2003-01-21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 15, 2002: NONE
October 22, 2002: NONE
November 19, 2002: NONE
November 26, 2002: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 22, NOVEMBER 19, AND
THNDTH
26, 2002, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig
TH
MacEwan:
Duly adopted this 21 day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
st
MR. STROUGH-Well, were you there, Larry?
MR. RINGER-Yes, I was there. I read them.
MR. STROUGH-At the November 19?
th
MR. RINGER-I read them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wasn’t there for the October meetings, but I was at the November
meetings. So I’ll say yes.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
MR. STROUGH-I was at all of them.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you were.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2003 TYPE II ROBIN INWALD AGENT: TOM NACE, JONATHAN
LAPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 183 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR CONVERSION OF EXISTING BARN
STRUCTURE INTO RESIDENTIAL USE FOR SEASONAL APARTMENT. SITE PLAN
REVIEW IS A CONDITION OF VARIANCE APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-
2002 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-12/12-3-26.21
LOT SIZE: 2.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-13-010, 179-14-050
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-2003, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: January 21, 2003 “Project
Description:
The applicant proposes to convert an existing barn into a residential use. Along with the
proposed conversion, the applicant proposes a minor expansion of an existing gravel driveway,
and septic installation.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The applicant received a variance from the ZBA to allow a second residential dwelling at
this location.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically,
could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the
supporting public services and facilities?
No burden on public services is anticipated as a result of this proposal.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion
or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the town?
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the
project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological,
wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park
or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made
necessary by the project?
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings,
lighting and signs.
Not applicable to this project.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Not applicable to this project.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The existing driveway and the proposed 20x25 ft. expansion should provide adequate
parking for both dwellings at this location.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience.
Not applicable to this project.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Not applicable to this project.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
A new on-site sewage disposal system is proposed at this location. The adequacy of this
system will be reviewed by the Town Building Department.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings,
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the
applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation
and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
No new plantings are proposed as part of this site plan.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire
hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan,
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to convert an existing barn into a seasonal dwelling unit. This
dwelling unit will be in addition to an existing house on site. The ZBA granted a variance to
allow a second dwelling unit at this location on October 23, 2002. As a condition of the
variance, the applicant’s proposal has been submitted to the Planning Board for Site Plan
Review.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
As part of this site plan, the applicant also proposes a 20 ft x 25 ft expansion of an existing
gravel driveway. Construction of this driveway should not have any adverse impacts on
stormwater runoff or erosion.
The proposed septic system as well as the proposed conversion of the existing barn will be
reviewed by the Town Building and Codes Department during the Building Permit process.
Staff recommends that a floor plan for the proposed building conversion be submitted as
part of the Site Plan file prior to the applicant applying for a building permit.
SEQR Status:
Type II: No further action required”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This application is before you as a result of being heard by the ZBA for an Area
Variance. The application is for a seasonal dwelling, a second seasonal dwelling at this location,
and it’s been referred to you. It also includes a 20 by 25 foot expansion of a gravel driveway.
Staff anticipates no negative impacts from that minor expansion of the driveway. Staff
recommends that a floor plan, however, be submitted in support of this application prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The ZBA had some concern about making sure there was one
apartment in this converted building, and that’s our only condition and comment at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we dive into this discussion you and I had prior to the start of the
meeting, I mean, the ZBA’s approval on this said for use in a residential use for a seasonal
apartment. Are apartments allowed in Waterfront Residential zones?
MR. HILTON-Apartments are not. Unfortunately, I can’t speak for the ZBA. It’s an Area
Variance motion. I can only speculate that their intent was to approve a second seasonal
dwelling, and that the word “apartment” was put in there, but apartments themselves are not
allowed uses in the Waterfront Residential zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. I want to give you two
minutes of background on this application. Just a little background. The siting question is a site
that’s in excess of two acres, and as the Board knows most sites on Cleverdale are far smaller
than the one acre zone that it is now, because that was developed before zoning. So what we
showed the Zoning Board, and what ultimately prevailed, was that Robin had the right to
demolish the two structures that were on the site, and Tom did a drawing that showed that she
could do two 5,000 square foot, you know, large, expensive homes which is what people are
doing, buying older properties, knocking down buildings, and put two single family homes
without any variances whatsoever. The site would accommodate that. Instead, what she’s
proposed, and what’s approved by the Zoning Board, is a far less intense development. She’s
got an existing, I believe, a three bedroom home, Tom?
