original. Now, again, the photocopy, you show, you
have there, indicates in red the expansion of the structure. The outline to the rear is a single level
expansion, in an area which really currently is hard space, and that comes into play when I talk about
the percentages of impermeable area, and then to the right is the garage area. The outlined area that’s
hatched, or lined there is the indication of the second level addition, and that’s within the roofline at
this level. Now if you see on the elevation drawing, you’ll see, looking from the lake side, what is the
existing first and second level of the structure. We refer to this as the basement. It’s not full depth
of the structure, and then the main entry level, and this now being the second level, which amounts
to about 900 square feet of new space, but built within the roof line, the gable end, you see the
windows of the new portion. So that’s providing some additional livable space, and represented on
the site plan by that hatched area. To the east, or left as we’re looking, the entry area addition and
the lake side of the garage, and while these look like garage doors, they are actually access to a storage
area at the level below the car parking area of the garage. They’ll serve as additional storage for lake
items, whatever, chairs, tubes, jet skis, that type of thing. That’s the intent of that, and that’s the
access to that portion of the structure. Now, regarding, back to the site plan, we have an existing
drive which is relatively steep, which accesses the site. The elevation of the addition of the garage is
at an elevation higher than the existing entry. So that enables us to soften that grade slightly. It’s still
steep, but that’s one of the reasons why that garage was placed at that location and at that elevation,
enables that grade to be slightly lessened.
MR. MAC EWAN-By how much, Dennis?
MR. MAC ELROY-A couple of percentages. Footage wise, I think it’s about two and a half feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-And also enables that, architecturally, to tie in to the rest of the new addition and
the entry of the structure. Now we have an additional parking turn off here, which helps in terms of
the garage entry backing out and back up that relatively steep grade. The infrastructure, in terms of
the wastewater, there’s an existing septic system which, septic tank in back of the structure, and
reportedly, some sort of drain field over in this location, but certainly, within probably 50 to 60 feet
of the lake. What we’re proposing is a replacement system for this four bedroom structure, using the
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
latest technology, the Elgin In-Drain system, which really is a new innovation that the Health
Department has approved this spring. I think you’ll see this more and more in the Lake George area.
MR. MAC EWAN-We had exposure to it Tuesday night.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think that’s a real plus for areas that have a little bit of good soil, but not a lot.
It’ll enable applicants to replace antiquated, non conforming systems with something that will be
more suitable, as is the case here. This system is about 130 feet back from the lake now, and we’ll
comply with the Town’s regulations for a replacement system. Stormwater, as you’re aware, there is
a new Stormwater Management permitting process for the Lake George area of the Town of
Queensbury. As it turns out, and I could go through the numbers on this site plan, in terms of the
impermeable area, but if you go from the existing, at 10,105 square feet of non permeable area,
rooftops, driveway, hard space that exists on the site, to the new, 10,041, it actually is less. There’s a
little less paved area. Some of the new addition occupies area that was hard space before. So,
technically, there’s not a requirement to, as I understand it, and Chris may confirm that, that it
doesn’t trigger the threshold of requiring a stormwater permit, but they certainly had that in mind,
and on the more detailed plan, S-2 of your package, there is indication of two different areas that
we’ll be directing stormwater to, an infiltration trench along the side of the driveway, which will
capture an area along the driveway, driveway crowned in the middle, sheet flow to the side will
capture that as well as roof drainage in that area, and then in the back what was formerly a paved
area, pavement will be removed. There will be a certain fill added to that area, landscaping, grass
swales, which will capture another area of runoff. It certainly will better the stormwater situation on
this lot, and use some of the recommended standards for dealing with stormwater in the Lake
George basin, even though there’s not necessarily a permit required here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is is the intention of your infiltration trench to capture it all before it gets down
near the lake?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because I see your trench just kind of like stops down there near the garage.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s a note here, and it’s not on your package, but we’ve added that
established vegetation, landscaped area to serve as buffer and erosion control measure. So there
would be a certain infiltration that occurs here, but there are also, beyond the design level storm, lets
say, or runoff amount of 1.5 gallons per, inch and a half, excuse me, is the figure that’s used in the
determination of quantity of runoff. There would be some provision for stormwater, capturing for
erosion control through landscaping and buffering in that area. So, you know, it is a site that has a
slope that heads toward the lake, but we’re using certain measures to try to mitigate that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a landscaping plan with this application?
MR. MAC ELROY-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the reason why I’m asking is because they’re talking about landscaping both
areas where there’s going to be stormwater affecting those areas, for erosion control measures. So
I’m just curious as to what you had in mind for plantings.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, in the back area, this newly restored area that was previously pavement,
there would be a certain type of residential shrubbery type planting, grassed area, swale that would
allow for certain infiltration within that, and it would be an addition of soil, so there’s some
additional infiltration capabilities is in that area, but a specific plan at this point, no. It’s not, to my
knowledge, not specifically required for the site plan of this level of development.
MR. LAPPER-There’s going to be some quality landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. MAC ELROY-I think that covers the utility details there, yes. Water would be taken from the
lake.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. RINGER-Not right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. The latest drawing that you submitted, when you were going through
your permeability analysis there, the last drawing that you submitted that I have is September 2,
nd
9/2, and if you take a look at your drawing up there, I believe you’ll find that your proposed
conditions have been revised, by your 9/2 submission. Is that correct, or am I wrong?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. MAC ELROY-In terms of the numbers in the chart?
MR. VOLLARO-In terms of the map that’s on the proposed conditions drawing, yes.
MR. LAPPER-I can explain that. We tabled the matter at the end of August, and in order to get
back on the Zoning Board agenda, after they gave us some clear indication of what they wanted to
see, we quickly redesigned the site. The first time it was redesigned, it was somewhat different than
what was finally decided on, but that all happened in the last couple of days before submission. So
we came in with one plan, and then we supplemented it the next day.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, as a reviewer of the application, I had a very difficult time finding the right
data to go with the latest drawing, because a lot of the map that you submitted just never added up,
and I’m not going to take the time of the Board to go over that, but we certainly can do that, but this
proposed conditions for site development data, and for the floor area that’s required, you know the
22% that we use, this was submitted on 9/2, and it goes with the 9/2 drawing. So when you were
doing your analysis up there on whether or not things were required to meet the stormwater
conditions in Lake George, I don’t know whether you were using the right numbers or not.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the same numbers.
MR. VOLLARO-The same numbers, not for the proposed condition, but, because this is dated 9/2.
What you’ve got on that drawing is not 9/2. It’s 8/27.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that’s the original drawing date.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to go with what’s on the stamp. It says date issued August 27. It’s right
th
here. So I just had a hard time making the two fit, so that I could understand exactly what you were
doing, when I looked at the math, and I had to call Laura, and she said, the problem really is that the
9/2 revised data goes with the 9/2 drawing.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-And all the other stuff that was jumbled up in there, I just didn’t understand it, and
I just want to make sure that when he’s doing an analysis up there, with the map that says, this
doesn’t require stormwater management, that he’s looking at the right numbers.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry for that inconvenience. That was just that things were changing quickly, but
we did get it right on September 2.
nd
MR. MAC ELROY-The same numbers you have in front of you on that drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I tacked it on. That my tack on to this drawing. I stapled it to this drawing.
This wasn’t this way when it was submitted.
MR. MAC ELROY-No, but I supplied that to Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you did. Once I knew how to put A to B, it made some sense. That’s all I
have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, we know not to come before you if the math isn’t right. We’ve learned that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m supposed to do here, I think. I don’t know, maybe I’m doing the
wrong thing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’ve got this connecting part, the hallway between the main dwelling
and the addition, that sets back.
MR. LAPPER-That entranceway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay, that’s what I wanted to see. That’s from the back side, as you’re
coming in. That’s what I was looking for. All right. So on the regular, your first floor, it’s nothing
but just like a little mud room/entranceway type of thing?
MR. MAC ELROY-Between the existing structure and the garage.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right there, and then what’s on the second floor?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a story and a half room, a lot of glass.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s really not a two story. There’s not a second floor up there. It’s just
like a cathedral ceiling in there?
MR. LAPPER-No, that’s just an architectural element that makes it an attractive entrance to the
house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, now what’s the approximate square footage of that part? It looks
huge.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not. It’s very narrow. If you look on the site plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it doesn’t look narrow to me here on this drawing. What I’m saying is,
is that, when I stood on the dock, Jon, and I looked back at the house, I mean, it’s like all house.
There’s like no land between the house and the boundary, the boundaries of the property.
MR. LAPPER-This area here, this the existing retaining wall. So this whole area here is already there,
and this would be an open deck, the only deck area on that floor, and this is only 12 feet wide.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This, right, this we walked, because the doors had blown open from the
storm. So we closed the doors, and so we walked into there, right.
MR. LAPPER-This whole area is only 12 feet wide.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I thought it was wider. I thought it was something like 25 feet wide.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what I was saying before, that visually, that two dimensionally, it looks like a
big deal, but it’s really.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I thought it looked wide on here, too.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but it’s not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s 12 by 23.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, another thing is, now this is what’s confusing. These
rendering of vehicles in the garage look like they’ve been driven in from the other side, but they
really, like this is the front, and that’s why I was wondering, I said, wait a minute, are we coming
down around here, but now I see it. All right. Okay, and then above the garage there is living area,
or is, from the lakeside?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, that is, from the lakeside it’s below the level of the car parking.
MR. LAPPER-The cars park where the windows are, and this is storage. That’s just another
architectural element.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t see that bottom there when it was covered up. Okay. Now I’ve got
it.
MR. LAPPER-Those doors are just another architectural element, just like the garage.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, basically, when you’re standing on the dock looking back at the
house, it looks, your immediate impression is, my gosh, they’re just doubling the entire house, but in
essence you’re not.
MR. LAPPER-Most of the addition is in the back, you can’t see it, on the back side, and this is
relatively small.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. It’s deceiving. All right. I’ve got it. It looked on here that it was
wider than 12 feet, and I thought, why are you putting in all that extra room, when the house looks
so close to each boundary from the front of the, from the dock.
MR. LAPPER-The house is only close to the boundary on the left side, and there’s a letter in the file
from the neighbor, in the Zoning Board file, that should be in your file, that that neighbors said that
he thinks this is a very positive addition. He’s seen the plans, he’s in favor of it, and we did reduce
the width of the house by two feet, as part of the Zoning Board process. On the right side, on the
west side of the house, there’s plenty of room.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I know. We had a tough time finding the house.
MR. LAPPER-And part of the reason why it was designed this way is because of the driveway, the
slope, just an access issue, to not have to pave over, if you moved the garage to the other side, you’d
have to pave across the whole lot to get there. So this is, there were a lot of site constraints that went
into this design.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
MR. ABBOTT-I think all my questions have been answered.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All the questions have been answered on the Board. Staff? Okay. We’ll
open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do
so. Please come right on up to the microphone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. When Cathy said it looked as though the house was going to
be doubling in size, you’re absolutely right, by ten square feet, is not being doubled. The existing
house is 3,150 square feet. The proposal, living space, is 6,290 square feet. So the house is being,
essentially, doubled. I thought when we were at the ZBA meeting, I know the existing house is 3,150
square feet. I thought, at the ZBA meeting, it was brought out that the addition was going to be
4,100 square feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you.
MRS. SALVADOR-I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my notes, because I thought this was just going to be on
Indian Ridge tonight, but I’ve got all my figures at home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Heck, we bunched everything in tonight. If you’d like to go ahead and just ask
your questions, and then we’ll.
MRS. SALVADOR-That’s the only one I had. That’s the only thing I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You can respond to it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Thank you. You’re correct. The existing structure has, by Queensbury
definition, 3150 square feet of livable space. The total of the floor area of the new structure is 6290,
which is an addition of 3140, and that amounts to the area is delineated on that photocopy, again, the
rear section of the building, the entry area, and an approximate 700 square foot garage, which is
included in that area, and the same area in storage beneath the garage. So the livable space, really, is
an addition of about 1750 square feet, which is, again, that area in back of the structure, and then the
900 square feet within the roofline of the second level.
MRS. SALVADOR-So the living space is not the 6290 square feet, as is stated on here.
MR. MAC ELROY-If it says living space, then that’s incorrect. I mean, it’s total floor area, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I, too, have listened to this application at a number of
other meetings, and I’m concerned about the stormwater and the wastewater. We hear,
interchangeably, that it’s a new system, that it’s a replacement system. It’s very important to define
which it is, because there are different criteria that determine the design of the system and its
allowable use. Mr. Lapper stated that the present septic system is only a few feet from the lake.
However, it’s behind the house, and then we heard it was, I don’t know, 40 to 60 feet from the lake.
Now 40 to 60 is not a few. It’s not been mentioned here that I think the existing structure is only 12
feet from the lake.
MR. MAC EWAN-They mentioned it in their opening statement.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was the first thing that was mentioned.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. With regard to the septic system, do we know what exists there now?
What is the present system?
MR. MAC EWAN-You wouldn’t probably know that unless you dug it up and looked at it, which is
the case, probably, with any resident on the lake.
