2003-12-16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
LARRY RINGER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 21, 2003: NONE
October 28, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, AND OCTOBER 28, 2003,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS – MODIFICATIONS
SITE PLAN NO. 34-2003 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S.,
M.S.D. PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK DE SANTIS, BAY ASSOCIATES AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC ZONE: PO LOCATION: 16 HUNTER BROOK
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN
FOR A DENTAL OFFICE. SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE AN APPROVAL OF
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 5-1989 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-4 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-020
ROBERT SHARP, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Just a brief summary. The applicant proposes to modify the landscaping portion
of Site Plan 34-2003, replacing some previous cedar bushes with some burning bush and some
arborvitae, and some minor additions, minor changes, I guess I should say. The only thing is
the timing of the planting. The applicant stated that the plantings will have to wait until spring,
and obviously with the weather they’ll have to wait until spring. So I guess you’d probably
want to nail down and put some kind of stipulation in specifying a time period when all
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
landscaping would be installed, I guess Staff would suggest within six months of any approval
this evening, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone here representing the applicant?
DR. SHARP-We had intended to try to do some of the planting this fall, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, could you tell us who you are, please.
DR. SHARP-I’m Robert Sharp, applicant for the modification. We were going to do some of our
planting this fall, but as it turned out things ran too late, and when we went, actually we were
going to do it and the nursery said they don’t have the stock anyway and couldn’t get it until
spring. So that pretty much eliminated that, and I had talked with George, and realizing I kind
of wanted to change some things, but because of the timing we were just going to go ahead and
plant when it was scheduled, even though I thought there was reason for a change, but as it
turns out, we couldn’t get the stock anyway. So we’re going to have to wait until springtime.
Some of the reasons for the change were the fact that the globe blue spruces that were planted,
or scheduled, were pretty much arranged geometrically in a straight line up the property line,
which put some of them in right next to some of the existing trees. So that didn’t seem to make
a lot of sense. So we kind of, we’re working with Mead’s and Diane at Mead’s made some
suggestions for grouping in groups of three rather than putting them just randomly as they
were scheduled originally, and then we thought it would be nice to have some color. So we
thought, well, why don’t we substitute some of the, substitute rather burning bushes for some
of the globe blue spruces. So that’s why that was on, and as Diane suggested, the globe blue
spruce is a rather short shrub and doesn’t really provide a lot of barrier in terms of height.
Granted it’s a better, maybe a better barrier in the winter because the burning bushes lose their
leaves, but otherwise the burning bush is actually a better barrier and grows to, I think six or
eight feet in height. We also had a Colorado Blue Spruce scheduled in a wedge between the
two parking areas and the wedge is relatively small and it’s a tree that approaches a height of 60
feet and we thought that was kind of inappropriate for that area. So that’s why we suggested,
or are suggesting a couple of arborvitaes instead that can be manicured and maintained at a
specific height and shape, and there’s also a lamppost scheduled right on that wedge on the
point there. So that was another reason I didn’t think blue spruce was too appropriate there.
On the Bay Road side, I think those trees had already been changed when this was approved
the first time around. We’d had some spruces there and those have already been changed to
red maples, I believe. However, the notes for the meeting note we saved a clump of natural
trees there at the southwest corner. So we would like permission to leave those in lieu of
planting the blue spruce in that area, particular area, and so that’s pretty much the thinking of
why we’re suggesting the changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is when we approved this there was some
discussion that you had with the neighbor to the north, the house on Bay Road. I just
wondered, now that the project is under construction, if there was any further discussion with
them?
DR. SHARP-No. They’re, in fact we just talked two or three weeks ago about them putting a
fence up to confine their dog because they’re having a problem with their dog running, I guess,
the townhouses, and I said it was fine to put a fence, they’re actually going to put a fence over
on my property, so we already talked about that, but they still don’t want anymore trees
planted. They feel there’s plenty of trees there already.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
DR. SHARP-Yes. We have a pretty cordial relationship towards them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I guess I have a couple. The drawing we got here is dated 7/24 is the last
revision issued for construction. I guess I’m not entirely clear with the markings on this
drawing. I see the color coding on the bottom of the drawing and so on, but I’m not absolutely
clear as to what it’s going to look like when it’s all done, and what are we really approving? I
mean, we’re approving some words, but I don’t know what it’s going to actually look like. This
drawing is not what it’s going to look like. There’s going to be some changes here.
DR. SHARP-Well, no, this is the anticipated completed planting, landscape plan. The blue
spruce, the globe blue spruces are the blue ones, and three of those we left. There were actually
nine right up the property line there at the upper most border. Two of them ended up right
next to the existing, I think those are white pines in there now. There’s actually not as much
room. Some of these existing plantings look small. They’re actually much larger than that.
MR. VOLLARO-Now you’ve got this globe blue spruce and then right alongside of it, I guess,
from the color code we’re looking at some burning bush.
DR. SHARP-Yes. The red ones are the burning bushes.
MR. VOLLARO-The red ones are.
DR. SHARP-Diane from Mead’s suggested that clump, grouping like that would actually form a
better barrier than spreading them out. They were spread out probably 20 feet, a four foot
shrub 20 feet apart doesn’t really accomplish too much. That was the thinking on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not the planting man on this Board. So I’ll defer and say it’s okay for
me. I’ll buy it as it is, I guess. I would just like to see a drawing finalized that has what’s going
to be, and you’re saying that with the exception of that Colorado Blue Spruce, that’s going.
That’s on the drawing but you’re not going to leave it there.
DR. SHARP-Yes. We’re going to substitute two arborvitae that, you know, are smaller in
dimension and can be maintained without getting out of hand and hanging over the parking
area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, there’s two of those Colorado Blue’s, right?
DR. SHARP-Yes, there’s two. Well, let’s see.
MR. VOLLARO-One there and one someplace else on the drawing here.
DR. SHARP-Yes. One right in front of the parking area on the right. There’s one there, and
then one on the, well, in front of the other parking area. Those are the two Colorado Blue
Spruces. It is a little hard to follow these diagrams. I have to agree with you, but there will still
be two Colorado Blue Spruce.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes.
MR. RINGER-That’s it, Bob? Okay. Anybody else got anything?
MR. METIVIER-I just want to make a comment. That building itself looks beautiful.
DR. SHARP-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-Those copulas are gorgeous on it.
DR. SHARP-That was the best investment I made in the whole building.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. METIVIER-Well, I can’t imagine how much money you spent on them, but they’re
beautiful.
DR. SHARP-They actually weren’t that bad. We got them in Amish Country in Pennsylvania.
They’re beautifully made.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, they are.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I was a bit confused by this plan as well. Now, it does show existing tree
group, and I understand some of that is to remain.
DR. SHARP-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But I don’t see where it’s delineated as to what’s to remain.
DR. SHARP-Well, it isn’t. That wavy line is kind of the original outline of where the planting
was, and basically if you see where it says existing tree group and an arrow pointing down. It’s
right in that corner of the lot, and actually some of the trees are over the lot line onto the
neighboring lot, but it’s that corner, probably within about 30 to 40 feet from the building they
start. It’s a group, I would guess, that’s about probably 20 feet in diameter, roughly.
MR. STROUGH-Then what’s currently there right now remains?
DR. SHARP-Yes. All that’s to be, one of them got hit with a bulldozer and bent over a little bit.
We’re going to try to straighten that up again.
MR. STROUGH-Now, another question I have, what are the rectangular boxes on the northern
end of the parking area?
DR. SHARP-Those are infiltrators.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
DR. SHARP-And I have had a little concern with that myself. I don’t know what’s going to
happen when the roots grow into those, ten years down the road, from all the planting. I’ve
been concerned with that right from the start.
MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s sometimes two reasons why we go with the blue spruces where
we originally had them proposed.
DR. SHARP-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-They provide better screening for headlight wash, and they provide better
aesthetic screening of the parking area. Now, the burning bush, they’re nice, during the spring
and summer, but the fall and winter they don’t provide much of the screening that we usually
look for when we’re trying to screen a residential area from a commercial.
DR. SHARP-Yes. No, I realize that. However, you know, there still will be some globe blue
spruces. There’ll be some white pines, and (lost words) a lot of evergreens going to be there,
too. So, but you’re right. I mean, I agree with you. During the summer, I think they’re a better
barrier, or will be a better barrier because they’re bigger, you know, cover a wider area, and
they have leaves on them. The other thing to be considered is we only work until five o’clock at
night. So we’re not an evening type dental practice.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That’s true. That’s a mitigating situation. Yes, well, you know, it’s less
than perfect, and it’s not what I would have preferred, but I don’t have any, it’s not a deal
breaker for me.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
DR. SHARP-We tried to make it denser in front of the parking spaces, denser vegetation.
There’s actually a fairly good barrier there already, I know, without, when you look at this, it
doesn’t look like much of a barrier, but the trees that are existing are larger than what they
show here.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. You mean the white pines?
DR. SHARP-Yes. They’re really. They’re like eight feet across or more. They’re pretty husky.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anybody want to introduce the motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 34-2003 ROBERT E.
SHARP, D.D.S., M.S.D., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 34-2003 Applicant: Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D.
Previous SEQR Property Owner: Frank DeSantis, Bay Associates
Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC
MODIFICATION Zone: PO
Location: 16 Hunter Brook Lane
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan for a dental office. Site
Plan Modifications require an approval of the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SUB 5-1989
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-4
Lot size: 1.31 acres / Section: 179-9-020
Public Hearing: Not required for modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/17/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/12/03, and
12/16 Staff Notes
12/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. That what we’re approving on the modifications to Drawing C-5, with the latest date on
it of 7/24/03.
2. It’s duly marked up by the color code to show where the new trees will be.
3. That the trees that are currently standing in the southeast corner will remain as is.
4. The plantings of the new trees and shrubs must be completed within six (6) months of
the date of this modification approval.
Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
DR. SHARP-Could I ask one question of the Board? We had wanted to occupy the building
perhaps in March. How does that work as far as getting a CO? Can we occupy the building
before the plantings are completed?
MR. RINGER-Yes. You won’t have any trouble, but because of the way we worded the
resolution, you will have to have your plantings, you’ll get your CO, but your plantings will
have to be completed by June or you’ll be in violation.
DR. SHARP-Yes. Okay.
MR. RINGER-So you won’t have any trouble with that.
DR. SHARP-Yes. All right. Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 SEQRA TYPE II MODIFICATION STEWART’S AGENT:
BRANDON MYERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT GAS ISLANDS FROM 2 PUMPS AND A 24’ X 32’
CANOPY TO 3 PUMPS AND A 20’ X 60’ CANOPY. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWED USE
IN THE NC-1A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO.
266.3-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-The applicant, as requested, has returned with revisions including a pedestrian
walkway between the store and the gas island canopy. The plans indicate the canopy will be
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
bronze to match the existing storefront. C.T. Male has issued a signoff. The applicant
submitted two lighting plans, one which shows light levels underneath the canopy of 8.79 foot
candles, and one which shows an average of 12.26, which is just above. There may be some
concern with going below that standard, and I guess we would suggest that the plan showing
12.26 foot candles is probably an acceptable alternative and given the wattage and the number
of bulbs and different variables, it’s probably very difficult, if not impossible, to meet 10 exactly.
So I guess my comment would be that the, like I said, the 12.26 is probably appropriate for this
area, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. The floor is yours.
MR. LEWIS-Good evening. My name is Tom Lewis. I’m a real estate rep at Stewart’s Ice
Cream. Just to very briefly go over why we’re here, is right now we have one gas island here,
with a pump here, and a pump here, and they don’t work as well as having one that’s here, and
one here. So cars don’t have to back up. We’ve also added a lot more parking. We have 14
now, and we’re proposing 22. This will allow for trucks, cars with boats on the back, much,
much easier internal circulation. There’s a turnaround here, which will make for better internal
circulation and more parking. Over the number of months since we’ve been here, I think the
first time we were here it was like really hot outside, and the Board had asked for an easement
here that would allow for access into that lot, should the Town ever want it. We were asked to
mark in and out, and the curb cuts, there was some discussion over the bronze roof on our gas
canopy. I think we’ve met all of the necessary engineering with C.T. Male, and now we’re
down to lighting. So, this we had shown the last time that on the front there’s a cover of, this is
in the Town of Milton in Saratoga County. On the front might be your average Mobil, on the
second page is our Northline shop. These are 320 watts. We’re now down to 175. These are 30
foot candles on average at the canopy, and we’re now under 13, and the lowest other gas
canopy in the Town is the Cumberland Farms at Ridge and Quaker, at an average of 27.85. So
we will be less than half that, and as I went over our minutes from our last meeting, one of the
Board members, Mr. Hunsinger, very generously offered, in a serious way, that if we do this,
we would like to have at least a Board member go there. We really do have some concerns that
there’s a safety factor. Because as you look at the iso drawings, you’ll see there are actually
areas that are half a foot candle. In this area right over there, this area here. This area here. So,
you know, we always want to do what the municipality wants us. So we’ll do it. We would
just ask you in a serious way that after it’s done, you know, if you feel that it’s not as safe as it
ought to be, we’ll just invest a little more money and upgrade it, and then lastly I believe Mr.
Strough asked for a walkway between the gas island and the entrance way, which we had done
elsewhere. So what we have here is our shop in Greenfield, and you’ll see the first page is that
walkway between the gas island and the shop. The second page is a better shot of it. The third,
fourth, and we think that’s a great idea. That’s all I’ve got.
MR. RINGER-John, we’ll start at your end.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have much.
MR. RINGER-Good. Bob? John, you had your chance.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m willing to go along with the 12.26 canopy. The only thing is I have
trouble identifying the plans that they’re on because the plans are enumerated the same.
MR. LEWIS-No, at the bottom right there’s a different number at each one, and we want
Number Seven. This is Four. So this one right here Number Seven.
MR. STROUGH-Number Seven. I’d be willing to go along with Number Seven.
MR. LEWIS-Number Seven it is. Well, that’s assuming we’ve got support on the rest of the
Board.
MR. STROUGH-That’s it. Thank you. The walkway looks nice.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I reviewed your Drawing S-1 against all of the other drawings that you
submitted. I have to say you did a good job this time. Finally. Finally the guys back home got
the message.
MR. LEWIS-Our apologies for the last times.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have a C.T. Male signoff, and it covered all of the previous two C.T.
Male letters. I also favor the lighting plan dated 11/19/03-7, and just so that everybody knows, it
does fit within the four to one ratio, and just one thing, one minor thing. I can’t let you go
away without giving you one minor thing. The gas canopy elevations that you supplied, this
guy here, talks about 250 watts under four flush mounts underneath the bronze metal fascia,
and really when you get to your drawing of –7, it’s 215 watts, but we’ll just.
MR. LEWIS-215?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you take a look at, go to your symbols on the bottom of –7.
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ll see quantity four.
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Underneath the canopy, total 215 watts, all the way over to the right.
MR. LEWIS-Gotcha.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s a minor. I’m not going to make anything out of that. The drawing
will be the governing document in any event. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am complete with
this review. I think they did a good job. I have no other comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you did a good job on it. I, too, would favor the higher lighting (lost
words), but one question. You said there’s 22 parking spots? I don’t see 22. I only see 18.
MR. LEWIS-Yes. Did you count the ones by the pump? Because people do park at the gas
island and leave there car there, go and inside and pay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That makes 22. All right. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think they addressed everything that we had asked for and I, too,
would recommend the –7 lighting plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff? Does
someone want to move it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 STEWART’S,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 35-1989 Applicant/Owner: Stewart’s
SEQRA Type II Agent: Brandon Myers
MODIFICATION Zone: NC-1A
Location: 977 State Route 149
Applicant proposes expansion of current gas islands from 2 pumps and a 24’ x 32’ canopy to 3
pumps and a 20’ x 60’ canopy. Expansion of an allowed use in the NC-1A zone requires Site
Plan Review from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 18-2003
APA
Warren Co. Planning: 3/12/03
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-11
Lot size: 1.82 acres / Section: 179-4
Public Hearing: Not required for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/12/03, and
10/22 Planning Board resolution: Tabled
10/21 Draft Planning Board minutes
8/19 Planning Board minutes
12/16 Staff Notes
11/18 CT Male Sign-Off
11/20 Map LO-59886-7 dated 11/19/03, Lighting Proposal
11/17 Maps S-1 revised 11/11/03, Map S-2 dated 2/18/03
10/21 CB from C. Potter, Stewart’s: response to 10/20 CT Make eng. comments
10/21 Received at meeting: Canopy end & front elevation
10/21 Received at meeting: Canopy elevations w/pictures
10/21 Received at meeting: Queensbury estimate
10/21 Received at meeting: pictures of Mobil station and Stewart’s
10/21 Memo to Planning Board from G. Hilton: Staff Notes w/memo from MR
regarding Lighting review
10/20 CT Male engineering review comment
9/26 Meeting Notice
PAGE 1 of 2
9/12 Maps S-1 revised, S-2 dated 2/18 and LO-59886-3
9/10 Maps W-1: existing watershed plan; Map W-2: proposed watershed plan
9/03 Stormwater calculations for existing Stewart’s shops
8/19 Received at meeting: Queensbury estimate
8/19 Received at meeting: Map S-1 revised 7/15
8/19 Memo to Planning Board from G. Hilton: Staff Notes w/8/15 CT Male comments,
ZBA resolution dated 6/18/03
7/21 Engineering referral
7/18 GH from B. Myers: Landscaping Plan
7/15 Site Plan Modification submission: application, July 2003 stormwater
calculations, map S-1 revised 5/27, map S-2 revised 6/17
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
3/25 Planning Board minutes
3/25 Staff Notes w/ZBA resolution dated 3/19/03, Warren Co. PB recommendation
dated 3/12/03 (NCI), 3/20 CT Male engineering comments
2/27 Fax to J. Edwards: stormwater info
2/21 GH from B Myers: Waiver request
2/7 GIS map
2/03 Site Plan submission: application, map LO-59886-1 dated 2/18/03, maps S-1, S-2
dated 2/18/03
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board affirms the previous SEQR; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LEWIS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we proceed to the next application, a couple of announcements. The
following subdivision applications are going to be tabled tonight to a Special Meeting we’ll
have on January 15. That’s Subdivision 14-2003 for Jeff Inglee, Subdivision 19-2003 for Richard
th
and Kim Bender, Freshwater Permit 6-2003 for Thomas Schiavone, and Subdivision No. 4-2003
for Thomas Schiavone, and the reason why we’re tabling those to the 15 of next month is
th
under the requirements of Subdivision Regulations that the signs have to be properly
advertised, advertising the applicant’s actions in having a subdivision, and each one of these
parcels does not have the sign displayed 10 days prior to the action as required by the Regs. So
we’re going to table it until the 15. Yes, ma’am?
th
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Why are you saying that they’re not in place? When I got mine it was
displayed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it on the property?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s on the property in the window, like it says.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the window?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I believe the instructions said to place it in the window.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re here for who, Bender?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Bender.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on Cardinale Lane. I went there tonight before I came over here and I
did not see a sign posted.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s in the window.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the window. How big of a sign do you have? It should be like 24 by
36.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-This.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s an actual subdivision sign. It’s large. It would be the size of the
board right there that gentleman has in his hands.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay, and where would I get that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s representing you? Is VanDusen and Steves doing this? They would
have it.
MR. STEVES-Can I say something, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Come on up.