MR. NACE-I’m not sure.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but she’s got, a modest size home, and there’s a big white barn that I’m
sure you saw when you went to the site. What she’s proposing, and probably the reason why
they use the word “apartment” is it is a separate dwelling unit in a separate structure, is why
we call it a home rather than an apartment. An apartment usually means that there’s more than
one residence in the same building. This is the separate structure, but she’s not finishing the
whole barn. She’s only doing the first floor because it’s just so large. It wasn’t necessary. So
Tom has designed a septic system for the new building, and it was primarily that, that the septic
system, the Board said that’s really not our area. Why don’t you go to the Planning Board, but
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
of course they said for site plan review. So we’re here to talk about any issues that the Board
raises, but that’s the history of why we’re here. It’s certainly a minimum development to just
use that existing barn, and that’s all I have to say. Tom, do you want to explain?
MR. NACE-Nothing to add, really. It’s quite simple, just a septic system that will be reviewed
for building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Mark, let me direct that toward you, the question I had relative to
apartments being allowed in Waterfront Residential zones. I mean, how do we proceed with
this thing when the ZBA’s approval clearly states that they’re making their approval based on
seasonal apartment?
MR. SCHACHNER-And yet, I gather it was not a Use Variance request. I guess I’m directing
this as much to Staff as to anyone else. It was not a Use Variance request it was an Area
Variance request. Correct?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, obviously was not at the ZBA meeting. None of you all were at the
ZBA meeting. George, I’m assuming you were not at the ZBA meeting. I mean, George has
offered some speculation as to perhaps it’s just a misuse of the term “apartment”, but I can’t sit
here and say that. I mean, we could seek clarification from the Zoning Board of Appeals if you
wish. You can’t do it right this second, but you could do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would you recommend we do?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I am concerned, as I heard that dialogue, I was concerned that
somehow a use that’s neither an allowed use nor a use that’s been approved for a Use Variance
is sitting before us. Unless somebody can convince us that that’s definitely not the case, I would
recommend seeking clarification of that issue from Staff first, and/or the Zoning Board of
Appeals if necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I would probably ask you to look at the application that we submitted to the
ZBA, which I have with me. I don’t know if I have the minutes of the meeting, but I think it
was just the misuse of the term. We could also look to the Zoning Code for the definition of
“apartment”.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Well, Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t have any problem as long as the terminology is fine. I don’t see a
problem with that terminology because the ZBA approval conditioned it that the property not
be rented. So if it can’t be rented, I think an apartment would be something, perhaps, that I
would consider a rental, and the ZBA approval said no rental of the property. So that wouldn’t
bother me. As far as the septic, I mean, I’m not an expert on septics, and it has to be approved
by the Town. So I don’t have any trouble with it at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point you raise. That is conflicting, I mean, because that last
line of their approval says there would be no rental of the property. So it’s rather conflicting
what the heck they’re talking about. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my thought was very similar to what the applicant’s argument was,
along with the comments Larry made. I certainly could be sensitive to the fact that the
applicant could subdivide the property and have much greater intense use on the land than
what they’re proposing, and I had even highlighted the conditions, that it remain one bedroom
and that there be no rental, and that the property not be subdivided, and based on those three
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
conditions, I felt okay with it, again, provided the language can be worked out. I don’t really
have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it myself, as long as the conditions are met, but just a couple of
questions, in regards to, I assume, it says well water. Is this water taken from the lake?
MR. NACE-They use lake water. They treat lake water and use it.
MR. SEGULJIC-What about the people next door to them, the neighbors?
MR. NACE-They also use lake water. We are well removed from them with our septic.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Why do they want to, what is the building being used for now?
MR. LAPPER-A barn.
MR. NACE-Just vacant storage.
MR. LAPPER-Storage.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they just want to increase their?
