2001-12-20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
MEMBERS ABSENT
ANTHONY METIVIER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2001 TYPE II COLLEEN & BRUCE HALSE PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AGENT: JOE ROULIER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 25 BRAYTON LANE,
ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION TO
EXISTING BEDROOM TO INCLUDE A ROOF LINE CHANGE, BEDROOM, CLOSET AND
BATHROOM. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BOH RES. 55-
2001/AV 97-2001 AV 71-1991 APA, LAKE GEORGE PARK CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING:
12/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-12 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-2001, Colleen & Bruce Halse, Meeting Date: December 20, 2001
“Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance:
Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The applicant has presented an area variance application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking relief from
the shoreline setback, sideline setbacks and the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Waterfront Residential
zoning district.
Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public
services and facilities?
The proposed use will remain seasonal single family occupancy. No increased burden is anticipated.
Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking
of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town?
The proposed project does not call for an increase in parking spaces. The applicant has received a Septic
Variance from the Town of Queensbury Board of Health to increase the storage capacity of the existing
holding tank septic system.
While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any
undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or
open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide
supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed project is for a second story addition above an existing structure, no footprint enlargement is
proposed. While there may be scenic impact when viewed from the lake it is unclear whether such an impact
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
would be adverse. The project does not appear to create an adverse impact on the ability of the public to
provide the necessary facilities and services.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The existing home is located 19 feet from the shore of Lake George. The lot is very small (5100sf)
and bounded by the lake on the north side and Brayton Lane on the south side. There does not
appear to be any alternative other than vertical construction.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
No additional traffic is anticipated.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The existing off street parking appears to be adequate, 2 spaces required.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposed addition would not create any additional stormwater runoff as the project as proposed
is directly above the existing home, in the same “footprint.”
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply is from Lake George. The Town Board of Health recently approved a
modification/expansion of the existing holding tank system on the site.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
No new landscaping is proposed.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
This project would not affect the existing emergency service facilities in the area.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
No additional impervious areas are proposed. However, consideration may be given to the
mitigation of stormwater currently generated by the site.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 97-2001: 12/13/01 review, second story addition- setback relief
Bd. of Health: Res. No. 55-2001, Increase of holding tank capacity.
AV 71-1991: Denied 9/18/91; shoreline/side setback relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure
for garage addition.
AV 1374: Approved 7/15/88; demolish existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling.
Staff comments:
While this proposal calls for an increase in the floor area of living space in the structure, no new bedrooms
are proposed and the structure will be occupied on a limited, seasonal basis. The proposed second story
addition does not appear to present any adverse impact on neighboring viewsheds and only a limited impact
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
when viewed from the lake, as the property is located at the end of a small bay adjacent to Harris Bay. Staff
recommends stormwater management issues be considered in any approval issued.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. BROWN-The proposed second story addition isn’t really an increase in floor area. It’s kind of a
formalization of a half story that was there before. There’s no increase in footprint. It doesn’t appear to be a
big visual impact from the road, minimal from the lake. The only concern Staff would have is maybe address
the stormwater control issues on the site, with the new addition. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I’m Joe Roulier. I’m representing Colleen and Bruce Halse, and I’m here to
both explain the project and to answer any questions you may have for me. Basically what we’re doing is that
there’s a bedroom upstairs. It’s a gable end house, and what we’re proposing to do is to take the roofline
that’s currently over the existing bedroom, turn it 90 degrees to the gable end so that we have a full floor
space in that particular area of the house. There’s no expansion of the footprint in any direction. It doesn’t
move closer to the house, nor does it move closer to the west side of the property. Basically, Mr. Stone asked
me this question last week, if we removed the rafters that are currently there, what would the change be? The
only change is that we would be changing the exterior walls, but the actual second floor is already in its
present position. The gabled roof, the way it currently is constructed, and the way the bedroom is finished
off upstairs, is that they actually have small storage areas under, knee walls both on the north side of the
house and under the south side of the house. So with the roofline modification, we’re then able to raise the
wall areas in those sections and thereby utilize the square footage that’s not currently being used. We feel as
though, first of all, that there’s no neighbors either to the east side of the property or to the south side of the
property, south side of the property is a swamp-ish type area that’ll never be built on. There’s a high water
table and a swamp in that particular area. The east side of the property borders a right of way approximately
10 feet that no one would be able to build on, and then there’s a road immediately adjacent to that and
additional woods over to the next piece of property. So there’s no visual impact on that side of the house.
On the west side of the house, there is an adjoining two story home, but the trees between the house will
somewhat shelter any increment in the roofline that we may have to incur. That’s basically a synopsis of what
we’re proposing to do, and the only issue that Mr. Brown had was regarding the stormwater. I’ve discussed
that with him. I’ve told him that we would take adequate measures to try to basically have a limited drainage
back into the lake. There is a high water table. It is a small piece of property. So we’re somewhat limited as
to how we can actually address it. I would just take any questions that the Board may have.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The septic tank, which you’ve got approval for.
MR. ROULIER-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s an enlarged version for, what it is, 1250 gallon or?
MR. ROULIER-Okay. What we’ll be doing is increasing, I’ve received from the Queensbury Town Board
approval to increase the holding tank capacity from 2,000 gallons to 3500 gallon capacity. It’s obviously a
complete holding tank system. We will be having all the appropriate controls, so that there’ll be no spillage or
overflow into the tanks, and we’ll also be incorporating a cellanoid valve onto the incoming water line, so that
when the tanks reach a specified capacity, any incoming water will be terminated coming into the house.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is that restricted to just seasonal use, then?
MR. ROULIER-The home is a winterized home, currently. It has heat, but it is used somewhat limited, both,
in the summer it’s used quite a bit. In the winter it’s used sporadically, but it was built in 1988. It was built as
a year round home, and can be used as a year round home. This was all brought to the Board’s attention
when I applied for the increase in the holding tank capacity, and we went over that issue thoroughly.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s fine with the Town Board, then?
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now are you going to be putting up rain gutters, Joe?
MR. ROULIER-I think what we will do, based on the ultimate decision by Craig, is that I’m thinking we’re
probably going to be incorporating rain gutters, some type of a stone type of area around the house, and then
bring the gutters down into that stone, so that we don’t have any, we’re not accumulating water on it and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
having no direct runoff into the lake. I’m thinking possibly, since we will be digging up the entire back area
of the house for the new holding tanks, perhaps putting in a couple of catch basins, so that we can bring that
water off of the roof into those basins.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That sounds like a good idea, or some people use, I think they’re called wet wells.
They’re about two by two with, they’re lined with that textile fabric and then the crushed rock put in, and I
believe they call them wet wells, and we’ve used that before for.
MR. ROULIER-No, I haven’t. The problem with this particular piece of property is that it’s a small piece of
property, and the water table, in conjunction with the wetland area to the south side of it, makes us somewhat
limited as to how we can actually handle the water coming on to the property. No matter where we put the
water, it’s not like we’re going to have a tremendous amount of drainage or filtration before we get to the
lake. The water table is so high in that particular area that we will be limited as to how we can handle it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you do intend on taking the rain, the gutters, and draining them into, basically
what you’re talking about is a detention basin.
MR. ROULIER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s fine, and it’s okay if we condition it as such?
MR. ROULIER-Yes, it would be. I don’t really envision anything other than what we’re currently talking
about, to be honest with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fine. Thank you.
MR. ROULIER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only questions I had were on stormwater management which he already discussed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John took care of all the questions I had, but I still I guess that if everything meets
Code with having the holding tank there, then that’s okay. I mean, I guess it just took me aback a little bit. I
just thought that the reg’s said that if you had a holding tank that you could only inhabit it so many months a
year, but you had put this up in 1988, and it was basically grandfathered in.
MR. ROULIER-Correct. I can’t tell you, unequivocally, that it is grandfathered in, but I can tell you this, that
the home, the only way that that home can exist on that particular piece of property is with holding tanks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. ROULIER-And that was brought to the attention, of course, of the Town Board, and they subsequently
gave me approval to expand it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good, and would you just tell me again the size of that lot.
MR. ROULIER-The lot is approximately 5100 square feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was surprised, that little house looked so cute right there. I mean, it’s amazing how
it sits on that little piece of land so nicely.
MR. ROULIER-We will make every attempt possible so that it continues to sit on that property, with
comments of what you were saying, of course, but I think, honestly, that the proposed addition is not going
to be offensive to the neighborhood. In fact, I live right down the street from there, and I can’t imagine that
that would be offensive to anyone up there, and in light of what’s been built 300, 400 feet away, I think it’ll be
somewhat inconspicuous compared to other properties.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the main reason that you had to increase the size of the holding tank is because
we’re adding another bathroom and bedroom?
MR. ROULER-No. The main reason is that apparently in 1988, the holding tank capacity, it was permitted
with two 1,000 gallon tanks. The current regulation requires 3500 gallons of holding tank capacity.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Irregardless of how many bedrooms or bathrooms?
MR. ROULIER-No, the 3500 gallon capacity is related to the three bedrooms.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Three bedrooms, right. Okay.
MR. ROULIER-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks, Joe.
MR. ROULIER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On the floor area ratio worksheet, right now you have 1336 square feet there. Is that
correct?
MR. ROULIER-Can you just give me a minute to look at it, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That same sheet talks about a proposed area of construction of another 204. Now
either that’s wrong, because what you’ve been telling me and the rest of the Board is that on this drawing that
you supplied with the application, where you show a bedroom, a bath and a wtc, master bedroom, a master
bath.
MR. ROULIER-A walk in closet, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, that exists.
MR. ROULIER-No. It doesn’t. That’s the proposed. There is still a bedroom in that particular area, but the
bedroom runs the length of a gabled end roof.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re saying. The drawing I have in front of me looks like this is what
you’re going to add to the second floor. This is how the second floor is going to look when you’re done.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-What does the second floor look like now?
MR. ROULIER-The second floor right now, in that particular area, if you were to come in from the side
facing me, and the side facing you by approximately five and a half feet, that’s the terminal point of the
bedroom upstairs now. What we’re proposing to do is to raise the walls both on the south side of the house
and on the north side of the house, so that that area that’s currently below 42 inches is now incorporated into
the actual size of the bedroom.
MR. VOLLARO-So the bedroom is going to increase?
MR. ROULIER-The bedroom will increase by approximately 204 square feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I’m, now the maximum that you’re allowed on 5100 square foot of
acreage is 1122 square feet. That’s 22% times 5100. Correct?
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re over now, and you’re going to be going over further by adding 204 square feet to
that.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s 1336 times 204, you’re going to be up somewhere in the area of 1500. as opposed
to 1122.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So what we’ve got to approve here tonight, really, and one of the things we’ve got to
approve, on your floor area ratio worksheet, is whether it’s okay to, whether we think it’s okay to go up that
high, because that’s going to be well over 22%. You’re sitting at 19% now. You’re sitting at 19% over the
allowable amount, over 1122.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. ROULIER-Approximately.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to be asking us to come up to about 45% over the allowed amount. That’s
really what we’re looking at here is how much expansion of the floor area are we willing to go along with.
MR. ROULIER-When I was in front of the variance board last week, this was extensively discussed at that
time.
MR. VOLLARO-I read the ZBA’s discussion of that.
MR. ROULIER-And we felt as though, one of the.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the ZBA, I guess I’ve got to maybe air some of my feelings. When I read the ZBA, I
have a little note on what the ZBA wrote, and it was a note to me, I’ll read it to you. It says, I feel the ZBA
really went overboard on this variance, and where they said, the additional 8.2 square foot of relief from 22
allowable floor area ratio, well, I don’t think it’s an additional eight feet. It’s like a little bit more than eight
feet to me, 204 square feet. When they did this variance, it looks to me like they said, well, it’s okay. They
got into the floor area ratio in the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now I don’t know whether that’s jurisdictional
or something that we have to talk about, Mr. Chairman, how does the ZBA get into floor area ratio? Is that
something that the Planning Board does or is it something that the ZBA does?
MR. BROWN-The floor area ratio is a zoning requirement. It’s in the zoning use table. It’s a requirement
just like a setback, or a height requirement. Any relief for anything above and beyond that is granted by the
Zoning Board. So you can consider it, and you should consider it in your deliberations, but the approval to
do it has already been done, to go outside the rules.
MR. VOLLARO-So a lot of what I’m putting forward here is really academic.
MR. BROWN-Well, like I said, you should consider it in whatever decision you come to, but the approval to
do something other than 22% has been granted, as a Town approval, already.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m finished, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing to add.
MR. ROULIER-One of the issues that I think is important with the floor area ratio is will it have a significant
effect on the neighborhood, and I think in that particular case, where it’s going to have almost no effect on
the neighborhood, I think that was one of the reasons why the ZBA approved it, but I think the other
underlying factor was that because we’re still working with the original footprint of the house, granted that it
is an expansion of the living area of the house, because we were not encroaching on any of the setbacks, I
think that was the underlying factor of why they ultimately approved it.
MR. RINGER-That seems to be what they say in their approval.
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just say one more thing on the stormwater plan. Are you proposing, or is the Town, or
Craig, are you saying that we’ll get some kind of a stormwater position from them prior to them starting?
MR. BROWN-I think that’s what they’re offering, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BROWN-If you want to make it conditioned upon that, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we should consider approving this tonight, whatever we do, I want it ironed out in the
resolution, so that we have something that we can go back on.
MR. ROULIER-I think Mr. Strough brought that up, and I agreed to that. Basically, if I understand him
correctly, is a gutter type of system that would be drained off to, limited retention.
MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I have, Joe. All eaves gutters will drain or be directed to detention basins.
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Simple enough.
MR. ROULIER-And outside of that, to be honest with you, I don’t think there’s too much else that we can
do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-I have one piece of correspondence, it’s from Michael J. Grasso, 9 Rappaport Drive, Lake
George, NY, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Bruce Halse and project listed on
reverse side, and it’s the public hearing notification it’s on the back of, it reads, “I have no problem with the
project to expand Bruce Halse’s premises on Brayton Lane, and support such a project. Michael J. Grasso”
That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a resolution in mind, Mr. Strough?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2001 COLLEEN & BRUCE HALSE, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 55-2001, Colleen & Bruce Halse for
construction/modification to existing bedroom to include a roof line change, bedroom, closet and bathroom.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval, Cross
Reference: BOH Res. 55-2001, AV 97-2001. Tax Map No. 6-3-12. Lot size: 0.10 acres, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 1/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 12/14/01:
12/20/01 Staff Notes
12/13/01 ZBA Resolution - approved
12/12/01 Warren Co. Planning
12/11/01 Notice of Public Hearing
11/19/01 BOH Res. 55-2001
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/20/01 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The roofs will be guttered, and that all eaves gutters will drain or be directed into detention
basins, and
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/20/01 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. ROULIER-Have a good holiday. Thank you very much.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 10-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION PAUL CHAMBERS
THE FIREPLACE CO. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES P. BEHAN ZONE:
PC-1A LOCATION: 845 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO
APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUESTS INCLUDE DRIVEWAY ACCESS
DIRECTLY TO RT. 9, ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE, PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE,
NEW CURB CUT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE TO DIRECT DRAINAGE FROM THE
ADJACENT MOTEL, AND NEW FENCED EXTERIOR DISPLAY AREA. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 99-2001 TAX MAP NO.
72-6-27.2
PAUL CHAMBERS, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing for a modification.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-99, Modification, Paul Chambers/The Fireplace Co., Meeting Date:
December 20, 2001 “Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed site plan modification requires an Area Variance from the minimum 150
foot separation distance requirement for access drives. (ZBA meeting; 12/13/01)
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposal calls for only one access point onto Route 9. The proposed access drive does not
appear to present an increase to the public services burden.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The applicant has provided correspondence from the NYS DOT approving the “concept” of a
relocated drive on State Route 9. It could be argued that the increase in the number of access points,
especially on a major highway, increases the potential for conflicts.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The installation of an additional access drive onto Route 9 should not present any undue adverse
impact on these resources or the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
No changes are proposed to the building and lighting on the site. The freestanding sign location has
been repositioned to the northern side of the lot.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of
off-street parking and loading.
The proposed access drive onto Route 9 is located 42 feet from the northern property line of the site.
The entrance drive is immediately exposed to the onsite parking spaces on both sides. The potential
for conflicts, at least with the spaces in front of the building, should be considered. The proposed
site plan depicts 10 parking spaces; the ordinance requires 10 for the site.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
It appears as though patrons parking along the southerly side of the site would need to cross the
access drive in order to enter the building.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No changes to the stormwater control facilities are shown on the plan.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
No change to these systems is anticipated. However, it appears as though there may be a sanitary
sewer manhole in the area of the proposed access drive.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The proposed plan relocates the “landscaped” area from the southern portion of the site to the
northern side. The larger 3 inch caliper trees and the landscaping around the proposed sign have
been removed in favor of a landscaping plan near the display area.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
It appears as though an emergency vehicle could access this site without difficulty.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
Apparently, the existing site conditions allow stormwater and snow melt to run from the adjoining
motel property, across this site before being collected by the Route 9 collection system. The
proposed plan would eliminate this issue and direct the motel runoff directly to Route 9. It is unclear
as to where the runoff from this site is handled.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review: Approved 4/20/99, Modified 1/16/01
Area Variance 99-2001: ZBA meeting 12/19/01, Access drive separation distance
Staff comments:
Access management, especially on to and off from a major highway, is listed as a concern in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The opportunity to limit the number of potential conflict points on Route 9
is available on this site. Rather than closing the southern portion of the shared access drive in favor of a new
drive, consideration may be given to widening the existing shared drive to facilitate both sites. Such a
widening of the shared drive would address the matter of interconnection, as required per 179-66.1. No
provision for interconnection of commercial sites is shown in the current plan. The January 16, 2001
modification was conditioned upon a minor landscaping issue and upon the applicant presenting a deeded
agreement for access from the northern neighbor. Will the northern neighbor give the applicant such an
agreement? No correspondence from the northern property owner, regarding this issue, has been received.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
SEQR Status:
Unlisted”
MR. BROWN-I think access management, as you know, is pretty important to commercial site plan
development. This is a unique situation where it’s a very narrow road frontage situation. Going from what’s
ideal, a shared drive, to a single drive, is kind of going backwards, but in this case, situation, it may play out to
be a little unique. The last time they were in for a modification it was tabled to get some information from
the adjoining property owner regarding availability of an easement. I don’t know if that’s been exhausted yet,
and I guess that’s it, just do we have any correspondence from the neighbor that says that they don’t want to
do the easement situation and continue to share the drive.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the motel?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MR. BROWN-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. CHAMBERS-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. CHAMBERS-I’m Paul Chambers. I’m the owner of The Fireplace Company. I apologize for my
tardiness.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problem.
MR. CHAMBERS-The business hung me up. The reason I’d like to amend my plot plan is for many of the
reasons that Craig mentioned. First of all, my neighbor to the north, the Alpenhaus Motel, that’s in the
process of being sold. The current owners were not willing to offer me an easement across their property.
Over the course of time, not only have we had watershed issues, but we’ve also had conflicts with my
customers parking in their property and him coming into my store and asking them to move their cars off of
his property. At one time, you’re all probably familiar with the property, it was all one parcel. It was
segmented off prior to Route 9 being re-done. At that time, the State deemed it sufficient to have that very
large opening for both parcels. My driveway, or my entrance, is only nine feet wide from the edge of the
curb, the southern end of that curb cut to my property line. It’s not even large enough for one vehicle lane to
get in and out of the property, without trespassing on my neighbors. A couple of things come into play is
ingress and egress to my property, also the watershed issue that was brought up with great detail at the ZBA
meeting that I was at last week. My plans are to have my own driveway, 24 feet wide, make my customers
park on my property. I would have access direct to the parking lot that we put in on the southern side of the
building. The biggest part of this is the watershed. He plows the snow from his property all the way down,
right to the property line. Last year we had a pile that was about eight feet tall. I even offered to have it
removed, with a loader and a dump truck to take it away. That wasn’t what he wanted. The water melt, the
snow melted, filled my basement, comes across my blacktop, freezes, customer would fall. My intention here
is to re-direct the water from his property, before it gets to mine, with some kind of curbing, which will push
it back into the stormwater management that’s at the end of the current curb cut. So there’s a couple of
things that I’m trying to do is I’m trying give more green space to the site, by putting that whole northern
edge back in grass, taking up that blacktop, having all my parking on the southern part of my property, with
my own ingress and egress. Last week, I was granted the variance for the separations in the driveway, and I
realize that was a great variance because of the short distance, but I only have 78 road feet of frontage on my
property. So I really didn’t have much place to go with it. I tried to get it away as far as we possibly could
within the restraints of what’s there now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That seems reasonable. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I really appreciate your comments. Certainly more green space would be great on that
site. I guess I really don’t have a problem with it. Mostly the big issue for me was trying to understand better
what the issues were, and the reasons for why you wanted to move the driveway, and it certainly seems
reasonable.
MR. CHAMBERS-I did exhaust the efforts to get an easement. The closing is supposed to happen before
Christmas. I don’t know who the new owner is going to be, and I feel that I’m being kind of, I’m not sure of
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
the right word, but I don’t know what he’s going to be like. Maybe he’ll be fine. Maybe he would grant me
the easement. I don’t know. My preference would be to create my own ingress and egress, be separate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no public hearing, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we don’t hear any other comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think on the proposed driveway, you’ve only got 24 feet there, and I’m just looking
into something now here on, something I want to look at, 179-66.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to come back to you?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Myself, I’d rather leave it the way it is than create a new driveway there. Do you have any
documentation where the current owner has refused to give you an easement?
MR. CHAMBERS-I didn’t mean to cut you off, but it was verbal from the son of the owner.
MR. RINGER-I’d rather see some documentation, or wait until after the property is sold and then come back
for this change, then to, if there’s still a possibility to get an easement, rather than to put a second driveway in
there. I see a lot of problems with another driveway so close to there.
MR. CHAMBERS-The real issue about having my own driveway is the green space is going to be affected.
The customers now, they’re creatures of habit. They pull right alongside the north side of the building. So
I’m trying to direct them away from my neighbor’s property, putting them to the gravel parking lot that I
placed on the other side, and that point, if I cannot separate my property from his property, the issue of the
watershed comes back.
MR. RINGER-And I understand that. I still have a difficulty with putting another driveway there. I like the
idea of the concept and everything, except for an additional driveway. I just have a lot of difficulty with that.
I don’t have any questions, other than that, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Now you’re proposing to put a curb between you and your neighbor?
MR. CHAMBERS-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-How high is that curb?
MR. CHAMBERS-About six to eight inches. It’s not like a wall. It’s more just to retain the water.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Like a parking lot or street curb?
MR. CHAMBERS-Very similar, similar to the curbs that are in front of the building now. Right at the edge
of my parking lot, there’s probably eight inch concrete. I’d like to keep that look up the side.