MR. SALVADOR-Because if this system is in a state of failure, it must be first corrected before they
apply for a building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it in a state of failure?
MR. SALVADOR-You won’t know unless you inspect it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand where you’re going with this. As part of this approval, if they
should get approval of this site plan, that the new system that they’re going to upgrade it with is a
newer, more proactive approach toward solving the sewage problems along the lake, with this new
style of system they’re using.
MR. SALVADOR-Is it sufficient? Is it sufficient is the question. Because the design criteria for a
new system, in this zone, has different setback requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-John, I share your concerns, and you know, we’ve spoken about this stuff before,
but there’s a letter that was submitted to us from Mr. Hatin, and I had asked my Chairman if this
could be read into the record, and he will read it into the record, but in a sense, Mr. Hatin has given
this septic system his tacit approval, and so, you know, when I get a letter like this from the Building
and Codes people, we here up at the Planning Board now don’t have very much latitude, other than
to challenge the validity of this letter. So I really don’t know. We’re kind of, not stuck, but we’ve got
what we’ve got. We don’t know what to do about that.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Hatin is neither authorized nor qualified to design systems. Those things are
done by licensed professional people, okay, and maybe that’s what this Board should do is have an
engineer look at this. It should also be mentioned, with regard to this septic system, we’ve gone
through years, years up on Lake George and North Queensbury, of trying to determine how best to
manage the wastewater. The most recent go around, this section of the Town between Bay Road
and the Lake George Town line, was not even thought to need some kind of management of the
wastewater, collective management of the wastewater, because the lots were big. They’re three acre
lots. My God, plenty of room, but there’s a lot more to a lot than just the area. There’s topography,
type of soils, depth to bedrock, all this sort of thing, and those have to be looked at. Those things
have to be looked at in a comprehensive way. These codes that we work with with regard to the
design of a septic system, an on-site septic system, are very, very site tailored, you know. You figure
all sites are almost the same. That’s the way you have to do it, but in this case, you have a set of
cumulative impacts that have to be looked at. It’s the neighbors. It’s the neighborhood. It’s the
lake. It’s everything, and that has to be addressed. With regard to the stormwater runoff, I know the
Park Commission has their regulations in place, and we’ve adopted them, but there is a proviso in
there for certain sites, certain critical sites, and this is in a Park Commission Critical Environmental
Area. They have the right to require a stormwater permit, and the 15,000 foot threshold is
something that should be looked at very carefully, because it’s the development area, not the
impervious area, the development area. Question. The infiltration bed, is that considered to be an
impervious area? It should be, because we know the only way the wastewater is going to get out of
this thing is through evapo transpiration, and if those soils are saturated, and we get a rain, nothing’s
going into the ground. The stormwater catchment itself is part of the development area, and when
you add all of these things together, you might well encroach on the 15,000 square feet. So I would
think that the applicant should at least get a letter of non-jurisdiction from the Lake George Park
Commission with regard to stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Chris, would you read that letter into the record,
please, from Mr. Hatin.
MR. ROUND-Sure. The letter’s dated September 21, 1999, Attention: Town Planning Board, re:
Christopher Mackey Site Plan approval “Dear Board Members: In discussion with Dennis
MacElroy and Chris Round regarding the Mackey application that is before you tonight, I wish to
state the following for the record. Mr. Mackey is allowed to replace his existing system with a new
fill system that will meet the requirements for a four bedroom dwelling, as allowed under Section
136-9B, which states that the repair or replacement of existing septic systems may be constructed up
to 100 feet from the shores of Lake George. Section 136-10 sets forth the criteria for fill systems
within 1,000 feet of the shores of Lake George. The proposed system that Mr. Mackey’s engineer,
Mr. MacElroy, has proposed will meet the requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance
for the Town of Queensbury as well as Department of Health, and therefore, as long as Mr. Mackey
follows Section 136-9 and 136-10, he would be allowed to construct a septic system up to 100 feet
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
from the shoreline of Lake George. I trust this will answer all your concerns. If not, please don’t
hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Any other letters or comments to be read in?
MR. ROUND-There are none.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-If we could just make a quick response to some of the comments of the Salvadors.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely, go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-I guess in general, I would characterize their concerns as sort of policy issues, which
don’t necessarily relate directly to this application, such as whether or not the east side should be
sewered, which is certainly a valid issue for discussion, what the regs could say, in terms of how you
determine impervious surfaces, but our position is that this project is a positive change to the site,
that we are complying with all of the septic regs, the stormwater regs that apply, and any of that can
be conditions of the approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, other than if there’s any question about the location of the system. We
know the septic tank is in back of the, on the driveway side, right near the foundation, and
reportedly, by a local contractor who had done maintenance for the previous owners of the structure,
it’s to the westerly side of the structure. I think he used the figure of 30 feet from lake, but any site
investigation didn’t lead to any obvious failure, any apparent failure, any kind of failure, but also
recognizing that the house hadn’t been in full time use, lets say, but the system, we believe, is
certainly antiquated, and certainly within 100 feet of the lake, because it’s not a pump system, and
therefore, the applicant certainly felt strongly about the design and replacement of that system.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any question from Board members?
MR. RINGER-Yes. I think I’d like to see Rist-Frost do a stormwater report on it.
MR. ROUND-Can I just maybe clarify what the Park Commission, well, actually the Town’s
Stormwater Management Ordinance requires, and there’s two classifications, or there’s actually three
classifications. There’s exempt projects. There’s minor projects and major projects. Major projects,
as Mr. Salvador alluded to, if it exceeded 15,000 square feet, if it disturbed site development area, it
requires that an engineer design the stormwater management controls, and it also requires that the
Planning Board review the project. An engineer has designed the stormwater management controls,
and you are the Planning Board.
MR. RINGER-We could still have Rist-Frost take a look at it.
MR. ROUND-You could have them confirm that the.
MR. RINGER-We have a situation here where the topography of this thing is such a drop that I’d
really like to see someone like Rist-Frost do an independent.
MR. ROUND-That’s a reasonable request.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. RINGER-No, nothing else.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this Adirondack Park jurisdictional, in other words, is the APA a jurisdictional
agency here?
MR. ROUND-They’re not involved with construction of single family homes on existing lots, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, Larry, you want to send this off to Rist-Frost and have them review it?
MR. RINGER-I would like to send it off to Rist-Frost.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about it?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, what we would ask, we have no problem with that whatsoever, but we
would ask that if the Board chooses to approve this, that you just make it as a condition, that before
we can build, that we have to have a letter from Rist-Frost reviewing this. I don’t know if it’s
necessary to come back before this Board. It was designed by an engineer. We’re fully confident
that it complies, and perhaps, unless Rist-Frost feels that it needs to come before you or perhaps
Chris, I just don’t know if that, because we’re confident that we’ve done it right, if that requires us
coming back before the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it was a smaller project, I might be inclined to do it. I’m of the persuasion
right now, because of the magnitude of the project, I would just as soon table this thing until Rist-
Frost takes a look at it.
MR. LAPPER-Could we come back next week, next meeting? I don’t think it’s going to take them
much time.
MR. MAC EWAN-How long do you think it will take them? If this was sent over tomorrow?
MR. ROUND-If they are capable of handling that timeframe, if they can’t do it, they can’t do it.
MR. LAPPER-That’s understandable.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a reasonable request. Okay. Then what we’ll do is we’ll table this
application until next Tuesday, pending Rist-Frost’s review of the stormwater management plan.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, can you make that a formal tabling motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 46-99, CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Pending Rist-Frost’s review of the stormwater management plan.
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Next Tuesday.
SITE PLAN NO. 47-99 TYPE II IRENE MORGAN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 8 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND RECEIVED A VARIANCE APPROVAL. A CONDITION
OF THE VARIANCE APPROVAL WAS TO REFER APPLICATION TO THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF ISSUES. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 67-1990, AV 30-1999, TOWN BD. OF HEALTH RES. 17.99, BP 99-357 TAX MAP NO.
44-2-25 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
BILL HERILHY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-99, Irene Morgan, Meeting Date: September 23, 1999
“Description of Project: The Zoning Board requested the applicant submit drainage information
to the Planning Board for review and approval. Staff Notes: The applicant has supplied
information demonstrating the direction of flow and areas of drainage. The drainage of the new
construction does not appear to have an impact on neighboring drainage. Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval of the site plan.”
MR. ROUND-I have a letter from, I think you have that same letter in front of you. It’s a letter
from Hardick and Associates Consulting and Design Engineers, Frank Hardick, P.E., subject:
drainage pattern, Miss Irene Morgan’s property on Reardon Road, Town of Queensbury, NY, Tax
Parcel 44-2-25, as built condition as now exists, “An inspection of the Morgan property on Reardon
Road on this date, with regard to the drainage patterns, is as follows: 1. The grades on the Morgan
property from the rear of the house to the road are comparable to the neighboring house and grade
next door are at or about the same elevation. 2. General runoff of any water would go to a small
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
ditch on the east side. Runoff from the east and south side would collect on the lawn area, with
some water going into a ditch or low area on the west side of the Morgan property. 3. No culvert is
needed, as there are no other ones in the area or vicinity. 4. With the general slopes and newly
landscaped areas and grass being established on the lawn, there should be no impact in the area as to
flooding or runoff across the road toward Glen Lake. Frank Hardick, P.E.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. ROUND-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. HERLIHY-Bill Herlihy, General Contractor for Irene Morgan.
IRENE MORGAN
MRS. MORGAN-I’m Irene Morgan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you fill the Board in on your little dilemma here, why the Zoning
Board has sent you here after the project is completed, to address stormwater runoff issues?
MR. HERLIHY-That’s a good question. Well, the original structure that was there was
approximately 700 square feet. The new structure is around 1300 square feet, and the concern was
that the runoff from the roof and drain off would run toward the lake. Because of the provisions we
made, based on Frank Hardick’s letter, there wasn’t a problem with this, so I came here to answer
any questions, if you had any.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give us some background, will you, please?
MRS. MOORE-The concern from the stormwater drainage came from a neighbor. Therefore, the
Zoning Board requested that the Planning Board review the stormwater information, as it’s done in
the past, for similar waterfront property additions and such. As far as I’m concerned, looking at
what’s occurring on the property, most of it drains on site.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it is being contained on the site?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and Staff feels adequate with Mr. Hardick’s letter that it’s all been
addressed?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. ROUND-Right. I think there was some delay in Mrs. Morgan coming before the Board, in
understanding, in communication what the Zoning Board request was, construction occurred. I
think that’s the dilemma that you’re talking about. There was some delays between the project’s
coming before you.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, was this built after the ZBA gave the variance? In other words, that’s when
you went forward?
MR. HERLIHY-Right.
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? So the issue was a neighbor had concerns stormwater was not
being contained on site. Stormwater is being contained on site. You have a professional engineer
who’s signed off on saying that the stormwater management plan this applicant has is adequate for
the site.
MR. ROUND-That’s correct. There’s no other outstanding issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you just want to act on a formal approval to what? I mean, what are
we approving here, that the stormwater management plan they have is adequate?
MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s a similar project to the lakefront project you had in front of you, that the
concerns, as identified by the Zoning Board, have been addressed to your satisfaction.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing. We’ll open up the public hearing right now.
You can come right up and address this Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOE SERRA
MR. SERRA-My name is Joe Serra. I live up the street from Irene. It’s not her problem. It’s the
Town’s problem. That street goes this way, and the water catches all in front of her home. What has
happened, years ago the Town came in and put a culvert from her side of the street over to the
lakeside, which is owned by a right-of-way, which the Town has no right to run that water through
our lot down to the lake. What should be put there is a storm sewer or a storm drain, a drywell, like
they did up the street in front of Barb Barber’s and the other places, and they left us out. Maybe we
don’t pay our taxes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That isn’t a Planning Board issue. That is obviously a Town Highway
Department issue, and I would encourage you to call them tomorrow morning.
MR. SERRA-So she is not at fault.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
MARGARET WALLACE
MS. WALLACE-Margaret Wallace, also a neighbor of Irene’s. Just to re-state the obvious, after
Floyd came through, the road was dry, you know, the lawn was a little bit soggy, at six o’clock in the
morning. So I don’t think there’s any issue, as you’re saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. Does someone
want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-99 IRENE MORGAN, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
As prepared by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 46-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/30/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application w/drawings and maps dated S-1 dated 8/24/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
9/2/99 - Meeting Notice
2.
8/30/99 - Hardick Associates
3.
9/16/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
4.
9/23/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/23/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
47-99 Irene Morgan.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. HERLIHY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN 51-99 THOMAS J. FARONE & SON, INC. & J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR.
OWNER: SAME ZONE: PUD/SR-20, MR-5 & LC-42A LOCATION: END OF FAR
LANE & FOX FARM ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 75 LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THREE (3)
PHASES. PHASE I, 25 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT IN THREE (3) PHASES. PHASE I, 25 RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
SENIOR HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA AND ACCESS TO OPEN
SPACE/CONSERVATION AREA. PHASE II CONSISTING OF 25 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND PHASE III, 25 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. CROSS
REFERENCE: PUD 1-96/SP 1-97 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-21, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4 LOT SIZE:
135.15 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-58
MATTHEW JONES & JIM MILLER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes.