MR. LAPPER-Increase the living space on the two acre lot, basically so her kids can come visit
in the summer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Essentially they’re not going to change the footprint of the building at all?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. LAPPER-It’s all interior.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I don’t have a problem with it as long as the conditions are met and we
can straighten out the language.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t see any problems with this particular application, and the applicants
have said that they’ve agreed to all the conditions, and whoever makes the motion will include
all those conditions in there, and I think the only thing that I haven’t seen is acceptance of
submitting a floor plan, which I’m just going to assume.
MR. NACE-That would have to be submitted with the building permit application anyway,
regardless of any conditions you make here. They can’t get a building permit without a floor
plan.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t see any problems with this application, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess my only, I’ve got a couple of questions, and I guess it was answered by
Counsel, that if it’s no rental, what are they doing with the seasonal basis, and that’s basically
for family. Is that what they’re saying?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m wondering where the APA stands on this. Does this property have
a nonjurisdictional determination from the APA do you know?
MR. LAPPER-No. We didn’t anticipate that there were any APA permits required. It’s an
approved plan. So the APA would have the right to oppose a variance within 30 days of
issuance by the ZBA, and that period has passed. They would have received notice of the
issuance of the variance.
MR. VOLLARO-The APA would have received notice?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did they receive notice?
MR. LAPPER-The Town would take care of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did the APA receive notice on this application?
MR. HILTON-With the Area Variance as well the site plan application, sent out notice to them.
So I would say yes.
MR. RINGER-It says in the resolution that they were notified.
MR. VOLLARO-It says in what resolution, Larry?
MR. RINGER-The resolution that was prepared by Staff.
MR. SCHACHNER-The prepared resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-For tonight. For the ZBA’s meeting were they noticed?
MR. SCHACHNER-They don’t actually have to be, well, there’s two separate notifications. I
believe the applicant’s counsel is referring to the post decision notification. Any variance
decisions issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals for properties within the Park, APA has to be
notified not only of pending applications, but of the decision. I believe that’s what Mr. Lapper
is referring to is the notification of the actual variance decision that was issued on, I believe,
October 23.
rd
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the answer to my question is that the APA has been notified and
hasn’t responded within the period of time.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-The time has passed. So they haven’t said anything. That’s fine, and other
than that, I have no other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that was my first item here, does it meet APA regs, and, you know,
I get really confused, as to what the laws are on that lake, and why I say this is because up at
Hewlett’s Landing we have four two and a half acre lots that only one dwelling is allowed on
them, and when our neighbor wanted to, there’s five, excuse me, wanted to build his home,
there was a nice little seasonal home on this two and a half acres of property, and the APA said,
well, if you’re going to construct another home on this property, then you have to completely
board this one up, and only use it for storage. So that’s what, and it’s such a pretty house, and it
looks pretty from the road, but that’s exactly what it is. The bathrooms were taken out. All the
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
plumbing was taken out, and it is just a cute little house that’s used for storage, and he built
another big home. Well, it seems to me that what we’re doing here is just the reverse of what
we did up at Hewlett’s Landing. Now we’ve got the storage place that we’re trying to make
into a home and I’d say 1684 square feet is as big as many homes are in the Town of
Queensbury, but if the APA says that this is okay, and I would just like to see, and they haven’t
responded within the legal amount of time, then I guess it’s okay.
MR. LAPPER-Well, two things, Cathy. We have two acres here, and it’s the one acre zone. We
have more than two acres. So we didn’t have a, in terms of use, we didn’t have an issue under
the Town Ordinance, and I don’t believe Dresden, and Mark would know this better than I, but
I don’t believe the Town of Dresden has an approved APA zoning plan like the Town of
Queensbury does.
MR. SCHACHNER-It does not.
MR. LAPPER-So the APA would be more involved in project review than it would be in
Queensbury where, with an approved plan, it defers to the Town Boards, unless it’s a Class A
project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I appreciate that. Okay, but I would have thought that, because
Cleverdale is the way it is, and there’s so many small lots up there, they were, that was done
years and decades ago. So the way the configuration is now on that peninsula, to me, I thought
that’s the way it has to stay, but again, this is better than having the applicant come to us to
subdivide. I would like to put in the resolution, if it gets that far, that there, if you’re going to
convert this barn into a house, that the applicant would not, or future owners of this property,
would not be able to come for any future subdivision. I would also like to know how many
bathrooms are in this place, in the new plans.