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves. I believe the Staff sends out small eight and a half by elevens. The
notifications are either orange or yellow in color, that the applicant is getting in with their
notification package. Is that correct?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know about that, but I know, as you may remember, we, at a previous
meeting, discussed the notification, and as a result of that meeting, we produced a large sign
that the Chairman is speaking of, and I know we’ve distributed to you previously, we made
available to you for posting, and to applicants for posting.
MR. STEVES-The two foot by three foot sign that I have available in my office was something
that we made up about 10 years ago, when it was the requirement of the applicant or their agent
to send out the certified mailings and post it, and back in 1998, I believe it was, the Town took
over the duties of notifying the neighbors, and for a period of four years, including the certified
mailings that the Staff does, we did not put up signs anymore until a few months ago when this
Board had brought up the notice about signs again, and since that time, you’ve been sending
out either bright pink or yellow, orange that you send out to the applicants, and it says place
this in your window, and that’s whether it says subdivision, site plan, I don’t know about site
plan, or variance, and I believe Mrs. Bender is here to state that that’s what she received in the
mail. Now I’ve also been putting up on my applications the large signs because I had those in
my files from years past. I just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page and we all
put up with what everybody wants to have put up on the property, and we will comply, but
when there’s three different scenarios, it’s kind of hard for any one applicant to figure out
exactly what this Board or what this Town wants. So as long as we’re all on the same page, we
can produce, put up and display the exact sign that you want. So if you want a two foot by
three foot, which I would recommend because it’s a larger sign and you can see it, we will most
definitely comply, but I need to know what this Town wants to see, so that we can all be on the
same page.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one we’re looking for.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll see you on the 15.
th
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I guess I would suggest that you may want to open the public
hearing on all of these.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I said I would on those, didn’t I?
OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE PREVIOUS SEQR
JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION:
TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 ACRES AND 3.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 13-2001, AV
53-2003 TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 8.62 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MR. MAC EWAN- I’ll open up the public hearing and table, beginning with Subdivision 14-
2003 for Jeff Inglee.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing and table Preliminary and Final Stage
Subdivision 19-2003, for Richard and Kim Bender.
NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED RICHARD & KIM BENDER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, VAN DUSEN
& STEVES ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: CARDINALE LANE, OFF PEGGY ANN RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 5.72 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 5
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 6-2002 TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-62 LOT
SIZE: 5.72 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing on the Freshwater Permit FW 6-2003 for
Thomas Schiavone and table it.
NEW BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. – FW 6-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
THOMAS SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS ZONE: SR-1A
WETLAND: NYS DEC GF 27 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVE., WEST OF
POWER LINES APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED
WETLANDS, AS WELL AS THE DISTURBANCE OF 0.099 ACRES OF REGULATED
WETLANDS IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 33 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003 NYS DOH, NYS DEC TAX MAP NO.
308.7-1-2 LOT SIZE: 49.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll open up the public hearing and table for Subdivision No. 4-2003,
Preliminary Stage, for Thomas Schiavone.
OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS
SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES, NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 33 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CLUSTERED
ON A 49.82 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFERENCE: FW TAX MAP NO. 121-3-8 LOT SIZE:
49.82 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2003 SKETCH PLAN MICHAEL & YVONNE WILD PROPERTY
OWNER: ELIZABETH LITTLE, DONALD VITTENGL AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING
ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO BLIND ROCK RD. & BLACKBERRY LN.
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 18 +/- ACRES INTO 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 90-2003 TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-35, 36, 31; 289.19-1-1 LOT SIZE:
11.41 AC., 1.10 AC., 5.50 AC., 0.74 AC., 1.03 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor,
and I’m representing Mike & Yvonne Wild who are the subdividers or developers for this
parcel, as well as Betty Little who’s the present owner of the parcel. Basically, what Michael
would like to do is create six lots out of I believe five different tax parcels right now. We do
understand that we need to go to the Zoning Board for an Area Variance, if you take a look at
all the calculations that are on the thing, just for background, I think we could do five lots, as of
right, possibly six. I’m not sure of the geometric configuration for six, but there is two single
family, pre-existing lots that front on Blind Rock Road that are one acre in size, and then if you
take the balance of the land and you take out the area that is dedicated to roads, you take out
the area which is wetlands, and you take out the area that is in excess of 25% slope, there’s 10
and a half acres, or 10.32 acres left, and in a three acre zone we would be able to do three lots on
those, and keep the two remaining lots on Blind Rock Road. We would have an acre and a third
left over. Basically, if you look at this from a planning point of view, I thin what he has
presented is a good use of land, and one which will preserve the rural character and the privacy
of the neighborhood with what he has proposed. Basically, he is doing away with curb cuts
along Blind Rock Road, and not suggesting any, and he is also putting a no cut zone along Blind
Rock Road. So that appearance will be the same as what you presently have. He’s talking
about a cul de sac and I understand the cul de sac is 1,020 feet long, and he will be asking for a
waiver of 20 feet because you’re, which is within your authority to give. We’ve talked to many
of the neighbors, and some of the neighbors are here. I won’t speak for those that I recognize as
being here, and just for your edification, these three parcels that are immediately across the
street have no objection. I, in fact, own one of them. Harry Rutherford owns another. Ed Boyle
owns another. I’ve talked to Mickie Hayes who owns this parcel right here that adjoins it, and
he has no objection. Richard Delsignore is here. I won’t speak for him. There is a letter in the
file from his mother who lives in this parcel. I’ve talked to Rick’s brother today, Jimmy, and he
spoke to the mother who is in Florida, and we will have a letter tomorrow that she has no
objection to the plan as it’s proposed. She wrote a letter that says that she has an objection to
one acre zoning, but has no objection to this plan. This property, and it’s not necessarily part of
your review, but has been on the market for some time, and a lot of people have suggested that
we come in and try to rezone it, in a blank check fashion, or attempt to rezone it with the Town
Board to one acre zoning. Most of the adjoining lots are one acre or less, but coming in and
going through the process with a variance we can guarantee the neighbors that what we
propose in the configuration that we propose will be what will be built there. It gives them a lot
more protection. I also probably should have mentioned, too, there are two other parcels there
that adjoin this property, the former home of Betty Little that was sold. When that was sold, in
the contract it was provided notice to the people that application would be made for a rezoning
with a one acre density. The piece behind that which we called the barn lot, which was sold,
and that was to Mr. and Mrs. Povie, the little house. The barn lot, which was sold to Mr. and
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
Mrs. Williams behind that, on which they’re constructing a home, in that contract we’ve
provided at that time that we were, that the thought was that we would be looking for three
quarter acre zoning. So pretty much surrounding the property, there is no real surprise with
what we’re proposing. We plan on having houses probably with a minimum square footage of
2400 feet. They will be sold in the range of $300,000 and up. We think that it will be an addition
to the Town. We understand that we’ve got to go through all the engineering and what not for
drainage, septic, and what comes with that. So our question would be, does the Board have any
suggestions at this point, or comments that they would like us to consider as we go forward?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I have a problem with the fact that you’re coming in here as technically
a developer of this land, that, as it stands right now, is quite nice. It’s a nice neighborhood. It’s
kind of, you know, secluded, and to come in and have to ask for so many variances for the size
of the lots, I just wonder if you could just almost shrink it down to, you know, make it
conducive to what’s already there, as far as the acreage. I mean, three acre lots, you have six,
five and four, which conform, one, two, and three that don’t, and I just, I guess I don’t
understand why you can’t make it feasible to do it without having to get variances. I mean, I
know you’re going to come back, probably.
MR. O'CONNOR-We could do a hammerhead, which would be a lot less attractive than a cul
de sac, and to justify the investment that’s going to be made, I think the idea was to try and get
the six units. That’s been kind of cost effective to do it that way. When you say, you talk about
the character of the neighborhood, you can look at the lots that adjoin this property. None of
them are larger than the lots that we propose. The only one close to it is Mike Swan’s lot, which
is over on Mannis Road, and his lot is actually bordered by lots that will be three acres. The lot
that adjoins the one acre lots are comparable in size. We’re not changing the character or the
nature of the neighborhood, but I think it fits very much in to that. The properties across the
street, which I have an interest in, that are five acres and above, they will have just one lot and
one house on them. We’re struggling with how we would do perhaps a common driveway to
serve all three parcels, because of the grade considerations, and not have curb cuts on Blind
Rock Road. So my comment to you is that the character of this neighborhood is not a three acre
character. We tried to market the property in that way, and were not successful, but that’s an
argument, I think, for the Zoning, as to whether or not we, and not Planning. I mean, you’ve
got to recognize the benefit and value of not having curb cuts on Blind Rock Road.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I certainly recognize that. I mean, I know the road well. It just seems,
you know, you hear over and over again that developers come in and they have to make it
economically feasible for themselves, at the expense of others, and if it’s not economically
feasible to follow the Code, then why even bother looking at it? I mean, that’s my point, in that,
time and time again, you have everybody up in front of us, you know, saying, well, in order to
make this, you know, economically feasible to do, this is what we need to do. Well, you know,
then why did you bother looking at it in the first place, I guess, is my point. I mean, I’m not, I
don’t object to this. I object to the fact that, time and time again, this is what we hear, and, you
know, we took a good look at the Code. The zoning was just put in place, and it means nothing.
It absolutely means nothing, because time and time again everybody has to go get a variance for
size, setbacks.
MR. O'CONNOR-When you go for a variance, if it requires a variance, I still think you, from a
planning concept, you have a better tool. You then have absolute control. The neighbors can
know what trees will be cut, what trees won’t be cut. They will know what privacy they would
have maintained or not maintained. If we came in with three acres, we could pretty much do
what we wanted on there.
MR. METIVIER-Point well taken.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, it’s a compromise. This is a compromise situation, and basically, we
could have five three acre lots and one one and a third acre lots. It would probably be a funnier
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
configuration, though, and then there would be a question of a variance on that one lot. By
spreading it, by incorporating those two one acre lots, and trying to spread it across the three
acre, the three lots, it seemed to make more sense from a planning point of view.