MR. ROUND-They’re in a little different format than the typical format. This is a substantial
project. It’s a memo dated September 21, Indian Ridge PUD Development, from Chris Round.
st
“The Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development is on the Agenda for tonight (September 23, 1999).
The purpose of this memo is to apprise you of the status of the review and the approval process for
this project.” The Town Board has previously approved resolutions on August 9, 1996, which
include a SEQRA Negative Declaration, a zone change for portions of property from RR-3A to SR-
20 & MR-5, and they actually approved the Indian Ridge PUD District. The project is still subject to
the signing of a PUD Agreement between the applicant and the Town. A Draft PUD has been
submitted to the Town for review. No action has been taken to date. It’s our understanding that the
Town Board will act on the Agreement after the Planning Board has reviewed the project. Your
review may include recommendations to be incorporated in the PUD Agreement. The Approval
Process. The project has received sketch plan approval and has subsequently been modified. The
modified project represents a reduction in the number of residential units. In accordance with the
Town’s PUD Ordinance, Section 179-58D, the Planning Board is required to determine whether or
not the modifications to the sketch plan, as presented on the preliminary plan, are consistent with the
intent of the sketch plan approved by the Town Board during the re-districting process. The
proposed review process is as follows: 1. Planning Board resolution indicating the project’s
consistency with the sketch plan. 2. Preliminary site plan approval conditioned upon Town Board
Approval. 3. Town Board affirming preliminary approval. 4. Final site plan approval, and the
Town could then sign a PUD agreement. The Planning Board last reviewed the project at the
February 20, 1997 meeting. The meeting minutes and the Staff Notes (dated 3/20/97) developed for
that meeting are attached for your review. The revised project represents an overall reduction in
number of units proposed, increased separation distance to wetlands/Glen Lake CEA, and increase
in land conservation area, resulting in reduction of parkland previously proposed. A summary is
provided below. I’ll just note that there’s currently 75 single family homes, no multifamily units, a 61
unit senior housing facility proposed on two lots, a total of 10 acres. There’s one acre set aside for
commercial or community service uses, and there’s a total of 69.6 acres in conservation lands.
Generally, the project is consistent with the original sketch plan and represents an improvement over
the previous approval. Based on review of the historical record, the following issues were of primary
concern to the Planning Board: 1. Overall density and impact on the neighborhood character. 2.
Traffic impacts (safety, capacity, level of service). 3. Impact on groundwater quality and wetlands.
4. Pedestrian safety. The same concerns were applicable to the revised proposal. Correspondence
from Dr. Mark Hoffman dated 7/5/99 (attached) would indicate a resolution of
neighborhood/community impact concerns. However, confirmation that this is true will occur
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
during the public comment process. The remaining issues are discussed below. Traffic The
applicant presented a traffic study (Transportation Concepts dated 11/16/95 revised 5/8/96) during
the Town Board approval process. The analysis indicated a degradation of Level of Service to the
impacted intersections (Farr Lane/Aviation/Dixon Rd. & Fox Farm/Potter Rd.) would occur, with
no apparent failure of the intersections. Subsequent critique of the transportation analysis (LA
Group comment letter dated 2/19/97) and Town sponsored traffic analysis (Stetson Harza Aviation
Rd. Scoping Report dated 4/7/97) indicated a potential failure of the intersections under an Indian
Ridge Build Out scenario, and I’ll just note that that was the previous approval, not the proposal in
front of you. Our office has requested clarification of the historical analyses (or update) given the
critiques and the modified proposal. Groundwater Much discussion during the February 1997
Planning Board hearing was devoted to the direction of groundwater flow and the limited nature of
the data presented by the applicant to substantiate this point. The applicant’s consultant, the Town’s
consulting engineer and the project applicant’s technical representatives concurred on the directions
of groundwater flow (southeast). However, the potential for a groundwater divide, or a bifurcation
of groundwater flow, was identified during the analysis. Additionally, the seasonal variation in flow
direction and post development impacts on groundwater flow were also identified as points of
concern. Based on the Town’s consulting engineer’s review the 60 foot separation to groundwater
and the increased separation to the adjacent wetland, the construction of on site septic systems does
not present a technical problem. Pedestrian Safety Pedstrian safety issues have not been addressed
with the current proposal. Design details for the interconnection with the Queensbury School
property and the potential for increased pedestrian travel on Aviation Road should be addressed.
That’s the end of Staff Notes. We do have a letter from Rist-Frost, regarding their preliminary
review of the project. Would you like me to read that now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes would you, please?
MR. ROUND-It’s, attention: Chris Round, Subdivision 19-1999 Indian Ridge Preliminary “Dear
Mr. Round: we have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and
have the following comments: 1. The plans should identify monuments in accordance with Section
A183-20 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 2. The plans should show
site-specific erosion and sediment control details or notes for construction on the lots adjacent to the
critical environmental area. 3. Have individual septic systems been sized to include a minimum of 50
percent expansion of the infiltration area? 4. The Storm Water Management Report indicates a 8’ –
0” diameter drywell was used in the storm water calculations, but the construction details indicate a 6’
– 0” diameter drywell. 5. Drawing #SP-15 “Road Profiles” identifies drywell #3 as drywell #4 6.
The construction details should clearly indicate the slope of the equalization pipe. 7. The sewage
system design is subject to the approval of the Department of Health. A variance for the use of
individual systems over 50 lots is also required from the Department of Health. 8. The proposed
water system is subject to review by the Town of Queensbury Water Department. 9. The proposed
road design is subject to review by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department. 10. Substantial
technical documentation regarding the larger scale project was submitted and reviewed by our office
and comments generated. It is expected that with a smaller scale project as presently proposed, no
new concerns or increased concerns will result. If the Planning Board or Staff wishes further input
from us regarding those previously addressed aspects, please advise. Call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas R. Center, Jr. Project Engineer”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the time being.
MR. JONES-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good evening. I’m Matthew J. Jones of the
Jones Firm. I’m the attorney for the applicants in this project. I’m accompanied this evening by Jim
Miller, of Miller and Associates, the Landscape Architect for the project. To my left, Tom Nace,
who is the project engineer, to my right, and Mark Gregory, who is an engineer with Transportation
Concepts, to my far left. This evening, we, consistent with my discussion with you, Mr. Chairman
today, the focus of the proceeding tonight is actually rather limited. There is a proceeding under
Section 179-58D of your Ordinance which asks the Planning Board to examine the scope of the
project, since it was originally presented to you in 1996, to determine whether or not the modified
plan that we’re presenting here this evening is still in keeping with the intent of the zoning resolution
adopted by the Town Board on August 19, 1996. Essentially what’s happened is we’ve scaled back
our proposal, as Chris said, and your Ordinance makes provision for you to examine that to
determine whether we’re still within keeping of the Ordinance. If you so find, we’ll ask you to adopt
a resolution, at the conclusion of our presentation this evening. I understand the matter would go
back to the Town Board. The Town Board would take a review of it, and if appropriate, send it back
here for site plan review and we’d be back to see you again next month. What I’d like to do this
evening is to, in a minute or two, just give you a brief history of the project, and then call upon Jim
to take you through our modified proposal, which is before you this evening, followed by Tom Nace.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
I’ll ask Tom to address specifically the Rist-Frost comments, which Chris just read to you, and the
groundwater concerns, and following that, I’ll ask Mark Gregory to take you through the traffic
issues, the reports that Transportation Concepts delivered to this Board in 1996, as well as the Harza
Report, which is also a part of the record and the case. For those of you haven’t been through the
entire project, first maybe a brief history. The application was originally presented to the Town in
1995. It went through a number of public hearings before the Town, and the Town Board, on
August 19, 1996, adopted three resolutions, a Planned Unit Development resolution, a rezoning
resolution, and a determination under SEQRA issuing a negative declaration. We then made
application to the Planning Board for preliminary site plan review. At the time of that application,
there was a drafted Planned Unit Development Agreement that had been worked on by the parties
but never finalized. It was submitted to the Town Board, but as of this date, no Planned Unit
Development Agreement has been executed, and that is a specific condition of two of the adopted
resolutions. So before anything happens in the project, finally, the PUD Agreement needs to be
negotiated and executed, and the Planning Board will have a significant role in its recommendations
on that particular document. Following the Town Board’s actions, in August of 1996, a challenge to
the project was brought by the Citizens For Queensbury, among others, in the form of an Article 78
proceeding. In 1997, the Supreme Court annulled those three decisions, by decision of Judge
Faradino, issued in July of 1997. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Division in October of 1998.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court and reinstated all three appeals. Leave was
sought to the Court of Appeals, in an application by Citizens for Queensbury in April of this year,
1999. The Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction, and allowed the Appellate Division’s order to
stand. So we are today, as we were back in August of 1996, with the three resolutions pending
before the Town. During the process, the Town Board, in May of 1998, adopted a resolution
rescinding those three approvals which the previous Town Board had adopted in 1996. An Article
78 was commenced by the applicant, following that action, and the Supreme Court annulled that
rescinding resolution. So all of that is to say that we are back today, as we were in August 19, 1996,
with three adopted resolutions, and with the Town Board asking for the Planning Board, at this
point, for site plan review. Because we’ve modified our proposal and shrunk it down, we are under
179-58, for your determination this evening that the project is in keeping with the original intent of
those three resolutions of August of 1996. A lot said there, and with all that said, if Jim would flip
over the first page, what this is, some of you recall, because some of your faces are familiar to me
from three or four years ago, this was the first application that we made to you, and it was the source
of the litigation which I just described. It was an application with 111 single family homes, nine
duplex lots showing 18 units, a senior citizens facility on 7.1 acres, depicting 61 senior citizen units,
and a single acre lot for a community service center. The plan also depicted a land conservation area
of some 50 plus acres which is depicted on the plan. During the course of the litigation, and
particularly after the Appellate Division had ruled, but while the Court of Appeals was considering it,
we came to the Town Board and asked the assistance of the Town Board to sit down with the
Citizens For Queensbury. The Town Board was gracious enough, and appointed a liaison of two of
its members, Pliney Tucker and Doug Irish, who convened the parties, who are at odds over the
proceeding, and over the next five months and six meetings, they cajoled us and counseled us and
pushed us and nudged us and got us together to a point where we reached agreement with the
Citizens For Queensbury, on three principal components of the plan, and if you’ll flip over the next
one, Jim, we depicted, in a concept plan, in April of this year, the three principal components of that
agreement, and they are as follows. This concept plan shows 75 single family units, and that’s what is
before you tonight. In addition to that, it shows the project largely pulled back, virtually, but not
completely, out of the CEA, the Critical Environmental Area. You’ll see the one area for three or
nearly four lots which remains within the area, but largely the project has been pulled back, under the
agreement, and that area which still remains is acceptable, as I understand it, to the Citizens For
Queensbury. The third principal component is on the top left of that, an area where the public will
have access to the top of the bank, and the land conservation area, we’ve made a healthy provision so
there will be wide public access and easy public access to the land conservation area. All of that area
which is shown outside of the single family units, is land to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury,
and will be used for recreational purposes. We then took that concept agreement and showed it to
the Citizens For Queensbury, reached agreement on that, and then sent our architects and engineers
to work, and they came up with a plan which I’ll ask Jim to take you through at this point.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. As Matt had mentioned, the major changes was moving back from
the top of the ridge. As you can see from this plan, the top of the ridge is out in this area. The red
line you see there was where the back of the lots originally were located, with the 129 lots.
MR. BREWER-What number map is that?