MR. NACE-In the new place?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. NACE-There would be two, a full bath and a half bath.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how many bedrooms?
MR. NACE-One.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One bedroom.
MR. NACE-I’m sorry. I think we designed the septic system for a total of three to be
conservative. Okay, but I believe there’s one bedroom proposed.
MR. RINGER-In the new one the ZBA spells one bedroom only.
MR. NACE-Yes. They did. The septic system we oversized, just to be conservative for the area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I missed that, and my other question was, if the Building and
Codes people and the Department of Health, they all, they’re the ones that give the final
approval for a septic system. Why did that, explain to me again why this application came to
the Planning Board for approval of a septic system when we don’t even have any plans or
elevations for the place that’s being built or the place that’s being renovated.
MR. LAPPER-There’s a new fellow in Town, the lake keeper, or something, that’s hired by the
LGA and some other lake groups, and he came and he stood up and he suggested it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Waterkeeper.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s it, and we just didn’t have any issue with coming before the Planning
Board. So, rather than argue with the condition, we just said, fine, if you want us to go to the
Planning Board, and talk about the site plan, we’ll go to the Planning Board. So we just, it was
suggested, and we didn’t make a issue, and that’s why we’re here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now when they say apartment, it also implies that it’s like John or Bob
said, rental.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that was, even though many of the neighbors rent their properties, that
was something that was brought up, and again, Robin didn’t have a problem with it because
her intention is for her family. So we just agreed to it. It was easier to agree than to debate it.
So I think that’s why they use the term “apartment”, just because, I mean, it’s not that it’s so
small, but it’s just that it doesn’t have a lot of rooms, and so it maybe looks more like an
apartment, but whatever. It’s a single family dwelling in its own building. So it’s not in a multi
apartment building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And seasonal. So that means it’s not going to be insulated?
MR. LAPPER-I think it will be insulated. I mean, I think the Building Code requires it.
MR. NACE-It will probably be three season, but I’m not sure that the water system is functional.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, when we were up there, it looked like nobody was there.
MR. NACE-Yes. The house is not occupied during the winter.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-At some point, Mr. Chairman, whenever you’d like, I think I might be able
to shed some light on this apartment issue. I can do it now or later. Whichever you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right now.
MR. SCHACHNER-In reviewing the Zoning Board of Appeals decision and reviewing the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance and specifically the definitions section, it does not appear that
“apartment” is a defined term in our Zoning Ordinance. What the defined term is is
“apartment house”. Apartment house, of course, is not an allowed use in this zone, but the
definition of “apartment house” is a building arranged in single dwelling units and intended or
designed to be occupied by three or more families, living independently of each other, which
building may or may not have common services and entrance and which units are rented. It
seems pretty clear to me that reviewing what the applicant has proposed, it clearly seems to fall
short of that apartment house definition in at least two important ways. One, it’s not intended
to be used by three or more families, and, Number Two, it specifically says in the definition,
and which units are rented, and the Zoning Board of Appeals decision specifically has a
condition that there be no rental of the property, and by the way, just on a side note, Cathy, the
ZBA decision also specifically includes a condition that it not be subdivided.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I read that.
MR. SCHACHNER-But, coming back to the apartment thing, it seems to me that we don’t have
the problem we have with apartment that we thought we had. That that’s just a term being
used in the decision, but you could call it a one bedroom seasonal dwelling. You could call it
whatever you want, but it doesn’t seem to be a prohibited use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. I’m glad you clarified that.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Anything you guys wanted to
add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKI
MR. NAVITSKI-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitski. I was the aforementioned person
with the Lake George Waterkeeper Program. I had faxed a letter this afternoon. I don’t know if
the Board had gotten copies of it, but I have some additional on the comments that I have raised
to the ZBA on some of the points on the septic system. The points being, first, there was
conflicting information on the separation distance that would be required between the
groundwater and the bottom of the trenches that are on the details between the shallow
absorption trench system detail and the standard trench system. The applicant, I believe, is
proposing a shallow absorption system, which requires 48 inches of separation. On the detail
that was included with the standard trench system, that’s only 40, or 24 inches. So there’s a two
foot difference between the two, and on the test pit information that was provided, there’s only
32 inches between the seasonal high groundwater elevation and the surface elevation. Second
point, concern that we had, about the lack of topographic information there. It’s our opinion
that there should be information provided to show that this system would work with the grades
that are provided on the site. In my letter, I provide some numerical information on that,
because it would very much depend, on a site like this, what the elevations are and whether
that separation could be provided between the bottom of the trenches and the seasonal high
groundwater level, and the last comment was just, with the separation of the absorption field
with the structure, and about what the extent of the grading that would be required on the three
to one side slopes for the fill that would be required to be brought in for this system. So those
were the points that we had raised to the ZBA, and I do have extra copies of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Leave them right with Staff, please.