MR. METIVIER-And like I said, overall I think, you know, it’s a decent plan, and certainly is
well thought out. It’s too bad this is just Sketch Plan because there are neighbors here, and I
would be interested, you know, to hear what they have to say, and since this is a Sketch Plan,
we have the ability now, to send you back to the drawing board, should it be necessary, with a
fair rendition of what they want, as opposed to what we want. I know there is some concern
over this. I would be somewhat concerned, but at least you’re not going for half acre lots, you
know, Thank God. The size of the homes. I mean, it certainly is nice, but, you know, and is the
cul de sac and all the utilities going to be put in prior to any of the homes going up? Or is it
going to be build and go, or what? What’s the decision there?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would think, typically you can have one building permit and start
construction and then do the road and the cul de sac as part of that construction, but I don’t
know, truthfully, Michael, whether, that hasn’t really been worked out.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the requirement of the Code is prior to getting a CO the road has to be
conveyed to the Town.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which will mean your utilities and everything would have to be in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, by the time of CO on the first house, you have to have the road in. We
have, since this started, too, also been given notice that the Town is going to do a water line,
down Blind Rock Road, and Michael has talked to the Water Department, and we probably will
run a water line directly into this site, and have a hydrant back in here. Right now, Blackberry
Lane is all on private wells. It won’t affect those other properties. I suppose the Water
Department will make us set it up so that if they wanted to join and it was shorter to join down
our road, and maybe that’s something we’ll talk to the neighbors about, before we do our
construction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you planning on having an easement between a couple of the lots on
Blind Rock Road to run the water line?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-So you won’t have water wells or you will?
MR. O'CONNOR-We will not. We’ve been told that we can do a spur directly in to the
property. It’s about 235 feet, and there’d be a six inch line to a hydrant and the cul de sac.
MR. METIVIER-And what’s the timeframe on that?
MR. O'CONNOR-They’re looking for the easement. I think those are the pipes that they’ve got
laying up on Country Club Road. I think they’re in the process of construction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s part of connecting, I may be wrong, but I think it’s part of connecting
Route 9 with Bay Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. METIVIER-No, again, overall I like the plan. Don’t get me wrong, and it does work. It’s
just, I’m just trying to prevent this from continuing over and over and over again. That’s my
only point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that peaked my interest right away, in reading the Staff
notes, was the length of the cul de sac, and I consistently vote against cul de sacs that are more
than 1,000 feet, but I think in this case it makes sense. So I don’t have a problem with that. I
think it makes good planning sense the way you have designed the cul de sac, and, you know,
20 feet over the 1,000, you know, I don’t think it’s a problem at all. It’s really kind of too bad
that that five acres that fronts Mannis Road isn’t more continuous with the rest so that you
could design six lots that were three acres a piece, or closer to three acres a piece, as Tony was
suggesting.
MR. O'CONNOR-Most of that doesn’t figure in the density at all, because most of that’s
wetland. There’s a very small piece of that that figures in to the density calculations. So, even if
it were adjacent to it, you don’t count it in your densities.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m saying, just in terms of showing six three acre lots, as opposed to
six lots on 18 acres.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that would address the comments that Tony made, and it’s
unfortunate, but I certainly understand where you’re coming from. I think it looks well
designed. I think, you know, maintaining the privacy along Blind Rock Road, you’ve
accomplished that. Although, again, you know, maybe combining lots one and two, and, you
know, somehow trying to reconfigure some of those to make some of the lots a little bit bigger,
and that would be my only comment and thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I like the idea of not having the driveways on Blind Rock Road. I think that’s a
good idea. I think you’ve put a lot of thought into the design of it, and it does kind of fit in with
the rest of the neighboring properties too. It just seems like an awful lot of variances, but I don’t
have anything other than that, Mike, and you don’t have to answer that. That’s it, Craig.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just clarify for me, I think, when you were speaking before you
said that you were taking five lots and recombining them, is that what you said?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I only count four.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a spur on the end of the road that’s actually a separate assessed tax
parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. A little spur there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s 50 by 90, something like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, I think it looks pretty good. I mean, it looks like you did some
creative work there. I don’t have any problems with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, putting curb cuts on Blind Rock Road makes no sense at all, and you’re
right about that. However, what I looked at was to have four totally compliant lots here by
bringing Lot One, Two, and Three together which would give you 413, 4.13 acres. Then you’d
have four lots with no requirement to go for relief of any kind at all. You’d stay off Blind Rock
Road, and you could probably shorten that cul de sac a hair doing it that way. So,
economically, I don’t know how that would work out, the feasibility of doing it with four lots,
as opposed to six, but what you would have, you would have four lots that were roughly in the
same amount of acreage, either you’d have 3.43, 3.37, 7.06, which is up in the corner, and then
4.13 by the combination of Lots One, Two, and Three, and we wouldn’t have to go to, we
wouldn’t have to be noncompliant at all. We’d be within the Code. The only question you have
there is the economic feasibility of doing that. I recognize you’d be losing, essentially, two lots
by doing it that way.
MR. O'CONNOR-The alternative here, truthfully, though, is keeping the two lots that are single
lots on Blind Rock Road and then doing three compliant lots within the other piece.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I see the three compliant lots. That’s the one bordering Swan and
Williams and Povie. That would be my only comment. I would like to see a stab at trying to
stay compliant with this, if that’s at all possible.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve tried, over the last two and a half years, to get somebody to do that, and
they would not do that.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s been marketed that way?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s been marketed as one piece for one home, and it’s been marketed to
develop it. We’ve had difficulty with anybody looking at it if we wouldn’t try and get one acre
zoning, and we just didn’t think we were going to get one acre zoning.
MR. VOLLARO-So people were objecting to large lots?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don’t, truthfully, know of a successful subdivision any place in the
Town with three acre zoning. Probably one is up on Ridge Road, the Kubricky subdivision is
probably the only one that I’m aware of, in the whole Town.
MR. STROUGH-I’m three acre.
MR. O'CONNOR-You live up in that Ridge Knolls?
MR. STROUGH-You closed my property.
MR. O'CONNOR-You and half the people in this room, fortunately or unfortunately.
MR. STROUGH-Up in back of me on the West Mountain.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but we thought it was a good offer to get rid of the curb cuts.
MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. Having curb cuts on the road, as an alternate plan, makes
no sense at all. I mean, because you’ve got problems on the other side of the road yourself.
Between Boyle, O’Connor, and Rutherford trying to put those three lots together.
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably will come in for a variance for those, and it’ll be more of a curb cut
variance than anything else, because I’d like to put one common driveway in.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s all I’ve got on this Sketch. I mean, that’s my idea. I don’t think the
way you’ve got it is a deal breaker for me, if it comes in this way at Preliminary and Final, but
my druthers and preferences would be to see that as a four lot subdivision. If you say it’s not
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
marketable in those acreages. You’ve got three lots that you’re going to have to try to market at,
one is much better than, much more than three acres, but you’ve got two three’s and a seven.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, the second level of marketing is not where you have the problem,
where you’re marketing them in retail, it’s where you’re trying to market them wholesale to
somebody that’s going to build on them, they won’t do that.
MR. VOLLARO-So the objective here is there’s not a builder that’s going to develop these.
People are going to come in and buy individual lots. Is that?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Michael builds, custom builds homes and he is going to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but there’s no spec building here. Somebody’s got to come in and say I
want that lot and that house?
MIKE WILD
MR. WILD-There may be one spec house in there. My goal is to have them custom home. One
will also be mine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you have any objection to be on three acres?
MR. WILD-Do I have an objection being on three acres?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. WILD-No, actually it’s my wife’s decision. She’ll decide which lot we’re on. I made my
comments on it, and we’ll see the way you come in on it, but that’s the way I would, in order to
be compliant, that’s the way I’d like to see it. If it’s not economically feasible, people won’t buy
it that way, I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll concur with the other Board members. I’d prefer the cul de sac idea, a
lot better than the curb cuts out to West Mountain Road, but I do like the 50 foot no cut zone,
and I noticed that you include that in your deed, but while we’re talking about no cut zones,
have you talked to Ed Horrigan, Rich DelSignore, Chris Bovee, Dan Williams? Because I think
they might ask for no cut zones bordering their properties as well. Now I don’t know how
many feet, but have you considered that?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s something that we would consider.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We may actually, the intention of clearing here is clearing within the areas of
construction, which is probably 75 feet by 100 to 125 deep on each of the lots, and not beyond
that. There might be some selective, very selective cutting beyond that. There’s some good
trees in here, and the idea is to try and keep them for the value of the property. So if we, you
talk about side line no cut zones, that’s something we would consider. I don’t know that, we’d
have to.
MR. STROUGH-I think you may, you know, there’s no public hearing tonight because it’s only
a Sketch, but if there was, I think you’d hear some concerns by the neighbors. I already have,
you know, and it’s easily fixed.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re willing to try and work out something that’s agreeable.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it looks pretty well laid out. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the
Zoning Board, as a compromise, asked you to combine Lots One, Two, and Three into two, two
acre lots, and that would give you five lots, instead of six lots. It wouldn’t surprise me, because
you’d go from here to there, and you know how tough they are. Sometimes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We comply with all the setbacks of the zone. We don’t change the character of
the neighborhood.
MR. STROUGH-I like the way it’s laid out.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, theoretically, we fall within all four corners of an Area Variance
qualification.
MR. STROUGH-On your behalf, normally substandard lots drive me crazy, but in this case you
are, at least half of you, or probably more than half of you, are surrounded by lots that are a
little over an acre, not much bigger. So what you’re proposing is not strongly out of character.
Well, because Mike Swan’s property is four acres and the other, Dan Williams has got five acres.
So you do have.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but Williams and those two came in with an understanding that we
would be applying for one acre or three quarter acre. We purposely made those representations
in the conveyancing documents.