MR. STROUGH-Now when you re-do your driveway, you’re going to have to replace the island and the
curbing that’s currently there?
MR. CHAMBERS-That’s correct.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-What do you plan on doing with the center of that?
MR. CHAMBERS-Well, currently it’s concrete and blacktop.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. CHAMBERS-Which was done by the State. My assumption would be they would require me to keep it
just like that, that it’ll be just the way it is now, except it will be extended up and re-shaped up to the property
line to the northern part of that island. If I could make it smaller like the lawn is, adjacent to the northern
part of the curb cut, like the Motel has, I’d much rather have grass go right out, as far out as I could get it, but
I think because the way they’ve got that swale right in the front of the building, they’re going to want to keep
that, because that swale kind of goes together and then goes down past Mr. Wood’s property, that’s to the
south of mine, and there is, I guess you would call, a pseudo sidewalk along the edge of the road there, but
that, I mean, I’m hoping to put grass all the way down, but I think I’m going to be held by New York State in
their determination to leave that the way it is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I wasn’t thinking grass, but I was thinking along the lines of landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that they’d want that done on that corridor there, like that, in the right of
way like that.
MR. STROUGH-I thought I’d ask and see if he knew. Now you’ve moved your proposed sign, of course, to
the north.
MR. CHAMBERS-Right. I am in negotiations with Craig, and the office, I’m applying for a freestanding
sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it going to be a monument style sign? Some signs are on poles, and some are like
monument style.
MR. CHAMBERS-It’s going to be, I’d like to use one that probably everybody knows is the sign that Steve
Sutton put up in front of the fish fry. It’s similar to that, down lit, lit from the bottom, in the grassy area to
the north of my entrance way.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is that his carved?
MR. CHAMBERS-I think his is carved. I believe it is.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have a nice sign?
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes. My logo is an oval, and my (lost words) have an oval, and more of a post below it
with light shining up to it, two sided, of course, but we use bright red as our truck colors and our corporate
color, if you will. So the sign would be red with white and black lettering on it.
MR. STROUGH-Right. I understand. Now, what is the reason, previously when you submitted your plan,
you had landscaping surrounding the sign, and that’s absent in the new proposal.
MR. CHAMBERS-At the time that we did this drawing, I wasn’t sure I could have a freestanding sign, after
speaking with Craig and with Bruce, since I have no other signage on my building, that is an option for me.
So as far as landscaping around it, I’m more than willing to put shrubbery around it and hide the lights or
whatever has to be done.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-While we’re right there on the sign, and you have a copy of your proposal in front of you,
right?
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I see the handicap parking, 16 foot in width. What is the width of the parking lot space
adjacent to it, just to the east of it?
MR. CHAMBERS-Just to the east of it. Without a scale, I’d have to say it’s got to be eight feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s got to be nine. Yes, because it wasn’t demarcated.
MR. CHAMBERS-Right, and I don’t have a rule with me.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-And just to the right of that is a space that doesn’t look like it’s good for anything.
MR. CHAMBERS-Well, that, the property line goes through there, that heavier line. The curve is out further.
So there’s blacktop from the heavy line that has 78 sitting on it, to the curb. There’s blacktop, and that would
measure the same space as the one next to it.
MR. STROUGH-And so that’s not really accounted for.
MR. CHAMBERS-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re really going to have two parking spaces, one that won’t be handicapped and one
that will be handicapped.
MR. CHAMBERS-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and now on your proposed driveway, we might as well stay in the general area, are
you proposing striping? I would suggest a center stripe with an “in” arrow to your south, and an “out” arrow
to your north. So that, because we have a relatively narrow access there. So if a car becomes a little bit arrant
and moves towards the center, because there’s no center stripe to indicate otherwise, they’re going to block
any incoming traffic.
MR. CHAMBERS-Sure, create a conflict on the road.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. CHAMBERS-The specs that I used for the driveway, for just a side note, was what was sent to me by
New York State DOT, as far as the throat is concerned, and the radiuses of the arches, if I could make it
wider, to hopefully eliminate that conflict, that we would try to do that, but I was trying to cut it off, the
throat, at the end of the parking spots, so the parking spots were the proper length.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, but you did get this concept already approved by the State?
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes, sir. There is a letter of conceptual approval in the file.
MR. STROUGH-I saw it. I’m just making it a matter of public record.
MR. CHAMBERS-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s move over to your proposed exterior display area. You’re going to have a stockade
fence around it.
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes. What, essentially, that’s for, we put barbecue grills and some outdoor fireplaces,
things of that nature, out on the front part of the building. I’d like to keep those inside that fenced in area,
and not have to wheel them in and out every night. My thought was is to obviously put the sod down then
put the fence up and have it like a back yard, and then have displays out there, not permanent displays, but
barbecue grills, a little bit of patio furniture, things of that nature, maybe an outdoor fireplace.
MR. STROUGH-And what’s the stockade fence going to look like? The reason why I ask is because you’re
on Route 9, and with their new zoning standards, we just are raising the bar a little bit, our concerns in terms
of landscaping and what’s visible from the passer-bys.
MR. CHAMBERS-When I refer to stockade, I’m looking at straight pillars with points on the top, and then
center bars with the, I don’t want to call it a knob, but like an arrowhead on the top of it, more of a
decorative fence with heavier posts along, in the segments of the fence.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s not that traditional, like stock of stockade fence that you would buy at Lowe’s
or something?
MR. CHAMBERS-I’ve looked at a couple of different, I’ve looked at that style where it’s straight across the
top. I’d like to do something with the curve in it, so it would meet the pillars, and give it more of a decorative
look.
MR. STROUGH-Something a little dressier.
MR. CHAMBERS-That’s what I’m trying, and then I could take Christmas lights and kind of run it around
that display.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s good. Now while we’re on this topic, why do you have it so far to the
east? I see where your door, your access to your display area, I just don’t know why you, and I see where the
grass is in back, which, to the west of the building, which is pretty much, I mean, not good for anything really.
MR. CHAMBERS-It’s not. I’ll grant you that.
MR. STROUGH-So I’m just wondering why you didn’t move your display area and your fence more towards
the door, and retain that whole back area as a display area.
MR. CHAMBERS-I’ve lost you. You mean move the whole system around the corner?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. See, I’ve got your fence right up here, and then use this as display area and keep the
fence away from the road, and the visibility of the fence from the road, and allow more landscaping between
the fence and the road if you were to move it back.
MR. CHAMBERS-I think I was trying to keep it as obvious as I could to the road, on purpose, where people
could see it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, people are not going to, they’re only going to see a fence. You want them to see the
fence?
MR. CHAMBERS-I think I do, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. CHAMBERS-And my marketing plans are that I’m going to tout it as my backyard, and their only
ingress and egress to that area is through my store. The back area that you refer to, that’s grass in the back
corner, is covered with trees. The area that’s open here, that I’ve displayed as wide open in the sun. There’s
no trees overhanging it. It’s brighter. The back area is, really there’s a lot of undergrowth and everything
back there. It’s dark. It’s kind of damp because the sun doesn’t get to it.
MR. STROUGH-So where it’s marked “grass” in that northwest corner, is really wooded?
MR. CHAMBERS-Yes. The neighbor has trees that overhang that area. There’s some pine trees in the back.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, then you don’t mind conditioning this as far as striping the proposed
driveway?
MR. CHAMBERS-Not at all.
MR. STROUGH-And putting some landscaping around the proposed sign?
MR. CHAMBERS-Not at all.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m taking off on what John had to say on the striping of the driveway. I was looking
at 179-66, and I’ll read it, it’s part of our zoning code. It says “There shall be a minimum of (1) access point
(egress/ingress) from parking areas for industrial and commercial uses. There shall be a physical barrier
separating ingress and egress area of the access point”. So it looks like between, rather than striping it, as
John has suggesting, I think you’ve got to have a physical barrier between that, at least according to what I
read here.
MR. CHAMBERS-I’m not going to state that I know the verbiage in and out, so I’d probably have to get a
recommendation from somebody on that.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’ll defer to our Staff on that. This is 179-66(4).
MR. BROWN-I’m familiar with it. It is written that way. Logistically, I guess, that the application of that
physical divider is proven, doesn’t work very well in the wintertime up here. To plow snow, that divider just
doesn’t work practically.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a waiver we can grant. We’ve done that on several commercial plazas.
MR. BROWN-You can acknowledge the requirement and make note that it’s not necessary, if you wish. It’s
been done before.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as it’s, I’m just concerned about our right to waiver that, if we have a right
to waiver. If we’ve done it before, we’ve set precedence to waiver that.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done it three or four times that I can think of.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing I can think of here is, looking at the way this sets up, and the way the
existing parking area, not the existing area, but the new area that you’re looking to put to the south of your
building, it seems to me there’s a lot of room for conflict in going in and out of that, cars parked here, people
trying to get out, other people trying to come in. Unless your flow of traffic is not that heavy, I mean, you
don’t get this in and out, in and out routine, where people are waiting for somebody to come out so they can
go in.
MR. CHAMBERS-I would wish that would happen, but that’s not the case.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. CHAMBERS-I generally have three, maybe four cars in the parking lot at once, and one of them being
an employee. So that would be in the back, obviously, out of the way.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I kind of lean a little bit toward what Larry was saying before, when he was talking on
the subject, that, and I understand your problem with the Motel, and it can be something that you’ve got to
be concerned about, but the tradeoff of waiting for the Motel to be sold and to be occupied by a new owner,
where you could approach that owner for this easement that you were talking about previously, and not have
to deal with two curb cuts like that, as close as these are. I see where the ZBA granted the variance. It was a
fairly extensive variance the way I looked at it, but I would really like to see you wait, at least that’s my
opinion, until such time as the Motel is sold and reoccupied, to see whether you could preserve and make an
arrangement with them on the easement that you wanted to have before, rather than have two curb cuts
there. I feel those curb cuts, even though the ZBA granted that, and I guess it’s a grant, and that’s another
thing I’ll talk with Staff about, if it’s granted, it’s granted. Is that where we are on that?
MR. BROWN-Well, the relief is granted, from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Again, it’s
something you need to put into your deliberations, and if you see a different way to do it, or you want to
make a change, which requires him to go get the variance revised or get a different variance, the site plan
review is more of a subjective, what’s best for the site. The Zoning Board review is, here’s the rules. Is this a
good idea to do this outside the rules? So, it’s not set in stone just because they have the variance.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I understand that. That’s a good description of it. I’m just reading your own Staff
comments here, Craig, under consideration may be given to widening the existing shared drive to facilitate
both sites, which I thought was a good observation, myself, and that’s what I would like to see done, actually.
That means, I realize it means putting this off until, how far down the pike is this sale? I mean, when are they
going to close? Do you have a closing?
MR. CHAMBERS-It’s said to be before Christmas, and again, I believe I’m being hindered by not having
ingress and egress to my property, and that’s why I came up with this plan. I’ve tried to exhaust all avenues
that I possibly could to remedy it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask you this. What’s the timeline on your plan? In other words, what do you
see your schedule like? When do you see, if we were to grant this this evening, when do you see this being in
place, time wise?
MR. CHAMBERS-I can tell you honestly it will not start until spring.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So if they’re going to close before Christmas, which is like five to six days away, and
we can come to a resolution with the new owners to actually widen that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Who’s “we”?
MR. RINGER-Him.
MR. VOLLARO-Him.
MR. MAC EWAN-Define “we”. I just want to be sure what we’re talking about. We’re not going to do any
resolutions with the new owner either.
MR. VOLLARO-This is the applicant I mean. I’m asking this thing to hold until such time as the new owner
gets in place to see whether the applicant can discuss that with him and see whether or not that can be
opened up.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think that, you know, from my viewpoint, I see this as another issue that he
touched on, and we haven’t spent a lot of time on it, was the liability that he has right now, and he’s open to,
especially with the snow removal on the Motel next door. As I see it, and as I recall, they don’t do their own
snow removal. They have someone come in and do it for them, and they’re going to be creatures of habit.
It’s not going to change. They way they plow that parking lot up there is not going to change, and they’re
going to continue dumping snow right along that property line, and I see that the way he’s trying to propose
here, by changing the configuration of his lot around to take the liability away from his customers and
himself, from anyone getting hurt and detaining that water off his site, I see this alternate plan as a more
viable plan than what he’s currently got. So I guess we have to weigh, is the additional curb cut that’s going
to be close to an existing curb cut a benefit to this site, by redesigning this site with the whole picture in mind,
not just getting hung up on the curb cut, and I think what he’s got here is a far better proposal than what he’s
got existing. That’s the way I see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Plus you’re gaining green space.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re gaining green space.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I was thinking along the same lines as you commented.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely, and I think the pluses far outweigh the negatives on this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Plus, another way you can look at it is, if you’re going to sell a piece of property,
you’re going to say all the good things about your property, and the last thing a perspective buyer wants to
hear is how he’s got to go into litigation with the person next door and start resolving some issue. The seller
is going to make it seem like there’s no issue. So what I’m trying to say is that’s not our business, what’s
going to go on. I think that Mr. Chambers is here with a viable way to make his property safe and functional,
without having to do anything with his neighbor that, because nothing seems to have worked with his
neighbor. So, do you actually think that this man wants to get, now, involved with a potential buyer for this
neighbor’s property that he’s never gotten along with? Well, that’s what I’m saying, this isn’t our plan. Then
why are you even bringing it up.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the applicant mentioned that to us before, that he was looking for an easement and
couldn’t get it because he wasn’t able to deal with this Motel owner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So he attempted. I don’t think it would be right for this Board to suggest that he
go to a new property owner and try to work out some sort of deal.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, he’s got a plan here in front of us, and I think we need to act one way or another
on the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, from a safety point of view, I see the conflict in the ingoing and outgoing, but the
applicant says he doesn’t get that much traffic, so that may be the mitigation to that. I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-And I see a problem with putting another driveway that close, when other things can be
mitigated, perhaps, with the applicant and the neighboring party, with that shared driveway that’s there now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Chambers?
MR. CHAMBERS-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? No? I’ll entertain a
motion one way or the other.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-99 PAUL CHAMBERS,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 10-99 Paul Chambers.
Modification requests include driveway access directly to Rt. 9, additional green space, parking on the south
side, new curb along the north side to direct drainage from the adjacent motel, and new fenced exterior
display area. Any modification to an approved plan is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 99-2001, Tax Map No. 72-6-27.2, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 12/17/ 01:
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
12/20 Staff Notes
12/13 Notice of Public Hearing
12/13 ZBA Resolution - approved
12/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/20/01 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application for modification is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The shrubs be planted around the sign, hopefully to hide the lights that are going to be
projecting upwards, and
2. Put striping with an In and Out arrow on those two, ingress and egress, and
3. The fence would be more of a, instead of a regular, basic, flat, straight stockade fence get a
little bit of a design to it.
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/20/01 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck to you.
MR. CHAMBERS-Thank you very much. Happy Holidays.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 53-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED BARBARA H. JONES PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: NC-10, UR-10
LOCATION: 339 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING
OFFICE BUILDING ON AVIATION ROAD PARCEL AND CONSTRUCTION OF MEDICAL
OUPATIENT CLINIC ON MANOR DRIVE PARCEL. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-25, 179-
17, ALL LAND USES IN NC ZONES AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OR HEALTH RELATED
FACILITY IN A UR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 96-2001 TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.8, 8.7 LOT SIZE: 1.47 ACRES
SECTION 179-25, 179-17
JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-2001, Barbara H. Jones, Meeting Date: December 20, 2001 “Criteria for
considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
The uses outlined in this proposal are allowable uses, however, the project requires an Area Variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the minimum 150 foot separation requirement
between access drives.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed uses; banking facility, professional office and medical outpatient clinic are all
consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Minimal impact on the existing public service burden is
anticipated.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
This proposal would provide for an increase in the flow of traffic and the parking of vehicles in the
vicinity of Manor Drive. It may be argued that the increase in traffic along Manor Drive would be
detrimental to the residents in the neighborhood.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The recycling and development of these parcels does not appear to present any undue adverse
impact on the resources of the town or upon the public services provided.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The two buildings have been separated to allow for separate parking fields and site lighting. The plan
appears to depict adequate on site signage and parking lot striping/painting.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The site plan offers an area, on both sides, for interconnection to adjoining properties. Drive aisles,
parking space sizes are adequate. Traffic control is addressed by utilizing one-way traffic and the
plan calls for signage and pavement markings to support this method.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The plan depicts an adequate number of parking spaces, per the current requirements. The proposed
zoning ordinance would allow this site, with a similar layout to be developed with nearly half as many
parking spaces. Buildings A and B appear to be sufficiently accessible for loading and unloading of
service vehicles, however, building C appears to have no rear access.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Internal sidewalks are provided, immediately adjacent to each building. No “connector” walk is
proposed. No provision for pedestrian interconnection is planned.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Comments from CT Male appear to show that the proposed facilities are adequate.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The project is serviced by a municipal water supply and on site wastewater disposal systems are
planned.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
An adequate arrangement of landscaping is planned for this development. The existing row of
landscaping along the “Stewarts” parcel is to remain.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The fire lanes, as proposed, appear to be adequate.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
There does not appear to be any areas on site susceptible to ponding, flooding or erosion.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 96-2001: 12/13/01, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting - access drive separation distance
Staff comments:
While the site depicts two separate “activity” areas and the parking and lighting are also separate,
consideration may be given to limiting the number of parking spaces actually constructed to the amount
proposed using the new zoning ordinance. Additional parking areas may be kept in reserve for future
development. Limiting parking spaces, especially in this “transition” neighborhood, may prove beneficial to
the residents. Consideration may be given to provisions for pedestrian access not only between the buildings
on this site, but also between adjacent properties, per §179-66.1. Consideration may be given to additional
landscaping that might aid in screening the parking areas on the site. Has the potential for sharing an access
point with Stewarts been investigated? Will the banking facility have an exterior ATM? Will the site lighting
levels change with an exterior ATM?
SEQR Status:
Type – Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dick Jones. We were before the Zoning
Board last week, and they endorsed our one way in, one way out curb cuts, which we think is the most
appropriate in this location for the bank, and to accommodate a drive through. Dick Jones’ architectural
office will be relocated to the back of this building, which is going to be substantially visually improved, and
the medical clinic will be in the back. Trip Shannon, the Chief Operating Officer for Hudson Headwaters, is
here, in case the Board has any operational questions about the clinic in back, and certainly some parking
spaces can be eliminated in accordance with Staff comments, but we think the site works pretty well, and the
Staff comments are pretty positive. At this time, I’ll ask Dick to just walk you through the site plan.
MR. JONES-Good evening. What I’ll do, basically, is just give you an overview of the project. Aviation
Road, to the bottom of the site, Manor Drive to the top of the site. The building that I currently have my
office in is identified as Space A, which is closest to Aviation Road. We’re looking, basically, to develop the
site into a complex of professional buildings, which would have unified landscaping parking areas, lighting,
and basically unified appearances in the buildings as well. What we’re looking at right now, Space A, as I said,
would become the banking area. We’re looking at a one way access in on the east side, toward Stewarts. One
way access in for the front part of the property, on the west side out. The drive would come around. Our
professional office, we would have a main entry here on the east side, a secondary entrance as well on the east
side, additional parking in the rear area. The actual drive up teller area for the Space A, for the bank, would
be on the front west corner of the building. We would have one drive up window with the canopy. We have
room in here for stacking of vehicles, and the drive by lane so that people here can drive by without backing
up. Basically, the site itself is set up so that there’s access through to the back side where the clinic is. We
have the one way coming directly in, parking for the clinic in the back side, parking for the two tenants in the
front side, all on the front side of the lot. We have an exit drive and an entrance drive on Manor Drive in the
back, but we’re proposing to bring in the majority of the traffic from Aviation Road. So we would basically
be looking at the traffic exiting onto Manor Drive from the clinic. Everything here on the front side would
exit back on to Aviation Road. As far as signage for the site, we’re looking to identify one sign on the
Aviation Road side of the property which would identify all of the tenants on the site. We have additional
signage, freestanding signage back here for the Space C, which would be the clinic. We’ve identified some
signage, again, all of which will be unified on the site for the various tenants. As far as the parking itself,
we’ve located the handicap parking directly in front of the main entrances to each one of the buildings. We
have our dumpster locations. We have plenty of room for pick up and removal of trash. We have the
enclosures. We’ve added a lot of landscaping. We’ve run through all of the lighting for the project as well,
maintaining all of the basic lighting levels on the site. We have minimal to no overrun of lighting onto the
adjacent properties. As far as the stormwater management, basically everything is contained on site. We have
free draining roofs with pitched roofs we’re draining into eaves trenches along the sides of the buildings
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
where we’re collecting. Everything in the paved areas is collected in drywells and basically dissipated on site
as well. The buildings itself, like I’ve said, we’d like to be able to basically unify the architecture of the
buildings. The building at the top would be the, this would actually be the front of the bank, which would
face Aviation Road, a drive up teller here to the west side. This would be the east elevation, facing Stewart.
This would be the primary entrance into the bank, as well as the end of the professional office, the secondary
office, or secondary entrance into the professional office as well, and this basically is what the west elevation,
this would be facing the main parking lot where the clinic area would be as well. We’re basically looking at
gable roofs. We’re looking at colored siding, horizontal siding above a chair rail type assembly with vertical
siding below that, some fancy cut shingles around the gables. We’ve tried to, basically wherever we have an
entry into a building, create a gabled roof so we’re not walking through eaves. We’re trying to minimize
runoff onto walkway areas, so that we don’t have problems with slipping and falling in the winter months,
those types of things, and basically we feel it’s a major improvement for the property. It’s a good use of the
transitional zone, as far as the placement of the bank and the professional office to Aviation Road and the
clinic to the back side. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I started the last time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you? Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Jones, are you literally razing the building that you’re in right now? I mean, you’re
tearing that thing completely down?
MR. JONES-No, we’re not tearing it down. We’re maintaining that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because it says demolition of existing.
MR. JONES-Well, there’s a little house in the back, that white house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. We were there on the site.
MR. JONES-That’s coming down.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I had to refresh my memory. A lot’s happened since Saturday. Okay. I see
what you’re saying. So you’re just basically going to take your building that you have now and put on a
different façade?
MR. JONES-Yes. We’re going to put facades on the building with the addition that basically unify the
building into one.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. There’s a lot of blacktop back there.
MR. JONES-Yes, there is. If you want us to go to the new parking requirements, basically, the bank right
now is designed, as, I think, one per hundred squarer feet. If we were allowed to go to the parking
regulations for the new Code, I believe it’s one per one fifty because it’s just classified as a professional office.