MR. MILLER-This is SP-2, Tim, it’s the second sheet. It’s the overall 100 scale plan. The line was
moved back, and it varies. We’ve shown, at the closest point it backs some 215 feet from where the
original lots were, in this area. It’s about 310 feet, and all this area at the very back end of the
property, we’ve pulled the lots back out. The other line, Tim, on that drawing, we don’t show the
old lot line. That was only on here for presentation. It just shows the new subdivision lines. We
also show on here, across the back property line, there was some concern at the time, because we
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
were close to the bank, that we had a no cut buffer area. So what we’ve done, by pulling this back,
and all this area now being Land Conservation, approximately 70 acres will go to the Town. We’ve
eliminated the no cut area, and pulled that back. The design is simplified somewhat because of the
reduction to 75 lots. We still, our main access still comes in from Farr Lane, and we still have
developed a loop concept. As a matter of fact, there was some discussion in this one area we have
four lots that are over the CEA line, and the reason for that is to accommodate the loop, the
minimum turning radius required by the Town, we needed that width at the back end of the
property, so that was agreeable in some of the negotiations that Matt was involved with. We still
have a secondary connection to Fox Farm Road that’ll come in. One of the modifications that we’ve
completed, the existing Solomon Heights housing project is here off of the existing cul de sac. We
would maintain that cul de sac, taking the curve out of the road and creating an intersection at this
point, so that, in this plan, the proposed additional 10 acres, as well as the existing senior citizens
housing, and the one acre community service lot basically will be located off of that cul de sac, more
independent than it was on the original plan where it was all part of the loop road system, and that
gives these lots a better identity, and it also gives us an opportunity to create an entryway into the
proposed community. The lot sizes range, the minimum allowed by the PUD is four tenths of an
acre. There’s a couple of lots that are under a half acre. I think the smallest is .44 acres on the inside
of one of the radii, and they go up in size to about 1.3 acres. Most of them are over a half an acre,
and all, as Matt said, are single family. The design, a fairly simple loop road with one cul de sac. The
shaded areas you see are no cut areas. We try to provide no cut areas where we border school
property, where we border the State site, and where we had lots back to back, to try to preserve some
of the existing pine trees that are there. There’ll be on site septic systems for the lots. There’ll be
municipal water extended throughout the subdivision, and all storm drainage is, and Tom will
address this in more detail for you, all storm drainage is contained within the road system, using
drywell systems similar to what’s been used in Hudson Pointe and Lehland, some of the other
subdivisions. The proposal is that the single family lot is to be developed in three phases of 25 each,
consistent with the Town’s requirement that each phase be no more than 35 lots, and what I’d like to
do is sort of show you that phasing, how that would occur. Phase I, if you look, this cul de sac is the
cul de sac that comes into the senior citizens housing. Phase I would extend Farr Lane down and
include the cul de sac to the center of the property, and would also include the extension of Fox
Farm. There’d be 25 lots in this subdivision. The intent is that, at this entry point, there’d be a stone
wall with some signage and lighting and landscaping to identify entrance into the community with
some street tree planting, bringing people in. These initial lots, entrances will be from this loop road
and from the extension of Fox Farm Road. So there’ll be no driveways along that area. So we’ll
have a landscaped entryway. You can see also on this plan, it shows the limits of clearing. The site is
fairly heavily wooded. You can see where the senior citizens housing is located. The existing woods
ends at about a point like that. That’s where the old runway had been previously, but almost the
entire site where the development is going in is wooded, and you can see, because of the level of,
condition of the site, minimum grading is required to construct the road. So everything except the
road right-of-way is going to be wooded, so all these lots are going to be wooded lots, with minimum
clearing available for building. This property in back, this is where the Land Conservation area is.
The heavier line is the CEA, and this is that area where the access is located off of Fox Farm Road,
for a trail system and access that loops back around to the school property. There’s the existing
building there, and they will probably be removed, but there’s some open area there, if some parking
or something was required, there’s an open clearing there for that. So that would be the initial phase
of 25 lots. The second phase would be an extension to the east, which would start this loop down
toward the school would essentially come around, there’s a cul de sac from Phase I, essentially loop
around, and would end, the time we came in for Final, we’d probably have a temporary turn around
at that point, for the additional 25 lots. Along here, and you can see these shaded areas are no clear
zones bordering the senior housing, a minimum of 30 feet, widening out where, this is the baseball
diamond at the high school. There’s an area in this corner of the property that’s cleared. It’s starting
to grow back up with young pines. What we do here is have a no cut zone along here. We’d
establish that line with new planting of pine trees, and basically that would be allowed to re-vegetate
to provide some buffer against the school. This road you see here off of our property, that’s the
access road to the new bus garage. Again, there’s 25 lots in here, and there’s also, you can see here
this shaded is a no cut zone within the subdivision against the back of the lots. If you recall there
was an access to the high school, or to the school property proposed right now. Many children come
across the back of the property here and enter on to the school property, and essentially provide an
opportunity for that access off of the loop road back to the school property. In the third phase, very
simply would be just to complete the loop in the back end of the subdivision. Again in here you can
see we’ve continued the no clear area. We’ve continued a heavy no clear area in the back, especially
back here where the bus garage is, made these lots very deep. These are probably the largest lots,
about 1.3 acres, to maintain as much buffer as we can against the school property, and then this is
that Land Conservation area across the back. One of the things, we will have a homeowners
association lot aligned with the cul de sac. So this community would also have access back to that
Land Conservation area, and the reason is the homeowners association lot, it may have a pot lot or
some other amenity like that before the community, in addition to the pedestrian connection. With
that, I think that’s an overview of the proposal and the modifications. I’ll turn it back over to Matt
Jones.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. JONES-Let me point out three or four things for the Board which were the subject of much
conversation with the two members of the Town Board and the Citizens For Queensbury. The first
is, Jim, if you’ll point out, while it’s not within our power to determine one way streets, that’s solely
within the Town’s province, we recommend, and the Citizens For Queensbury is anxious, and also
recommending, that, consistent with the original plan, that this area that Jim is pointing to remain a
one way street, so that there will be no exit from the subdivision out on Fox Farm Road. We
recognize that that’s a decision that solely within the province of the Town but we strongly
recommend it, and we know the Citizens For Queensbury join us in that recommendation.
Secondly, with regard to the PUD Agreement, we’ve made a few modifications from the original
draft. We’ve tailored it down substantially, and one of those modifications, as Jim mentioned, is the
elimination of the no cut area toward the top of the bank. There was a 40 foot no cut area, as it was
originally proposed, and what you’re seeing is a subdivision which obviously shrank, and so we got
well away from that area. How far is that, Jim, from the subdivision to the top of the bank?
MR. MILLER-Well, to the top of the bank, it’s probably in excess of 300 feet. It probably averages
about 280 feet from where the old lot line was.
MR. JONES-So we’ll be able to protect the integrity of that area, simply by Land Conservation, and
we wouldn’t expect any felling of any trees in that area, since the land will be owned by the Town,
and the Town will be able to control that. The third element that I want to direct your attention to is
the access to the school. I see Larry Pelchowitz here tonight who will probably address you on
behalf of the attorney for the school district. Larry was kind enough to join us in a meeting yesterday
with Chris Round and expressed a desire, on behalf of the school, which he will expand upon I’m
sure, to have access from the subdivision for vehicular traffic. That’s not something we can
accommodate in that particular area, and at the bottom, that was designed as a 30 foot wide strip of
land to accommodate pedestrian traffic. It will be faceted with a breakaway gate, so as to
accommodate emergency access vehicles, but it’s not designed for, nor contemplated to be, any kind
of vehicular access for the school, since we originally proposed. I think the bus garage may have
been built in the intervening time since we originally proposed this, and that bus garage is in the
lower right hand corner. We’re not able to do that through the subdivision. However, the fourth
component which I want to direct your attention to is the former senior citizen area, which was 7.1
acres. At the behest and urging of both Doug Irish and Pliney Tucker, to be charitable with those
words, at the more than behest, that area increased to 10 acres, and the uses, the allowed uses, were
expanded. The Town may have some broader uses than simply a senior citizen facility. So in the
Planned Unit Development Agreement, we’ve made provision for an option for the Town to acquire
that 10 acres, and the permitted uses would include such things as recreational areas, a library use, or
other areas, other kinds of uses that the Town may desire. If the Town should not exercise that
option, should not wish to pursue any one of those kinds of uses, the only allowable use that will
remain will be a senior citizen facility. So that remains the 61 units, so that if the Town’s option
should expire, then we’ll proceed with the 61 units. It will not, under any circumstances, be single
family housing. I think I covered those three. Before I ask Tom to address soil, I do want to stress
the importance of the fact that something that the Planning Board often asks an applicant to do,
which is to meet with the neighbors and to try to work out concerns. What you’re seeing here is the
result of a long process, obviously, it’s one of the well negotiated process, and one with involvement
and much good faith negotiation from Citizens For Queensbury, including Mark Hoffman, who I
would expect to address you, and Roger Boor and Doug Miller and some others, along with Doug
and Pliney. So what you’ve got, really, is a package that I think the community, the neighborhood
can, in fact, live with, and let me ask Tom to talk about Rist-Frost and soils.
MR. NACE-Okay. I guess first I’ll very quickly go through Rist-Frost comments. Most of these are
simply comments that we will take care of in cleaning up the plans, and hopefully have their sign off
on them before the next meeting here. The monumentation of the streets will be done. Item Two,
the specific erosion and sediment control details will be shown. We feel, now, that we’ve pulled back
almost 300 feet back from the previous lot lines, and more than that from the top of the bank, that
that’s not such an important issue as it may have been before, but we will show typical details that
would have to be followed along the backs of those lots. The septic systems as shown on the plan
have been sized for a typical four bedroom house. We have gone through to make sure that there’s
adequate area on the site for each house, as the Health Department requires, to put in a 50%
replacement area should the septic systems fail, but I will document that for Rist-Frost, so they can
see that.
MR. BREWER-Tom, can I interrupt one second?
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. BREWER-To that comment, there’s other comments in here about the septics, and I know we
talked about it being in the front yards. Is that still the case?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. NACE-I’ve shown that it can be put in the front yards, along those lots at the rear or closest to
the CEA. At this stage of the game, as far as we’ve moved that away from the CEA, or away from
the wetland, I don’t feel that should be mandatory, but I’ve shown that it can be accomplished.
There was a drafting error. The drywells are supposed to be eight foot in diameter. That will be
changed. Also, there was a drafting error on the identification of two of the drywells, which will be
corrected, and the equalization pipe will be correctly shown. The septic system variance that they
refer to from the Health Department is one that we have previously gotten. Originally, we got a
variance from them for, I believe the original proposal was in the realm of 120 lots. We revised that
with the Health Department when we were at 110 lots, and we were in the process of having them
revise it again. So it’s specific for 75 lots, but that has been submitted, and I don’t anticipate any
problem there. Of course, the plans will be reviewed by the Highway and Water Department, and
they have to sign off before they can be filed at the County. That brings us to soils, and one of the
issues that had been raised previously, with much discussion about groundwater. I think that when
this was discussed before, it was a very emotional issue, and if we step back now and take a realistic
look at it, what we have here are soils that have been extensively tested. There have been three
different series of test pits done around the property. The Health Department has been privy to that.
They’ve actually been out there with us for some of the test pits. They have reviewed the soils report
of all those test pits, in approving the septic variance. That septic variance is something that’s
required from the Health Department, any time you’re proposing something over 50 lots, or 50 lots
or over, for individual septic systems. They normally require that anything, any subdivision over 50
lots be served by municipal sewer. So they take a hard look at it when they give that variance, and
they want to make sure that the soil conditions and the lot size can support what we are proposing
for septic systems. At any rate, the standard Health Department requirements for septic systems on
lots that you have on site water supply are for separation of two feet between the bottom of the
septic system and groundwater, seasonal high groundwater, and then there’s a separation between
the, horizontal separation, between the septic system and the well required of 100 feet, if it’s on the
level, or the septic is down gradient of the well, or 200 feet if the septic is up gradient of the well.
Here we have done testing, we’ve done, in addition to the original three series of test pits which were
dug somewhere in the realm of eight to ten feet deep, we also drilled three wells, or three soil
sampling bores that went down to groundwater. So we have a fairly good representation of what the
soils are. The depth to groundwater is approximately 60 feet, and the soil that those bores went
through, the sampling, if you look at the boring logs, there are no extensive areas of course gravel
and course sands. Most of them are mixed, fine to medium sands, a little bit of gravel, but also some
silt, and that material, when mixed together, provides a very efficient filter media for septic effluent,
but at any rate, we have, by the time we construct septic systems in here, the bottom of those septic
systems will be over 50 feet, vertically, from groundwater, and separated, horizontally, from the
wetland over here, by 300 plus another 150 or so, over 400 feet to the back of the lot, and then, you
know, another 50 to 100 feet to the septic systems, even if they were toward the back of the lot.
That is one factor. The other factor is that when we did these monitoring wells, when we did the soil
sampling bores, one was here, one here and one here. When that information is put together with
the elevation of water in the wetland, it’s pretty evident that the groundwater gradient is from the
northwest to the southeast, and if you look at an overall geologic map, and consider the elevation of
Halfway Brook , well down here to the south, that all starts to make sense. If you look at West
Mountain as a groundwater source, and Halfway Brook as the outlet, and the Hudson River is
another outlet, all that fits together. The previous meeting had a discussion of a possible
groundwater mound or ridge in between here, that might say that the groundwater gradient really
wasn’t from here to here, but there might be something in between where it would be from here to
here and then from here back to the wetland. If the difference in these groundwater elevations
between here and here and between the wetland and these wells over here were relatively small, and
the potential for a recharge, if there were a great deal of recharge from some other source, then I
would say, yes, there is a possibility, but the elevation distance here, in a fairly short span of several
hundred feet, is seven feet of elevation difference in the groundwater, and that’s significant. I don’t
think, in looking at the data, that the possibility of that ridge of groundwater in here really is a
possibility. Even if were a possibility, even if water were headed toward the wetland, we have more
than sufficient separation from groundwater, so that the effluent will be adequately treated before it
gets to groundwater, let alone moved laterally to get to the wetland.