MR. STROUGH-Now, how far do the wetlands extend?
MR. O'CONNOR-We have mapping of that. They do not extend beyond the five acre parcel
that adjoins Swan.
MR. STROUGH-That’s the Betty Little one?
MR. O'CONNOR-They’re all Betty Little.
MR. STROUGH-They’re all Betty Little, yes, well, okay, the triangular one?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I see Betty is listed as the owner. Okay. So the swamp ends here?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a State designated wetland.
MR. STROUGH-All right, has the State come out and flagged that so we know that for sure?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not in recent times. A long time ago I think they did flag it, but there’s no
construction proposed within 250 feet, 300 feet of it.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Even if it did extend into Lot Five, you’re still safe.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, the conceptual idea I like, and pretty much echoes the rest of the
Planning Board on that. Are you going to have to combine Lots One, Two, and Three into
maybe two lots. I think that’s a strong possibility. Putting some no cut zones adjacent to some
of the other neighbors is just another idea, but all else is, I think, well, as far as I’m concerned. I
mean, it looks like a pretty good plan.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a follow up on John’s comments, Mike, regarding Lot Six, that 5.4 acres
of that wetland, there’s no buildable area out there. It’s all in the wetland. That’s why that lot’s
configured the way it is?
MR. O'CONNOR-The history on that is, when Dave Little did his horse barn, he needed to have
10 acres, and for a while he leased five acres from Mike Swan’s mother, and it qualified for his
10 acres with the horse barn, and that was before he had bought the subdivision and bought
some of the other lands, and then the Swans came to him and told him they were going to sell
the parcel, so he bought it. The reason it’s five acres, or the configuration was, that’s what was
needed to qualify back in the 70’s for a horse barn.
MR. MAC EWAN-On Lot Six you have it labeled as 7.06 acres. Does that include the 5.46 of
that back parcel?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any way that Lot Six could be, follow right along that property line
and create another lot which would be a seventh lot?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not following you.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that we don’t have an odd shaped, flag shaped lot. I mean, I guess I’m
trying to understand the reasoning behind taking that 5.46 and making it part of Lot Six.
MR. O'CONNOR-It really is not, there’s no, we don’t have anything to do with it. We had to
put it some place.
MR. MAC EWAN-No buildable area on 5.46?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, there’s some hard ground at the top, and then there’s some hard
ground over at Mannis Road. I don’t think there’s enough there to do a lot. Mike Swan might
have enough on, Mike Swan’s house, I’m told, is built toward the southerly end of his parcel,
and he might be able to combine what’s on the northerly end of his parcel with some of that,
and some day there might be something there, but for our purposes, I don’t think we can, we
can’t utilize it for an independent building lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s where I was going with it.
MR. STROUGH-Another thing in your favor, though, and I should add, is that currently there
are two lots, pre-existing lots.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Lots, well, on this other configuration it would be Lot One and Three.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now what size are they?
MR. O'CONNOR-One acre.
MR. STROUGH-They’re each one acre.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re increasing their size.
MR. STROUGH-So you have three lots now, and two of them are one acre.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And you could keep it that way if you wanted.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Because it’s a pre-existing subdivision. So that’s something that works in your
favor.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a good, it’s a good attempt to do some planning. I think there’s a lot
that speaks for it. Of course the neighbors would rather have it maybe be totally woods, but
we’ll try and make some compromise with them.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Definitely eliminating of the curb cuts on Blind Rock Road is a big, big plus.
MR. VOLLARO-That goes a long way, I think, in this whole thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other comments? All right. We’ll see you at Preliminary.
MR. O'CONNOR-Clear as mud. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget your sign.
MR. O'CONNOR-We heard you.
DISCUSSION:
DUNKIN DONUTS APPLICANT WISHES TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LOCATION OF A
NEW DUNKIN DONUTS ON DIX AVENUE OPPOSITE EXISTING MC DONALDS.
JON LAPPER & TOM BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LAPPER-Tom Burke is with me. First a quick report on Glen Street. You’ll recall that the
Dunkin Donuts there at the end, we settled up with the neighbor, Mr. Doty, and agreed that we
would put parking on his site, and we would give him a sign and some green space in front of
the U Rental building, and I had a closing with his attorney John Pohl yesterday, and they’re all
pretty happy with the way that worked out. We signed a lease agreement for the parking on
their site, so, ultimately, that was a good compromise that everybody was happy with, and
certainly the Burkes are happy with the way that Dunkin Donuts came out, in terms of the
architectural changes that this Board required. So they expect that as the first place to start the
discussion on Dix Avenue, that the Board will want the aesthetics of the building to be the same
that they agreed to on Route 9 and they’re certainly willing to do that, which, of course, is many
steps beyond the prototype that they started with, or the one that’s on Exit 18 that was built by
their predecessor. They came in to see you, months ago, on the Dix Avenue site, and the issue
that came up, the area of disagreement was what the access should be on Dix Ave., and when
they presented it, it was similar to what’s on Glen Street, where there was an in and an out. So
it was two curb cuts that they were looking for. After working with the Board on the Glen
Street site, they, in realizing how to work with the Board, they thought that the best idea was to
try and eliminate a curb cut and come back before you tonight conceptually and talk about it
before they design the site. We would also offer access management towards the rear.
Eliminate a couple of spaces, or three, to connect to Rich Schermerhorn’s site next door, but
what the Board had talked about last time was having a common entrance off of Dix Ave. that
would serve this site and the remainder of the Schermerhorn parcel, and the reason why we’re
here proposing a single curb cut here is because we’re trying to avoid having a joint entrance
and exit for the whole site, and the reason for that is the Burke’s are very concerned about what
might ultimately be on Rich’s site, because it’s a 12 acre site. It’s zoned industrial in the back.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
There’s less and less industrial land in the Town, and some day that could be an industrial site
with lots of tractor trailers, or there could be, you know, a decent sized commercial project. If
it’s commercial, the access management would be a smart thing for both sites, so that the cars
wouldn’t have to go back on to Dix Ave., but they’re concerned about designing a site to
connect to a future user that could be anything from large industrial to large commercial. So
they’re asking the Board to give its blessing, if you will, to this proposal, which eliminates a
curb cut from where they started last time, and they would agree to all of the design issues that
you required on the other side.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MR. LAPPER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my first comment was, I was having a hard time placing exactly
where this lot is.
MR. LAPPER-You see on the bottom left side of the drawing, where that, the line curves, that
dark line? That’s King Fuels.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the edge of King Fuel’s drive, which would be, I guess, the northernmost.
So in front is McDonalds, but you don’t see the McDonalds curb cut, because the McDonalds
curb cut is farther north, farther to the right.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s actually east, I believe.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s probably east.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just having a difficult time conceptualizing this, with respect to the
rest of the property, and I think that’s really what we were talking about when we were
discussing this, you know, a few months ago.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. This, Chris, is a very small piece, because Dunkin Donuts don’t require a
lot of land. Although this is considerably more land than what they had on Glen Street.
Because they were stuck with, they could only work with what they had on Glen Street. So, I
mean, in terms of green space, you know, this site doesn’t require any variances. Glen Street
required all sorts of variances. So the line on the left is Quaker Farms. So of Rich’s 12 acre site,
this is just slightly more than an acre all the way in the corner.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ve got you. I mean, I have been to Dunkin Donuts where there was a,
basically an access way driveway off a larger commercial site. One being Latham Farms, for
example. There’s no curb cut off the main road. You have to go into the Latham Farms
development to get into the Dunkin Donuts.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I’m familiar with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I still would prefer that.
MR. LAPPER-Well, what I would say is that, if we knew what Rich was doing, next door, that
might make sense, if this was a commercial strip, you know, that might be compatible, but
without, because it’s zoned industrial in the back, and only industrial, and because it’s a large
size parcel, Rich, he’s building townhouse projects. He doesn’t have any plans for this. He’s
not, there might be a sign, but nobody’s been interested in it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-So he doesn’t have any plans for it, and that’s the problem. It’s just not knowing
what you’d be, you know, if it’s all tractor trailers, that’s not a good thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I understand that, and I can appreciate that, but the concern that I have
with that particular stretch of that road is traffic management, and you have a bad corner there.
You have a lot of traffic. The alternative might be, if the only way that you can move forward is
to have your own curb cut, it may necessitate a turn lane. I mean, that might have to be the
mitigation in order to consider this.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we could go to DOT first, and see if they would require that. We could
show this to DOT. Because that is a State Road, I mean, and if it needed a turn lane, that would
be an expense, obviously, but I doubt that it would, because of the traffic, but, you know, that
this generates, but we could certainly talk about that if DOT required it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s more an issue of the line of sight issues that we had talked
about, you know, once before.
MR. BURKE-Good evening. Happy Holidays. My name is Tom Burke, the owner of Dunkin
Donuts. I have one question for you, sir, and that is, in Latham Farms, there is no Dunkin
Donuts that I’m aware of. Can you be more precise?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s right on Route 9.
MR. BURKE-Latham Farms?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, you know what, I’m sorry, you know what, I’m thinking of McDonalds.
MR. LAPPER-McDonalds, that’s what it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sorry. I’m thinking McDonalds.
MR. BURKE-Okay, because I know where every Dunkin Donuts in Upstate New York is.
MR. HUNSINGER-I knew I was there for breakfast.
MR. BURKE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have to come up the access drive off Route 9.
MR. BURKE-Yes, but they have one of the biggest power strip centers in the Capital Region to
generate traffic. We don’t have anything here, and I’d like to point out to the members of the
Board that we’re all concerned about both vehicular and pedestrian safety, that I’m as
concerned about it, just, you know, as a business person, from an insurance and, you know,
liability standpoint, as I am from a convenience and accessibility kind of consideration for my
customers. I would point out to the Board that the traffic count on this road is approximately
8500 cars a day, and I’d also like to mention to the Board that as we speak, my crew is pouring
concrete on Route 9, right off Exit 17N in the Town of Moreau, 17N off the Northway, for a site
which is almost identical to this, except for the fact that the traffic count is three times as great,
and we do have two curb cuts there, an in and an out, approved by both that municipality,
which I know has no bearing on this, but more importantly by the State of New York, because
that’s a State road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the part of Route 9 that’s four lane, though?