We could reduce the parking in that area by five spaces, which would have a significant impact. We,
personally, feel that we’ve got more parking there than we require for that facility.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s designed to meet with the Code. We could do that with the waiver provision that you
frequently do. We could just show the five spaces, dot it in as additional in the future if necessary, if you
require them, and they don’t have to be constructed now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Revert back to green space?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also the buffer with Stewarts, it just seemed like when we were there it looked
like there would be more of a buffer than it depicts on the drawing. Like Stewarts already has a lot of trees
on that east side.
MR. JONES-They have a lot of trees on the back side of their property currently. The dark row of green that
you see there, there’s a hedge row right there by the fence, and that was planted by them. The actual planting
is on the, what would be the west side of their pavement, the east side of my pavement, between the two
properties. That was planted by them back, I believe, in ’96, when we went through the issues of the storm
drainage coming on to our property, and they provided the gutter, or the curb along the property to maintain
the storm drainage on their property.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So what we’re seeing on yours right now is not theirs?
MR. JONES-No. That’s ours. They planted it on our property, but they maintain that at the current time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got you. All right. So then you wouldn’t add anything to it.
MR. JONES-There’s some that have been plowed over, and those types of things. We’d be supplementing
that so that there’d be a continuous row of plantings. Basically, there’s currently arborvitae in there. Some
of them have been broken off.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I think that it’s nice and green around the clinic in the back. I just wish that we
could get more, maybe by taking out the five spaces, if we can do that, if we could just get a little more of that
in the front, because you know everything to the west of your property is that big, open parking lot.
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s one big curb cut.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It doesn’t look very aesthetic.
MR. JONES-No, it doesn’t. That’s why we’ve tried to plant the large maples to the west side of the property
line there. Right now our edge of pavement is actually on that property line, and basically we’d be removing
five feet to get the planting space in there, and then putting green space and planting along the west side.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And did I hear you right, is there a specific one way in and one way out, or is it going
to be double?
MR. JONES-Yes, the drive from Aviation on the right hand side, next to Stewarts, is one way in, and then
the other side, the west side, is one way out.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So then there’s only one way to go in.
MR. JONES-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if you need to go to the drive through, the teller, you just go around, but going to
the clinic, you could go in either way.
MR. JONES-Technically you could.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If you were aware of going in through Manor Drive you could do that.
MR. JONES-When we initially sat down with Staff, we had that one way out only.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now that lighting, I want to talk about the lighting, too, for the clinic, because there’s
apartments back there.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what would the hours of operation be?
MR. JONES-The hours of operation are five days a week, well, actually eight to five four days a week, and
eight to eight one day a week.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s not going to be open until midnight or anything.
MR. JONES-No. Basically it is set up for people to come in on appointment. They do not have treatment
rooms. It’s only space for doctor’s appointments. There’s no emergency room type setup in there at all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then the lighting you would just have would be just for security?
MR. JONES-Yes, and as you look at what we have, we basically have no lighting on the back side of the
building toward the apartments on the east side. We have the one employee entrance on the back towards
Stewarts, and the other one is on the front corner facing the parking lot, and then we have another entrance
in the middle of the building as well. We’ve got one light pole in the back by that back entrance. There’s
several light poles in the island, in the middle of the parking.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was just going to ask you, there are a couple.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. JONES-Yes, but the foot candle levels, by the time you get to the boundary lines, are minimal to none.
They’re very, very low. We have everything with cutoff fixtures and we’re directing everything down on the
pavement.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess one of my first things was the lighting levels and foot candles. I think, back in the
general information area I think you stated that you were going to supply that with cut sheets. Do you have
that?
MR. RINGER-They’re zero all the way around, except here, is the only place.
MR. VOLLARO-This is the plan view for lighting?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. JONES-Bob, is this what you’re looking at?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Now, is that lighting going to consider if the bank has an ATM?
MR. JONES-We will not have an outside ATM. They’ll have one in the lobby and that’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no need for increased lighting because of that?
MR. JONES-No, we felt that that was a security issue, and we wanted it inside in the lobby.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. From the interconnection with Stewarts, a connector walk, have we thought about
that in any way or is that something that?
MR. LAPPER-We’ve provided for the connector drive access as the Code requires for shared access, and
certainly if Stewarts was interested, in terms of a sidewalk.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, pedestrian interconnect.
MR. LAPPER-It wouldn’t be a big deal, and we could show it on our side, but it would be up to Stewarts
whether they were interested.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you talked to them about it at all?
MR. JONES-We have not approached them. In looking at their layout, really the only place that we can
connect without impacting their parking is just about where we’ve shown it, which is to the back edge of their
parking. It’s a difficult situation along Aviation there, because they have a paved area in front of that planted
island and there’s no place there for a walk. So it would be very difficult to try and connect something along
Aviation Road, a sidewalk. I would think it would have to be back in the area that we’re looking at there, but
we could certainly do that, but I don’t know how receptive they would be. The other thing, there’s, just
about in that area, there’s that drainage trench, which is collecting the runoff from the edge of their pavement
and directing it around to the back side of that catch basin at the rear of their property. That they put in
about five or six years ago when we had the issues with the drainage coming directly into the side yard of our
property there. So we’d have to deal with that. Right now there’s a little paved swale that goes along that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I see, this is that RM at 9644, right up in the back? There’s only one catch basin on
that property that I can see.
MR. JONES-That’s the one in back. They have a catch basin along the island in the front area, and then they
have a retention area to the east side, they have a depression there for retention.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On traffic itself, I can see where we’re going to be, as far as Space A and Space B is
concerned, we’ve got one way in, one way out. As the Chairman points out, there’s signage, based on Note
Number 10. Now if you want to get from Aviation Road up to the clinic, and probably most people that get
into the clinic will be going out Manor Drive, east bound out of Manor Drive.
MR. JONES-Right now, the connector, we’ve set it up two way between the two. So they could turn around
and come back through Aviation, but there were some comments from the Planning Department in reference
to possibly making that just one way to the clinic and restricting traffic from coming back onto Aviation, and
we can do it either way.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the resolution on that?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. LAPPER-It’s up to the Board, whatever you want.
MR. JONES-It was something they asked about, and it is something that is possible.
MR. VOLLARO-That would help keep traffic off Manor Drive.
MR. LAPPER-No. It would put more traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-It would put more traffic on Manor Drive.
MR. RINGER-It would give them more options, whether they could go left or right on Manor.
MR. BROWN-It would effectively take the traffic off of the site and take it to one of two already controlled
intersections where Manor Drive comes back out on Aviation, rather than back out the curb cut at the site.
That’s what it would do.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but we’re happy to do it either way.
MR. RINGER-The way they’ve got it is the best way.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Space A will remain, that Space A is your office space, is that correct?
MR. JONES-Currently it is, yes, that’s correct. That’s going to be the bank, if we get approval to do the
renovations.
MR. VOLLARO-Now what’s the status of the existing building out back here?
MR. JONES-That house is coming down. That would come down. That’s actually shown on SP-1 as part of
the plans that you have.
MR. LAPPER-He’s talking about the one that’s (lost words).
MR. JONES-That existing?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JONES-That’s the Laundromat.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the Laundromat. So that’s obviously not going anywhere. Okay. I don’t have any
other further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Okay. Some of the things we’ve covered, the walkway. The tenants, now, the Space A is the
bank, Space B is your place. Are you planning on other tenants in Space B besides yourself?
MR. JONES-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and then the clinic.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see any additional traffic to your place. I really don’t see additional traffic to the bank
because I don’t think people are going to come from out of the area to go to the bank, but it’s going to be
area people that are going to be going to that bank. So the traffic, the additional traffic would be generated by
the clinic.
MR. LAPPER-And the clinic is currently just across the street.
MR. RINGER-I thought the clinic was on Dixon Road, down?
MR. JONES-Yes, on the other side, behind Sokol.
MR. RINGER-I thought you meant the one further down on Dixon, the small place where the grocery store
used to be, way down.
MR. JONES-No, this is the one is Schutze professional plaza there.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. JONES-Evergreen Plaza I believe it is.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So that traffic actually is already there, too. So we’re not talking a minimal amount of
traffic on the road, but into the site we’ve got some traffic. Okay. Those are the only three things I had,
Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll focus on one thing at a time. Currently, on the east side of building labeled
Space A and Space B, you have perpendicular parking.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-My question is, diagonal parking would seem to make more sense there, to me, for several
reasons. One, it would take up less space, and, two, it’s a one way, so it would be easier to pull in and pull out
if the spaces.
MR. JONES-You mean angled parking, so they couldn’t turn around and go the other way.
MR. STROUGH-The way you have it now is perpendicular. It’s even more difficult. If it were angled, it
would be easier for cars to come and pull out.
MR. JONES-We had looked at that as an option, but as soon as you start tipping it at an angle, the space that
you have, the length of the space, on the angle, becomes longer because of the curb area, and basically I think
that the spaces will end up being longer than the 20 feet that we had shown there when start to tip them.
MR. LAPPER-Because the drive aisle is limited by the property line.
MR. JONES-Right. We’re trying to maintain that 10 foot buffer, 10 foot green space.
MR. STROUGH-But you’re not sure if you’re right?
MR. JONES-I don’t have the data in front of me, no, for the parking.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me carry on to where I was going with this thought.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I was looking to, ultimately, you see how Space B juts out at 10 foot at your office?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Of putting that 10 foot jut on the other side, the east side, giving you more space to work
with on the west side because I’m going to look for more space here in a minute. Where I was looking for
more space is the five foot landscaped strip between you and Maille’s garage, and we see we have the sugar
maples planted there. My first concern was that the sugar maples are going to impede on your neighbor’s
property, that if we could widen that strip and move the maples away from your property line, they’d be less
likely to impede upon your neighbor’s enjoyment of their property.
MR. LAPPER-Nobody’s enjoying Maille’s property.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would they impede it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, the overgrowth of the tree itself, because it’s so close to the property line, that if I
could get that widen to, let’s say a ten foot, instead of a five foot strip, I’d move those trees a little bit further
away, plus I’d get more room for vegetation, and since we’re looking to eliminate some of this parking, I’m
looking to where I would like to see more landscaping there, and more buffer.
MR. JONES-The problem that we have on that side is the drive up, the bypass lane goes by the end of the
canopy right there, and that’s why it’s the five foot dimension. See the dotted lines, there’s a drive by lane
right there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we could still overcome that by designing a 45 that goes into that. In other
words, if we were to move the building over, and move at least the grass strip, you see where you’re building
juts out, Space B? We could widen that 10 foot back, and then the drive could.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I think on that one you’re out all by yourself.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not done yet.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but I’m quickly doing a little survey here, and you’re all alone on that one.
MR. RINGER-On moving the building, just moving the building. Your other stuff.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just looking for more vegetation on the other side. We only have a five foot strip.
I’m saying it could be ten at least in part. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The five foot strip, John, is that where the trees are planted?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m just saying that, in theory, that could be a ten foot strip, at least from about
halfway.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m still at a loss as to how you figure those trees would impede the Maille
property.
MR. STROUGH-Well, look at them. Because they would bush out and they would be in his property. I just
like to see things pulled away. A five foot strip, sugar maples and a five foot strip of landscaping, squeezing
everything together, and I’m already looking at ten pounds of sugar in a five pound bag. So I’m just trying to
relieve that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s one person’s view.
MR. LAPPER-Hopefully Maille’s will get redeveloped at some points. I know that there’ve been people that
have been talking about buying it, and it is for sale, and you may get to look at that site.
MR. RINGER-I heard another bank, I wonder if it was the same bank that’s going into your place, but it
makes no difference to this.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the neighborhood commercial zone, that is nice piece of property. It would probably
get rid of a lot of environmental contamination.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, John?
MR. STROUGH-Lots of stuff. I just started, just ideas to run by you. The 20 foot, I agree with the Staff’s
concerns about the 20 foot. Could that be widened to 25 foot? Because once you get snow in there, you’ve
got a 20 foot path, that’s going to be, essentially, a one way.
MR. JONES-Which one are you talking about, John?
MR. STROUGH-Between the two buildings and your out drive to Manor Drive.
MR. JONES-We had a letter that went back to C.T. Male addressing their comments. We had 20 feet on the
back drive onto Manor. They requested that we increase that, and we made an offer to increase that to 24
feet on the back side.
MR. STROUGH-And how about between the two properties, because that’s two way as well.
MR. JONES-That one we could do. Well, it’s currently two way.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying 20 feet is minimal, and then if you’ve got snow, you don’t have a
whole lot of space there. Okay. Now the building in Space C, you’ve got a 10 foot setback off of that eastern
property line.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But the 10 foot setback doesn’t include the eaves, and when I measured it with the eaves,
you’ve only got a 7 foot setback.
MR. JONES-I think the zoning talks about the face of the building.
MR. STROUGH-No, we drop down from the eaves.
MR. JONES-I think it reads directly the face of the building.
MR. BROWN-Yes. Setbacks are typically measured to the foundation of the building.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in other projects we’ve done, we’ve dropped down from the eaves and the setback
was measured from the eaves down, from the furthest extent of the building was where the setback began.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. BROWN-If it’s an eaves, it’s a covered walkway or it’s a porch, that’s a continuation of a roof, maybe an
extended eaves, maybe then, but any decisions that I’ve made have gone to the foundation of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, were you thinking where that may have happened was with Schermerhorn’s daycare
center on Bay Road, where the eaves (lost words) overlay zone?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s one.
MR. MAC EWAN-That had to be pushed back a little bit?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, because the eaves counted as where you start.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but that was in, give me some clarification.
MR. BROWN-That wasn’t a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. It may have been a condition that came
up in one of your discussions and the applicant offered to do that, but it certainly wasn’t required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
MR. LAPPER-That had the traffic corridor overlay. I think that’s what the issue was in that case.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-How many offices are going to be in Space C?
MR. JONES-There’s actually one doctor’s office for the four doctors who’ll be there. They’ll be staggered
through.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s really one office.
MR. JONES-Right, shared by four doctors, and there’s eleven exam rooms.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. What I didn’t know was if it was completely partitioned off in completely separate
offices?
MR. JONES-No, it’s one single tenant.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Where will your AC condensers be located?
MR. JONES-They’ll be located on the ground, the buildings A and B on the west side, in that green space,
next to the drive, and for building C, the clinic, they’ll be located to the, what would be the south side of the
building, behind the Stewarts building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Next page. Okay. I’m on grading and utilities. Looking at your septic system, I see
the seepage pits are under a driveway.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Are you sure the Code allows you to have seepage pits under a driveway?
MR. JONES-Yes, we’ve done it many times in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. BROWN-That’s true.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to provide a clean out for the septic tank?
MR. JONES-Yes. Each one has a manhole to grade, a solid cover to grade for clean out.
MR. STROUGH-Now, did C.T. Male want you to put elevation markers so that we knew that we’re getting
at least a one degree pitch towards your stormwater basin?
MR. JONES-Yes. We supplied them with a letter with those elevations, and we’ve subsequently got a letter
indicating that they were okay with what we had given them for those elevations.
MR. STROUGH-Now, for Space C, do we also have the same problem where we probably could reduce a
number of parking spaces if we went to the new Code?
MR. JONES-No, that’s still considered a professional office, which is one per one fifty.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. LAPPER-That wouldn’t change under the new Code.
MR. STROUGH-But we could change it. Is there an absolute need for that number of parking spaces?
MR. JONES-They projected that they’d need approximately, I think it was 28 to 30 spaces.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. They’ve said that they think that that’s what they need, and that is what the Code
requires.
MR. JONES-Roughly 28 spaces.
MR. STROUGH-I do want to compliment you on your architectural plan. It’s a beautiful building.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Just one thing I didn’t notice on the other plans was there’s a roof/veranda drive through, I
don’t know quite what it is, that shows on your pictorial here, office building, Spaces A & B, south elevation,
but I don’t see it on the other plans.
MR. JONES-It’s shown dotted on the.
MR. LAPPER-On the west side.
MR. JONES-On the west side of the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-No, how about the one on the east side? That was the west elevation. I’m talking the east
side.
MR. JONES-The east side. I’m sorry.
MR. LAPPER-You mean the entrance to the, in the middle of the building?
MR. STROUGH-It would be the entrance, I think.
MR. JONES-Yes, they’d be the entrance canopies. They project approximately two feet from the base of the
building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, but I didn’t see, I did see the drive through, but I didn’t see the other one on the
other side.
MR. JONES-Well, it’s basically where those walks flair into the building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. JONES-We didn’t show the overhang on that side of the building.
MR. STROUGH-All right, but it is an attractive building.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-The number of parking spaces on your site development data says 34, but I count 32 on the
site plan.
MR. JONES-I think the site data on SP-1 was incorrect. The correct data is actually on SP-2.
MR. STROUGH-So it’s 32?
MR. JONES-Yes. C.T. Male had asked us to correct that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That answers my current questions. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I really didn’t have any questions. I’d like to see a little more green space as well.
So I would certainly support applying new parking standards to gain those five spaces as green space.
MR. LAPPER-We would propose that we would submit the final plan for signature and show the five spaces.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-Great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Any other questions from Board members? Staff?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Let’s clarify, where are those five spaces now? Are they sitting to the north of Space
B?
MR. JONES-What we’d like to do is take a couple out of that row, and a couple out of the row in front of
what would be the east elevation of the building, like three out of the back side and two on the east side.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re voluntarily complying with doing that? I just want to make sure that, the
new Zoning Ordinance is not in place yet, so you don’t have to.
MR. JONES-Yes, I realize that.
MR. VOLLARO-But if you’re cooperative in that situation, that’s fine.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-But just so the record shows that we’re not operating on the new Zoning law when it’s not
yet in place.
MR. JONES-We feel that the parking requirements for Space A and B are excessive to what we actually need.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to remove how many spaces from the?
MR. JONES-Five total.
MR. VOLLARO-Five total, but how many from the east side and how many from the north side?
MR. JONES-We’d take two from the east side and three from the rear.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want
to comment on this application? Do you have any written comment?
MR. BROWN-No written comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 53-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BARBARA H. JONES, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick comment, if I could.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. BROWN-Just for clarification in my own mind, do we want to explore the angled parking anymore?
And the other part is, Staff would like to see any spaces that are removed on the east side to be near the
entrance, and make that queue area as long as possible.
MR. LAPPER-We can agree to the first two spaces.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking the two spaces on the east elevation should be next to?
MR. BROWN-The first two spaces you come to off Aviation.
MR. VOLLARO-On the east elevation.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re looking for the parking spaces on the east side to be angled?
MR. BROWN-I was just curious if you wanted to explore that anymore, if you’re satisfied.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t feel that there’s room to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the applicant has explained that, and I can see what he means by angling that off.
He’s going to close of the drive lane by doing that. Is that what your problem is?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to be clear.
MR. LAPPER-If there was room, John would be right.
MR. RINGER-Yes, the idea was great, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2001 BARBARA H. JONES, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 53-2001, Barbara Jones for expansion of
existing office, demolition of existing structure and construction of office building on Aviation Road parcel
and construction of medical outpatient clinic on Manor Drive parcel. Pursuant to Section 179-25, 179-17, all
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
land uses in NC zones and Professional Office and Health Related facility in a UR zone requires Planning
Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 96-2001, Tax Map No. 78-1-8.8, 8.7, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 12/17/01:
12/20 Staff Notes
12/12 J. Houston from R. Jones Assoc. in response to 12/12 eng. comments
12/12 CT Male eng. comments
12/13 Notice of Public Hearing
12/13 ZBA Resolution - approved
12/5 Meeting Notice
12/3 Forwarded to CT Male for comments and sign-off
11/29 C. Round from R. Jones – response to eng. comments dated 11/29/01
11/29 Revised application materials
11/6 J. Edwards from C. Round – forward application
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/20/01 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant voluntarily agrees to reduce the parking spaces on this application in the following
way:
a. Two spaces from the east elevation, and those two spaces will be the spaces closest
to Aviation Road, and
b. Three spaces on the north elevation and those spaces will be replaced by some
green space.
2. That this is subject to adherence to a letter from C.T. Male dated 12/18/01, and
3. The drive entrance at Manor Drive will be increased from 20 feet to 24 feet, and
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 12/20/01 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-What about widening to 25 feet, what C.T. Male and Staff had said.
MR. LAPPER-We had already documented that in the letters with C.T. Male, that we agreed to that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I think we have to condition it, and make it part of the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Which is that? I don’t have that condition in front of me.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. LAPPER-What you could say is subject to all of the conditions agreed to in the correspondence between
C.T. Male.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but we don’t have a copy of the correspondence.
MR. LAPPER-You should.
MR. STROUGH-We should, you’re right, but we don’t.
MR. LAPPER-We do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, we already have a second up, but, I want to be clear on this, any
documentation that accompanies this application is in the prepared resolution. So anything that’s
conditioned upon what C.T. Male says and is signed off on in their form of a letter has to be adhered to in
the resolution?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know if I know the answer to your question, but C.T. Male’s comment letter said they
were satisfied with the written responses to their concerns. They would like to see a final map to confirm
those changes have been made for their final sign off.
MR. STROUGH-What’s wrong with putting them as conditions?
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m just trying to do from just a housekeeping standpoint, if it’s already spelled out.
MR. LAPPER-They are in the resolution. All those letters are in the resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s spelled out in there, it’s part of the resolution tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Which one is that?
MR. STROUGH-Show me where it is in print.
MR. JONES-The letter is dated December 18.
th
MR. VOLLARO-And there is no December 18 in the.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you correct your motion, would you, please.
MR. LAPPER-We have a copy of that letter.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just amend the motion as it was previously stated to add one other condition, that this is
subject to adherence to a letter from C.T. Male dated 12/18/01. I think that’s sufficient. The letter says we
have received the letter that responds to most of our recent comment letter dated December 12, 2001. The
response letter is dated December 12, 2001. It was received by fax on December 17.
th
MR. STROUGH-Where does it say that C.T. Male?
MR. LAPPER-That was on the letter, on the 12.
th
MR. VOLLARO-The letter of the 12 of December, I think, mentions that.
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t state the width.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t say.
MR. LAPPER-His letter of December 12 did.
th
MR. JONES-Yes. I think you have to reference my letter of December 12.
th
MR. LAPPER-His letter does. The one on the 18 does reference it.
th
MR. STROUGH-Why don’t you just simply make it a condition. We would have been done with this a long
time ago.
MR. LAPPER-There are other conditions that these letters cover.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-John, what are you asking to have put in the motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just widening it to 24 feet. Isn’t that what you’re doing?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we want to.
MR. MAC EWAN-So note it, as part of your resolution.
MR. STROUGH-I think it was 25.
MR. BROWN-It’s 24 in Mr. Jones’ response letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought.
MR. STROUGH-Twenty-four is fine.
MR. BROWN-Which is in the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-If we’re going to make it part of the motion, John, it’s got to be a lot more specific than
that.