MR. NAVITSKI-Sure, and those are the comments that I had on the septic system.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask the applicant to respond to your questions.
MR. NAVITSKI-No problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, just for the Board’s clarification, we do have the letter that Chris
was referring to. I had planned on reading it into the record. He covered all the points, all three
points in the letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Very good. Good evening.
STEVEN OWEN
MR. OWEN-Good evening. My name is Steven Owen. My family owns the property adjacent
to this septic system, and as this gentleman just explained, I was very concerned with the first
meetings, that we just planted a large row of trees, and if you had gone to the property, you
may have seen a large row of trees which is presently being eaten by the deer, but I’m very
concerned with this septic system. I was under the impression from the last ZBA meeting that a
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
new engineered drawing was going to be designed to change some of the type of systems that
they had originally proposed, because I believe that this is going to raise, alongside of my
property, as the gentleman stated, some place in the neighborhood of four feet, and I’m very
concerned of what that’s going to do to my property. I know this area where the septic system
is proposed very well, especially since I just dug a 400 foot line down to put in trees, and within
eight to ten inches is definite groundwater all the way around that area, which means that it’s
going to take the maximum amount of fill, whatever the requirement is, and that’s going to
raise the adjacent land considerably higher than mine, and I’m obviously concerned with the
welfare of my family, my trees, and also the beauty of my existing property. So I’m hoping that
this system does not destroy it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. OWEN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open for a moment. Tom,
would you care to address those?
MR. NACE-Okay. Sure. The first comment that Chris had is a result of a drafting error. The
shallow absorption trench system depth to groundwater should be 24 inches, as shown on the
standard system. That will be corrected. There has been concern voiced about the grading
around the septic system. I looked at it very critically when we did these plans, and located the
system in such a manner that drainage can be channeled around the fill, stay on the property,
and not go onto the adjacent tree line or the adjacent property that was referred to. It will
require about two and a half feet of fill. Four or five feet is referenced, and at the upper end it’ll
be somewhat less. The maximum fill will be about two and a half feet in the middle of the
system. We did not do a complete topo survey and grading plan. It’s relatively flat. We looked
at it to make sure it would fit, and I shot some grades with a hand level just to assure myself
that the system would fit in, and that the grading would work.
MR. LAPPER-And we didn’t need any setback variances for that disposal field.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did your test pits.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Looking at your soil data, that you didn’t hit groundwater at all down to 54
inches?
MR. NACE-That’s correct. No. They were done in August, okay. So the fact that we didn’t hit
groundwater. We did hit 32 inches, as noted, we hit mottling, but we also had roots right down
to the level of mottling, which are also a second indication of high groundwater. Tree roots,
generally, for most of the trees around this area, with the willow there being the exception, if
you look at the test pit, was encountering roots from the maple and they will not grow down
into water.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming that Mr. Owen’s comments, he’s the property owner to the
south of the property?
MR. NACE-To the south, that is correct, and as you can see, this is 20 scale. We’re about 30 feet
from his property line with the edge of the system, which allows more than sufficient area to
taper the fill off and control the drainage on our property.
MR. MAC EWAN-And your septic system is going to have to be approved by both the Town
and Department of Health as well. Right?
MR. NACE-No, just by the Town.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Just by the Town. The Department of Health doesn’t have a role in this?
MR. NACE-This is a standard system. It’s a raised, it’s not a raised system. It’s a shallow
absorption system, which they classify as standard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. NACE-No, not unless you have other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions or comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-What do you think about swaling just south of the septic system to avoid
runoff to that?