MR. BURKE-No, sir, it is not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-That site’s on the corner of Spire Falls Road and Route 9?
MR. BURKE-Fawn, and, right, Spire Falls is where Betty Beaver’s truck stop is, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fawn Road, okay, I know the site where you’re talking about.
MR. BURKE-In any event, you certainly could take a look at that and see, in a situation where
we have exactly the same use with the same size building in the configuration with parking and
drive through, traffic count three times as great, an in and an out. Now, it would be confusing
to any potential user of this site to have a driveway located remotely, you know, down the road.
We’ve done this particular application in a couple of instances where boards in a given
community felt that it was not desirable to have two curb cuts. We would prefer to have an in
and an out, but if it is the desire of this Board, and I think you can all appreciate the fact that my
brother Jerry and I are reasonable people. Hopefully our project on Upper Glen Street has
demonstrated that, that we’re willing to try to work with the Board for the betterment of the
community, as well as to meet our own legitimate needs, I think that you’ll find that this is an
imminently reasonable solution to, you know, an issue that we all have great concern about,
and I hope that you would evaluate it in the spirit in which we convey it, in which it’s intended.
I think Mr. Lapper indicated that we would be willing to provide, at the upper right hand
corner, an easement to Mr. Schermerhorn to allow a future tie-in for access to this site from the
remainder of this property. I mean, you have to envision that this is a 12 and a half or 14 acre
site, and that to require us to have a driveway which is shared by God knows who, nobody
even knows what’s going to go in there, whether it’s tractor trailers or dump trucks or, I mean,
that’s really inconsistent, I think, with what the Board’s desire would be, to see happen, and,
you know, in the name of good planning, I think that this is probably the most reasonable
solution to the problem before us. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I just think, I mean, I certainly appreciate your comments. I
don’t think that you’re trying to do anything that’s wrong. I just think it would be in everyone’s
best interest to see sort of a master plan for that whole site, if you will, rather than to, you know,
segment off one lot at a time.
MR. LAPPER-The problem with that is that Rich has nothing in mind, and he’s not building it.
So someone’s going to come and have an idea and say we’ll buy this site to build whatever. So,
in terms of a master plan, it’s just a blank slate right now. It’s zoned industrial and it’s zoned
commercial.
MR. MAC EWAN-But to go in and piecemeal develop this parcel, I think that, in the long run,
with multiple curb cuts in that particular section of Route 4 with that curb there, you could only
be asking for a lot more serious problems than what’s already there. I think the Board’s
position is, when we spoke about this, what, back in April, I guess it was, that, you know, we
were looking for a common road to service that parcel.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me suggest this, and I haven’t talked to Tom about it, but what if we
agreed that we’d revisit this in the future if, you know, if and when we knew what Rich was
doing. I mean, there’s room in the front to have it head, I guess, east. It’s just a question of
whether it’s appropriate, based upon the uses.
MR. BURKE-I think that, you know, to blindly say that less is better, you know, in terms of curb
cuts on a particular piece, I don’t subscribe to that notion. I think that if you look at this project
as it sits, and say we had a curb cut further down the road, one, it would be extremely
confusing to potential users of my site as to where they would have to turn in. In many cases
they would have passed the entrance before they would typically, you know, take that right in.
This is a simple right in. If we have a remote driveway further down Dix Avenue, what
happens is people have to take a right in, and then a left and then another right, and the more
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
turning movements you create, especially those 90 degree angles, perpendicular movements, it
becomes something that’s unnatural, and that people don’t like to do, and therefore they don’t
do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, in the scheme of safety, it gets all that traffic off busy Route 4, that has a
traffic light there, and it solves the congestion problem, maybe people stopping quick and
turning in, or trying to pull out in front of traffic from your driveway that you have displayed
on this sketch that you’ve got.
MR. BURKE-Given the distance between our site and the corner, and the volume of traffic and
the service level that exists on that road, and what is projected in the future, there is no, we
don’t diminish the service level by virtue of our curb cut for our use here. In fact, it is probably
safer because you don’t have people waiting to take that right, the left, and then the right.
Under the other scenario it is conceivable that traffic could back up, not just because people
want to come in here, but because there’s a line of traffic waiting for the balance of this site,
depending on what it is and how it’s developed, if it’s ever developed. We could sit here for
five years, with a remote driveway, and be the only guys in Town. Because there is no plan. I
don’t even think they have sewer out there yet. So, I mean, it’s not like, you know, there’s
some kind of imminent intensive development planned that is scheduled, and given the fact
that you’ve got about 8500 cars a day in both directions in a 24 hour period, that’s a DOT count,
it’s considered a light traffic road.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s only going to get worse.
MR. LAPPER-What if we go talk to DOT and see what they have to say?
MR. MAC EWAN-My position, I’m sitting here with Chris on this one. I don’t know where the
rest of us, we’ll work our way down the Board, but my position has been all along I don’t want
to see one access to service that site, and then divide it up accordingly, and I know Rich has
talked about things that he’s got planned down there with nothing that’s, you know, cast in
concrete, so to speak, but maybe this would be a good opportunity for you to sit down with
Rich and see what kind of a game plan he’s got for it.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the problem is that he doesn’t have a plan, yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe now is the time to come up with one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-How far is the McDonalds entrance away from you, to the east, approximately?
MR. BURKE-I’m going to say somewhere between 80 and 100 feet.
MR. RINGER-And the light, traffic light on Dix and Quaker, that’s how many feet?
MR BURKE-About a couple hundred.
MR. RINGER-You know, I see it as being very difficult, your position here, you know, without
Rich knowing what’s ever going to happen there, and the fact that we’ve had two or three
applicants come before us for recommendations for zone change, which we didn’t recommend a
zone change out of the light industrial for that back portion, and I don’t think that a boulevard
entrance that went into an industrial zone would really be the thing that would be good for
Dunkin Donuts or help. I don’t know. I think what they’ve proposed here, for what we’ve got,
a one acre piece of land is probably the best thing that I can see.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my comment to you, Larry, would be not whether it’s good for
Dunkin Donuts, but whether it’s good for the community. The community’s what we look out
for.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. RINGER-Well, but we’ve only got, we’re going to have a subdivision come before us before
this ever comes, and we’re going to have to look at a subdivision. So we’re really getting a lot of
things ahead of each other. If we approve a subdivision, and then Dunkin Donuts presents us
with a site plan, this would probably be a good plan, not knowing what the rest of the
subdivision’s going to turn out to be.
MR. LAPPER-Right now the subdivision would just be two parcels, this parcel and the
remaining parcel.
MR. RINGER-And the other, I understand that, but, you know, if you presented a subdivision
like that and we subdivided it, this would be the plan that I’d prefer over anything else.
Because he wouldn’t have control over the property. He doesn’t own it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. RINGER-No, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-The adjoining parcel is 12 acres, you said?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t remember if it’s 12 or 14, in total.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s zoned industrial in the back, commercial in the front?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s about half and half.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’d prefer to have one curb cut. I can understand your concerns, but I
would also like to see that when the other parcel comes in for review, that once it’s developed,
that you would, you know, consider the remote access to your site. Because for now you’re
only going to have the one site there. I guess, but you’d have to consider that it would be a
remote to fit.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I would say, if I could talk Tom into it, yes, we come in and we agree to
revisit that, depending upon what the nature of that development was in the future.
MR. RINGER-I’d be surprised if the Town ever did rezone that back portion to anything other
than light industrial. Anything can happen, but it just doesn’t seem like that’s ever going to
happen. So you’re going to be dealing with an industrial, which you don’t want to boulevard
into to share in a commercial establishment like yours.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-What’s your timeframe look like? If you had your druthers, when would you
like to start this project?
MR. LAPPER-We’d like to be in next month with subdivision and site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BURKE-We’d build it, if not through the winter, in the early spring, we’d be open for
business in June or July.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BURKE-Absolutely this is a go. This is my first priority.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, having said that, and knowing a little bit or watching a little
bit of what Richard Schermerhorn has been doing in the Town in the past, I can’t believe that
Rich sits at his desk not knowing a little bit in his mind what he has planned for this.
MR. LAPPER-I can tell you honestly, Bob, that he was approached by a couple of retailers that
wanted to lease a parcel in a strip center, lease a building in a strip center, and he let that pass
by because it just didn’t seem like enough to commit the whole property to. He’s busy on Bay
Road doing office buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize, he’s got a lot of stuff going on.
MR. LAPPER-So Tom came to Rich and made the offer, and Rich doesn’t have anyone else
making an offer on the property, and he’s not planning on doing a build to suit or build to spec.
MR. RINGER-Has Rich got any intentions of further subdividing this into many lots?
MR. LAPPER-Well, very easily, I mean, depending upon who came along, but there could be an
industrial use in the back, and a commercial use in the front, and that would most likely be
subdivided.
MR. MAC EWAN-Industrial use could also not necessarily be tractor trailers or dump trucks, it
could also be another catheter facility, with nothing but nothing but car traffic in there.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Yes, you’re right. It’s just that we don’t know.
MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, Bob, I didn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-No. That’s all right.
MR. LAPPER-Craig, that would be a very nice use. If somebody needed land for that purpose.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, given what we have here, I mean, here’s an applicant coming
before us that’s already purchased approximately a one acre piece, and I suspect this is about.