MR. STROUGH-All right. The driveway entrance at Manor Drive, which is currently 20 foot wide, would be
24 foot wide.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, let’s quit beating a dead horse, here. We’ve already got it said in there. Let’s move
the resolution, please.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Bob just wanted a clarification, as to what two driveways we’re talking about. Get
with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you ready?
MR. VOLLARO-That the drive entrance at Manor Drive will be changed to 24 feet.
MR. STROUGH-And the other one is the connector driveway between.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, John, where is that now?
MR. STROUGH-It’s between the two proposals here, between two buildings. You see where it’s 20 foot
width?
MR. VOLLARO-Where are you? You’ve got to start pointing me in the right direction, John.
MR. STROUGH-You might want that to be 24, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, this and this?
MR. STROUGH-No, this and this. This is the Manor Drive driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And this is the interconnecting driveway.
MR. LAPPER-John, that one may not work, in the center.
MR. STROUGH-Well, this is one I had talked about previously.
MR. LAPPER-The issue is that if you take it out on the west side of that drive, then it’s going to run right
into the back of the parking spaces. So you’d have to take it out on the east side. So you’d be taking out all
of the green on the site, which, if that’s what you want, it can be done, but I don’t know if that’s preferable.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we just stay with the Manor Drive at 24 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sounds like a plan to me. Do your resolution and put it up.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is just adding one more item to the resolution as previously stated, that the
drive entrance at Manor Drive will be increased from 20 feet to 24 feet, and that’s it.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. RINGER-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. JONES-Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
JEFFREY INGLEE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE:
RR-5A AND LC-10 LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER
SUBDIVISION OF A 39.89 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.92 AC. , 3.41 AC.,
AND 34.56 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 3-2001 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.5, 40.2 LOT SIZE:
56.33 +/- ACRES [39.89 IN QUEENSBURY, 16.44 AC. IN LAKE LUZERNE] SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-2001, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Jeffrey Inglee, Meeting Date:
December 20, 2001 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes a three-lot cluster subdivision of a 39.89-acre parcel into three lots as 1.92 ac, 3.41 ac and
34.56 ac. The property is located on Tuthill Road and is split zone Rural Residential and Land Conservation.
A majority of the development will occur in the Rural Residential zone. The area zoned Land Conservation
contains topographic constraints
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The applicant proposes three parcels to be arranged based on the topography of the site.
The proposed cluster development occurs near Tuthill Road, which leaves the rear portion of the property as
an undeveloped area (wooded).
Topography: The site does contain steep slopes towards the rear of the property. The drawing should contain
information about the driveway slope and design. The driveway design should include material to be used
and stormwater controls.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposal calls for onsite wells and wastewater disposal systems.
Drainage: Any increase in stormwater volume must be managed on the lot on which is generated. The revised
plans depict clearing limits but are vague with regards to stormwater.
Lot sizes: A previous decision by the Board determined that the proposed configuration met the requirements
of the clustering provisions.
Future development: The revised map states that there will be no further development of lot 3.
Roadway and Rights of way: The proposed subdivision plans to utilize an existing gravel drive for access to each
lot.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form.
Adirondack Park Agency: The property is located in the Adirondack Park.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
None applicable
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision depicts 2 new home sites, both, together with the existing cabin on lot 1, are to be
accessed by an existing gravel road on the property. The driveway profile submitted with this application
depicts a drive with an average grade of 14%, however, nearly three-quarters of the length of the drive has an
average slope of 20%. Staff has concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles.”
MR. BROWN-Basically, the proposed subdivision proposes two new house sites. The biggest concern that
jumped out at Staff was the proposed drive. Sections of the drive are as steep as a downhill gradient of two
or three percent to an uphill gradient of almost twenty-five percent, with an average, for more than three-
quarters of the drive, of over twenty percent. So that’s the big thing that Staff sees, emergency access.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves. I represent Mr. Inglee who is
with me here tonight to present this application. As this has been before you before, the three lots up on
Tuthill Road, totaling 47.71 acres, 31.27 of which are in the Town of Queensbury, 16.44 are in the Town of
Luzerne, which leaves 6.06 acres in the five acre zone and 25.21 in the ten acre zone. Since we were here last
and got the approval from this Board for the three lot cluster from the five lot requirement, we got that
waiver, I should say, from that, and there were a few concerns that the Board had. We showed the clearing
limits. We showed the profile of the drive. We performed the perc tests and we’re back in front of you
tonight. One of the questions raised by Staff is the access to a potential home on the top. We have a letter
from West Glens Falls Fire Company No. 1, from their Fire Chief, dated November 25, 2001, “To Whom It
May Concern: I, Chief John J. Carpenter, have looked at the roadway and property of Jeff Inglee, and foresee
no problems with fire apparatus responding to this home. If you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me. Sincerely, Chief John Carpenter”
MR. MAC EWAN-What fire company was that?
MR. STEVES-That’s West Glens Falls Fire Company No. 1.
MR. MAC EWAN-Number One’s the farthest one down on Veteran’s Road?
MR. RINGER-Number One being (lost words) fire company in the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on Veteran’s Road?
MR. RINGER-They have Veteran’s and VanDusen.
MR. STEVES-And VanDusen. That’s correct, and the perc test we performed on the property is about three
to five minute soils, but we did two on the upper lot. There is that cleared area where some compaction has
taken place, and that was in the twenty minute range. Just outside of it was back into the three to five minute
range. So it’s suitable soils for septic. We’ve shown the separation distance from the wetlands that were
flagged by the Adirondack Park Agency, and reviewed and okayed by the Adirondack Park Agency, and
they’re shown on the plan. Separation distances are all adequate, and they’ll be utilizing the existing driveway
on the property to access these three lots. So I know, like I say, the big concern, I believe, by this Board, and
by Staff, was the driveway. I believe this Board took a look at that property and drove up that driveway, and
then we also, like I said, had the Fire Chief take a look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MR. STEVES-Yes, unless the Board has any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-My guess is you’ll probably get one or two. Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to clear something up. On April 17, 2001, we approved the cluster
proposal from five to three lots.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all we approved at that time.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STEVES-The conceptual plan and the cluster to three lots, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, when we approved that, we were looking at three lots of 1.92 acres, 2.37, and
26.98, for a total of 31.27 acres.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, we are looking, now, at a proposal of 39.89 acres.
MR. STEVES-That’s incorrect. The total amount that’s on the plan, and that was on the application, that
included property that Mr. Inglee owns on another parcel across the road, and it was put on there in error.
The total amount of land on this side of the road that we are proposing with this subdivision, not including
any other properties that he owns, is 47.71, 16.44 of which is in the Town of Luzerne, which leaves you with
31.27 acres. So nothing has changed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So essentially the project description as written is in error. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It’s just adding a little bit over eight acres that’s on the other side of the road,
that he owns on a separate tax parcel by separate deed.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the east side of the road?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s where his current residence is.
MR. BROWN-Just for the record, if I could, those acreages are, the incorrect acreages, are on the proposed
map that’ll need to be revised, if this gets that far. If you look at the map that’s submitted, acreages on there
are incorrect, and they’ll have to be revised.
MR. STEVES-Incorrect. Like I said, that included land that was on the other side of the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-How did it get this far on the application?
MR. STEVES-On the original map, it was the 47.71 acres, and on this map we inadvertently added the
acreage on the other side of the road.
MR. BROWN-And we didn’t pick up on it in the early part of the review of the application.
MR. STEVES-So it goes back to the original application of 47.71, 31.27 of which is in the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-So this map that I’m looking at here needs to be changed?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What needs to be changed, Matt, on this map?
MR. STEVES-Like I say, the total holdings will say.
MR. VOLLARO-42.38 has to be changed to.
MR. STEVES-47.71 total.
MR. VOLLARO-47.71 total. Okay. So 42.38’s got to go to 47.71.
MR. STEVES-Right. 31.27 acres in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s got to be noted on the map.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And the rest is in the Town of Lake Luzerne?
MR. STEVES-Yes, 16.44 acres is in Luzerne. I made those corrections to the map that’s on the board I
apologize for the confusion. It is the exact same acreage and the exact same size lots that you reviewed under
conceptual and granted the three lot cluster.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Back on Page 34 of the April 17 minutes, we said that the Town of Queensbury
th
has an approved plan, approved by the Adirondack Park. Now, there are several towns that have an
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
approved APA zone, where the APA kind of agrees with the zoning law of the Town. Does Queensbury
have that?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-They do.
MR. STEVES-Queensbury has an approved plan by the Adirondack Park Agency.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t know whether we did or we didn’t, and I couldn’t get a good answer on that.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know if this is where you’re going with this, but the applicant is still responsible to
meet all the APA requirements as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. STEVES-As well.
MR. BROWN-In addition to the Town of Queensbury ones.
MR. VOLLARO-Do they have a letter to that effect, from APA, that APA is satisfied with this?
MR. BROWN-Not in the file. You could ask them that.
MR. STEVES-The APA is reviewing this for the wetlands only, and the separation distance, and once this
Board has granted the approval, then they will sign off on that. The jurisdictional inquiry form has gone to
them, and they asked us for review of the wetlands, as this Board did, and Mark Rooks from the APA came
down and flagged the wetlands. We had located them and sent them the map depicting the wetlands.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we did the last approval, we said that, and you have come before us now for a
preliminary, that the preliminary requirements would be for grading, for clearing, for drainage and erosion
control. That was in the motion, and does the documentation that you’ve provided now to us, is that the
documentation that satisfies those requirements?
MR. STEVES-Yes. We have the erosion control measures on the Detail Sheet, D-1. We have the driveway
profile on Sheet P-1, and as far as on-site stormwater, we propose on every home to be built to have
downspouts, gutters, downspouts and two drywells on the homes. It would be a standard note that we would
put on the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-What I did see on the plan and you might want to have correct is a conflict in the drawing,
under sewage disposal layout.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The septic tank will be at least 50 feet from the well and 10 feet from the house. It should
be 100 I believe.
MR. STEVES-No, the septic tank must be 50 feet. The leach field must be 100. That’s New York State
Department of Health and the APA Code. Your leach field must be 100 feet. Your septic tank must be 50
feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Fifty feet from the house itself?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. VOLLARO-From the well.
MR. STEVES-Your tank has to be 50 from the well, but your leach fields, the actual absorption area has to
be 100 feet from the well.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I stand corrected on that then. All right. So we’re saying that we got the grading,
the clearing, the drainage. Now what about the drainage off that hill. What provisions have been made to
pick up all the water that’s going to shed down off that hill? When you said we drove up, we did drive up,
Matt.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve never driven a fire truck, but I don’t know how anybody’s going to get a fire truck up
that hill. I mean, I don’t know. My fellow Board member is a member of a fire department, and he had
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
some reservations, as we were trying to move our van up that hill, as to whether a fire apparatus would even
get up there or not. I know you’ve got a letter.
MR. STEVES-And we respect that, also, and that’s why we had the fire chief come up there, drive it, and
write us a letter to his opinion, and this is the letter we received after he made a site visit, and that’s why we
did it. The request of this Board was to verify for public safety. So we had the fire chief come up and render
his opinion. I don’t know what more we can do than have the fire chief himself come up and render an
opinion as to the driveway, whether or not it’s accessible for emergency vehicles.
MR. VOLLARO-What provisions are you making for watershed from the, because that, we’re talking, what, a
couple of hundred feet elevation here, from 780 datum. Do I have that right?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-780 going up to, what?
MR. RINGER-975 anyway, 980.
MR. VOLLARO-To 950, 975. So we’re, some 200 feet of elevation there.
MR. STEVES-Well, the existing gravel drive with the swales and the side, we haven’t had, experienced any
runoff from that out onto the road.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not worried so much about the road, but their proposed house here.
MR. STEVES-The grading around the house and the driveway would be pitched back away, back into the
hillside, with some smaller retention areas, and then the roof drains would be down spouted into drywells in
the corners of the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Now that’s not stated anywhere. What I’m trying to do here is to get it in my mind what
the stormwater, you know, how we’re going to deal with stormwater running down that hill in real heavy rain.
MR. STEVES-I had Tom Nace look at this application, in light of what we had done in the Mitchell
Subdivision, and he concluded that that would be the same scenario that we would use here, would be the
gutters with downspouts into drywells, and we will be putting that on the plan.
MR. RINGER-At that Mitchell subdivision, didn’t we eliminate that long driveway? That long driveway was
eliminated, that lot was eliminated.
MR. STEVES-He’s talking about the development of the lot itself, the house site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the downspouts will take care of the runoff from the impervious portions of the
roof of the house.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Down into drywells. What I’m just concerned about is the sheeting that might take place
from 200 foot of elevation coming straight down toward that house.
MR. STEVES-The existing building on the bottom is already in the cleared area, the cabin. The upper lot,
the area is already cleared for where we are proposing to put the house and the septic. No new clearing is
proposed, and on the middle lot, there’s just a minimal area of clearing that would have to be accomplished,
or I should say done to accomplish placing a home and a septic. There is a small clearing there now. We’re
only proposing about a quarter of an acre, if that, of clearing, to put that building in there. So we think with
grading around the house and sloping it back in toward the back of the building, with a trench around the
back, and the downspouts, it would be sufficient.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just looking, too, at that, and if you do that, I’m trying to follow the water course
in my mind, to the lands of Mitchell Paul here, whether or not there’s going to be any runoff from Lot
Number Two as a result of bringing that swale around, and what you’re talking about is bringing it right over
the top of the proposed well. The problem is we’re dealing with a lot of elevation here. I’m just concerned
about a lot of sheeting coming down in heavy rain.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Yes, it was pretty much vegetated in that area. We don’t anticipate a problem. I can
have Tom Nace review it again and see if he has any further suggestions, but in his opinion, like I said, that
would be suitable. Go with the feeling of the Board, but I mean, when it comes time to that one lot, if you
wanted to see, once we knew exactly what size home was to be placed on there, is to see a grading plan
associated with that one lot. We could gladly accomplish that, but without knowing the exact size of the
structure at this time, it’s got to be a fairly generic formula at this point.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. INGLEE-This clearing was created about three years ago, and consequently since then everything has
pretty well stabilized itself, and there’s a tremendous amount of vegetation that has already grown up. So I
don’t foresee a problem with drainage at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can see where you would certainly, personally, be interested in that not happening,
because it’s going to be a house that either you or a member of your family is going to occupy, but I’m just
trying to think it out, myself, as to how much sheeting is going to take place there. Mr. Chairman, why don’t
you just give some other member of the Board a chance to speak, and I’ll just think on this a little bit more.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Do you plan easements for the driveway from lots three and lots one and lot two?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-I respect Chief Carpenter, and his letter. I have a lot of difficulty with that steep drive, and
the long drive. I know I’ve expressed to other applicants that you’ve brought here, Matt, and I have a lot of
difficulty with it.
MR. STEVES-Like I said, we can only go as far as we can, too, and we thought that that would be the utmost
authority, as far as the ability to get to that property would be the fire chief from the company that would
have to respond. The lower two lots are not in an area that, you know, it’s a driveway that, yes, no question is
not your average driveway, but the first two lots are accessible by the shallower portion of that drive. It’s the
upper lot that would be the concern.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely. That’s the one I’m referring to.
MR. STEVES-And I understand that, but that’s why we had him look at that.
MR. RINGER-When we went up Saturday, we bumped into Mr. Inglee, and he told us look at the view, and
it is spectacular and I’d love to have it, but I do have some real strong concerns.
MR. STEVES-Were you able to drive up that?
MR. RINGER-We were able to drive up it, but we had Mario Andretti at the helm.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we had Cathy.
MR. RINGER-And she struggled down through there.
MR. STEVES-And I understand, but that was a front wheel drive van?
MR. RINGER-That was a front wheel drive van that we went down there in.
MR. VOLLARO-With Catherine it doesn’t make any difference.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else, but I do have some strong reservations about this, because of the
steepness and the length of that driveway.
MR. INGLEE-Have you been up to Mahar’s driveway at all, off Clendon Brook Road?
MR. RINGER-We’ve had them. We’ve approved some. That doesn’t mean they’re right. They were done
before I got on the Board, and actually one I did while I was on the Board, and I rejected quite a few, also. I
have a lot of difficulty with it. I don’t have anything else, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Who owns the property just to the south of you?
MR. INGLEE-Rui Gomes. He’s here this evening.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t look alongside of the road, but that drainage alongside of the road, did you have to
put a culvert under the driveway?
MR. INGLEE-There is a culvert underneath the driveway that dumps off into a natural gut, if you will, and
dumps off into the designated State wetlands.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The other thing I just kind of ran across, and I’m going to ask Craig to help me out
here, on 179-65, it talks about soil erosion standards. I’m not quite sure if I understand what’s going on
there. Could you give me kind of a quick overview, Craig, of what they’re trying to get at, as far as that Code
goes?
MR. BROWN-Do you have a specific question?
MR. STROUGH-Well, it says construction on slopes. I don’t know what they’re talking about, to be honest
with you.
MR. BROWN-The beginning of that section of the Ordinance, it says except for approved or existing
subdivisions, site plan review is required if you construct on a slope over a certain percentage, you have a
driveway that exceeds 10%.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So as long as you don’t exceed those thresholds, you can pretty much proceed with that
development.
MR. STROUGH-But if you were to exceed those, then.
MR. BROWN-If you were to exceed that, you’d appear before this Board.
MR. STROUGH-You’d do just what we’re doing.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Is the easement for the driveway going to be written into the deeds?
MR. STEVES-Yes. The driveway exists to put three driveways in that area. I mean, we could come off of it,
and, you know, branch off immediately, or we could put the other two driveways in and immediately put it
back in to the existing driveway. It just makes sense, this is going to be three family members, but the cross
easements would be written into each deed, that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, because it might not always be three family.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s all I have for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had is why this is being considered as a cluster development.
MR. STEVES-When we brought this in to the Board the first time, your subdivision reg’s call for a minimum
of five lots for cluster. He only wants three. We really, with 25 acres in Queensbury, in the 10 acre zone
which allows two and a half, so basically two, and 6.04 acres in the five acre zone which only allows one, so
there are three lots. We want three lots, and without the density in the five acre zone for the two lower lots,
but that’s the best location for them because of the slopes of the upper piece, this Board saw that it was
suitable for a cluster and approved it as a cluster.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, because typically when you look at a cluster development, the houses
themselves are, I mean, that’s where the word comes from. The houses themselves are clustered together,
and then the balance of the property is open.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And these houses are pretty, you know, the way it’s proposed, they’re spread out.
MR. STEVES-They are spread out, but you also have to look at the zone it’s in. We’re not clustering in a one
acre zone, which allows you to go down to like 20,000 square feet where they are clustered in a lot tighter.
We’re talking in a five acre zone where we’re clustering down to just over an acre, and one acre is the
minimum lot size allowed in the five acre zone. So we abide by all that. The only thing that we needed the
relief from from this Board was it’s a five lot minimum, and with the potential for only three, and because of
the fact we could have made them two 10 acre lots in the top and a 5 acre lot on the bottom, but we didn’t
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
want to try, because of the slopes, and already having an existing driveway for one lot on the top, and try to
spur off another driveway to accommodate a second lot on top, one of the keys in your cluster provision is
your steep slopes, and, you know, it lessened the impact, as far as infrastructure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember any reference to slopes in the cluster discussion, but it does talk about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Preserving vistas, open space, natural terrain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, minimizing infrastructure.
MR. STEVES-Right, and we’re thinking the two lower lots are in a good suitable location, and without the
extended driveway and the steeper slopes, is to have only one house with that, and that is an existing driveway
with an existing cleared area. So what we’re trying to do, as your Chairman just brought up, is to minimize
the impact on that upper lot by leaving it all as one lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or undeveloped.
MR. STEVES-Or undeveloped. Yes, and also in the application, and as well as the Staff notes there will be a
stipulation that there cannot be any further subdivision or development of that upper lot, and that also
includes the 16 acres in the Town of Luzerne.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask that. I mean, even though it’s not part of our purview.
MR. STEVES-We will attach that to that deed that that can’t be further subdivided or developed, and that it
will include the 16 acres in Luzerne, and I believe in Luzerne that’s in an 8.2 acre zone, so it basically would
be two lots in Luzerne, if you wanted to try to access it from another direction, but it is not my client’s wish
to do that. It’s wished to be his retirement home, and he wants to have that much land, and we will gladly
accept that restriction.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I really didn’t have any other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think there’s a lot of issues here. I have a lot of concerns. I thought of what you
had said to Chris about making the lots, making two lots higher of, you know, of larger size, so you could
maybe have them all the same amount of acreage if you were going to build on, but now I can see where it’s
just too steep, it’s not going to work.
MR. STEVES-Right, and that’s why we already had the three lot cluster approved. So we’re back for the
issues that were regarding the three lots, as proposed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I would like to hear what the comments are, as far as if there are concerns about
the stormwater runoff and erosion and if there’s any encroachment on other people’s properties because of
the way this is set up. I don’t know. It’s complicated to me.
MR. STEVES-As far as encroachment’s, Cathy, I don’t know what you’re talking.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t mean going over on other people’s property, as far as going on their
land, but maybe the fact that the road is a little out of compliance, maybe.
MR. STEVES-It’s not a road, it’s a driveway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The driveway, all right. I don’t know. Like I said, Matt, I’m just, this is a tough one
for me.
MR. STEVES-We understand.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a toughie.
MR. STEVES-And I’ll come back to that driveway issue, and that’s why we took the advice of the Board and
said, find out about emergency vehicles, and we did, and that’s the answer we received is the same one I just
read to you, and I’ll give this Board a copy of that letter. I mean, I know. We had the same concern, and we
had our question answered.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think that maybe people, they buy a lot that’s zoned a certain amount of acres
and then, and so they buy that land, they spend a lot of money on that land, and it’s zoned so many acres, and
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
then they might feel that putting a dwelling on less acreage is infringement, or it’s not conforming to the rest
of the area.
MR. STEVES-But again, it falls under the fact are we complying with the Town’s Zoning Regulations, and
we are.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STEVES-And I mean, I understand. I’ve met people that say there shouldn’t be a lot anywhere under
150 acres, but, I mean, if you comply with the zoning, and you comply with the State erosion control
measures, you comply with the APA on setbacks, that’s what we have to look at here. If I wasn’t complying
with the current zoning, then I would think that would be an issue, but in this case, we are complying with
the zoning.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I need a refresher course. When you were here in April, we’re pretty much talking the
same parcel of land, right?
MR. STEVES-Exact same parcel, exact same three lots, the exact same configuration.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When we talked about this subdivision in April, April’s application, we had
concerns back then about what potentially was going to happen with the back portion of that property and
any further development on it, and we were assured by both of you gentlemen that there was no plans for
further development.