MR. JONES-In prefacing the comments on traffic, which Mark Gregory will discuss, let me make
two points to you. The first is that traffic was a significant element reviewed by the Town Board,
and when it reached it’s determination of non-significance for the SEQRA declaration, it was the
subject of extensive litigation, and in fact, I would commend the Planning Board to the
memorandum submitted on its behalf, on behalf of the Town, by Counsel, Mark Schachner and his
firm, which laid out, in some detail, the various studies, and how they support the determination of
non-significance. So as we go into the review of traffic, that’s one of the things the Planning Board
should be aware of is that prior determination, which was upheld by the Appellate Division, and
advocated by the Town, and the second thing I would ask you to consider is that we do have a
project which is 40% smaller, setting aside the senior citizens for a moment, from 129 units to about
75 units, to actually 75 units. The scope of your review, Mr. Chairman, is set forth in the PUD
Ordinance, and it lays out some five factors that the Planning Board ought to consider in
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
determining, in the site plan review process, and one of those factors is, of course, the adequacy and
arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths and so
forth. The Planning Department’s position on the matter, in 1996, and that’s part of the public
record, was that that section which guides you in your determination, following a determination of
non-significance by the Town Board, was limited to the vehicular traffic within the subdivision itself.
That’s the position that the Town Planning Department took at that time. We’re not saying that
you’re bound by that at all. Certainly this Planning Board, and this Department is free to take a more
expansive view, but we’d ask you to give some deference to that decision back in 1996, because it
established the rules by which the applicant was to submit reports and to produce traffic. We’re not
going to be guided by that solely, and so I’ve ask Mark to go beyond that in his traffic, but certainly
the Town and the Planning Board took a position in 1996 which really would have limited the focus
totally within the subdivision. Notwithstanding that, we’ll go a little bit beyond that tonight. Mark?
MARK GREGORY
MR. GREGORY-Thank you. We began this project back in 1995, and at that time, as it has been
stated numerously, it was in the neighborhood of 111 units, single family units. We started back in
1995 with this project, and it began with a much larger scope, as has been previously stated, at about
111 single family units, and then we did a revision to that report which included a somewhat different
mix, but still in the same general neighborhood of trip generations for the project. That was in May
of ’96. Based on those two studies, we found that along Aviation Road, typically during the A.M and
P.M. peak hours, we found fairly good levels of service, Levels of Service A and B during both peak
periods. The problem that has been found in both studies, was that you have delay on the minor
approaches, Dixon, left turns, Farr Lane and Fox Farm, and that’s an existing condition that was
found. As far as level of service in general, they were determined to be less than desirable, based on
the existing volumes and based on the high number of critical movements that are typically
experienced during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. After that time, Harza was brought in to the
project to review some of our work, and they submitted a report that indicated that our values did
not incorporate the latest version of national software that is use, called Highway Capacity Software,
used to analyze intersections. We, at the time that we started this project, we had used the program
that was currently adopted by New York State DOT, and that’s primarily where we set our standards,
and at the time that we had done this report, DOT had not accepted a new version. Typically they
like to wait a little while, work out some of the bugs, and see how things go before they adopt that.
So we were using the guidelines of New York State DOT. At that time I think the version was 2.1C,
currently, and that was in ’96. Now we’re up to a version of 2.1F. It changes that quickly. That’s
why the State is a little bit reluctant to make that change. We did a supplement to our ’96 report,
which addressed Harza’s comments on the deficiencies in the capacity analysis, and we found that
using the same analysis, our results were quite similar to theirs, and in fact, similar to the results that
we found in the first two analyses, that Aviation Road, during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, were at
a Level of Service A and B, and the minor street approaches at Dixon, Farr and Fox Farm, were
found to be less than desirable, in both the existing background condition, that’s a condition which
uses a growth rate to determine at the time of development where the existing patterns would stand
in Level of Service at that time. So we found that we were consistent with Harza’s comments on
that, and again, in all of the studies that have been developed, it seems the common problem out
there is the minor street approaches, which makes sense when you think about it. The high level of
through volumes on Aviation Road, causes a difficult maneuver for someone turning left or going
through the intersections of any one of those minor street approaches, and from that we reviewed
the Harza report. After that time, Aviation Road was improved, the widening of the bridge to a four
lane section, which helped the thoroughfare of traffic along Aviation Road in that corridor, and also
a signal was added at the school driveway, since the time of our last report and the Harza Report, and
now we’re at the phase we have reduced the number of trips essentially in half. There’s 75 single
family homes, which drops the trip generation for the total site, in the A.M. peak hour, down to
approximately 62 trips, that’s both entering and exiting, and about 83 trips in the P.M. peak hour,
which is again, both entering and exiting. With that reduction, and with the improvement to
Aviation Road and the signal which will also help provide gaps along Aviation Road, and quite
possibly at the Dixon Road intersection and Potter Road intersection. We feel that there’ll still be
delays, and the minor street approaches will still be less than desirable, as they are today. However,
the project as proposed will not significantly add to the overall delay for each of the intersections
presented. We agree that there are some outstanding issues with the geometry of those two
intersections. I’ve looked at some of the alternatives out there. I agree with some. I disagree with
others. There is a problem out there of traversing between that corridor, but it’s an existing
condition, and I think that one that eventually the Town, I know, is working on coming up with a
solution, and I think there is one out there. One of the other possibilities that was discussed was the
signal warrant analysis, and even at this time, we haven’t done recent counts that indicate otherwise,
but previous reports would indicate that the volumes out there would not approach a signal warrant,
probably not until the Year 2007, and I would have to agree with that.
MR. JONES-I would commend the Board to the Harza Report, which I think is part of this record,
which does essentially say that there is a problem with those two intersections that Mark talked about
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
now. They’re not in ideal condition, and there is a problem which needs to be addressed. Harza
makes a series of recommendations to address those problems, the most feasible of which seems to
be a reconfiguration of the geometry, in particular at Dixon and Aviation Roads, but this project
won’t have a significant impact on the traffic at any of the intersections that we just discussed. With
that, we’d be pleased to take the questions from the Planning Board, and then from the public.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the public’s background, just keep in mind that the only action that we
will take tonight, if we take any action at all, will be on the preliminary approval of subdivision only.
Some of the issues that have been brought up here regarding groundwater, traffic, pedestrians,
school, those, in my mind, are all site plan issues which would be addressed at that point, should it
get to the point where it’s going to be reviewed under site plan. With that, I’ll turn it over to you,
Tim. Any questions?
MR. BREWER-Not yet. I’m going to wait.
MR. RINGER-None right now.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have one question. It was mentioned that the homeowners association, is
this going to come under an HOA?
MR. JONES-The limitation of the Homeowners Association would be just that one particular area.
Ordinarily one would think about dedicating that to the Town, but for reasons that Jim cited, we may
want to have a (lost word) area over there.
MR. VOLLARO-So my follow up question to that would be, in the no cut, in the clear zones, who
maintains that if there’s not a Homeowners Association to pitch into that?
MR. JONES-Who would have the ability to enforce?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, trees going down, have to be cleared, etc., etc. How does that happen?
MR. JONES-That’s an excellent question. There’s two avenues that I can think of, and Ben may
have some more. The first of which is that any adjacent neighbor has an interest in a neighbor
cutting down a tree in violation of subdivision approval. Because that issue was of serious concern
the last time, we made provision in the PUD Draft to make the Town a beneficiary of that particular
no cut area, so that the Town would be able to enforce any violation of the no cut.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but in a sense the Town isn’t committed to maintain a fallen tree, a tree
knocked down by storms. How does that get done?
MR. JONES-As I say, any a adjacent owner would be in a position to do that as, a neighbor in any
subdivision is in a position to say, if there was a no cut area, and there is a violation of that, there are
remedies available in the law.
MR. NACE-I think it’s a different question. You’re asking who actually maintains that area.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. How does it happen?
MR. NACE-Okay. It’s owned by the individual lot owners, okay. It’s part of the individual lots,
okay. It’s not a separate lot. It’s part of an individual lot. It’s just on each lot there is a, where that’s
shaded, there’s an area where that lot owner is restricted from cutting.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JONES-I’m sorry. I thought your question was on enforcement, I beg your pardon.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I know if there’s , so that the Town would be able to enforce any violation
of the no cut.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but in a sense the Town isn’t committed to maintain a fallen tree, a tree
knocked down by storms. How does that get done?
MR. JONES-As I say, any a adjacent owner would be in a position to do that as, a neighbor in any
subdivision is in a position to say, if there was a no cut area, and there is a violation of that, there are
remedies available in the law.
MR. NACE-I think it’s a different question. You’re asking who actually maintains that area.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. How does it happen?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. NACE-Okay. It’s owned by the individual lot owners, okay. It’s part of the individual lots,
okay. It’s not a separate lot. It’s part of an individual lot. It’s just on each lot there is a, where that’s
shaded, there’s an area where that lot owner is restricted from cutting.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JONES-I’m sorry. I thought your question was on enforcement, I beg your pardon.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I know if there’s not a Homeowners Association, then it’s going to be up
to the individual lot owner, I just wanted to get that clear in my mind.
MR. JONES-Right. I beg your pardon.
MR. VOLLARO-Just one other question, and it probably has nothing to do with what we’re going to
approve tonight, but it’s one that I did write down. Did DOH also approve the septic system for the
10 acres? In other words, that 10 acres is MR-5, I believe, is that correct, is it zoned MR-5?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. JONES-It’s subject to the PUD Agreement being executed, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because there’s two separate zonings in there, there’s SR-20 and MR-5.
MR. NACE-Okay. The 10 acres, if it were to come back as a senior citizens project, okay, as a
subdivision, it’s not subject to Department of Health review. However, as the adjacent Solomon
Heights project was, anything that size is over 1,000 gallons a day, and being over 1,000 gallons a day,
it’s subject to the Department of Environmental Conservation and a SPDES Permit, okay. So
whatever came in there would have to get a SPDES Permit, you know, if it were a senior citizens,
anything over probably about six units.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m concerned about is we’ve made a zoning designation there, and I know
that maybe this is, I’m out of my element on this one, but we’ve made a zoning definition there of
the highest density zone in the Town. We’ve mixed that with public water and no sewer, and to me,
that’s always been a recipe for disaster, eventually, and I just looked at that and said, I just don’t see
how, in good planning, we would do something like that.
MR. NACE-Actually, that would be no different than the Solomon Heights that’s there already.
That’s a fairly large septic system. As far as I know, they have not had any problems with it. The
school is a fairly large septic system.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s basically my problem. There’s a lot of them.
MR. NACE-We are on public water.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. That doesn’t alter my premise, however, I don’t believe.
MR. ROUND-If I might interject, Bob. The users on that property will be limited by the PUD
Agreement, and there’s not going to be, you know what the density, the maximum density that’s
going to be allowed in there by the PUD Agreement right now. There won’t be in excess of 61
senior dwelling units, no other uses are allowed on that property, unless the Town Board and you
review that.
MR. JONES-That’s correct. The PUD Agreement limits the density to 65, albeit the zoning would
permit more, but the PUD Agreement would limit the ability to construct any greater than 61. So 61
would be the maximum.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you never construct those, what happens to that property, if you never do
that?
MR. JONES-The options for it are as I discussed. If the Town were not to exercise it’s option to
take title and do with it what it chooses, we are limited in the PUD Agreement to construct the
senior citizen facility, and that’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s it. So there’ll be, in effect, there would not be private residences on
those lots?
MR. JONES-No, sir.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just a minor question. You mentioned earlier in your presentation that you
were planning on four bedroom homes. I heard you say that, and am I to assume that because the
lots are, for the most part, larger than the original proposal a few years ago, that the homes are going
to be upgraded , too, from the original proposal?
MR. NACE-Not necessarily. My comment was simply that the septic systems shown on the plans, as
we typically do on any subdivision that DOH, Department of Health, reviews, they want to see that a
four family home, septic system, will fit on the lot, okay. That doesn’t mean that we’re planning on
all those homes being four bedrooms. That depends on the builder and the buyer.
MR. BREWER-One question. When you were talking about the options on the senior property.
How long are those options? How long, in other words, how long is the option that the Town has
on that property?
MR. JONES-That has not been resolved, Tim. We’ve suggested to the Town, tell us what you need,
basically, if it is six months, if it’s a year, whatever, just tell us what you need with respect to the
option, if you have plans to do it, but that’s really in its infancy stage, at this point, as to what the
Town may do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s going to be the developer of the single family homes?
MR. JONES-The builder has not been identified. The developer is Thomas J. Farone and Son, Inc.
MR. MAC EWAN-But no builder’s been designated yet?
MR. JONES-No one has an exclusive option at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has there been a builder designated for the senior housing?
MR. JONES-No, and probably wouldn’t be, Mr. Chairman, pending the option with the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the commercial community service site, that one acre parcel, what’s
the intent going in there?
MR. JONES-As we originally configured it, it was a combination of things like daycare, small office,
very limited kinds of retail, that kind of uses. It’s limited by the PUD Agreement, but I would
suggest to you probably a daycare facility or small professional offices of some nature.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-A few months ago we received a letter from Bill Higgins who is the Acting
Superintendent at Queensbury School, and he was concerned about ingress’s and egresses, as far as
safety access to the School, maybe, through this property, or whatever. Has that issue been looked
into?