MR. NACE-There will be. There’s a little bit of a natural rise in there, and, yes, it will be swaled.
We also want to keep the drainage from the end of the, south end of the system away from the
barn. So there will be a little bit of a swale down along the side of the barn as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing the wood frame barn?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Will there by like an “L” Shaped swale on the east side of the barn and the
south side of the infiltration bed?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to make sure on the drawing that the change you’re referring
to, Tom, is in the upper left hand, under the shallow absorption trench system, your 48 goes to
24?
MR. NACE-Yes. That is correct. Unfortunately, that’s a detail from a different town that
requires a different standard.
MR. VOLLARO-Now the grading, you’re planning, as John said, to keep whatever stormwater,
surface runoff on the property?
MR. NACE-That’s correct. I can certainly put notes, and criteria on the drawing to show that
and make that clear.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Since there isn’t any elevation on this at all, as far as grading is concerned,
we can’t tell that from this drawing.
MR. NACE-Most septic system contractors wouldn’t know what to do with contours and grade
stakes. They’ll grade by eye in the field, and if I show a swale on here, and show the intent that
the drainage be kept behind the barn and on this property, that’s what.
MR. VOLLARO-My experience, Tom, is you’re lucky if the grading contractor has this drawing
at all. That’s another point. Okay. I’m done, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, should we do a SEQRA on this? It’s Type II, but the applicant did
fill one out.
MR. HILTON-It is a Type II. However, we ask each of our applicants to fill out the form, for
whatever, if the Board feels they want to have more information or do a SEQRA review, or if we
determine it’s Unlisted. At the time of our pre-application conference, we haven’t determined
the SEQRA type. So that’s why they fill the form out. We didn’t know if it was going to be
Unlisted or not, but it is listed as a Type II.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we don’t need to do one then. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, or do you want to discuss it for a
minute? What’s your pleasure?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have another question. Mark, because it was included in the ZBA
resolution that there would be no further subdivision, that no subdivision could take place, if
this gets passed, do we have to put that in ours as a condition?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, first of all, I don’t think you have to put it in as a condition, but I think
you may be slightly misunderstanding the ZBA decision. I don’t believe the ZBA decision says
no further subdivision if this application is approved. The ZBA has issued a variance, an Area
Variance, and a condition of that Area Variance is that there be no rental of the property, I’m
sorry, two conditions of that Area Variance are there would be no rental of the property, and
that it not be subdivided. So those are conditions of the Area Variance, independent of your
decision. Those conditions are not contingent on your decision, in other words.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I understand that, but once they’ve been made, they don’t have to be
made again.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But it doesn’t hurt.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And it just, to repeat itself, doesn’t hurt a thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I have an issue with the subdivision, only because what they were saying
is that we’re not going to try and have the barn and the house on two separate lots, the way
they are now, but, you know, in ten years or a future owner could certainly try to maximize the
value and knock down everything that’s on the site and build two houses. So, I mean, that
would have to come before this Board for subdivision, but because that can be done as a
conforming project, I don’t see why that should be precluded.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the Warren County Planning Board, it looked like it was a condition that
was in there. It says, one, that it remain a one bedroom, two, there be no rental of the property,
three, that it not be subdivided.
MR. LAPPER-I think that means with the structures that are on it now, but I guess it doesn’t
matter to me because we would just come back at that point, or whoever, and show that it was a
difference circumstance, if they wanted to subdivide, knock down the houses. So I guess it’s
not that significant.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Just to make the record clear, I think the applicant’s counsel is indicating
that the applicant would have to come back to this Board seeking relief from that condition, but
it appears the applicant would also have to go to the ZBA as a result of its condition.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Then I think probably it wouldn’t be a bad idea to put it in.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So here’s the conditions that I have if you want to share conditions.
Is that where we’re at, Mr. Chairman? I know Bob has some. So we’ll just check our notes.