MR. STEVES-Not me you were not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your father.
MR. STEVES-That was Leon.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your father, and the reason why I’m asking this, I’m going back and I’m looking through
the minutes, I’m listening to things here, and a couple of members have concerns about that long driveway,
and that was one of the questions posed by Mr. Metivier, who’s not here tonight, and his question was, I
guess I have concern only with the 43 acres behind the third lot, basically there would never be any access to
this by a road access, and Mr. Inglee says, no, that’s correct. Is that by choice? And Mr. Inglee says,
absolutely. And if you go farther into our deliberations, your father says, no, we don’t want to build a road
up on the hillside, no way, and we’re referring, again, to this 43 acres, plus or minus a little bit.
MR. STEVES-We’re going beyond the clearing that’s there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re talking basically where you want to put that house, in that upper portion, and
Mr. Steves, your father, says, the purpose for that is he just wanted it to be left open for recreational
purposes, hunting and recreational purposes, not for building.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And here we are not even nine months later and we want to subdivide it more.
MR. STEVES-No, we’re not subdividing it more. That was the current driveway. That’s an existing
driveway. That’s the existing clearing. We’re not proposing any new driveway up there. What we’re talking
about is the remainder of that property, to the west and to the north, that constitutes about 36 acres that we
are not proposing to put any new roads in, proposing to put any new roads, proposing to make any more
clearings.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what you’re proposing here tonight was not part of that application, or not discussed
in the April application?
MR. STEVES-What we have here is the exact same plan you had in the April application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then what’s changed between April and tonight?
MR. STEVES-The wetland delineation, the septic locations, the well locations, the profile of the driveway,
the letter from the fire department. That’s it. The requirements of this Board, the perc tests to prove that the
soil is capable of handling the effluent. That’s the only change we’ve made is what this Board has asked for.
I have a copy of that.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Like Mr. Ringer, I have real reservations about that driveway, and being able to build up
on that slope. I mean, on paper it looks good. On appear it shows it’s doable, but in practicality, can it be
done, can it be done safely? When was the fire chief up there?
MR. STEVES-He wrote the letter, I say on November 25. Mr. Inglee might be able to answer the question
th
as to what date he was there.
MR. INGLEE-It was about one week prior to that letter.
MR. STEVES-So give or take the 18 of November.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, around the middle of November. I’m going to ask the stupid question. Did he
literally drive a fire truck up the road?
MR. INGLEE-No, he drove a two wheel drive vehicle up the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-A two wheel drive vehicle, okay. All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When we were up there, we were really shocked to see that trailer. Is that, you don’t
need a permit? Are you living in there?
MR. INGLEE-No. Absolutely not. It’s just for recreation purposes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s just for recreation.
MR. INGLEE-I’ve had, Craig Brown has been up to this clearing, and from what he tells me, he really sees
no problem with what I’ve done. As a matter of fact, he has acted upon a complaint from one of my
neighbors who told him that I was proceeding with my construction, which I was doing no such thing. I was
actually just doing some improvements to my road, and consequently Dave Hatin has also been up there,
again, acting upon a complaint from one of my neighbors, if you can believe that, about me building an illegal
hunting camp on my property. So Dave Hatin has been up there as well, and no such illegal hunting camp
was ever attempted. I mean, I’m a building contractor for 20 years. I know what the procedures are as far as
what I need to follow as far as the paperwork to build. Dave Hatin also stated to me he sees no problem
whatsoever with what I’ve done, and he sees no problem at all with the trailer being up there. I haven’t got
water running to it, I haven’t got septic running to it, and as far as I know, I can put a trailer on my property
anywhere I seem to want to have it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I wanted to ask you, if you had running water in there.
MR. INGLEE-No, absolutely not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. BROWN-The submission that you guys saw in the early part of this year was for a three lot subdivision.
I don’t know if you’ve kept any of the old maps, but the three house sites that were proposed were all down
low, basically surrounding the pond that you see on the drawing, and I don’t know, I kind of came in on the
third quarter in this application, when Laura went out. So I’m not real familiar with the beginning part of it,
but I don’t know if the roadway all the way to the top was envisioned in the original plan, or if it was just a
roadway to that lower, third house site. That’s the one way that I can see the plan has changed. Actually, the
second lot removed from the road has gotten bigger than the original plan. I think it was around an acre. I
think it’s up to almost three acres now.
MR. STEVES-You’re talking the original conceptual plan?
MR. BROWN-The original conceptual plan, yes.
MR. STEVES-We didn’t know the exact location at the time of conceptual.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I just looked back to the original file to see what the first plan was, and like I said, I don’t
know what they’ve seen and what.
MR. STEVES-We didn’t know, without now performing the actual fieldwork, where the actual drive was,
where the actual pond was, and we just wanted to show, conceptually, that we wanted to take that much land
and create three lots. I understand, yes.
MR. BROWN-So unless you had any other questions, I’m all set right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Anymore? This hasn’t been referred to C.T. Male for review?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d probably encourage that before we go any farther on this. I’d like to see them take a
look at this entire thing, from their opinion on access, stormwater management and erosion control, maybe
their input on laying this subdivision out different than what it is. I’m of the same consensus that Chris is, is
that this is hard pressed to meet the clustering provision of what the Town has. Even though you’ve got
acreage there, clustering really, the theory behind clustering, though, Matt, is not.
MR. STEVES-But that’s irrelevant at this point, you’ve already approved that.
MR. BROWN-I think if you see strongly, or you have different evidence or a different viewpoint, you could
certainly go back and revisit that decision you’ve made.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you can say we’ve put a rubber stamp blessing on that when.
MR. STEVES-No, sir, I didn’t say rubber stamp.
MR. MAC EWAN-You said approved it, the same difference.
MR. STEVES-You approved the three lot cluster.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the nice thing about this Board, we can always take another look at things and if we
see that maybe we might have missed something the first time around, we can have the opportunity to look at
it again. I’d like to hear what the public’s got to say. So I’d ask you guys to give up the table for a few
minutes.
MR. INGLEE-I would like to address the Board for a few seconds, if I may.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. INGLEE-First off, I have a photograph here, and aerial photograph, which will show you the vastness
of this area, and I’d like to just describe, real quickly, I’ve go two blue dots on this photograph, and I’ve got
two red dots on this photograph, and consequently the lower blue dot is Mrs. Beames’ house, who is here this
evening in strong opposition to what I’m trying to do, and the upper blue dot is Mr. Gomes’ house, who is
again here in strong opposition to what I’m trying to do, and the two red dots are the two proposed building
sites. Now needless to say we are using the term cluster development, as you can see by this photograph,
these people will not even be able to see these houses when these houses are constructed. What problem
they would have is beyond me, as far as what I’m attempting to do here. Now, a few months back, they put a
sign out in front of my house, my God it was this big and it was this tall, and it was to announce the Planning
Board meeting, and the public hearing. Now everyone that lived on that road, that drove by that house, that
walked by my house, had an opportunity to come to this meeting, and the only two people that came to this
meeting was Mr. and Mrs. Gomes. They did not like the outcome of this meeting, so consequently, they have
come back this evening with a good number of reinforcements. That’s fine, and Mr. Gomes was so upset
about this whole meeting not going his way last time that when I approached him on his property, the very
next day, he literally told me to get off his land, we are no longer friends, and he will fry every one of you
people for letting this go through, quote unquote.
MR. MAC EWAN-At that point, I’m going to stop you right there. Because that has nothing to do with what
this Board is, I want to stick to the issues of Subdivision Regulations and the Town Ordinance. I don’t want
to hear about any neighbors fighting or spatting with each other.
MR. INGLEE-Well, this is why a lot of these folks are here because they simply do not want to see me do
this.
MR. MAC EWAN-And by law they have an opportunity to be here and be heard.
MR. INGLEE-That’s right. Now, a few years ago, before I bought the property, this was an ad that Mrs.
Smith put in the newspaper in regards to the land that was for sale. I’d like to read it for you if I may. It says,
beautiful views from 47 acres, Queensbury, streams, pond, barn and views, surveyed $69,900. Now, I came
to terms with Mrs. Smith. I purchased the property from Mrs. Smith, and needless to say anybody that is
going to spend that type of money on a piece of land is certainly going to want to utilize that piece of
property to its fullest capacity, which is exactly what I set out to do. I took the existing pond that was on the
property, I cleaned it up, and now I can sit at the pond and I can watch the trout jump and I can listen to the
frogs and I can watch my grandson swim in the pond, and so that was a major improvement. I have done
nothing to devastate the integrity nor the serenity, and I’m not attempting to do so here, any way, shape or
form by asking for these lots. These lots are going to be allocated to be able to give each one of my children
a place to build their home. When I originally thought about buying the property, I wanted to buy the
property for two reasons, one to preserve my own sanctuary, and two was to hopefully provide each one of
my children with their own place to be able to some day call home, and that’s why I’m here asking you for
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
this application. Now, the second thing that I did is I took the old barn that was on the property, and I
turned it into a nice two bedroom cottage, if you will, and now what I do with the cottage is when my son
comes home from college, he stays there on occasions. I rent it out on occasions. I have a fellow in there
right now for the whole month of December and January that’s renting it out. Now from what I understand,
a lot of my neighbors are very upset at the fact that I advertise on the web, a nice, quiet mountain cabin, and
they’re upset at the fact that I’m renting this cabin out. The problem that I’m having here with, especially
with Mrs. Beames having a problem with me renting out my cabin, is that Dr. Steve Monn owns a house right
next door to Mrs. Beames, right next door, and he rents that house out, and that doesn’t seem to bother Mrs.
Beames, but me renting out my cabin, which is 900 feet down the road, has a problem, she has a problem
with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with Subdivision Reg’s. Let’s stick with Town Ordinances. I’ll ask you one
more time, let’s just get away from this.
MR. INGLEE-So consequently, me renting out my cabin should not having any bearing, whatsoever, on
what’s going on here this evening. Now I’ve had people come up to my clearing, and what I’ve done is I’ve
taken a series of old log roads that were on my property, and I’ve done a tremendous amount of work to
them, and I’ve cleaned them up and I’ve put some money into it so we can enjoy the views that were
advertised in this piece of property for sale. Yes, the property houses a lot of views, but the biggest trick was
to be able to get to them. So I did put a lot of time and money into the road, and now we use that site up
there for a nice picnic area, and we go up there and we enjoy cookouts and barbecues and we use the trailer,
and one person in particular that I’d like to mention, again, there’s been quite a few people up there who
really see no problem with this. Craig Brown told me he has no problem. Dave Hatin sees no problem. The
fire chief has seen no problem getting a fire truck up here, but the one person that stands out in my mind the
most, that came up to my site, was attorney Dennis Phillips, and he stood alongside of me, and he said, Jeff,
the only thing that I can see, that if someone has a problem with what you are attempting to do here, it’s
simply because they don’t want to see you have it, and you know something, I really think he hit the nail right
on the head, and, consequently, people are going to be here this evening and try to convince you that I am
trying to destroy, again, the serenity and the integrity of our mountain. I’m not the one destroying the
integrity of our mountain, but there are people up there that are, and as soon as this stuff is all over with this
subdivision, I’m going to contact the proper authorities and get to the bottom of that, as well, but I am trying
to do this for my children. I’m not trying to do this for monetary gain. Folks that are here this evening have
property. They’ve subdivided their property and they’ve sold their property off. I’m not doing that for
monetary gain. I’m doing it to provide each one of my children with a place to some day call home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’d give up the table. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application? I’d ask anybody who wants to speak tonight to first just identify yourself and
your address, and if you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to the Board and we’ll get the
questions answered.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MIKE QUINDAZZI
MR. QUINDAZZI-My name is Mike Quindazzi. I live in Lake Luzerne. I’m friends with Mr. Inglee and
with Mr. Gomes and with some of the neighbors, and possibly some of the things that Mr. Inglee said might
be true. I think the neighbors are upset because of having large pieces of property, being not in the Town of
Queensbury, but in the woods basically, or on a hill. So they all have concerns. I’m wondering if I even have
a right to speak in front of you people because I am not a neighbor, nor am I a member of this Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a public hearing, anyone can speak.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Thank you. Catherine mentioned the trailer and an eyesore, and what comes to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I never said eyesore. I never said that.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Okay. I’m sorry, that’s my note, because Mr. Inglee mentioned about an aerial photo. I
also have an aerial photo. Excuse me. I apologize. I get quite nervous when I speak in public. I very rarely
do it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m glad you’re here because I go by your place every day, and I’ve always
wondered who owned it.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Okay.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I teach in Lake Luzerne.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Do you really?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Twenty years.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough of the pleasantries. Let’s move on.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Anyway, Catherine mentioned about the trailer, and I also fly a plane, and you can see
that trailer from Argyle. I’d be more than happy to take anybody up, as far as an eyesore, where that blank
and the rocks are pushed down, you can see that. Craig mentioned concern about further development.
That would have to do with Mr. Inglee’s credibility, since he said there would be no further development, I
believe he said absolutely, and please, Catherine, if I’m wrong with anything correct me again, would you,
please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Don’t worry.
MR. QUINDAZZI-I wonder about that also, and Larry mentioned about family occupancy. I, not 15
minutes ago, asked Mr. Inglee’s two children if he was going to deed this property to them, and the daughter
told me, yes, and I said, upon the subdivision? No, she said, eventually. I’d like to, I spent last winter in
Montana, and the summer before, you’re familiar with the fires out there. They have a subdivision rule out
there, they’ve had a lot of trouble with sprawl. They have a subdivision rule similar to this, where the
properties against the pines and such, they have subdivision rules which state that they have to, each piece of
property, subdivision, has to have a pond on the property, so as to fight fires. You know the terrible fires
they’ve had out there. A person from California, when I went out last winter, I read in the paper, a person
from California came and got through on that subdivision because he had three children, and he wanted to
subdivide it for the three children. He got away without putting a pond on the property. I don’t know if it’s
pertinent to this. I just like to tell stories sometimes, and as soon as the subdivision was granted, the next day
the property was on the public market, and I spoke to the attorney general out there, in Bowsman, which is in
Galitan County, and I said, gosh, you’re all quite naïve out here, that this person was allowed this leeway, and
then could sell it, and basically I think what I’m speaking about is that I hope you’re all not naïve. Please
don’t get mad at me for asking that question. Thank you. That’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHY GOMES
MRS. GOMES-Hi. Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I’m speaking on behalf of myself and my husband, Rui
Gomes. I’d like to point out another error on the map, and that is that the property we own is still listed as
belonging to Marilyn & Albert Smith. Albert Smith has long left this world, and Marilyn has long left the
ownership of that property. We are the ones who own that property. Therefore we stand to be probably
most impacted by the decision you make here tonight. I want that to be clear. I’d like to begin by stating that
my husband and I don’t support anyone being permitted to build on lots smaller than five acres or ten acres
in the RR-5 and LC-10 zones. It doesn’t matter who they are. We chose to purchase property on Tuthill
Road because of the rural nature of the neighborhood, as some of you commented a few moments ago.
We’d like to see the rural atmosphere preserved through very strict zoning enforcement. In 1998, we came
before this Board regarding a cluster subdivision plan submitted by the Gereaus. They wished to create four
lots smaller than five acres at that time. We did not support their plan because we wanted the five acre
requirement strictly enforced. So you can see this is not our position only in Mr. Inglee’s case. This has been
our position consistently. It’s why we bought the land in Queensbury in the RR-5 and LC-10 zoning. We
looked for four years in this area before we relocated here, and we looked throughout a five county area, and
specifically chose this area because of the zoning regulations. There were properties we looked at in Hartford
that were gorgeous, but there were no zoning restrictions, so they could have put in a garbage dump next to
us. So we specifically chose this area because we knew there were the zoning regulations and we felt that that
would protect our investment. So that’s why we’re here tonight. I’m not here tonight because I had a
problem with Mr. Inglee renting out his cabin. My family and friends have stayed there. So that’s not a
problem for me. I want to make that clear also. As Mr. MacEwan stated at the May 1998 meeting, we’re
dealing with a very unique section of Town, and we would like to keep it that way. That’s why I’m here. I
have a bunch of comments. I also have questions. I don’t know if you will answer my questions as I go
along? When I’m done at the end?
MR. MAC EWAN-What we typically do, Mrs. Gomes, is we’ll take the list of questions, then we’ll get the
applicants back up here and between the applicants and Staff, we’ll get everyone’s questions answered.
MRS. GOMES-Okay. So somebody takes notes on the questions I have?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right here. She gets paid the big bucks to do that.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MRS. GOMES-Okay. I just want to make sure I’m going to get the answers. On December 13 I did meet
th
with Craig Brown for quite a long time. I took up way too much of his time, probably, and pointed out the
issues on the map with the acreage, that it was not, in fact, correct, and that our names were not correctly
listed. I’d like to point out that when considering this project, the 16.44 acres of land in Luzerne are not a
factor in the discussions or the consideration of the size of the lot as far as this Board is concerned, and I
know you are all aware of that. I just want to point that out publicly, that there are, in fact, 31.27 acres in
Queensbury, the vast majority of that being in the LC-10 zone, which is minimum 10 acre zoning. I also
wanted to point out another discrepancy on the map, that there’s a septic system for Lot One, that’s
indicated, and that’s not where the septic system currently is, so I don’t know if this means that that septic
system is going to be dug up and redone or if it’s an error on the map. So I would like that clarified, and
there’s a file in your files from when the barn was renovated that shows where the existing septic system is.
So I didn’t know if that was an error on the map or a proposed change, and Mr. Brown couldn’t answer that
question for me, when we went over the map. So if you want to see those papers, I have them here, if you’d
like to see copies showing where the septic system is.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that question answered.
MRS. GOMES-Okay. Good. The road on this map is labeled as an existing road, and I discussed that with
Mr. Brown also. I don’t feel that that’s an accurate label on the road. It was a partial old logging road, and
not nearly this extensive, and as Mr. Inglee said himself, he’s put a lot of work into improving it, and that’s
been going on for a couple of years, or three years, I forget what he said. It’s been going on for a while.
None of the prior maps show any kind of a road there, and as was noted earlier, Mr. Steves himself, at the
initial meeting, said he didn’t want to build a road up the hillside. There is now a road up the hillside. If it’s
not an existing road, a pre-existing road, I understand that then the Board looks more closely at the actual
construction of the road and issues such as runoff and drainage. So I would ask that you do that, because I
don’t feel that this really was a pre-existing road. This is a road that has been created in conjunction with this
project, and I did call, when the heavy work on the road was going on, after the April meeting, and I know
that Mr. Brown came out and looked at the site, because my question at that point was, can the road continue
to be built when the approval hasn’t actually been given. So, that was me that called. The Staff notes from
the April meeting, under the section of topography, indicate that the site contains steep slopes toward the rear
of the property, the drawings should contain information about driveway slope and design, which has been
provided, and the driveway design should include material to be used and stormwater controls. I’ve gone
over these papers myself, repeatedly, and I’ve gone over them with Mr. Brown, and I don’t see anything in
there about stormwater controls from the driveway. So that is a question that I have. Am I missing
something, or is it not there as requested by you in April? And I’d like to know if that’s going to be asked for
as requested, and there was also mention made of the engineers. The engineers have not reviewed this
project, they have not reviewed the road, and I’d like to support the comment that was made earlier that I
believe they should review it. I also have some questions regarding the five lot requirement, cluster
requirement, that this Board granted a waiver to at the April meeting. Article 183-34(C) states the minimum
acreage to which the clustering article may be applicable shall be five times the minimum lot area of the
zoning district involved. Therefore in any given district, the minimum number of units to which the article
applies is five. On December 13 I met with Craig Brown. He shared with me that since this project is only
th
three units, it was his opinion when he first received the paperwork that the clustering provision is not
applicable in this case. He expressed this opinion according to him in a written memo to you, the Planning
Board. I’ve requested a copy of this memo, but my request was denied. I understand that the members of
the Board have the right to accept or reject the opinions that are given to them by Staff, but I feel it’s
important that the fact that the Zoning Administrator does not believe this is an appropriate application of a
clustering regulation should be made public tonight and should be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. I
also believe that the Board members were trying to do what’s best for all parties involved. However, your
decision to grant the waiver to the five lot requirement was based on a preliminary map that is very different
from the map that is here tonight. Mr. Steves made a statement, moments ago, that it is the same three lots
as were on the map in April. That is not true, as Mr. Brown pointed out. The maps are substantially
different. In April when this was discussed as a cluster of three lots, the lots were 1.92, 2.37, and in
Queensbury, 26.98 acres. All of the structures proposed were clustered in the RR-5 zone. At that April
meeting, Mr. Vollaro asked, how do we get around the requirement for, well, not get around, but what’s your
answer to the fact we really need five lots to comply with 183-34 clustering? Mr. Steves replied to him, that’s
why we’re asking for the waiver because we just don’t have that ability. They continued. Mr. Vollaro, it’s not
buildable, is that what you’re saying? Mr. Steves, no, we don’t want to build a road up that hillside, no way.
This was mentioned earlier. Now here we are, eight months later, with a very different map. The lots are
now different sizes, and in different locations. The three structures are no longer clustered in the RR-5 zone.
The second structure is now located where originally the lot three structure was, and the lot three structure is
now located high on the ridge, in the area that Mr. Vollaro and Mr. Steves referred to at that first meeting as
not buildable. I don’t know how an area went from being not buildable to buildable in eight months. There’s
also a roadway up the hillside when it was specifically stated at the April meeting that there was no desire to
put a roadway up the hillside. It’s there now. This is a substantially different plan that what was presented to
this Board in April, and that’s, that plan in April was what that waiver was based on. It was not based on
what’s in the plan now. Therefore, I ask you to re-examine that decision and consider revoking that waiver. I
do not feel this is a cluster subdivision. I do not feel that that regulation applies, and I know that Mr. Brown,
at least, agrees with that, and this is a very different application. I think it needs to be re-examined. I’d also
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
like to know, with this new plan, if the Board feels that the revised plan, with lot three located up on the top
of the ridge, complies with A183-34.H, which states, building lots shall be setback from ridges or military
crests in order to protect the natural silhouette of Queensbury mountain ranges. You now have that lot
located high up on that ridge, rather than down where it was in the original proposal. My final question about
the clustering provisions is this. A183-35 Procedures C, states that the Planning Office or Board may request
that a subdivider present an alternate plan with lots meeting the minimum lot requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance. I’d like to know if you intend to request an alternate plan, and if you do not intend to request an
alternate plan, why. APA also has the right to request an alternate plan, to a cluster subdivision. The
driveway which has been discussed at length tonight will serve three structures. So it will have greater than
normal traffic. It’s not serving one house like your average driveway. It’s also very steep, and most
commonly traveled by four by four trucks, four wheelers and snowmobiles. So there’s much more noise
from those vehicles. We’d like to request that the driveway be moved back from the property line. There’s a
section on the map where the driveway is right against the property line, our property line, and we’d also like
to request that a buffer of that planted vegetation be required between the driveway and our property, so that
we don’t have to look at it or hear it. At one point we had had a discussion with Mr. Inglee and stated that
we believed the driveway was actually located over the property line on our property, and he was concerned
about that and responded by having an area cleared further into the property, cutting the curb in tighter,
where it would move it further away from our property line. When the surveyors came out and marked the
property, and determined that, in fact, it was not on our property, it was just right to the edge of the line. He
chose to go back to using that section of driveway. There is another section already cleared further into the
property, that if this went ahead, we would certainly prefer that that be the section of driveway that would be
required, because it would put it further in, and it would allow for the planting of vegetation. At present, the
land is cleared to the property line, and the trees that are shown that are on our side of the property line, that
is a very sparsely treed area. It’s wet in there, most of the year. There’s an old logging road that goes through
there. So it’s not dense vegetation, and the road is very easily visible. It’s not very far from the back of our
house. The question of emergency vehicle access was also brought up. I also spoke with John Carpenter,
and he said he had given a letter to Mr. Inglee saying that it was accessible, and that was based upon Mr.