MR. JONES-Only to this extent, in 1996, when we were extensively involved with the School, the
correspondence that came from the School at that time was strong in favor of a pedestrian access,
coming from our subdivision, typically to allow kids to walk back and forth to School. So we haven’t
made any change in that, and I heard just yesterday morning that the School may have a different
view or an updated view. So, as of yesterday morning, that was kind of the first that we had heard of
that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that that pedestrian access that you have there, when I looked at it, that
crosses the service road to the bus garage, I didn’t think that was a good idea. It’s almost a right
angle cross. It just didn’t make sense to me to have it empty out on the road.
MR. JONES-It’s a good point. As I say, I don’t think that road was there when we originally
proposed. So I guess we’ve identified the location, a possible location, maybe not the best location,
of a pedestrian access easement. If that needs to be moved in some manner, we’re certainly going to
be in contact with the School to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from the Board?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to hear what the people have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up to
address our procedures for tonight, you’re welcome to do so. Please come on up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
LARRY PALTROWITZ
MR. PALTROWITZ-Good evening. My name is Larry Paltrowitz. I’m with Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart, Rhodes. Our law firm represents the Queensbury School District. I’m here tonight to give
you, and share some comments of the School Board and the Buildings and Grounds Committee of
the School Board. First of all, you did recognize the fact that back on June 8 of this year, in 1999.
th
Then Superintendent Bill Higgins wrote a letter to this Board indicating concerns that the School
District had with regard to the project, and at that time, the School District wasn’t aware of what the
actual scope of the project was, since we didn’t have the benefit of the plan or the proposal at that
time. The School District had made inquiry of Matt Jones, and at that time, these particular drawings
and plans weren’t available, but there were some general concerns that were addressed, and I don’t
know if that needs to be made part of the record, or it is part of the record, but certainly Mr. Higgins’
concerns were addressed on June 8, 1999. Most of those concerns dealt with safety, and access
issues, including pedestrian access, as well as vehicular access from the School District property to
this site. About a week after that, there was a response from the Chairman of the Planning Board,
acknowledging the concerns and indicating that the District would be made part of this planning
process, and we really appreciate the opportunity to be able to participate here. During the interim,
we did request, as I mentioned earlier, at the first available time, access to information with regard to
the map and what the proposed development actually looked like, and we did receive that
approximately 10 days ago. I think it was a week ago Monday we actually received for the first time
that drawing, and as you can see, the School District property is all to the east of that proposed
project, and has been mentioned in the next to the northeast corner of the project is the new bus
garage that was constructed recently, and in fact, as you notice along the easterly boundary of the
project, there is currently a driveway that’s utilized by the buses as they exit the bus garage and it
doesn’t show the extent of the entire driveway, but a little further down the way from the driveway, it
then turns to the east and enters into the rest of the transportation traffic pattern of the School
District. In any event, the School District’s concern with regard to the issue of traffic and access to
this particular site is that, if you’re familiar with the location of the School, the only access the School
has right now is on to Aviation Road. It’s bounded on the east by the Northway. So certainly it
can’t have access there, and as you know, there’s no access north of the School. So the only other
place for access for vehicular traffic off of the School District property goes to the west, and the only
access would be through the Town road system that’s being proposed as part of this subdivision.
The School District believes that there are some serious concerns that it has with regard to the
operation of the School District itself. Information that’s being provided to the School by the
Education Department and education professionals is that as a result of the security and safety issues
that are out there now for children on school property, that there needs to be another access, not just
one access in one direction from the School, but there needs to be, should be, a secondary access off
the premises, partially for emergency vehicles, but also for potential other access to the School and
egress from the School, and so the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Education
met just this past week, after receiving the map, and reviewed it, and truly believes that this is an
opportunity for some true community planning. They believe that there should be a way for the
School District to have access from its property onto the development road, and there are a couple
of different places that that could happen. It certainly could happen along any of the eastern
boundary, or the eastern side of the project where the road goes through the subdivision, as the
proximity to the bus garage and the proximity to an existing driveway on the site. There’s also some
further opportunity, Mr. Jones was talking about the 10 acre piece, in the central or southern part of
the project, where there is a road coming through there that does go out onto Farr Lane. There’s
also a possibility that that somehow could be accessed. The problem that the Buildings and Grounds
Committee had, in reviewing this recently, is that it certainly doesn’t have the expertise to determine
where is the appropriate access point to even make a recommendation to this Board, to say, the
access point should be between Lots 22 and 23, or actually where the pedestrian access is now,
perhaps that could be widened to include some vehicular access, or even further to the south. So
what the Buildings and Grounds Committee is going to be recommending to the Board of
Education, for action, would be for the School District to engage the services of a traffic engineer to
take a look at the pattern coming out of the bus garage, going south toward Aviation Road, to see
what would be the most appropriate access point to tie into the Town’s roadway system once the
subdivision is established, and so we believe that as part of the planning process for you, as the
Planning Board, to have the complete picture from the School District, that we would ask the
opportunity to provide you with the information that is obtained through the traffic engineer to be
obtained by the School District, that would give some input as to what the appropriate access should
be to the School District property. Mr. Jones also raised the issue about the pedestrian access, and
we, too, share the same concern that you expressed just a few minutes ago, and that is, it may be that
when the project was originally developed, the developer wasn’t aware, or didn’t take cognizance of
the fact that there is a driveway that runs from the bus garage down that boundary line, and the
School District is very concerned about a pedestrian access that has students walking through on a
driveway where buses are going to be coming in and out regardless of where an access point is.
There needs to be some control for students at that point. There needs to be some design that again
emphasizes the need for the School District to have a traffic engineer give us some insight as to
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
what, professionally, would be an appropriate place for pedestrian access, as well as the vehicular
access. The School District certainly is a significant neighbor to the east of this particular project,
and we do appreciate the fact that Mr. Jones has been cooperative with us, in terms of getting us
information about the project, but I do want to point out, though, that although there may have been
meetings with the Queensbury Citizens Group, and recently coming together with taking some of the
considerations into effect and coming up with this plan, that the School District was not a participant
in those, wasn’t invited to participate in those meetings, and so the School District, as a neighbor to
the east, didn’t participate in those discussions. So, from our perspective, we think that this is a
grand opportunity for the community to be benefited by this project, as long as the safety, traffic,
and transportation concerns are met by the Town, and you, as a Planning Board, we believe, should
be the entity that takes into consideration the suggestions that would come forward as the result of
the professional study that will be forthcoming. The School District is very sensitive to the time
issue here, is very sensitive to the fact that no one really wants to see the project delayed, but by the
same token, the School District is very concerned about these issues and believes that within a
relatively short period of time, that we would be able to have these answers and would be able to
provide this to you before you grant any type of preliminary approval for this particular project. We
appreciate your interest and concerns, and we thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Sir, could I ask you one question? Your access that the School wants, would that be
a routine access, or would it be just for emergency?
MR. PALTROWITZ-At a minimum, it would be for emergency access, but also, part of the concern
the district has is the inability to access its property on a more regular basis, other than off of
Aviation Road, and so at this point, it’s something that the School Board needs to finalize, but for
the purposes of what the planner is going to be looking at for us, the engineer, would be for both
emergency access, as well as the possibility of having some direct access on a regular basis to connect
with the Town road system, the public Town road system that’s going to be part of this
development.
MR. VOLLARO-Would that include school buses?
MR. PALTROWITZ-It very well may, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think, to me, that might be a problem. I could see smaller vehicles for
people, because it’s so close to the School, I suspect the children living there would not be bused,
and in some cases, based on whether they can make the walk or not, some parents may want to take
them to school, and I can see the need for a vehicular connect, then, but I’m not sure that a school
bus running through that community would be appropriate, at least in my mind.
MR. PALTROWITZ-Certainly, and that’s why I mentioned a few minutes ago that there may be a
couple of different approaches to this. I can appreciate the concerns about an access point for buses
that would run through that particular, I’ll call it the northern end of the subdivision, but there may
be a possibility of accessing just south of that, as the cul de sac comes in, where the 10 acre parcel is.
There may be a way to access that as well. The problem is, we just don’t have the expertise to be
able to develop that within this period of time. Now that we know where this road is, I think that we
may be able to address the concerns, both for emergency vehicles, perhaps for the vehicular traffic
that you were just describing, and also possibly another exit west of the School property for buses,
and again, at this point, we’d like to look at all those options, and have you review all those options.
MR. BREWER-So you would like to have a traffic engineer look at it and recommend for
yourselves?
MR. PALTROWITZ-Correct, from the School District’s perspective, how access could be obtained
along that driveway that runs just to the east of this project, going west into the project at some point
or points, both vehicular as well as pedestrian.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. PALTROWITZ-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MARK HOFFMAN
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
DR. HOFFMAN-Hi. Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. First of all, I’d like to just confirm, again,
that I was involved with the negotiations to which Mr. Jones referred, and the three major issues
which he mentioned, based on my lay reading of that map, more or less conforms to the agreements
that we had reached. I’m pleased that they’ve drawn in, in that red line where the top of the ridge is.
The previous maps that I had did not show that, and I’d like to request that, as the process goes
forward, that future maps do show where the top of the ridge is, because some people have already
been asking me to point that out. You should have all received a copy of my letter from July 5, and
th
if it’s okay with you, I’ll give a copy of that to the clerk. I don’t think I need to read it into the
record.
MR. MAC EWAN-They have a copy and they will read it into the record.
DR. HOFFMAN-Okay. A few issues that I wanted to highlight. I was a little bit concerned, when
reading the preliminary PUD Agreement which has been put together for the revised proposal
because it’s a completely different document than the original proposed PUD Agreement.
Obviously, it needed to incorporate the changes which were made, but there are a lot of other
changes in there which have little or nothing to do with the changes that we had discussed. Some of
them may be important. Some of them may be of minor or of no consequence. I would just
recommend that the Staff and the Planning Board look very carefully at the differences between the
previous and the current PUD Agreement, to make sure that the intent of the Town Board in 1996,
in terms of minimizing impacts, is still maintained, and that we’re not overlooking any of the issues
which were carefully reviewed at that time, and which represented part of the SEQRA negative dec.
As far as a few specific issues, purely, and again, I come to this with a somewhat different perspective
than I did several years ago. I think it would be fair to say when I was addressing these issues
previously, it was with the primary intent of trying to stop a process which seemed to be going out of
control, and, you know, my primary interest was in trying to halt the project so that we could perhaps
someday get to this point. Now my interest is just that we get the best possible project that we can,
and that we not overlook any issues of concern. I did outline some of the obvious differences in the
PUD Agreement, and I guess they will be part of the record. Mr. Jones and the development team
have already addressed my concern as far as the one way issue on Fox Farm. As mentioned in the
letter, that assumption of Fox Farm being an ingress only was part and parcel of the traffic analysis.
I think if that is not continued, then any traffic analysis would have to be completely redone, to
assess that, and the previous proposed PUD Agreement specifically indicated that that would be one
way in, and would not be used as an exit. Stormwater management, obviously, is beyond my
expertise. I would only recommend that the Planning Board and the appropriate professionals look
carefully at that. In terms of, just comments from Mr. Nace about the septic, I certainly agree very
strongly that the reduction in the density is certainly a plus as far as septic is concerned, I think some
of the arguments that we had had in the past about the flow of water and so forth may be less critical
now. I’m not necessarily yielding any ground on that point, but I think they’re of less importance, in
terms of assessing the overall impact at this point. I would just comment, in regard to the
Department of Health variance, the copy of the variance that we saw in 1996 was very much a very
boilerplate type of a contingency type of variance, which more or less said that, provided the soils
meet the appropriate conditions and so forth, you can have your variance. So I don’t know if they’re
referring to something more specific than that at this point, but there was nothing in the variance
that I had a copy of from 1996 which indicated that the Department of Health actually did any
specific review of the soils, or made any kind of determination. It appeared to be something that was
contingent on further review. In terms of, in my letter I indicated concern about the no cut areas. I
see that since I wrote my letter, they have actually incorporated some no cut areas behind some of
the houses, which I think is a plus. I have a specific concern about the lots which would border up
to the CEA. I feel that there was a previous provision for a 40 foot no cut area. I think that that
undeveloped area is a critical part of the PUD. I mean, keep in mind that the PUD, the whole
concept is that it’s supposed to meet a community need. In addition to which, above and beyond
that, the developer obtained a rezoning, which is still allowing them to build at a much higher density
than what was originally zoned, and I think in recognition of that, as well as the requirements for
PUD’s, that that function of that undeveloped area as a recreational resource for the community, and
in particular for the School, that that needs to be given a high priority. I think that they previously
recognized that some sort of a buffer between the homes and the recreational areas was important.