MR. LAPPER-Actually, it’s under contract, but he hasn’t purchased it, subject to the
subdivision, site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t own it yet, I see. I’m going to have to go with Larry on this one. I
know what the Chairman and Mr. Hunsinger has to say, and I agree that that would be more to
the liking of everyone. However, what the applicant is faced with here is having to wait for the
Schermerhorn property to develop, find out what kind of tenants he’s going to have there, and
how those tenants would affect the business activity on this property, and I don’t know that
that’s entirely fair to this applicant who’s come before us.
MR. MAC EWAN-You also need to keep in mind, because he’s under contract for subdividing
this property, doesn’t necessarily guarantee that he or anybody else is going to get approvals to
get a subdivision either.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. We’re in discussion area here, and I think that, you know,
an awful lot of this depends on the timeframe for Rich to get moving. Is he actively marketing
this other piece?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if he has a sign up or not, but he’s not actively marketing. He
doesn’t have a broker, and if you look at the map, I just noticed that George put it up, the
purple is larger than the orange. So there’s more industrial than there is commercial on that
site.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Where, exactly where, I see where we are. That little, those couple of little
squares up there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The light green.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right across the street, George, that’s McDonalds, or is McDonalds on, and
then the plaza’s in that triangular piece?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ve got three curb cuts immediately across from this parcel.
MR. LAPPER-McDonalds shares a curb cut with the plaza, and that makes sense because those
two uses are compatible.
MR. RINGER-Yes, and they have another entrance going out onto Quaker Road, on the other
side, too.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-And they share a driveway with King Fuels.
MR. LAPPER-I think McDonalds has.
MR. BURKE-There’s a connection between them, yes, there is.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re proposing a future tie-in to the north and possibly eliminating
maybe three parking spaces for that future tie-in?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right. That could be anywhere along the side there that was appropriate.
MR. RINGER-Could you also show a connection to the Quaker Farms, or whatever that, next
door?
MR. LAPPER-We can show that in case that got redeveloped. We’d have to make sure it
worked with the leach fields and the drainage area, but you could show an access management.
MR. RINGER-Some day that could all be one in that area there.
MR. LAPPER-I actually heard that Quaker Farms was for sale. So, something could happen
there.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to think this thing through. If this were to go through the way it
shows here, and then Rich was to ultimately develop this, and we saw in that development, the
ability, based on the people that he had in there, Mr. Chairman talked about, Mr. Chairman
talked about a catheter facility, whether or not, once we knew what that was like, whether this
configuration could be changed, financially not by the applicant, but by the Schermerhorn
property developer, the Schermerhorn developing this, changing it so that we reverted, then, to
a driveway similar to what Chris and the Chairman are talking about, that would be a topic of
discussion at a future date, but right now, without knowing anything about that, and how that’s
going to go, I would have to go with Larry and say that this is about as good as I could see it
getting. I don’t see any other way of doing it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Bob, that surprises me, and I’ll have to disagree with you this once.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. STROUGH-And the reason I’ll disagree with you is the same reason that you disagreed
with Schermerhorn’s property over on Bay Road. You’re going to have all these driveways and
none of them are lining up, and you said that is something that’s begging for accidents to
happen. You’ve got five, because Dunkin Donuts is asking for one, and then next to Dunkin
Donuts you might have another one, two or three. So you could have eight curb cuts next to
one of the busiest intersections in the Town. I mean, within three, four hundred feet.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, John, but the problem that I see here is that the only option you
have is for them to go to Rich and say we’re going to make an entrance on your property, Rich, I
mean, that they don’t own.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, I said this to Rich. I said, Rich, can you make an entrance to your
property, opposite the McDonalds and the Minogues Beverage Center, and allow these people
to branch off of your main entrance so that we have an entrance that lines up across from
McDonalds, and this is what we talked about last time, and goes into Rich’s property, and this
part of it is all commercial. The front part’s all commercial.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about shifting this to the east somewhat?
MR. STROUGH-Shifting it to the east and let Dunkin Donuts, Mr. Burke here, and Mr.
Schermerhorn, you know, decide what’s best for them after that fact, but, and I also said to Rich,
you know, that could stimulate development to other parts of your property. You put in the
road. Don’t make Mr. Burke pay for that, you put it in. Because you’re probably going to
benefit from it down the road because it is going to lead to other development down there, and
I’d rather see all the development that comes out of this lot on one access curb cut.
MR. LAPPER-Let me just suggest this again, John, as a compromise, if Tom is agreeable, that at
such time that the rest of it, you start out this way, but when the rest of it gets developed, that
he would agree to revisit this, which may mean connecting to an internal road, but that that
could be looked at in light of what those uses were. Right now, there’s only one curb cut
proposed, and that’s what you’re talking about. It’s hard to know where a curb cut should be,
or if it’s appropriate without knowing what those uses are going to be.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, well, good, let’s go to Chris’s idea and have Rich give us a master plan,
potential master plan for this piece of property.
MR. LAPPER-A master plan would say there could be X number of square feet of commercial,
X number of square feet of retail, but depending upon what that is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s another thing, okay. George, I don’t know if you were around.
There was a Dix Avenue corridor study. One of the things that they’re going to try and do, or
they put down as one of the things they’d like to do, is eliminate the curb cuts, and here we are
adding curb cuts.
MR. BURKE-If I could respond.
MR. STROUGH-Now are you familiar with the Dix Avenue corridor study?
MR. BURKE-No, I’m not.
MR. STROUGH-Because that has recommendations. Now at the time it was Scott Sopczyk,
right.
MR. BURKE-The issue as I see it, though, is not what might be in the future, but what is today,
and you mentioned curb cuts, this one site that is currently vacant has four. There’s nothing to
prevent this Board from eliminating a curb cut where it’s inconsistent with your desire to see
fewer curb cuts. We have none. They have four, and just because this happens to be located
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
here, a lot of this traffic, you know, my property’s up in here. It’s not way down here, and to
require somebody to come in, take a right, a left, go 100 feet, and then take another right, you
know, doesn’t make any sense.
MR. STROUGH-Have you bought it already?
MR. BURKE-No. I have a contract to buy it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, can they reconfigure it?
MR. BURKE-No, because here’s the problem. If I end up with this, then I’m buying, I’m taking
half his frontage of the 12 acre site. He won’t sell that. That’s why we had a contract.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what I’m hearing here is this is a problematic site that’s maybe not
developable for what you need.
MR. BURKE-No, it’s not a matter of Dunkin Donuts. This isn’t unique to Dunkin Donuts. This
is because we’re on this side of the street, and because McDonalds happens to have a curb cut
over here on the other side of the street doesn’t mean the future development of this entire
parcel, that that’s the right or appropriate place to put a curb cut. If this was a bank, if this was
a card shop, you’d have the same exact situation. It’s not a function of Dunkin Donuts. It’s a
function.
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably would be asking for the same thing.
MR. BURKE-But in the name of good planning, to say fewer is better all the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a matter of public safety is what it is, and that’s good planning.
MR. BURKE-No, well, I don’t think it’s a matter of public safety to say that one curb cut is
always better than a separate curb cut for that particular use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s where we disagree.
MR. STROUGH-Well, wait a minute. It’s my dime here. The Dix Avenue corridor study was a
traffic study of the whole Dix Avenue corridor. I think it would not be wise if the Planning
Board went contrary to that study. So I think that the Planning Board members should make
themselves familiar with the Dix Avenue corridor study, at least for starters, and I think that
maybe you, Mr. Burke, want to get a hold of the Dix Avenue corridor study, because if the
study says, makes a prediction for the future, and to remedy some of the potential problems is
to do this, and this, and this, and we go contrary to that planning, people go, what are you
doing? What are you doing? All right. So I think we do have to refer to the Dix Avenue
corridor study before we go any further, but I expressed my opinion about that, so many curb
cuts, so close to a busy intersection does bother me. I understand your position, but I think
there can be a remedy to this, and I also understand, you know, the trouble we went through in
getting a nice looking building, and by the way, I get all kinds of comments from people, what a
nice looking Dunkin Donuts building. Okay. Everything worked out okay in the end, and I
think that we can work out something here that will work out for everybody’s benefit.
MR. BURKE-We’re trying.
MR. STROUGH-But I don’t think it’s proposal one.
MR. BURKE-This isn’t proposal one. It’s proposal three.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the same as the first one back in April.
MR. BURKE-No, it’s not. We have an in and an out, Mr. Chairman.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-We were looking for the boulevard at that time.
MR. BURKE-Right, but I can’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-No buts. That’s what we were looking for, and that’s not what you came
back with.
MR. BURKE-Well, it was a suggestion, I don’t think it was cast in stone, and it was an idea that
was bandied about in an informal kind of way, the same way we’re talking tonight, but to say
that the entire 14 acre parcel has to have one curb cut, without knowing what 95% of that site’s
going to look like, with a commercial and industrial zoning designation, doesn’t seem, to me, to
make a whole lot of sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s a copy of our April 15 minutes, the discussion item, that talked
th
about the boulevard entrance, pretty much rallying around the same discussion we had some
six months ago.
MR. BURKE-And we’ve tried to accommodate the desire of the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some of us don’t see that happening. I honestly think that some of us still
have the same position. Some of us have different positions. So I guess at this point, John, I
didn’t mean to cut you off. Were you through?
MR. STROUGH-No, I’m through.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony’s got to make some comments, but at this point, I guess you’re hearing
a mixed bag of where we are up here. I mean, some members don’t feel that that’s beneficial.
Some members feel that it’s beneficial.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, if had my druthers, that if Mr. Schermerhorn was developing this, I’d
certainly want to go that way, in terms of a connection. Could we say that, and if the applicant
would agree that we would go along with this, but as soon as Rich develops, that we revisit this
whole access problem?
MR. MAC EWAN-See, I’m not willing to take that position right now, because in my mind, this
is a great opportunity to do planning.