Inglee’s word to him that the road would be kept plowed, sanded and salted. So I would encourage you, if
you don’t want to take my word for that, to contact John Carpenter and hear that from him yourself. The
question that brings up, of course, is maintenance of the road. This is going to be a road that’s shared by
three different properties. There was talk of easements between the properties for the driveway access. I
think there also needs to be talk of a maintenance agreement. Because with three different owners of the
properties, who’s going to be responsible for maintaining that road and keeping it in a passable condition for
those emergency vehicles? We’d also like that, in order to protect the environment and rural nature of the
area, that the clearing limits be enforced exactly as shown on the map, and we’d like that wording actually
used in any resolution, that it would be exactly as shown on the map. There are three structures going up on
this property. The question of the trailer was also raised, and I have a question with that. If, in addition to
the three houses, the trailer can be kept there. Is there a limit at some point? Can additional trailers be kept
there? I don’t want to wind up living next to something that looks like the VanDusen trailer park. I don’t
think that’s what Mr. Inglee intends, but I would like to be reassured of that. If his children are going to be
living there, again, the question of, is this property going to be deeded to his children, or is there some sort of
a provision that prevents him from selling it to anybody else, and if not, then I think you have to look
carefully at the maintenance agreement and at the provisions for the access for the road. Finally, there are
wetlands on this property which are not shown on the current map. I have older maps that show additional
wetlands located by the pond. I’m willing to share those maps with you. They’re on the map from the two
lot subdivision that Marilyn Smith did, and they’re on the map that was submitted by Mr. Inglee when he
upgraded the cabin. They’re not on this map. So if anyone wants to see those maps, you can let me know.
Mr. Inglee’s driveway, as it’s built and as it’s shown on this proposal, goes right through where those wetlands
were indicated on the original maps. The pond was cleaned up. It was deepened quite a bit. A culvert was
put in, so the creek, instead of running naturally from the pond down the creek bed now runs through a
culvert and the road was put over the culvert. I have spoken with Brian Ford from the jurisdiction
department of APA, and Don Smith from the enforcement department of APA, and they do not have any
record of an application for that being filed with them for the roadway going over those wetlands, and they
are concerned that they’ve not been asked to review that, and they do wish to review it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know if they made a field visit, site visit?
MRS. GOMES-I don’t know if they did. Mr. Smith intended to contact your office today. I don’t know if he
did that or not. I called him and reminded him that the meeting was tonight, and he told me that he was
going to call and make a point of letting you know that he wanted to be involved in reviewing this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. GOMES-In closing, we’d prefer that neither Mr. Inglee nor anyone be permitted to build on under five
acres in this unique section of Queensbury. That’s why we located there. We would like to keep it that way.
This doesn’t have to do with personalities. It doesn’t have to do with who we like or who we dislike or what
he’s doing with the property, or the fact that he’s renting it out. As I’ve said, we’ve had our friends and
family stay there. We don’t have a problem with that. This has to do with the underlying, how the land is
used, what are the zoning requirements, is this really a cluster or not, and we would not like to see anyone
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
build on under five acres. We feel that if we start letting people do that, it spreads. We want to keep this a
rural area. I ask that you consider my comments, answer my questions. I’d also like to ask that you ensure
that Don Smith is involved in reviewing the project. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
TERRY CRANNELL
MR. CRANNELL-Good evening. My name is Terry Crannell. I live at 857 Luzerne Road, right at the
southern terminus of Tuthill, and I can assure you that I’m not here as the instrument of the Gomes or
anyone else. I’m speaking for myself. I’ll try to be brief. The clustering proposal, and you know, the term
clustering, this project is clustering I think in name only. I don’t see that it reflects any of the purposes or the
objectives, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. To me, it seems like just a gimmick to get an increased density
in a five acre area. The Board is considering waiving the five times the minimum lot area for the district. It’s
considering waiving the five units per clustering proposal, and it just doesn’t seem to reflect a true cluster.
My major concern relates to the RR-5 area of the proposed project. The applicant has approximately six
acres in an RR-5 area. I think it’s pretty evident that six acres in a five acre area, you’re going to get one lot in
there, but this proposal proposes two, and to get that, the Board is considering issuing a waiver. They are
going to waive the five times the minimum lot area required. Typically we’re talking a five acre district. So,
typically, in order to have a clustering, you’d have to have 25 acres. He doesn’t have 25. He has 6. Typically,
you would have to have five units. He doesn’t have five units. He’s asking for two. I mean, we’re not even
approaching the standards in the Ordinance. If you go into Article 13 of the Code, it talks about waivers,
and I’m quoting now, “In granting waivers, the Planning Board shall impose such conditions and will
substantially assume the objectives of the standards or requirements so waived are met.” Well, let’s go and
see what the standards say for clustering. One of the standards, right at the beginning, no such modification
by the Planning Board shall result in a greater overall density of lots or dwelling units than is permitted in the
zoning district wherein such lands lie. I don’t see that as ambiguous. The applicant has six acres in a five acre
district. If the Board approves this project as proposed, he’s going to have two units on six acres, actually on
five and a half acres, in an RR-5 zone. You’re doubling the density. To me, that does not approach the
standard in the Ordinance. As I mentioned before, another standard, of course, is the, you know, the five
times the minimum lot area that would have to be waived, as well as the number of units. I just do not see
that the numbers here approach a marginal area between one or the other. As I said, this does not seem to
me, in any way resemble clustering, and I forgot to mention, I have a masters degree in environmental
planning and urban design from RPI. I have a little bit of experience in this field. I just wish the Board
would look at those issues carefully. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. Crannell.
STEVE MONN
DR. MONN-Hi. I’m Steve Monn. I own the property at 46 Tuthill. I had about an hour and a half of things
I wanted to mention, but I’ve narrowed it down to about five minutes, because I’m getting tired, and they’re
not as well thought out, and I don’t like getting up in front of public either. I’d prefer one on one, but there
were some issues that came up that strike me as important. The major one, and the reason that we originally
moved into that area, and for which we still own the property, is the character of that neighborhood, the fact
that it is a neighborhood of dwellings that are widely spaced and are on larger lots. It did put it into more of a
rural feel. It felt much different than being down in the Town of Queensbury or nearer to the City of Glens
Falls, and I honestly don’t know if the way that this is being proposed will disrupt that. It may not, but if it
does, it really takes away from the reason that myself and some of the other people here seem to have
expressed the rationale for moving there in the first place. I wanted to respond, as well, to a comment made
by the applicant’s attorney, I’m sorry, I forgot his name, about the fact that the zoning requirements are being
satisfied, and some people would prefer 150 acres per dwelling, and it may be that the specific zoning
requirements are being satisfied, and I don’t know your precise charter, but my suspicion is that your role is
not just to ensure that minimum requirements are satisfied, but to rather throw some subjective ness as well,
and some judgment into the satisfaction of those requirements, and to go beyond those, if it doesn’t appear as
though strict satisfaction is sufficient. I’m also concerned to some degree, although I’m not going to live up
at that top lot, as to accessibility. I don’t know what the grade of Clendon Brook is, as it approaches Tuthill,
but there are sections of that that were difficult to get up with, when we were living there, our Volvo with
studded tires, granted it’s rear wheel drive, and two wheel drive, but there were times that we could not, and
we just had to slip right back down in the other direction until we could make another try. That may not be
quite such a grade, or it may be a greater grade, but I would suggest that, if in fact there are concerns about
access to emergency vehicles, that the decision and the opinion of one person, no matter how potentially
qualified that person might be, not be the sole decision, and that’s all I had to say. Five minutes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
DR. MONN-You’re welcome.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
BILL MINTON
MR. MINTON-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MINTON-My name is Bill Minton. I’m here with my wife, and I’m from Orange County, and you’re
probably saying, what the heck is this guy doing here. Well, on December 14, 1999, I bought eight acres of
land on Tuthill Road. So, I don’t know anybody here, but I checked it out before I purchased it, and I found
it was in the Adirondack Park. I checked with them. They said it was five acre zoning. I checked with the
Zoning Board. I didn’t take anyone’s name. I just checked with them and they said it was five acre zoning,
and that’s exactly what we were looking for. Like another person that was up here, we checked in all different
counties, two years we only looked, and we found this piece of land. We were very lucky, and this is where
we’re going to retire, but you know something, I just got a letter about this meeting on the 16 of December,
th
four days ago, and that really bothers me because I’ve been paying taxes all along. So, I just feel that I
probably would have had more input into this, and probably could have contacted some people that I would
like to possibly check into something for me. I think, I spent 24 years in the judicial system in New York
State, and they predicate themselves on hearing two sides to every story. I think that the person who sat next
to Mr. Inglee, I haven’t met the man before in my life, had a letter that I thought was self-serving, from a fire
chief. I mean, I would like to have a fire chief or some expert on fire equipment and so on and so forth
come here and give his opinion and see what’s happening. I would like to see, someone’s name, Tom Nace,
was mentioned, who he came to my property to give me a perc test and then he turns around and says, yes,
you want VanDusen and Steves, they’ll take care of you. So everybody seems to be in the same boat here,
you know. So I think mentioning all those names, it’s just self-serving. I’ve been here since seven o’clock. I
think you guys are really trying to do the right thing here, but I think you have an obligation to the Town and
to the people to go ahead and maybe even give like a continuance or a postponement and let’s get some more
people in here that are experts on different fire department feelings, and so on and so forth, and I’d like to
know why I only got a letter four days ago. That’s incredible to me. So I’d just like to see, like I said, a
continuance or a postponement so then we can go, and I’ve got a feeling that you’re headed that way, because
there seems to be a lot of questions here, and I know you guys are going to do the right thing, and ladies, and
get all the information together and then make an informed decision. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Craig, how was this re-advertised? Even though this was kind of like a
continuance, did you just do mailers, or did we do a total re-advertisement on this one all over again?
MR. BROWN-A total re-advertise. A new public hearing was advertised.
MR. MAC EWAN-Return receipts, the whole nine yards?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know that.
MR. MINTON-No return receipt.
MR. BROWN-I think the reason for the return receipts prior was that the applicant was responsible for
notification. Now that the Town’s required to do the notification, per the change in the Code, we don’t
require that proof from the applicant, hey, did you notify everybody? If we do the notification, we’re
responsible for it. It’s typical that the notifications go out five days before the meeting. It goes in the
newspaper the same timeframe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Five days?
MR. BROWN-That’s the standard operation for notification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MINTON-Yes, but what about the previous meeting, in April? I didn’t get anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-The quick answer to that was the previous subdivision application, everyone should have
gotten a mailer on it, return receipts were handed in by the applicant at that time. Is that not correct?
MR. BROWN-I think it was a sketch before.
MR. RINGER-Preliminary.
MR. VOLLARO-It was preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s neither here nor there at this point. I mean, we’ve got it under control here at this
stage.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
CARA BEAMES
MRS. BEAMES-Hi. I’m Cara Beames, and I think I can answer that. Actually, there was a mistake, and the
reason, there was a sign up on Tuthill Road, and people stopped. Everybody walks. I mean, people stop and
they ask Jeff, and Jeff says, yes, it’s going to be a five acre lot, you know, subdivision, and, you know,
everybody took him for his word. So, you know, I didn’t go to the meeting. My husband believed him, and
we didn’t go. As it was, Mr. and Mrs. Gomes did go, and it was far from the truth, and then when we found
out about it, I called the office, and I spoke to Pam Whiting, and she apologized highly. I didn’t get a letter,
and I think, and he must not have gotten one either. There were several ones that didn’t get a letter. So she
said, and I thought that because we didn’t get the letter, I understood from her, and I could have been wrong,
is that I thought that all the approvals were going to be rescinded and this was going to be re-opened, and
that’s the letter I received. Because of the fact that we weren’t notified properly. So we were unaware to be
here, and as you can tell, because of the fact that people were informed of the true transactions that he has or
intentions that he has, that we are all against this. When we thought that it was going to be the five acres,
there’s not a whole lot you can do. That’s the restrictions up there, and so nobody showed, but when we
heard later that it was untrue, you can see the room was full. All of us are up here because we are against this.
We couldn’t say it any better than what Terry Crannell described with the clustering, that this is just not what
was intended, I don’t think, by the people who wrote that, and if we keep putting in these waivers, then why
do we have this in the first place, and I’m glad we just had the opportunity all to be here to, you know, be
able to say that we are against this. The big thing here is that he has the acreage. He bought that land. He
hunted it for years. He knew, you know, how steep it was. He knew where he could build houses or
whatever. The land has not changed. The land has not changed at all. He bought it that way, and I’m
hoping that you guys don’t approve this. I’m hoping that you can rescind this, because, just to save him some
money, and I went over the last minutes, and it went through, you know, where Mr. Steves says that, yes, it
will be quite costly. Well, you know, if that’s what it needs to be, like I said, he bought it that way, and that’s
the biggest issue is the acreage. We all moved up there for that reason. It changes all the time. It was 10
acres when we went up there, and then it was changed to five, and then they tried to change it to three, and
then that was shot down. We want to keep it the way it is. There’s a few people that I wanted to quote, that
John Goralski, he states that what we’re trying to do is preserve the things that make people want to live and
do business in Queensbury. A perfect example people coming from the city, moving into our area. They
didn’t move down on the flatland. They didn’t move down by a development. They moved up on the
mountain. It’s a mountain. He mentioned aerial shots. If you go through all of West Mountain, I’m sure if
you want aerial shots, you would not find the way he’s cleared that land there. He says, well, he’s going to
hide the houses, yes, that’s this month or this year. He’s taken, look at the property that he owns. His whole
nine acres is cleared. There’s got to be some type of buffering law to keep the beautification of that area. So
that it doesn’t get cleared out. He just went up there. It’s like the road incident. It was a four wheeler path,
you know, it was a logging path, that, you know, my father had, and he’s doing a hell of a nice job up there,
but that’s not the area for it. You move somewhere down in the flatlands to have your developments, not on
top of a mountain where you gut everything. As our woods, and that he claims to be, the nature that he is
destroying up there is just, I mean, that’s why we moved there. I also have a quote from Miss Roberts. A lot
of times people don’t notice nature features that they value until they’re gone. A perfect example. This is a
unique area for Queensbury, and I just really, that’s the important part, and I think that’s why the five acres is
up there, so that we can preserve the unique part of Queensbury. As the other issue that Jeff brought up that
I have a problem with is I really, this all comes up because he says that this is, you know, this is for his family,
and that’s great, however, that’s not his intent. That is not the reasoning for this clustering act, and as he
says, and I do have copies for you, just so you can see what I’m talking about. I believe he came to this
Board with really falsified intentions, that he’s doing this for his family. As you can clearly see by his ad, this
is his rental property. This is not like the example of my neighbor who rents it yearly or, you know, who has,
my neighbor has been there for several years, actually, but this is something that is changed every weekend,
we don’t know who our neighbor is going to be. He advertises, like the trailer up there, there’s plenty of
room for trailers, and, you know, bring the trailers and your kids can go camping, they can have campfires
and I don’t want people going up on that mountain and starting campfires and camping up there, people we
don’t know, people who are not being, when you go to a campsite, you have rangers that, you know, go by
and they check on people. This is certainly, there’s no security here. I’m very concerned. It says guided
tours. Guided tours. They come flying through our yard in their all terrain vehicles or whatever they, you
know, recreational vehicles I meant to say. There is no guided tours. They’re just go loose. It’s a gorgeous
view up there, and he’s had, and he’s planning to have parties up there, where the last one was a pig roast and
anyone and everyone was invited. I just, this is not what I moved up to the mountain for. In fact, you try to
get away from this type of activity. There’s certainly no serenity, when there’s constantly parties and bonfires
and things, and as you can see, and I’m not saying, he’s done a heck of a job with, it’s beautiful, actually, but
that’s not what we moved up here for. This is, as you can see, it’s cabins. His full intent, I’m sure, he can
come up and he can say whatever, but his full intent, right there, is money. It’s money. He wants money, and
every weekend we’re going to have more and more people. We have only one cabin now. If you approve
this, we’re going to have three cabins, and we’re going to have more and more. It becomes a fine line
between renting your home and for a motel, but I’d like to know what the difference is, and obviously, this
certainly looks like a motel starting, and I don’t know if there’s any restrictions you can put on this, if he’s
going to build these homes for his kids, and you approve this, and I hope that you don’t under the acreage,
but if it goes that way, I’m sure I’m going to have much more concerns and I hope that maybe we can make
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
sure that it is his kids that are going to live there. Some things that were just mentioned. I’m concerned with
the clearing, as was stated before. I want to be sure that the acreage part is removed off of that map because
he already has said that when this gets approved, he does plan on proposing another waiver for his lot across
the street, and I think that is probably why it was adjoined to this map originally, from what I understand
from Pam that that was going to be, that’s why it was changed, the proposal, but I don’t know why, at this
point, why he backed out from it, but I know he does plan on supposedly subdividing the land across which
he only has nine acres, but if he adjoins it, if it’s altogether, as one lot, then I think he thinks he has enough
land to be able to do that. So I do want to be sure that they are separate parcels on that map. I know that
he’s looking into buying a right of way for that back lot, for the 26 acres with the third lot dwelling. So, down
the road, a lot of things can change, and I hope you keep that in mind that, you know, there is development
going on all the time, and it’s not what you call landlocked. There’s always a way to get a right of way to get
to the other lots. So I’d like you to keep that in mind, and I think that’s about it. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
MR. INGLEE-Am I allowed to speak? I think I forgot one thing on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-As soon as I get everyone through, I’ll let you come back up.
MR. INGLEE-Thank you very much.
DAVE STEWART
MR. STEWART-I’m Dave Stewart. I own land on Clendon Brook Road, just below Jeff’s property. I’m a
firm believer in one thing, and that is you can do what you want with your own property, but that would
mean that we’d all have to be treated the same. I have 60 some odd acres. The thought of, I’m sure my
neighbors would cringe at the thought of me trying to subdivide that into two acre lots and doing this cluster
type thing with this. I don’t have any problem with him doing what he wants with his property, as long as the
five acre limit that the rest of us are restricted to still applies. I could care less whether he leases the house or
whether he leases the houses that he’s going to build. I’d hate to be a person that leased that house and have
to come down the road myself, but I believe the five acres is there for a reason. It was eight and a half when
I bought. I had to buy eight and a half acres. I’ve since acquired other acreage, but I just think if you grant
this exemption, there’s going to be more of them down the road. Not necessarily me. I have no intention of
doing something like that, but in the back of my mind, it would always be possible, that, well, they allowed it
to be done up there. I could probably do the same thing, or if I ever chose to sell my property, it would be
with the idea that, here’s what you can do with it, and I just don’t want to see that happen. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. (Lost words) The applicant filed, or challenged that restriction
in State Supreme Court and Warren County Supreme Court agreed that the Planning Board had acted beyond
it’s authority in restricting the land to any further development, and that decision was upheld in the Appellate
Division.
MR. BROWN-We’re talking about another applicant. Not Mr. Inglee?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, another applicant, another town.
MR. BROWN-Just to be clear.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, another town, yes. You can, however, restrict the land from any further subdivision,
and I think that should involve also the portion in the Town of Lake Luzerne, and I don’t know how you’d
do this, unless you coordinate with the Town of Lake Luzerne. The land in the Town of Lake Luzerne
doesn’t, at least there are no easements mapped. So any use that that land is put to would have to be accessed
from Tuthill Road, and if that were subdivided or developed, that would put more traffic on this road you’re
talking about. With regard to the access road, before you engage the Town engineer to look at this, I believe
it’s incumbent upon the applicant to hire his engineer and perform a suitable design, and then our Town
engineer can review that. With regard to the fire chief putting his blessing on this and all, that’s hog wash.
That’s opinion, and he’s not certified to give that kind of an opinion. Personnel change that handle this kind
of equipment, the equipment changes from day to day. It’s only an engineer that can lay out a road,
recognizing all the uses that it’s going to be put to, and do an adequate job. No question that a maintenance
agreement is required, if this is a shared ownership, and this maintenance agreement would have to be filed,
and I believe a homeowners association established for the enforcement of that agreement. It’s very critical.
You have steep slopes. You have winter weather. You have safety involved. So that has to be an
enforceable agreement. It sounds like there’s a lot of commercial activity going on in this area, and I’ll tell
you.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s going to be my first question to him.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s a residential zone, and that sort of thing has got to be brought under control. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John. Anyone else?
LAURA LA POINT
MRS. LA POINT-My name is Laura LaPoint. I live at 46 Tuthill Road, and I’m in the third year of a multi-
lease agreement with the owner, Steve Monn, who previously spoke. I would like to say that I take extreme
offense to being grouped with the same people that rent on a weekend basis up the street. That I pay a little
more than $300 a weekend for our home or $575 a week, which is the going rate now for a two bedroom
cabin on Tuthill Road. I just want you to know that I waited three months for this house to be available. It’s
not on the market because, personally, I don’t think Steve Monn even wants to sell it. It’s in the most
beautiful part of Queensbury, and I have lived in this Town for 30 years. It is in the most beautiful part of
Queensbury, and it’s beautiful because it was zoned properly. The zoning was upheld. It’s been chipped
away at over the years, from what’s been said tonight, but it’s been upheld in the long run. As I said, I waited
three months for the house to be available. I lived in a condo in Lake George waiting for this piece of
property to be available for rent. We moved into it, and I would like the Board to know, you’ve been up
there, so you know that it’s not necessarily the homes in that neighborhood that are beautiful, it is the foliage.
It’s the acreage. It’s the landscape up there, that, living there, we don’t necessarily have neighbors, which is
why I chose it. I wanted my three kids kept away from neighborhoods and the influence of neighborhoods.