In fact they, in their proposed PUD Agreement, mentioned a, I think it was a 150 foot buffer that
they wanted to have, a no cut area that they wanted to have on the public side of that border,
between the development and the public area. So, I mean, they’ve acknowledged that a buffer is
needed, both for the protection of the residents as well as for the people that might be using a trail
going through there. I think the real question is where should that buffer be? I certainly think it’s
appropriate to have some no cut area on the public side of that. I don’t think that we would want to
have a trail running right up to people’s back yards there. On the other hand, I think, again, in
recognition of the importance of that area to the PUD, that some part of that buffer should be on
the private side as well. Again, in the original agreement is was a 40 foot area. I think that’s subject
to negotiation and to review by the Board, in terms of what would be appropriate, but I do feel that
that would enhance the value of that public area for passive recreational use. In terms of, just some
comments that Mr. Paltrowitz made, certainly the School is an important neighbor, and it’s a vital
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
resource to the community, the safety of our children is paramount, and he can address that much
better than myself. I just would point out, and I don’t have the original documents with me, but I’m
quite sure that the access that was shown in the original project was wider than what’s shown on this
project. That although it was not intended to be used for routine traffic, that it would be been wide
enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. So, obviously, I don’t think the people living in that
community want buses running in and out on a daily basis, but in an emergency situation, it certainly
would seem reasonable to have some type of access that would allow full fledged vehicular access
there. In addition to which, just to comment further on that, that access to the School was one of
the, I think there were three or four or five critical issues that were identified by the developer and by
the Town as why this was a benefit to the community, why it provided a community benefit, and
therefore was justified to be considered a PUD, and that access to the School was one of those
issues. So, I think the School is certainly reasonable in requesting a careful look at that. In terms of
traffic, again, I would certainly agree that with the reduction in density, that traffic impact will be
reduced also. I just, you know, I just have to say, the comment which was made by the traffic
consultant tonight, that there would be no significant impact by the development, is exactly the same
thing that was said by the traffic consultant in 1996, but when you actually looked at the report, and
you looked at the Level of Service, there was a drop in Level of Service. So I would just, as this
process moves forward, I would request that if indeed this comment is based on data that we be
allowed to see that data, and again, certainly the reduction in density is a favorable development. I
would just remind the Board that the mitigation which was proposed and which was part of the
SEQRA neg dec, ultimately, the talk was about a massive high construction project which I’ve heard
estimates in the over million dollar range. So, hopefully, because the project has been downsized, a
project of that magnitude would no longer be necessary, but again, that is something to be looked at,
and again, I would just put my personal plug in, that any traffic mitigation which is done by the
Town should include some provision for safe pedestrian traffic, whether it be sidewalks. Also, bike
lanes, that sort of thing, I think that’s something that the people along the Aviation Road corridor
have been looking for for a long time, and that that should be part of that process. I appreciate the
comments that this is a pre hearing, that they’re going to come back to site plan. I would just
comment that my concern is that things sometimes have a way of getting to a point of no return, and
you go from one preliminary hearing to another preliminary hearing, and by the time you supposedly
are at the real hearing, everything is all a fait accompli. I think that the planning process should start
right now. I mean, it started previously, but, you know, I think you guys need to take a hard look at
this and try to get it as close to what you want to see as early as possible, so that people don’t have to
go back to the drawing board later and try to re-do everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to interrupt you, I’ll reiterate what we’re doing tonight, and it’s nothing more
than determining tonight, at preliminary subdivision, whether this revised plan meets the original
intent of the original PUD proposal. That’s the only act this Board’s going to take tonight. If we do
get a vote on it and it does meet that and it moves on to the Town Board, who then do their part of
it for the PUD zone change for it, then it would come back to our Board where we start the intensive
review at site plan, which deals with traffic, groundwater, access, cutting, the whole nine yards.
That’s where we actually start our review process.
DR. HOFFMAN-I wanted to just, thank you. I just wanted to make one other comment about that
public area there, in the CEA. There’s often been a comparison made between this project and the
Hudson Point project. I would just comment that, if you look at the configuration of the public area
in the Hudson Pointe project, it’s much deeper. I mean, I don’t know how it compares in terms of
total acreage and in terms of proportion of what the percentage is compared with the developed area
and so forth, but the actual configuration is such that it goes in more of a perpendicular fashion, in
comparison with the development, so that you can walk through there and not feel like you’re in the
middle of a housing development, and I just want, and, you know, I think that just is part of my
concern that I don’t want to lose that no cut area, in terms of enhancing the natural features of that
Critical Environmental Area, public area. Again, these comments are made purely with the intent of
trying to make this the best project possible. Overall, I feel that this is a substantial improvement
over the previous development. I think that if it’s done properly, with careful planning, this could be
a real overall plus for the entire community. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I have one quick question for you. Your letter dated July ’99, is that
representative of just you or representative of you as members of the Citizens for Queensbury,
representing the organization?
DR. HOFFMAN-This represents me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Before we go any farther, Laura, can I ask you to read that
quickly into the record, please?
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed “Dear Sir or Madame: Matt Jones, Attorney for Thomas J.
Farone, Jr. was kind enough to supply me with a copy of the new proposed Indian Ridge PUD
agreement last week, with a request for comment. I spoke with him by phone on Friday, July 2,
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
following a brief discussion I had with our steering committee the previous evening. I had indicated
to Matt that the number of units for the proposed senior housing had increased to 85 from the
original 61 units in the 1996 proposed agreement and he agreed to change that back to 61. At the
same time, I indicated that an underlying assumption of our consensus in April was that we were
addressing certain major areas of concern and that the project would remain essentially unchanged
except for those aspects. The current proposed PUD agreement, as submitted by Matt, together
with the conceptual sketch plan, now appears to encompass our key points of agreement. This
includes the limitation to 75 single family homes, 61 units of senior housing, and no lots within the
CEA nor in the green space extending to the Fox Farm access, as depicted in the sketch plan.
However, I also discussed with Matt the fact that the new proposed PUD agreement differs
substantially from that submitted in 1996, in ways that were beyond the scope of our discussions.
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Town’s elected officials, planning board, planning staff, and
legal counsel to carefully review this document to make sure that the Town’s legitimate planning
interests are protected. The following are some of the substantive differences with the prior
proposed PUD agreement: 1. There are substantial reductions in the required frontage distances
and setbacks. 2. There are fewer phases and more flexibility in advancing to further phases. 3.
There is no mention, in the current agreement, of traffic ingress and egress. The prior plan included
a stipulation that the Fox Farm access would be one way for entry only. This is critical because the
entire traffic analysis was based on this assumption. 4. The 1996 agreement addressed stormwater
management in section 6B and referred to a schematic dated 4/15/96, modified 8/20/96. 5. The
prior agreement required septic systems to be located in front yards throughout the development. 6.
The prior agreement included substantial cutting restrictions. Some of these restrictions were
specific to the prior sketch plan, and it could be argued that the additional area within the CEA to be
deeded to the Town compensates for the loss of these special cutting restrictions. However, there
was also a general cutting restriction to apply to the rear 20’ of any lot in the development. Since
there will be fewer total lots, it would appear that this requirement should still be quite feasible and
should not be deleted. 7. The new proposed agreement contains a blanket restriction on virtually
any recreational use of the properties deeded to the town within 150 feet of lots in the development.
Given the limited space between the development and the top of the bank, this sweeping restriction
appears excessive. It was not part of the original proposal and partially defeats the purpose of the
proposed land conservation area. A well designed and landscaped project should provide adequate
sheltering of nearby homes without this encroachment on land proposed for public use. The above
is by no means a complete list of changes to the 1996 proposed PUD agreement. Many of these
changes touch on matters that were considered to be part of SEQRA mitigation. While the changes
that resulted from our negotiations can be assumed to reduce the environmental impact of the
development, the same cannot be said of many of the items listed above. I would also like to suggest
that wording be considered that would actually define what constitutes senior housing, so that it be
similar in impact to the adjacent senior housing known as Solomon Heights. I would like to stress
that my comments are not, in any way, directed toward obstructing the progress of this development,
but rather in assuring that the community planning interests of the Town of Queensbury are
protected as this important project moves forward. In addition, these comments are in no way
represented as an informed legal, surveying or engineering review of the proposed PUD agreement.
Such review is the responsibility of the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Mark Hoffman”
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else want to come up and comment?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and I would like to echo Mr. Vollaro’s comment, that
we have a formula for disaster here. Municipal water feeding, generously feeding, these homes,
discharging their wastewater into their back yard or front yard, as the case may be. I haven’t heard
anywhere a dissertation addressing the cumulative impacts of all of these septic systems functioning
in this very small area. Mr. Nace mentioned the fact that the, and I recall looking at the boring logs,
there are at least two, maybe three strata of fine silt. Fine silt can be a filter, depending on the
gradation, but it can also be impervious, or even if it passes water as a filter, will soon plug up, and
then you don’t have penetration to this deep area that he speaks of. With regard to the concerns of
the School, I think this would be easily taken care of if the developer maintained that as a private
road. He could do this. He could also maintain a private water supply, and buy water in bulk at the
entrance to the development from the Town, and put in a sewage treatment plant, connect all these
homes, and treat the water, and do all of this through a Homeowners Association. In addition, retain
that buffer area between the development and Rush Pond. I, as a taxpayer, don’t particularly like
paying for that privilege. Keep that in a Homeowners Association. Let them maintain the buffer.
It’s to their benefit. So I think collection of the wastewater on this site is something that should be
looked at, if we cannot adequately address the cumulative impacts of all those septic systems in that
small area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
DR. HOFFMAN-Since no one else is coming up, Mark Hoffman again. Just the issue of whether a
Homeowners Association should take that area. Certainly that’s one of several options. The Town
could take it. A Homeowners Association could take it. A Land Conservancy could take it, or the
Queensbury School District could take that property. I think all of those options should be looked
at. In terms of the Homeowners Association, my only concern about that is what is the intent of
that land, of that property. If our intent is for it to be a community resource for the entire area, then
having that as just a homeowners plot would not necessarily be the most appropriate method of
conveying that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MS. HOFFMAN
MS. HOFFMAN-Hi. A Hoffman from Fox Hollow also. My concern is that this green area you
were talking about briefly who it belongs to, how it’s been used. I’d like to look at how it’s been used
in the past. How it’s been used in the past is indicated by the herd paths that are through it. I think I
would like the Town to look at where these herd paths are, because these are where people are using
recreation facilities, trying to get from one place to another, whether it’s children, adults, these are
pathways that have been used over a period of years. I’ve only lived at the Fox Hollow location five
years. Some of these paths have existed. I’ve known about them for the last 10. So when you
decide how this strip of land along Rush Pond is used, please consider how it’s been used in the past.
Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Obviously the School wants to take an active role in this, as it progresses,
and I certainly would encourage you to get in touch with them and sit down with them over there.
Are there any additional comments or remarks that you gentlemen want to add?
MR. JONES-Only to add a little clarity. The draft PUD agreement, and it remains only a draft out
there, what we did in the draft PUD agreement is recognizing, after lengthy discussions with Mark,
the importance of this area up here. I concluded that one of the best ways to protect the area up
along the top of the bank was to draw an easement in favor of the property owners here, so that they
could enforce that, which would have a no cut area 150 feet deep, and that would simply, no matter
what happened, pathways or any other pedestrian ways up here, any recreational areas, we would be
certain that there would be 150 foot no cut up on top, and that’s one of the things that Mark referred
to in the letter. When we finally drafted the plan, we eliminated that, thinking that the best decision
making for how this land is used, on top of the bank, would be the result of this process. In fact,
and if it’s determined that some or all of this should be no cut, or how much or how it’s going to be
used, that’s what the process is all about. So if I’ve made that unclear, I apologize, but that no longer
is a part of our plan, and we’ll make it a part of the plan as the public comments on what restrictions,
and how those restrictions are to be implemented, from the top of the subdivision back to the bank.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. NACE-A couple of quick questions that came up regarding septics and soils. The Health
Department variance is, by its nature, they review the documentations provided to them before they
issue the variance. There was some intimation that the variance was a boilerplate type of thing.
That’s simply a statement in their variance letter that says that, even though they’ve reviewed all these
test pits, you still have to have adequate soil on each lot to build a septic system on each lot, and they
put that, they’re simply putting that responsibility back on to the shoulders of the developer. So
that’s what that paragraph that he was referring to is for. They have issued a variance. They have
reviewed all of the technical data. The other, Mr. Salvador referred to possible layers of fine silt. I
have just gone back through all of the test pit logs. There is silt, a trace of silt, mixed in with most of
the horizons down through to 60 feet. There are no lenses of silt.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. These issues, obviously, we’re going to look very closely at, at site plan.
Any questions from Board members?
MR. BREWER-Just one more, and I don’t know if it’s a site plan issue, or we can ask it now, but
were there anymore, I honestly can’t remember how many, there was three borings done in the
beginning, I remember. We had conversation about doing more. Were more ever done, or are more
going to be done?
MR. NACE-No. At this point, we still feel that three are adequate. We’ve voiced that opinion. The
Town’s Engineer voiced that opinion, at the previous hearings, and I think the call for doing more
borings at that point was pretty much an emotional, technical factual issue.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. BREWER-Is it possible to point those out? Because I’m still not convinced that we shouldn’t
have somebody look at it, which I don’t think we ever did. We didn’t ever have an independent.
MR. NACE-You had Rist-Frost take a hard look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where it was left off two years ago was this Board was asking for an independent
hydrologist to come in, and the application was withdrawn.
MR. BREWER-That was my memory of it.
MR. NACE-Okay, but I still stand by the fact that, with the 60 feet of material, it really doesn’t
matter which way groundwater flows. It’s a moot issue.
MR. BREWER-If you’re certain of that, then it shouldn’t take some other independent person to
come up with that conclusion pretty quick, then.