MR. LAPPER-But your plan is for something that you don’t know what it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a minute, Jon, this isn’t a reactionary, Bob. This is an opportunity to
plan something.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-To bring it to fruition.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Well, then the onus is on Richard Schermerhorn to play on
our table, then. Somebody’s got to contact him and say, Rich, we’re having a problem here, we
really need your help.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me just give it to you from the developer’s standpoint. Nobody ever
wants to agree to build something now and not know what the access may be in the future, but
if Tom agrees to let you revisit this as a condition of site plan or subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, we don’t want you walking out of here tonight with any kind of
agreement from this Board on a discussion item that when you come back and make an
application saying, you guys said that it would be okay for us to do that.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. LAPPER-No, no. I’m saying that if he agrees as part of an ultimate approval that, right
now this is the only thing we know about, you put the access here on his site, but that he would
agree to revisit this when Rich or whoever buys the property, comes in to redevelop or to
develop the rest of it, that gives you the flexibility at that point to say, hey, it’s a tractor trailer,
it’s a warehouse in the back, we don’t want a warehouse and a Dunkin Donuts using the same
curb cut, totally different uses, not compatible, but if it turns out to be a shopping center, that’s
a totally different story.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only direction we could give you is to say, make application. We’ll
review it on its merits.
MR. LAPPER-How about, we didn’t hear from Tony.
MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, we will.
MR. METIVIER-I’m going to just make a comment, I would just ask that the other end of the
Board just bear with me for two minutes, because I know that you’re going to freak out, but I
was on the intersection of Sunnyside and Bay, going over to Moon Hill, I was actually turning
on to Bay. I’ve been driving for 20 years. I’ve never had an accident. I had my wife in the car,
kids in the back seat. A car comes up on Moon Hill. We’re staring at each other. I look to my
right, I look to my left, the car, because we wanted to turn on to Bay and staring at this car who
waved me on, my psyche says, all right, I’m going to go. In the time that this car waved me on
to go, I never looked again, either way. Do you know if it wasn’t for my wife looking up the
road, I would have smashed into somebody, and I’m telling you, over and over again, the fact
remains, and I’ve said this over and over and over again, there are some intersections that are
much too busy to have somebody staring you in the face, waving you on to go, because you
look at these people, and they’re being nice and they’re saying go ahead, I’ll wait for you, and
the next thing you know, you forget to look what you’re doing. I went, just like they told me to
do, without thinking again, to look up the road, and as you know, Moon Hill is similar to this in
the fact that you have cars coming around the bend, you have cars coming down to Dix and
Quaker. They’re going to come around the bend. If you’re staring at somebody that’s coming
out of a McDonalds intersection, and you have a boulevard entrance right across there, and they
want to get out, the same thing’s going to happen here. I truly, truly believe that you have to
separate these two intersections.
MR. LAPPER-The issue is if it’s a signalized intersection four way can be, is very safe, but if it’s
unsignalized, four way on a busy street, four way is not always the best answer.
MR. METIVIER-And I truly believe you’re really asking for trouble. There’s too much going on
here. If you move it away, keep it up a little bit, and my idea is, and I don’t know if you’d be
agreeable to this at all, don’t let people come out and cross over Dix to go down towards
Hudson Falls. Make it a right hand turn only out, and you’re going to alleviate so many
problems. They have that at McDonalds in South Glens Falls. They have it at the McDonalds in
Lake George, where you can only make a right hand turn, and typically people don’t make the
left going on to Route 9, well, it’s Route 9 in either place. That way, I mean, it’s going to be so
busy that if you only have it going out towards Quaker, granted, you know, you might affect
your business somewhat, but still, you can at least control what’s going on there, but if you
have people that, you know, you have people coming off of Quaker onto Dix here, trying to
make a left hand turn, there’s too much going on there, and that’s where you have to move it
down a little bit, but if you’re agreeable to just the right hand, I think it would work a lot better.
I truly do. I mean, yes, people are still going to turn in, but at least you have control there, and
if you travel that at all, I mean, going down, Dix does a nice job with their lights. They actually
synch them pretty well, that when you’re going to, you know, Falls Farm and Garden, or
Sutherlands, there’s nice gaps there. There really truly are nice gaps, unlike anything else in
Queensbury where it’s constant traffic. So this is going to follow suit here, where you’re going
to have those gaps. So you’re going to let people through, if the road is widen enough there,
which I think it is, but, you know, it’s almost impossible, if you’re at that McDonalds, if you go
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
down a little bit, to get over Quaker, or I’m sorry, get over Dix onto Quaker there. So if you
keep it just a right, I don’t know, anybody, thoughts?
MR. STROUGH-Well, buy King Fuels and make a super Dunkin Donuts.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the problem is the price.
MR. BURKE-And it’s contaminated.
MR. MAC EWAN-The King Fuel site? They couldn’t give that place away for a buck. It’s
contaminated. It’s a brown field site. Storage tanks. They had an auction down there, well,
that’s another subject for another time. Any other comments?
MR. METIVIER-That’s mine. I know nobody agrees with me, but.
MR. HILTON-Just to let you know where we’re coming from, this, as it’s been mentioned by the
Board, will be part of a subdivision and site plan. I think, without committing ourselves, we’re
looking at, in the interest of access management and safety, minimizing the number of curb cuts
out here. Potentially, we could be commenting in the future as part of a subdivision and site
plan, that, as proposed, you’d have a curb cut here, and, to go a step further, with future
development on the parcel to the east, that will be created as a part of this subdivision, that this
proposal, this Dunkin Donuts would be connected to that property once future development
happens, eliminating this curb cut.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t want to agree to eliminate it until we know what that use is, because the
Board, we’re thinking to keep that open, but agree as a condition that that may be the result.
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I’d take it a step further. Rather than just exploring it, I think we, as
part of our comments for subdivision and site plan, might go a step further.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the frontage on that entire parcel, do you know off the top of your
head?
MR. VOLLARO-The 12 acre piece?
MR. HILTON-About 580.
MR. MAC EWAN-Five hundred and eighty feet? So roughly you could probably get three,
maybe four fronting lots there. If they all had a curb cut, now we’d have bigger problems.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the sight distance isn’t good on the other side, because of that curb.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we didn’t support an application a couple of years back, just for
that reason.
MR. VOLLARO-The only person that’s not here is Rich Schermerhorn who holds major cards
here.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t make sense to talk about a master plan because until somebody comes
along with a proposal, it could be anything. It would just be theoretical.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s why I think, you know, I think what Staff’s just said makes some
sense to me. I would approve it, personally, this way, and say as soon as this next piece of
property is developed, we’ve got to talk about their entrance, and if it’s a satisfactory use, we
connect the two, eliminate this curb cut, but right now, if I were sitting in Mr. Burke’s position, I
would look, he’s got two options. He doesn’t go to contract, and he doesn’t build this at all.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Or he builds it this way, with the proviso that if the property gets developed,
he takes a look at the interconnection at a later date. That’s the way I view it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We hear you. It’s a mixed message. We’ll talk to DOT, and we’ll come
back with another proposal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And if nothing else, you know that Tom and his brother were able to work with
the Board last time on Glen Street, that came out a lot different than it started, and everyone’s
pretty happy with it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. BURKE-Thank you. Happy Holidays.
MR. MAC EWAN-Happy Holidays to you, too. Also in our packet here tonight we have Keith
Cavayero is looking for an extension, what site plan was that?
MR. HILTON-This was, I think it was the Bank, Luzerne Road, near the CVS.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the little credit union place, the one I tipped you off about here a few
weeks ago? Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It was on the corner.
MR. MAC EWAN-He want us to grant an extension to 12/31/04? Does someone want to move
it?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a comment, though, before. Without getting into a long discussion, I
just wondered if want to reconsider, maybe revisit the lighting issue on that? Because that was,
we had a lot of discussion about it, and since then we’ve, you know, learned a lot more about
appropriate levels of lighting, and things like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That revolved around an ATM machine, didn’t it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t there a Federal law, isn’t that the argument they’ve been using is
Federal law regarding lighting for ATM machines (lost words) the guidelines of Federal law,
Federal banking law?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think that’s the, what we’ve heard. I’ve never seen that in writing, the law.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think it is a law. I think that’s an industry guideline for safety.
MR. MAC EWAN-And as we’ve been guided before by Staff, on numerous topics we’ve all
seen, written about, read about, lighting does not curtail crime.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying it does. What I’m saying is that the reference the applicants
make, I think, is not to an actual Federal law.
MR. RINGER-I think we had this come up when the Stewarts went in on Bay Road with the
bank there, and they brought some stuff in, it was a banking law or something. I don’t know
exactly what the law was. It was something that said that if you’re going to have an ATM,
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
whoever authorizes ATM’s, the lighting has to be so much. There was something about it, it
was a requirement of something.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think it’s a banking industry rule.
MR. HILTON-Well, correct me if I’m wrong. What you have right now is an approved plan
that’s going to expire within a number of days, and if the extension isn’t granted, they’d have
to come before you again. I don’t know what could be done to revisit it, without, right now,
rescinding a previous approval and.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just let it elapse. I mean, what’s the rest of the Board feel on that? Do we
want to take another look at it?
MR. RINGER-We gave him approval once.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, we worked pretty hard on it. I think Chris is right, though. We are
probably a lot smarter today than we were when we looked at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. Because it was really one of the first projects that we really
scrutinized the lighting on, and that’s why it stood out in my mind.
MR. MAC EWAN-It does abut a residential neighborhood.
MR. RINGER-Yes, it was a very small piece of property, all kinds of restrictions and problems
with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and there was spillage and everything else.
MR. RINGER-But we approved it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what’s the Board’s pleasure? Do you want to just let it die on the vine,
or do you want to grant an extension?
MR. RINGER-Extension.
MR. VOLLARO-Extension.
MR. STROUGH-Extension.
MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 46-2002 DR. KEITH
CAVAYERO, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
Until 12/31/04.
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business?
MR. VOLLARO-John Strough, it’s been a pleasure working with you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/03)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
36