We moved up there for the privacy of what was going on up there, or what was going on in town. We have
neighbors. We rarely see them. We don’t necessarily even know each other until we need each other, and
then we send out word and they’re there. They’re there in a heartbeat, and we know them, though, that
they’re not people that are just there for a weekend. I was shocked when it was first explained to me about
that cabin down the street, and it was explained to me by Jeff himself one day, when we had asked if we could
walk his property. I feel that the area is no longer the haven that I’d anticipated over three years ago when we
moved in, that I’d anticipated a woodsy area, such that I grew up in over on Glen Lake, which isn’t like that
anymore either, but an area where my kids could go out in the woods and play. They could discover what a
pond is like, what a stream is like, and they could walk up the street to play with the little girl up the street.
That’s no longer the case. As was stated earlier by everybody that’s been up here, we have strangers now,
living in cabins on properties between us and the little girl up the street, for weekends. Weekend visitors
from the City, hunters visiting, that don’t necessarily pay attention to the Posted marks on all the different
properties. I know, myself, I have hunters going through my back yard. My kids can’t even go outside and
play anymore, but I still love that neighborhood. A few years ago, I’m sure this Board’s aware of this,
Bedford Close had a house built within it that did not meet the requirements, the size requirements or the
siding requirements, to get picky, and the neighborhood was in an uproar over it. Everybody bought into an
ideal when they bought into that neighborhood. Well that’s what everybody up on Tuthill Road did, and
Clendon Brook and upper Luzerne. That we all bought into an ideal, or leased into an ideal that we thought
this is what life would be like up there. These people here feel the exact same way as the people in Bedford
Close did years ago. They invest in a certain way of life. By Queensbury allowing Mr. Inglee build three
buildings, in addition to two homes he already has on the property, it just doesn’t make sense. It does not
represent a hardship here. He bought, as Cara Beames had pointed out, property that he had walked for
years. He had hunted on for years. He knew that land was unbuildable, most of it. That one house and that
six acre parcel, sure. Three homes for a total of five? Who, in this room, needs five homes? I feel that
within Queensbury that an addition of three more buildings where there already are two, one of which isn’t
even being used by a family member per se, that it is being rented out. You’ve seen all the advertisements for
it. It’s over-development within Queensbury at it’s strongest. There’s no hardship here, as I mentioned
before. So why is the Board even considering re-zoning the area? What are the requirements for re-zoning?
People have to come in and prove a need, prove a hardship, or just prove they bought property, so you’ll
rezone it for them. Mr. Inglee should have looked into what he could or couldn’t do with the property prior
to purchasing it, not afterwards and trying to force it down everybody’s throat. As for the West Queensbury
Fire Chief, and his letter, all I can suggest is you find two more fire chiefs in the area, maybe the one on
Aviation Road, maybe the one in downtown Queensbury, that can write a similar letter to that, who’s willing
to let their men go up that hill, during a storm, to fight a Christmas tree fire, during a rainstorm in the middle
of the summer, then approve his road, but otherwise, I think going by one fire chief’s okay, as Mr. Vollaro
suggested, that’s insane. That’s ludicrous. That is friendship at it’s finest within Queensbury, and we all
know, we all have friends. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you for your time. As I said, I’m not a
landowner up there. I just have been there for coming up on three years, and probably another two to three
years, and I just feel that, you know, these people, they bought into a way of life, and they deserve the right to
retain that way of life and not have a Board, not that the Board secretly did what happened in April, but not
to let something like that happen, that, you know, you should have questioned it when one family showed up.
I know, living within the town of Glens Falls, and being in front of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board
myself, that when you have to notify people, it usually goes a certain distance. Well, you know, when you’re
talking about five acre lots, some people up here own 60 acres, you notify one person, you’ve notified the
amount of people you need to notify, and I think that’s what happened in April, that I never received a
notification in my mailbox, and I just live down the road. I’m sure Steve Monn didn’t receive anything. As
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
Cara said, everybody took Jeff at his word back then, and it doesn’t look like his word was what was, in fact,
being planned to happen. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
JOANN HOLMES
MRS. HOLMES-My name is Joann Holmes, and I live on Clendon Brook Road. I have just one thing to say,
what’s good for the Gereau’s and good for the Rolands on West Mountain should also be good for Mr.
Inglee. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Did you want to come back up?
MR. QUINDAZZI-I had just forgotten one thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself one more time, please.
MR. QUINDAZZI-Mike Quindazzi. I live in Lake Luzerne, again, the same place. I’ve been friends with
Mr. Inglee for a number of years, and I told the story about Montana, and I mentioned that I asked his
daughter a question, and I’m here mainly because I really think, particularly for up North. Everything should
be good. I’m getting older, you know. Everything should be nice. You should be friendly with your
neighbors, friendly with your children and such. Mr. Inglee said to me that his children are more important
than anybody else and the heck with, you know, integrity or whatever, the neighborhood, but I would like to
reiterate one thing. I’ve known Mr. Inglee for a number of years. Prior to him buying that property, he had
discussed with me once borrowing the money from me. Mr. Inglee borrowed the money to buy that property
from Mr. Fellar, who was also a friend of mine, Don Fellar, I think, Catherine, you must know him, from that
big log cabin up on the road you pass, if you know where my property is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t realize who owned that.
MR. QUINDAZZI-His name is Don Fellar. He owns 500 acres. He’s an old fellow. He died. Okay. Mr.
Inglee was always very nice to him, and he was nice to Mr. Inglee. He lent Mr. Inglee the money, and I was
privy to Mr. Inglee and he, he said to me, I wanted to buy some property from Mr. Fellar and he did not, he
owns 500 acres, and he did not want to subdivide it because he wanted to keep the integrity of the mountain,
and I was privy to him, Mr. Fellar, telling me that he lent him the money because Mr. Inglee said he wanted to
maintain the integrity of that area, and not have anybody else, not have any neighbors, not have anybody else
build up there, and that’s why, basically, I sat, I’m sitting here speaking to you, that Mr. Inglee’s truth is
nowhere near mine, and I honestly am concerned about his children. If his children, being the recipients of
this property, have anything to do with this, and it would be within the Board’s rights, if you ever do approve
this, I would love to see it deeded to his children right at that time, so that he could not back out on that.
Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. CRANNELL-Terry Crannell again. I’m going to try to make this very brief. I know there was some
discussion earlier by Mr. Vollaro about the ability of fire trucks to navigate that steep road. It was the late
60’s, early 70’s when Mrs. Cormus’ house burnt down, and the West Glens Falls fire trucks couldn’t make it
up Luzerne Road. They had to back down, go around, go up Clendon Brook, and by the time she got there
she was expired. She burned up in her own house, and they couldn’t get up there. That’s on a blacktop
Town road, and the other quick point I would like to make is if the Board would review some of the statutory
language in the Ordinance about waivers and about the objectives and purposes of clustering, there’s a lot of
language in there that talks about in the public good. When the general public, for the public welfare, the
general welfare of the public, the public health can benefit from clustering of these units, it may be
appropriate, and also of course to enhance the environmental values and to protect business and so forth, and
what I would submit here is that there’s really nothing in this application that benefits the public or the
environment in any way other than the applicant. The applicant benefits economically, but I don’t see any
benefits anywhere else. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
RUI GOMES
MR. GOMES-I’ll be the last one, I guess, tonight. My name is Rui Gomes. I’ll tell you how strongly I feel
about this. I’ve been accused that I started this whole situation and so on. I’ll tell you what I’ve created. I
haven’t created a thing. I’ve been here with my wife before. We were here for the first meeting, and when
people asked me what happened, what happened during that particular meeting, I wasn’t even coming from
the first meeting, but my wife said we should go. Women’s intuition I guess. I’ll tell you what. My parents
decided to move up here, because they’re at the certain age that they cannot take care probably themselves for
the next few years. They’re overseas. My brother is also very far away from them. We’re both about 7,000
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
miles away from them. In this case, they asked me, and I’ll tell you, this is how strongly I feel about this
situation. They asked me if I could give them a little piece of my land for them to build on. I answered them,
no problem, except right next to our property, which belonged to Jeff’s mother-in-law, is for sale. (lost
words) wonderful, 11 acres, $35,000. This was over a year and a half ago or so, and we bought it. The reason
why I pushed for that is because I have a deep feeling that I shouldn’t change, pretty much, what I’ve got
now. I’m very happy with what I have. We did buy the property. It’s there to build anytime they want, and
they feel like coming. I don’t believe they’ll ever come, but it’s there for them. I could have given them a
piece of my land. I could have subdivided 50 acres very easily. I didn’t. I didn’t because I said I would much
rather buy the 11 acres, which when I looked at the deed, the deed says one dwelling per 11 acres. One
dwelling per 11 acres. You could check it yourselves. You could take my word for it, but, you know what,
forget it. Check it yourselves. It says 11 acres, one dwelling only. Period. It’s black and white plus 1500
other pages that the deed came with. So there is nothing hidden in the paperwork. Now, names being
thrown around, that doesn’t even belong here. You gentlemen and ladies don’t have to be subject to that
kind of, I think it’s insulting. The first meeting that we were here, a week before that particular meeting, I
received the only letter on that block. I looked at that letter and I will rephrase what I said to you and Mr.
Inglee a week before. It says, Jeff, this cannot be, I would not like this to pass. I don’t think the Board
should pass it. It’s minimum five acres. I was under the impression it was ten, because right behind our
home it is ten. There’s an imaginary line that divides ten. Very good. Fine. So he assured me, he assured
me, that he would take care of that. That’s him. He’ll tell you what I said to him. That will never go
through, with a minimum five, but he said it was a mistake by Mr. VanDusen. Mr. VanDusen, I don’t know
who his name is, the son wasn’t there, at the time, so the father, that night, represented him. The father or
the company never measured one inch of that property. Never measured one inch of that property. That
property, when they showed up and Mr. Ringer, you asked him in the minutes, I remember this so well, are
you sure that that’s the best way to subdivide the land, and the man stood there, which is a known and very
known surveyor of the area, more than I would ever know, and he stood there and he answered you,
absolutely, absolutely. That night I was so hurt, because I lied to my wife, first of all, I said, yes, Jeff took care
of everything. I lied to my wife, when this started going, Jeff assured me that he would pipe up and say, no,
there’s been a mistake. We’ll come back next time. I have no problem with Mr. Inglee, and I’ll repeat this,
for him to build whatever he wants with a minimum of five acres, and if it hits in the ten acres, that’s fine.
That’s on the record. Whatever I said to people is exactly that. I didn’t force anybody in this room to come
up here. I did not pay them. I know them as good neighbors, most of them as friends, and if I can help
them in a time of need, like JoAnn let me put, I couldn’t go up Clendon Brook when we moved up here. She
let us park there. We tried ten times until we got smart, studded tires, the usual thing, okay, but at the same
time, that’s how strong I feel. I could have given my parents, family members, Jeff could have bought his
mother-in-law’s property if he wanted some more for his children, absolutely, it was right next to mine.
There’s 11 acres there. Eleven. I could have bought 50 acres, which would be Jeff’s 50 acres, but I say, no,
no need. Jeff always, Mr. Inglee in this case, always assured me that he was very worried that they would,
somebody would buy a house, I mean the property, and build a big colonial, and that would just be his luck.
My thought to him at the time was, you buy it. You buy it. That’s the only way you’re going to stop this
from happening. I need my mountain serenity. It took a while for him to buy it. It took a while. I thought
of it, but when it was presented to me, the day my closing, it was with another $30,000 that he paid. So he
paid, for the property, $30,000 less than it was presented to me. Today, I’ll tell you what, those $30,000 mean
nothing. I should have bought it. We wouldn’t be here. I assure you, I would never come to you and say, I
need to do this, I need to do that. It’s not happening. You check my property. What I’ve done is to try to
create space to put my things away and to have some kind of substantial life where I so richly deserve, after
working so hard. I know I look young and I am young, but I need serenity. I don’t preach. I do not preach
serenity, but I need it. Absolutely, the more the better. I’ve heard things like, the map and this and that.
There, the first meeting, be ware. The property was never measured, never. Those words came out of Mr.
Inglee himself. He knew that. The next day after the meeting, he comes up my driveway like nothing had
happened. He’s absolutely right. I gave him 20 seconds to leave my property. I don’t deal with people like
this. He deliberately lied to me, to his own, and this is becoming personal. I don’t want to get into that, but
it was to his benefit, and he did. So did he not say yes or no, no, no, at that point, yes, he’s absolutely right. I
threw him out of my property. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Anyone else? I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Can
we get you to come back up here?
MR. BROWN-I have a letter, Mr. Chairman, while they’re coming up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please.
MR. BROWN-It’s correspondence from William and Lisa Gereau, 32 Mountainview Lane, Queensbury. It’s
to Mrs. LaBombard. “Dear Mrs. LaBombard: We are writing to voice our concerns regarding the above-
proposed subdivision. As landowners on Tuthill Road, Clendon Brook Road and formerly Fuller Road, we
must insist that Mr. Inglee maintain the 5-acre zoning for his lots. We tried to explain the concept of Cluster
development to the public and the board, but neither understood the concept, all we kept hearing was 5 acre
zoning, it turns out that the 5 acre lots were a better solution to what our main concern was, to keep the rural
beauty up there. That’s how we would like to keep it. We have no objections to the subdivision as long as
the lots are at least 5 acres each. Thank you. Mr. & Mrs. William Gereau” And that’s it.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before we get into our question and answer mode here, I’d tell you I’m inclined to
table this tonight. I think there’s a lot of information we’re going to be looking for, but the question I have
for you is this web site advertisement. Did you see it, take a look at it?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I did see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you come to the same conclusion that I come to, just quickly looking through the
Ordinance books, that to do this on that parcel of land requires site plan review? I mean, I jumped in, 179-
15, and there’s two sections in there where it could possibly fall under a site plan review, and also under 179-
13 there’s a couple of different sections in there, both require site plan review, as rental property, whether it
be a group camp, whether it be a bed and breakfast, whether it be something along those lines?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I don’t think it’s a group camp. I don’t think it would be a bed and breakfast. I’m not
sure that’s really what we have in front of us tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Those are just a couple I threw out. There’s other ones in there.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think I can answer your question, though. If there were more than one cabin on this
property for rent, then I think it’s in violation of the Ordinance. If there are three separate parcels which are
proposed, currently, and each one had it’s own individual single family dwelling, all the supporting ancillary
features, water, septic, and they chose to rent those, that’s not something the Town’s going to regulate, what
you do with your private property. If it all happened on one property and it was a complex, if you will, that
would not be in compliance with the Ordinance. Does that answer your question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I have a question here. Where the ad says located on 60 acres on West Mountain
with plenty of room for the kids to tent camp. So, conceivably, you could put family members in the cabin
and you could have the kids up on the vista. You could have tents up and then they would just be.
MR. BROWN-Sure. Anybody could do the same thing on their property. You could put a tent or park a
camper trailer on your property. That’s not something the Town’s going to regulate, whether you can camp
on your property or not. If it’s a campground, and you have 50 people out there, and you’re charging them
to come on your property, that’s something different, but if you want to camp on your property, that’s not
something we’re going to regulate.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And if you want to rent it out, to let other people camp on it, that’s no problem?
MR. BROWN-That would be a problem. If you want to rent a cabin, and as the people come to rent the
cabin, they have a tent that they want to put up for the kids, that’s not a problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what this says.
MR. STEVES-And that’s not a problem.
MR. BROWN-And that’s not a problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s not a problem.
MR. BROWN-But if the 60 acres is now a 60 acre campground where you have 50 campsites, that’s a
problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s okay to have one campsite?
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. STEVES-I would think the way to maybe simplify it is that if it’s used like a single family residence is
used, a bed and breakfast has somebody that stays there, lives there, maintains the people almost like a hotel,
you know, they cook them a breakfast or they feed them a breakfast. This is just like anything else. If I
wanted to move to Colorado for a year and rent my house out, and the family that moved in had two
teenagers that wanted to camp in the backyard with a tent, is that any different than this? No, it is not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m just asking. I’m a little concerned that we didn’t learn about this from the
applicant. We had to learn about this from others.
MR. STEVES-Because of the fact that it is not a violation of any code of this Town, there is no reason.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It puts a different slant on things.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. STEVES-Not in front of this Board it doesn’t.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It doesn’t?
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Stop right there for a second. I have another question I wanted to ask
you, and I was going through the Ordinance book, and I couldn’t find it in here. What’s our requirements on
shared driveways?
MR. BROWN-What do you mean?
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as how many dwellings can use a shared driveway?
MR. BROWN-There’s no requirement for that. The requirement says if you have a, if you want to create a
lot in the Town of Queensbury, your lot has to have at least 40 feet on a Town road, and within that 40 feet,
you’re supposed to have your physical access to your property. There are certain zoning districts in Town,
actually not zoning districts. Certain roads and right of ways and streets and avenues, however they’re
labeled, that are considered arterial or collector roads, but if you have, if you propose a lot that fronts on one
of those roads, you have to have double the required lot frontage, or share a driveway, and I think that’s what
you’re getting at right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I thought there was some place, provision in the Subdivision Reg’s, that said
something to the affect that you couldn’t have more than two dwellings on one shared driveway, and I don’t
know why I think that.
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s probably in there, and I think the provision that says you have to have a shared
driveway if you don’t want to have double the frontage, allows you to do that. If you create a lot that doesn’t
have frontage on a Town road, that’s a violation, that needs a variance. So the lots are required to have the
frontage.
MR. STEVES-I can answer a few of the questions that were brought up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure.
MR. STEVES-Okay. First of all, Mr. Chairman, for your question, I am not positive, but I do believe in all
the other applications we have, in the past, with shared driveways, that that’s actually the State requires you to
have a homeowners association from four and up, for maintenance of the shared driveway, or a private road,
three and below is okay. Getting back to some of the questions from the neighbors, we’d like to try to
answer some of those. First of all, Mr. Inglee has been a resident of Tuthill Road for 26 years. He is
probably, I may be wrong, but I don’t believe anybody else that has come up tonight and spoke has been a
longer resident of Tuthill Road than Mr. Inglee, and everybody is talking about preserving the way of life on
Tuthill Road. He’s the pinnacle of that, if he’s been there for 26 years, and wants to stay there with his
family. I would hope some day in Queensbury that I would have room and a lot left for my children if they
wanted to live next to me. I don’t think that what we’re trying to do here is block out people in the Town of
Queensbury. Unfortunately, you know, there isn’t a lot of land left, but these people bought in a five acre
zone, thinking maybe that they had to have five acres, and not reading into the Zoning Regulations that says,
in the five acre zone, a one acre minimum is required. We’re not going outside of the zoning of the Town of
Queensbury. I have a couple of other things that were brought up, as far as property to the south. There was
a previous subdivision of the entire Mrs. Smith property that was actually acquired from portions of surveys
we had done back in the 60’s and 70’s. That was done by Northeast Land Surveying, and at that time, when I
acquired that map, which this lot that Mr. Inglee is developing is one of those two lots that Mrs. Smith had
subdivide, and it was completely surveyed, no questions about it, okay. It was also tied into the maps that I
have done, and my father has done in the past. So I can assure you that it was measured accurately and that it
is a surveyed property. Going back to the neighbor, I apologize for that. We referenced the map on file, and
I have microfilm in my office from past deeds. We are required to show lands now or formerly, which we
did. In the past, we had to obtain all the names of the surrounding owners to send out notifications. It is
now the responsibility of the Town. I meant, in no way, to disrespect anybody. I would gladly change the
map to place her name on it. As far as the area in Luzerne, that another member brought up, or another
person in the audience, I would gladly contact the Town of Luzerne Planning Board and tell them what we’re
trying to accomplish here, and have a letter or some kind of action taken from them that says that that must
be not developed by their standards, also. I would gladly approach them. Mr. Inglee has no intent
whatsoever to purchase other land, to get an easement to it, to develop it in any other way except for the fact
of the three homes we are proposing. The septic on Lot One is shown for geographic purposes for
separation distances. I was slightly in error trying to figure out where it was, when I was up there, and he says
it’s located more in the front of the cabin, which would be farther away from the two wells and septics that
we are proposing. As far as the C.T. Male review, we would gladly give you some more detail as far as
grading and drainage on the driveway and on the lots, and let you submit that to C.T. Male. As far as moving
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
the driveway slightly to accommodate Mrs. Gomes, I talked to Mr. Inglee and he doesn’t have a problem with
that. We would gladly do that. If she would like us to move that slightly back to the area that is cleared to
the north of the existing drive, where it comes close to her property, he is willing to do that. Everybody is
talking about two structures. There are a couple of people that named two structures. There’s only one
structure on this parcel. The other structure is Mr. Inglee’s current residence that sits on approximately 8.6
acres on the other side of the road. So I don’t want to get that confused. We’re not looking at two structures
on this lot and adding five. We’re talking about one structure and adding two. Now the wetlands were
located, and if they weren’t, I don’t know why I’d have a letter from Mr. Rooks of the APA. Matt Steves,
“Dear Matt: I visited the above referenced site with your father on November 15. We also met Mr. Inglee’s
th
son there. We saw a couple of jurisdictional wetlands on the property. None of them should be effected by
the area of proposed construction. That’s why they flagged that area. Yes there’s areas on the other side of
that stream that continue to the north that are wetland, but they are farther away from our proposed
development than it was required to have flagging, and I have that letter from the APA. I will gladly supply a
copy. Don Smith of the APA is not a review officer. He’s an enforcement agent. So therefore if there is an
officer from the APA that would be getting involved, it would not be Don Smith. As far as clustering, again,
the RR-5 Acre allows you to go down to a one acre minimum, and that’s what we have proposed. A couple
of people have mentioned substantial changes to the property or to the plan. Lot One was 1.92 acres on the
original application and is now 1.92 acres. Lot Two was 2.37 acres, and has now gone up to 3.41 acres.
There was a slight modification because at the time we came in for conceptual, and my father was here
discussing that. At the time of conceptual, not a lot of fieldwork is performed, as far as topography and
location. There’s a lot of money to spend before we know whether or not the conceptual idea of a three lot
subdivision is suitable to this Board, and as you know, that happens more times than not, and Mr. Inglee is
not a developer to be able to go and spend that kind of money until he knows that it is something that this
Board has an inkling that they would like to see, with some kind of basic information. Upon further
investigation, we went up and actually located the road, the clearing and the wetlands and the pond. Then we
had to reconfigure slightly to accommodate that. The clearing that was shown and thought was to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I just interject a quick thought here? Just to put it on the record, your comment that
you just made regarding the conceptual ideas and kind of giving the perception that the Board would
entertain an approval of such a subdivision in any way, shape or form shouldn’t be construed.