MR. NACE-That’s true.
MR. BREWER-You as an engineer saying that, I mean. I mean, I respect your opinion.
MR. NACE-I trust that any other technical person would look at it and come to the same
conclusion.
MR. JONES-Tim, if I could respond to that, too. I recall the meeting in which lots of people were
here, and who knows what’s in anybody else’s mind, but certainly there was a strong public sentiment
seeking additional testing, and I think the Planning Board properly responded to that public
sentiment at the time. Part of what we tried to do in discussions with the neighborhood was reach
an accommodation concerning density, reduce the project, so that I think, tonight, there’s been an
absence of call for that additional testing. It may come at the behest of the Planning Board, but I
think we’ve tried to work with the neighbors on that particular issue, and I don’t think you’ve heard
that call tonight, and I think there’s a reason for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because we’re not doing site plan review.
MR. JONES-That’s exactly the reason.
MR. BREWER-The question is still in my mind, whether you have 165 units or you have, whatever
the number is, 70 or whatever it is. Where those borings were done still raises a question in my
mind, and if Tom thinks strongly that it’s right, then some other engineer ought to come up with the
same conclusion pretty rapidly.
MR. JONES-And in deference to site plan, because I know that’s a site plan issue.
MR. BREWER-Just to let you know that that’s in memory of it.
MR. NACE-Okay, but I still stand by the fact that, with the 60 feet of material, it really doesn’t
matter which way groundwater flows. It’s a moot issue.
MR. BREWER-If you’re certain of that, then it shouldn’t take some other independent person to
come up with that conclusion pretty quick, then.
MR. NACE-That’s true.
MR. BREWER-You as an engineer saying that, I mean. I mean, I respect your opinion.
MR. NACE-I trust that any other technical person would look at it and come to the same
conclusion.
MR. JONES-Tim, if I could respond to that, too. I recall the meeting in which lots of people were
here, and who knows what’s in anybody else’s mind, but certainly there was a strong public sentiment
seeking additional testing, and I think the Planning Board properly responded to that public
sentiment at the time. Part of what we tried to do in discussions with the neighborhood was reach
an accommodation concerning density, reduce the project, so that I think, tonight, there’s been an
absence of call for that additional testing. It may come at the behest of the Planning Board, but I
think we’ve tried to work with the neighbors on that particular issue, and I don’t think you’ve heard
that call tonight, and I think there’s a reason for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because we’re not doing site plan review.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. JONES-That’s exactly the reason.
MR. BREWER-The question is still in my mind, whether you have 165 units or you have, whatever
the number is, 70 or whatever it is. Where those borings were done still raises a question in my
mind, and if Tom thinks strongly that it’s right, then some other engineer ought to come up with the
same conclusion pretty rapidly.
MR. JONES-And in deference to site plan, because I know that’s a site plan issue.
MR. BREWER-Just to let you know that that’s in my mind. I don’t know how the rest of the Board
feels.
MR. MAC EWAN-It hasn’t left mine.
MR. JONES-And we hear you on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Larry? Bob?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-You didn’t answer his question about where those borings were.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-He showed them to us before, earlier.
MR. MILLER-First of all, these were the test wells. There were numerous borings done throughout
the site, borings being down eight to fourteen feet, but the wells that were done to groundwater,
there was one done up in the area, yet we were limited by access of (lost word) one was done in the
area up by the existing home. One was done back in this corner, and the third one was completed in
the area near Solomon Heights, and part of the reason for that was to locate them around the
property, understanding that they’re parallel to the wetland elevation.
MR. JONES-Tim, my memory may have failed, because this is going back a time, but my recollection
is we were talking about a possible test well up in, just inside the CEA line, up near the red line, up in
that corner. Was that what your concern was at the time?
MR. BREWER-Yes. I think we talked about maybe one or two different places, but that would
complete the outline of the project.
MR. JONES-Okay. We may make the argument to you that as we’re no longer constructing in that
area.
MR. BREWER-It won’t make any difference.
MR. JONES-We probably won’t make it successfully to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets leave that one for site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? Does someone want to put a motion up?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just a question. Are the elevations that were determined for the
groundwater, is that relative to the invert of the outflow at Rush Pond, or is it the existing Pond (lost
word) because there’s about four foot (lost words).
MR. MILLER-It’s relative to the water level right at the bottom of the bank, and this water level is
several feet higher than Rush Pond because it goes under the Northway and back around to it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-So it’s not the invert?
MR. MILLER-No, we’re higher than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. RINGER-Is the motion you’ve prepared?
MR. ROUND-The motion is an affirmation of the consistency with the sketch plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Before the motion goes to the floor, is the sketch plan being referred to in your
memo, under approval process, the Planning Board is required to determine whether or not the
modification to the sketch plan as presented on the preliminary are consistent with the sketch plan
approved by the Town Board during re-districting. Is that what they put up originally?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So what I’m really voting on here is this drawing versus the original drawing?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And nothing else, and really the only thing I’ve got now to compare that with is a
reduction in size, fundamentally. There isn’t any other.
MR. ROUND-That’s what that, there’s a summary table on my notes, that the uses are the same,
densities have been reduced. Other than that, there’s been little change in the character of the
project.
MR. JONES-With the exception of the expanded use in the 10 acres for Town purposes.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. JONES-That would be about the only change in use.
MR. ROUND-So that was my recommendation, that it was consistent with the original approval, and
that’s what’s contained in that memo.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Since there are no site plan issues, then my colleague is free to make the
motion if he wants.
MR. RINGER-I’ll make the motion that we, is it approve or pass on?
MR. ROUND-Approve the resolution that you have in front of you.
MR. RINGER-Okay, that we approve resolution for site plan number 51-99, as prepared by Staff.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t agree with that. It’s not a site plan. It’s a preliminary subdivision.
MR. BREWER-It’s a preliminary stage for a PUD, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute now, I don’t want to split hairs, but we’re dealing with a
preliminary subdivision, not a site plan.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. ROUND-No, it’s a site plan approval process. That’s what we’re moving forward through.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’m stopping the ball right here because we’ve got other things, that’s not
what I was lead to believe we were going to be doing tonight. I asked that question specifically three
different times.
MR. ROUND-Let me, it’s a site plan approval process. What you’re doing, you’re not approving a
site plan. This is a process we’re dealing with. The first step is affirmation that the sketch plan, or
the preliminary plan you have in front of you is consistent with the sketch plan that was previously
presented. The resolution, as written, does that. So if you approve the resolution as written, it will
affirm the consistency with the sketch plan.
MR. BREWER-But it says on our agenda, subdivision, preliminary stage.
MR. ROUND-Well, there’s been some confusion throughout the process, for five years now,
whether you’re doing a subdivision approval or a site plan approval. It is a site plan approval, and
there may be an erroneous reference to subdivision because the file was called a subdivision file when
it was originally received.
MR. BREWER-But isn’t the site plan the final product that they bring to us? This is a preliminary
approval of.
MR. THOMAS-You could entertain a motion from the floor, indicating that the Board finds that the
preliminary plan as presented is consistent with the sketch plan previously approved, and that will
move it forward through the process.
MR. MAC EWAN-That I am comfortable with.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s better.
MR. MAC EWAN-I am not comfortable saying that, motion to approve site plan 51-99.
MR. ROUND-Feel free to use my language.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, I think the words that you put in your letter to us, if those words are used
and contained in the motion, and they’re merely, and if Larry would read those.
MR. ROUND-Simply extract those from the memo. That would be helpful.
MR. VOLLARO-Simply extract those from the memo, and then you’ve got a motion that makes
sense.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,
HEREBY MOVES TO AFFIRM THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE SKETCH PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD ON 8/19/96,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. JONES-Mr. Chairman, the application we made, and I don’t want to quibble over words, but I
know everybody wants to get it right. 179-58D talks about a determination that it is in keeping with
the intent of the zoning resolution of August 19, 1996. I know we are close to that. That’s all we’re
asking for. Is that what you feel was done?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Consistent with the previous plan in the element of a PUD.
MR. ROUND-Can I also ask, and I know Mr. Jones hasn’t asked, but if you give direction to the
applicant for the additional information that you are requesting, so that they could proceed through
the process in a timely fashion.
MR. JONES-Fair enough.
MR. MAC EWAN-You want to know from us what areas you think we might be looking at intently
at site plan?
MR. JONES-Yes. We’ll be back to you, obviously, with a.
MR. MAC EWAN-One person’s opinion, groundwater, access, and access meaning the main
intersection at Aviation/Potter/Dixon, that area. I would encourage you to sit down with the
School. We will try to work it with Staff to partake in that, so that something can be accomplished as
far as access for the School, reasonably. Anything else we need to add?
MR. BREWER-I would like to add that if they do partake with the School, and I hope that they do,
that this not be meant for routine bus traffic, I mean, unless they come up with some type of good
plan.
MR. RINGER-You don’t want buses going through there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s why we’re hoping that that person’s judgment will be viable.
MR. RINGER-I think pretty much a consensus we probably would not, as a Board, want buses
traveling through there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, you’re right about that.
MR. JONES-And I know that would leave open Larry’s legitimate question, as to whether or not
buses may go through property which we ultimately may convey to the Town. How would you
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
propose that we address that, with the Planning Board, the Town Board, or the Staff? And I’m
talking about that 10 acre area which is one of the ones.
MR. BREWER-Why would buses go through there?
MR. JONES-I think Larry was saying there was a potential for access that would go through that 10
acre parcel. So if that’s an area that would be addressed by a traffic engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think that when you go back to the Town Board, I would run that by
them and get their input, but for me, I don’t see that as a viable alternative for traffic in that
particular part.
MR. BREWER-It’s too far to go. I mean, you’ve got a road.
MR. MILLER-I’d like to say one thing about that bus access. I think the bus access from the School
property now comes out to a signaled intersection at Aviation Road, and even though this looks like
it’s a very convenient access out, it’s going to dump them out on the Dixon Road intersection. It’s
not, you’re not bypassing Aviation Road by coming out through this property, and it’s always been
our opinion that we have no problem with pedestrian access. We have no problem with emergency
access, but routine use, driving through this neighborhood and coming to the intersection at Dixon
Road, I don’t think we have to be a traffic engineer to recognize that that’s a problem.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of our job is to look at all alternatives, some of them aren’t good, some of
them are, and the question was raised tonight. So we’ll look into some alternatives that we can do
for that.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know that all of the things that we’ve said here tonight are all inclusive of
every detail we’ll want to see when we see your plan, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, it’s not. So if something should come up at site plan, please don’t act
like we’re pulling a fast one on you or something, because we certainly aren’t. We’re just trying to do
our jobs.
MR. JONES-You bet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to ask a question, before we convene here, just one. This might
appear to be a little off the curve, but Mr. Salvador made a recommendation when he got up, or he
made a suggestion, I think, and one that I’ve been looking at myself, just thinking about. What
would be the impact of you trying to develop a sewer treatment capability there, as opposed to all
those septic tanks? Or to take it even further, what would the impact be if the Town and the
Planning Board decided that this project really needed to be sewered?
MR. BREWER-You could never sewer that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m throwing this out there as food for thought.
MR. BREWER-It was talked about running a dry pipe under the bridge when they did the bridge,
when this project originally came, and we missed out on.
MR. VOLLARO-Tim, I’m just saying, I’m going to defer to your knowledge on this, because I
wasn’t here at the time.
MR. BREWER-Well, it was discussed.
MR. VOLLARO-But you would think that it’s near zero probability that that thought even?
MR. BREWER-Yes. The expense would be enormous, for this project to do that. I would not even
want to take any part of that, only because of the expense.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but who’s costed the project out? I mean, do you have any cost data on it?
MR. BREWER-I think maybe we have some, even just for the dry pipe under the bridge, when they
were doing the bridge. I think.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty thousand dollars.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but I think they looked beyond just the pipe. They looked at sewer from the
School.
MR. MAC EWAN-They were giving consideration just to run the pipe along the right-of-way at the
time they were reconstructing the bridge, and for whatever reason, it didn’t go through. They just
wanted to have the sewer get on the other side.
MR. BREWER-There was a timeline, and they missed the timeline, but I think they looked at sewer.
We can ask Ralph VanDusen, at sewer capabilities for the School, for the motel, for the Regency
Park Apartments or something, I think.
MR. NACE-Bob, I’d be more than willing to sit down with you, okay. I’ve been involved in studies
for sewering of Queensbury since 1979, okay. So I would be more than willing to sit down with you
and discuss it and bring up the issues.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That would be great to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Do you have something else?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. The resolution for Glenn Batease.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I have something for you in exchange. So give us the Glenn Batease thing.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Vollaro, you have to rescind your original motion.
MOTION TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION MADE ON THE NIGHT OF
SEPTEMBER 21 FOR GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
ST
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 71-96 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Deadline for submission of the following two items is September 29, 1999: the items to be
submitted are: 1. Landscape Plan, 2. Stormwater information on the existing site conditions. The
second deadline is October 9, 1999, and the item required is a field delineation of the 370 foot
contour markings to be placed on site by 12 (noon), October 9, 1999, for a Planning Board site visit.
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
36