MR. STEVES-No, I’m not saying that you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because we give a conceptual green light, so to speak, for you to go ahead, or anybody to
go ahead, and make a preliminary application is in no way guaranteeing that you’ll get an approval for a
subdivision, or anybody else.
MR. STEVES-And I never stated that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to be clear on that.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I appreciate that, and again, okay, to reiterate, we have, as far as density, you have 25
acres in Queensbury in the 10 acre zone. That would allow you two lots. You have six acres in the five acre
lot. That would allow you one lot. We are proposing three lots, and we are allowed by zoning three lots. So
we’re not asking for anymore than we can get by zoning. We’re not asking for a re-zoning. As far as Tom
Nace, he’s an engineer that is an independent engineer that works out of my building. I do a lot of work with
him because I think he is the most practical and best civil engineer that I’ve ever worked with, and I would
gladly involve him in this, but if somebody thinks I have some kind of a relationship that I shouldn’t have
with him, I don’t know why, I would gladly entertain another engineer, but against my better judgment. As
far as the property, if this was approved, he would immediately deed it over to his children. As far as the use
of that building now, his children are 19, 20 and 22. Some of them in college, some of them studying to be
what they’re going to be in their professional career, and he’s just trying to supplement some money to help
them along until such time as they are old enough to build their own home. I don’t think at 19 years old you
expect too many people to be able to build their own home, but he wants to have a lot, when they are ready,
that they can build their own home, and that he would gladly, like I say, convey that to them immediately. As
far as the comment, as far as the driveway, you tell us what direction you would like to see, and I will get
somebody else up there, but the key factor here, when Mr. Salvador says hogwash, is that’s the person that is
responsible for the maintenance and fire prevention. I don’t know what other authority would be higher than
him because he’s the one that has to respond, but you tell me, give us some direction, and we will gladly get
somebody else up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have all the questions been answered, that you had on your list?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Let me see. One of them was the fact that, should an engineer, Mrs. Gomes didn’t
feel that an engineer had reviewed the project, and you referred to that.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the story with the alternate plan?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. There was, yes, the alternate, do we intend to request an alternate plan for a
cluster subdivision.
MR. STEVES-For showing two lots in the 10 acre zone and one in the five, we could provide one, but that
would mean, like we stated why we’re coming in for the cluster is not to try to get two houses up on the
slopes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to tell you, Matt, from the Subdivision Reg’s and the definition of a cluster, this
doesn’t meet a cluster. All you have to do is read the definition of Cluster, and this doesn’t meet it. You
assume the fact it’s a cluster because of the size of the acreage that you have available and because you’re
putting these proposed lots on smaller parcels, or not utilizing the entire acreage of the property, but that’s
not what necessarily the provisions of clustering is.
MR. STEVES-That’s absolutely what cluster is for, in my opinion, and I respectfully have no problem with
differences of opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-“The purpose of the cluster provision is to encourage flexibility in the design and
development of land in order to promote its most environmentally sensitive use to facilitate the adequate and
economical provisions of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open space and to
encourage compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” What you’ve
got up there in my opinion doesn’t meet the clustering provision.
MR. STEVES-On April 17, motion for the five lot down to three lots, and that that waiver is against
th
Subdivision Regulations 183-24 for Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 3-2001, Jeffrey Inglee, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough, and there were no, no votes and all
yeses.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. We’re all allowed to change our minds once we start reviewing things
because the plan that we have in front of us tonight is not the same one that that was here in April.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I wanted to ask. What is the different application?
MR. STEVES-The difference in the application is the location of the upper house.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where was Lot Three previous to this?
MR. STEVES-Lot Three was basically where it is now, except it was at an angle running to the northwest of
Lot Two, what is cut off, I should say, and the house was placed closer to Lot Two, not knowing at the time,
without doing all the fieldwork, where exactly that clearing was, and I could understand the Board, if we were
asking to extend a new driveway up there, but we’re talking about the existing drive with the existing clearing.
MR. VOLLARO-So the third house was north of the property line of Lot Number Two?
MR. STEVES-It was that north, or basically due west of that, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Due west of it. I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess was one of my big concerns, too, was the, and quite frankly I find the location of
the third house on Lot Three to be a pretty dramatic change from the preliminary conceptual plans that I
reviewed. I mean, I didn’t pull out a ruler, but the location of the house is moved by six or seven hundred
feet.
MR. STEVES-Like I said it was intended to be at the existing clearing. There hasn’t been any new
construction (lost word) clearing, and just, now we know exactly where it is by location. Like I said, it was
always stated that we wanted to utilize the existing drive and place a building at the top of that existing drive.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, but, just going back, the location of the house on Lot Three was the
primary reason why I asked the question about this being cluster development.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve kind of come up with a laundry list of things I’m looking for here, and I don’t
know what everybody else is looking for, but I’ll throw out what I’m looking for. I want to see a stormwater
management plan for one. Two, I want to see C.T. Male review this entire subdivision application. I’d like to
see an alternate plan, based on what the zoning allows now, without your spin on clustering. I think we got
the wetlands issue fine with that. I was going to ask that they be delineated, but your letter from the APA is
fine for me. We got the question answered on the shared driveways, and for my own self I’m going to look
up in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this neighborhood and see exactly what we’ve got here what they
spell out, what they’re looking for, what they’re trying to accomplish in that Plan. Is there other things that
members are looking for that I may not have hit on? I mean, we could sit here and talk about this thing until
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
one o’clock in the morning, and I don’t think that’s going to be beneficial to anybody. I think we need to
send them on their way to get some answers for us that we’re going to be wanting.
MR. STROUGH-I just wanted to cut to the chase. I mean, if I’m reading the Board, the public, and the
applicant, I think we’re going to end up with basically a two lot subdivision. One’s going to be 5.33 acres and
the other one’s going to be up above, I think you’d be allowed to develop both. Now the driveway has issues
with it, but then again, you know, as a private landowner, you assume some risk on your own, and I’ve seen
worse driveways. The landowner is willing to move the driveway away from the adjacent property owner.
It’s a give and take. It’s a compromise. It’s not going to leave anybody happy, but I think that’s what we’re
going to come down to when it comes to the bottom line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any additional information you’re looking for?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I have my, just my list, and you covered some of them. Certainly if the applicant were
willing to go down to a two acre, two lot subdivision, some of the criteria that I have listed here wouldn’t be
as stringent, a stormwater management plan. I agree with the guttered part on the houses. I don’t see the
necessary reason for the rest of it, but I’d be willing to go along with the Board if that was their position, and
of course we have the easements, and if we go to a two lot subdivision, that would make that easier, and
clearing limits, I think it would make the public a little more at ease if the applicant showed clearing limits
when he returned.
MR. VOLLARO-John, I don’t mean to interrupt. If I could ask a question. On the two lot subdivision, you
want to combine Lot One and Two into one lot?
MR. STROUGH-I think that makes sense to me.
MR. VOLLARO-And then in the LC-10 area, have another lot. Is that what you’re proposing?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, did you want to chime in?
MR. BROWN-Well, when you’re done I have a couple of things.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And the applicant gets some of what he wants, which is to have two lots, versus one, and
he can build on his upper lot, which seems to be his dream. That’s fine, and the lower lot can be reserved for
at least one other family member, and it’s not going to make him entirely happy, and it’s not going to make
the public entirely happy, but it kind of slices down the middle here.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, just a minute ago I looked at the subdivision that we were given in April 17 of this
th
year, and it shows the house that’s now way up on the hill, to be below the LC-10 line.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I saw that, but, you know, that’s kind of behind us. That’s the way I look at it.
I’m looking at what we’ve got now, what we have to deal with, and what might work, and combining Lots
One and Two as they’re currently designed does make it 5.33 acres, and so that meets zoning, and the above
lot certainly meets zoning, and the applicant can do some but not all of what he’d like to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, anything you want to say?
MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s interesting that the APA also has the right to ask for an alternate plan. That’s kind
of interesting. I noticed that that came up in Mrs. Gomes’ comments, and I think that the APA ought to be
looking at this from their own point of view as an alternate plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything, Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing, other than the applicant should decide, if he can’t get the clustering, does he want to
go ahead with whatever he wants to do. If you’re going to be having quite an expense, and it doesn’t look
like you’re going to get that clustering, just looking at the Board.
MR. INGLEE-I think if that was the last resort, I would not have a problem with that, but while I’m
speaking, I’d just like to clarify one thing here, in regards to Mr. Quindazzi’s remark. Cathy put him in check
because he put words in her mouth and noted that she said it was an eyesore, the trailer. One of the last
things he came up here and said was that Mr. Inglee told me, quote unquote, that his kids were more
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
important than the integrity of the mountain. My children were sitting right there when I said to him, quote
unquote, I have lost some friends because of this, but my children’s future and happiness is more important
to me than friends, not the integrity of the mountain. The integrity of the mountain is something, I’ve been
up there for 26 years, and my land and my kids are my life. I have worked very diligently to turn this piece of
property into everything that it could possibly be, and I cannot help but think that we’re dealing with a
would’ve, could’ve, should’ve syndrome here. Mr. Gomes told you in his own words, I should have bought
that land. Well, I bought the land and now I want to turn it into everything that it has the potential to be, and
I would just love the opportunity of being able to give my children a piece of my property. I’m not a man of
money. I run a little small contracting company. I cannot help my children with their college. They’re doing
this all on their own. They’re paying their own college loans off. The only thing I can give my kids is my is
my land, and that’s important to me. I just wanted to clear that up.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only other issue I’m struggling with is this issue of emergency access and I don’t
know how to tackle. I’ve got to be honest with you. I’m not all that convinced by the letter you got from the
fire chief over in West Glens Falls. Short of taking a pumper truck, filling it up with water, and driving it up
there in the middle of February, with an inch of snow on the ground, to prove it could go up there, I don’t
know if that’s even a viable alternative. I guess maybe I’m going to ask Staff to defer it to the Fire Marshal to
see if he has any suggestions.
MR. RINGER-The Fire Marshal, I can answer that for you. The Fire Marshal won’t get involved in that.
That’s the fire company. He won’t touch it.
MR. BROWN-No, and if you’re all set, I have a, well, go ahead, John.
MR. STROUGH-Well, another thing to consider is, anybody that lives up on a mountain, and I’ve lived here
all my life, takes upon themselves a certain assumption of risk. I mean, you refer to the Cormus property, the
trucks couldn’t get up there. It was in the winter, and prior to this curb, maintenance of the roads that we’re
now getting up there, and they weren’t cared for as they are now, and fire trucks just didn’t get up the
mountain, and there are times even with a good care of the roads that we do, there’s assumption of risk of
anybody that lives on a mountain. Everybody that lives on a mountain knows there’s a certain assumption of
risk. So the driveway I think is kind of.
MR. RINGER-I think you’re talking different a road than a driveway, John.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I’m just saying there’s a certain assumption of risk.
MR. RINGER-They have to assume responsibility for themselves, but we have to assume responsibility for
the people responding up that mountain, perhaps with a tanker or a ladder or tower, whatever the case may
be.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d have to agree with you, Larry. There’s a little bit of both.
MR. RINGER-I just have a tremendous amount of difficulty whenever I see these.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve seen worse. I’ve seen better.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that doesn’t mean that we should just rest our laurels on one letter. I’m open to
suggestions. Maybe other ideas on how to evaluate whether that would be a sound approach for emergency
access, or whether, you know, I men, he’s trying to bolster his position that it’s okay and he can do that and
part of what he needs to prove to me anyway is that that’s not going to be a potential for a hazard for
emergency access to get up there, and how do we achieve that, and I’m not comfortable with one letter from
a fire chief. I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-Could Staff write a letter to the other, any other fire companies, or two other fire
companies and ask for assistance in this area?
MR. RINGER-I can answer that one for you, too.
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is, no.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely. No chief would go into another district and make a comment, absolutely not.
MR. BROWN-We could solicit comment from anybody. I’m not sure it would be a productive exercise.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m open to ideas here.
MR. BROWN-I have a couple of suggestions, but I think, and I know it’s late and I hate to go backwards, but
I think we have to go backwards a quick step here. Before we send the applicant off with a laundry list of
things to do and bring back to you, I think you need to make the decision, are you going to continue to
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
review this as a cluster, or are you going to find that it’s not a cluster and require them to do some other type
of subdivision? And if that’s the case, you need to make that decision before you send them off and say,
okay, bring me all this stuff back so I can review this as a cluster. You don’t want to have them come back
and say, you know, we’ve got this new information, we don’t think it’s a cluster now. You need to make, it’s
not an easy choice to make now, but I think you have to make that decision, before you send them off under
the premise that you’re going to review it as a cluster when they come back.
MR. VOLLARO-Can you give us a copy of your letter on the cluster?
MR. BROWN-It’s actually a letter that I helped Laura author, that it’s in the file, I can certainly give you a
copy or read it to you, for the record tonight, or however you want to do it, but basically was the Staff’s
position that the concept subdivision, I think it was either Sketch or Sketch and Preliminary, however it was
originally presented, didn’t appear to meet the requirements of the cluster provisions, and we got into several
of the same topics we talked about tonight, number of lots, acreage, minimum requirements per the
Ordinance. So that’s the paraphrase of the letter, but I think that’s the first step you have to make before we
send them away with a bunch of information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you need a formal resolution on that?
MR. BROWN-You need to either, you know, it’s been addressed. It’s been identified by both the public, the
Board and the applicant. So you either need to, probably I would say reaffirm your findings from before, or
make another decision, in light of new information, or however you want to do it, but like I said, I think
before you send them away with a request for more information, you need to give them clear direction as to
where you’re going to go with this.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, what I’ve seen up there on that map right now does
not, in my mind represent clustering, and I don’t want to advance on this. I’d rather see an alternate plan of a
standard subdivision. That’s my position. I don’t know how everybody else feels. Let’s go right down the
line.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve stated my opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-Basically a two lot subdivision is where you’re at.
MR. STROUGH-I think that’s the only thing that’s going to make the least people unhappy, but it’s a
solution, and it’s not going to make everybody happy, but it’s a solution. I’d go with two lots and allowing,
you know, I’m willing to review that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I raised the question earlier, during the question and answer, and in my mind, the
way this is currently designed does not meet, I mean, I was willing to give a little leeway the last time, on the
five lot limit, because of the way it was designed, but with the current design, I don’t think that meets the
intent at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t want to say this, but I’ve educated three children. They’re a little bit older
than your three children, but if this is going to stay the Inglee compound, you know, I might be able to see
your point of view, and I think that it’s great that you want to give your children these lots, except their
likelihood of coming back to Queensbury with their professions is so remote, and so what may happen is,
great, dad, you gave us this awesome land. Do you know how much I can unload this for now? Ten years
from now? And my spouse doesn’t want to live here. She’s now an attorney, or she’s working in the stock
market on Wall Street, whatever, or he is. God, I can unload this and we can really set up a nice spot some
place else. See, this is where it’s not going to be the Inglee compound for that much longer, and as all well
intentioned as your children are, commonsense tells you that they would love to come back to Queensbury,
but the likelihood of them finding those kinds of jobs, meeting a spouse or somebody that’s going to want to
come back with them is so remote, even though I’m not going to say it won’t happen, and it’s wonderful that
they would want to do that, but, see, because I don’t believe it’s going to be able to stay the whole Inglee
family, then I have to go the other way.
MR. INGLEE-May I respond to that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure, and, Jeff, I’m not saying this to be mean. I’m just saying it to be realistic. It’s a
great thing to have, I mean, to help pay off your college loans and start a business some place else or
whatever, but that’s it. I’ve said too much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Based on the fact that this is such, in my view, a different proposal than what we
looked at back in April, I’d go along, pretty much, with what Mr. Strough is saying. Number One, a two lot
subdivision, or, as the Chairman has said, let’s take a look at this as a subdivision based upon the current
zoning. The way it’s laid out now is nowhere near the way it was laid out on April 17, 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I feel that the cluster is not appropriate here also, based on the changes here, and I would
suggest an alternate plan, rather that’s a two lot subdivision, or a three lot subdivision if you could fit it in
there, but not a cluster.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s your answer.
MR. STEVES-Can we think about it for a minute here, before we answer that?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no answer to give us. We’re not interested in reviewing this any further as a
cluster development.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Our interest is to look at this as a straightforward subdivision, based on the Zoning
Ordinance.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-If I could, and maybe this is just a technical question, but since you granted a waiver by
resolution, I think for the file, to make it complete, you should, if you want to not give them the waiver, you
should also make that part of the record by resolution as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone like to introduce a motion to that effect?
MR. BROWN-You may find some verbiage in the intent of waivers, however you want to word it. I think
Mr. Vollaro’s on the right track, though.
MR. RINGER-Can we table this and get Counsel to advise us on how to do this, until January? That might
be a better solution. So we’re on surer ground.
MR. BROWN-Well, you can, but I don’t think you’re that far away.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think all you have to do is just basically, let’s take five minutes, and all you have to do is
just pull out the minutes you’ve got there and what was passed back in April, and just reverse what was done
in April, and that’ll give you your five minutes to confer, here, and we’ll take five minutes. I’ll call the meeting
back to order. Do we have a motion prepared, Mr. Vollaro?
MOTION TO RESCIND THE MOTION OF APRIL 17, 2001 CONCERNING SUBDIVISION 3-
2001 FOR JEFF INGLEE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Strough:
The reason for this action is that the Preliminary subdivision presented to this Board on December 20, 2001
is significantly different from the previous submission of April 17, 2001.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, you’ve had a few minutes to confer.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I talked to my client, and we will go back and take a look at creating three lots in a
conventional subdivision, leaving five acre minimum on the lower, in the five acre zone, and two (10) ten acre
lots in the upper lot, and see if that works, and if it doesn’t, we will come back with a two lot subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to put two 10 acre lots up in the LC-10 zone, is that what you’re saying?
MR. STEVES-Yes. You would combine Lots One and Two into one lot, which would be five acres in a five
acre zone.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-5.33, yes.
MR. STEVES-Have basically your 100 feet of frontage for two 50 foot accesses to continue up, and then split
off, and then you could really put two houses up in that cleared area, and have over 10 acres with each one.
MR. VOLLARO-Which would be serviced by that road?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Or the B Plan would be a two lot subdivision.
MR. STEVES-Right. Five acres with the existing cabin or existing home, and then the remainder of it being
the second lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bear in mind, what I’m hearing tonight from fellow Board members, they’re going to be
more receptive to a two lot subdivision.
MR. STEVES-We understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. BROWN-Do you want to make a motion to table, then?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have a motion to table. Does someone want to introduce it, please?
MR. BROWN-I’ve got a list of stuff.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a list?
MR. BROWN-Well, if it’s not in there, I’ll maybe add it if you want.
MR. MAC EWAN-You were working on a list down there, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-My list got real short. I’m still looking for a stormwater management plan and erosion
control plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that’s (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we were looking for before was a clearing, grading, drainage and erosion control,
and that was what we had in our previous motion. Those are the things we expected tonight, which I think
we got in this form.
MR. STROUGH-Stormwater, clearing plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Grading plan.
MR. STROUGH-Grading plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Drainage and erosion control.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if we had any APA issues we had to deal with.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the APA apparently has the right to ask for an alternate plan, but I don’t think, right
now we’re proposing that the applicant submit an alternate plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the other thing is, typically they won’t act on something until the local Board
does.
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they won’t do anything.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s nothing that they’ll get in the middle of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what they do, it will be part and parcel from what we do. I mean, they’re on a whole
different agenda.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. BROWN-What you may want to get from them, though, is an actual jurisdictional letter, whether it’s
jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional, and that’s an easy thing to get from them. However, if their plan changes
significantly, they may have to kind of start all over with them again, too. It sounds like that’s what is going
to happen here. That plan’s going to change. So the letter they have may not apply to their new application.
MR. STEVES-As long as we don’t go any closer to the wetlands or it’s a reduction, I don’t think there’d be a
problem, but we would review that with the APA.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m still tussling with the idea of emergency access. I don’t know how to achieve that.
MR. BROWN-My suggestion would be to have an opinion rendered by an engineer, and then have the Town
engineer review that position.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-That would come under the driveway grade plan?
MR. BROWN-I think you could lump it altogether with that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, basically what you’re looking for is a stormwater management plan, a driveway grade
plan, a clearing plan and a C.T. Male review.
MR. BROWN-An APA jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional letter. Somebody had mentioned before about the
proposed deeds, covenants, road maintenance issues.
MR. STROUGH-We could make that as conditions.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine. I’m just trying to do this now, and not think you’re going to get it next
time, and somebody talked about a drive relocation buffer. Is that still an issue that’s going to have to be
folded into the new plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-It was on this one. If he comes back in with another plan at Preliminary, before we go on
to Final, we could address those issues, too. I think we want to get the meat of it out of the way.
MR. STROUGH-I think the applicant’s going to address that issue on the driveway when he comes back to
us, because he knows that in order to make his neighbors happy, he’ll move it over. So when he comes back
to us with a driveway plan, I think that would be in it, because that’s understood. So you want a stormwater
management plan, driveway plan, clearing plan, an APA jurisdictional letter.
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds like you’ve covered it to me, John. Why don’t you take it through.
MR. BROWN-You said an alternate plan, right? Is that what you’re tabling it for, so they can come back
with an alternate plan with this information.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2001, JEFF INGLEE, Introduced by John Strough
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
To allow the applicant to return with an alternate plan, and the applicant will provide the following
information with his alternate plan: A Stormwater Management Plan, Driveway Plan, Clearing Plan, C.T.
Male will review the applicant’s engineer’s submission and APA jurisdictional letter. The plan we’re looking
for is based on the current zoning.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, guys. Good luck.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll notify you regarding Takundewide.
MR. SALVADOR-Do you think they saw a firestorm coming?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I saw a late hour coming. Any other business?
MR. RINGER-Next month we’ve got site visits on the 12.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Next month, regular scheduled meetings are going to be the 15 and the 22. Site visits
thnd
are on the 12. If it is okay with everyone, let’s shoot for either January 8 or January 10 to have that
ththth
special meeting with Takundewide in a workshop. Do it downstairs. Okay, and I’ll leave that up to you to
do, so you’ll get a hold of Counsel and make sure that they can either attend the 8 or the 10, whichever’s
thth
flexible for them. So then you guys pencil in two dates. I think Tuesday is probably going to be the better
day because I believe that’s when Counsel’s available, because they’re in some other Township doing their
thing. What else have we got?
MR. STROUGH-I’m going for my haircut tomorrow. What do you want me to tell Mary Lee?
MR. MAC EWAN-At this point the answer’s probably going to be nothing’s going to happen until the Town
Board sees fit that they’re going to do things, and what I’m understanding the Town Board is considering is
expanding the role of exactly what the Beautification Committee would do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we adjourn?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I second it.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
65