MR. VOLLARO-Before we get into that, we have waiver approvals here, too.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s already in the conditions. Prior to submitting, yes, the waiver
requests, or stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan,
and the condition would be that we grant that, I assume. I’m also going to ask that the wording
in the resolution put to us by Staff, it also says, just so we avoid any future problems, it also says
that the applicant proposes construction of a septic system for conversion of existing barn
structure into residential use for a seasonal apartment. I would request that we get rid of
“apartment” and put “dwelling” in there, so that there isn’t any future confusion, even though
counsel has said that there’s no need for that.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s a good idea. I didn’t say there was no need to change that
term.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So I would like.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s a fine idea.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay, and I would like to condition ours with the same thing that the
Warren County Planning Board conditioned theirs with, grant waiver requests, and that the
floor plan for the proposed building conversion will be submitted to the site plan file, and I
would like to also add that the septic system will be installed in accord with New York State
DOH codes and Queensbury, Town of Queensbury Building and Codes Department approval.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think he needs to get Department of Health on this one, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Scratch that.
MR. NACE-Well, as far as standards, your standards are the same.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why I didn’t feel it would hurt it to include that, but, and then a
correction to the plan and details sheet will be made as agreed upon by the applicant which is
the shallow absorption trench system, the minimum depth to high groundwater will be
changed from 48 inches to 24 inches.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to cite the drawing number, too, John.
MR. STROUGH-And the last item, I think, was the applicant agreed to show a drainage swale,
which would be “L” Shaped, and will run east of the barn and south of the infiltration field, on
the final.
MR. LAPPER-You better say which barn, because there’s two barns.
MR. RINGER-The wood frame barn as shown on the drawing.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, the wood frame barn. Well, that’s kind of what I had, Bob.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. VOLLARO-The only other thing, the floor plan, prior to submitting the building permit.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I mentioned that.
MR. VOLLARO-Did you get that on there? Okay. I think you got them all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other tack ons?
MR. RINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s good, John.
MR. HILTON-Really quick, the floor plan stipulation is already contained in your resolution.
So you don’t have to repeat that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2003 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 4-2003 Applicant/Owner: Robin Inwald
Type II Agent: Tom Nace, Jonathan Lapper
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 183 Cleverdale Road
Applicant proposes construction of septic system for conversion of existing barn structure into
residential use for seasonal apartment dwelling. Site Plan Review is a condition of Variance
approval.
Cross Reference: AV 77-2002
APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-12 / 12-3-26.21
Lot size: 2.38 acres / Section: 179-13-010, 179-14-050
Public Hearing: January 21, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/17/03, and
1/17 Staff Notes
1/14 Notice of Public Hearing
1/8 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact
12/30 Meeting Notice
11/13 Govern History summary
10/23 ZBA resolution: Approved
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. With a change of term in the first sentence of the Staff’s prepared resolution, the
word “apartment” changed to “dwelling”. So it should read “Applicant proposes
construction of septic system for the conversion of existing barn structure into
residential use for seasonal dwelling”.
2. The conditions already included in the resolution prepared by Staff in reference to floor
plan to be submitted: Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, a floor
plan for the proposed building conversion will be submitted to the Site Plan file that will
show only one bedroom being created with the building conversion.
3. Waiver requests granted: specifically Stormwater Management Plan, Grading Plan,
Lighting Plan, and Landscaping Plan.
4. The Planning Board maintains that it will remain a one bedroom apartment. There will
be no rental of the property, and the property is not to be subdivided.
5. The septic system will be installed in accordance and approval with the Town of
Queensbury Building & Codes Department.
6. Corrections to the plans and details, Sheet # 49092, will be made as agreed upon by the
applicant, which specifically is that the detail labeled as shallow absorption trench
system, the part of that detail that refers to minimum to high groundwater will be
changed from 48 inches to 24 inches and 5. That a drainage swale would be shown on
the final submitted plan. That drainage swale will be “L” shaped and will be east of the
wood frame barn and south of the proposed septic system infiltration bed.
Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
SITE PLAN NO. 3-2003 MICHAEL DELLA BELLA PROPERTY OWNER: FAMIGLIA
BELLA LLC AGENT: ADIRONDACK CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: 313 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION (1,960 +/- SQ. FT.)
TO EXISTING HONDA AUTO DEALERSHIP. INCLUDES 56’ X 35’ SERVICE RECEPTION
DRIVE-THRU WITH FOUR OVERHEAD GLASS DOORS. FINISHES AND COLORS
SHALL MATCH EXISTING BUILDING. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP
NO. 296.20-1-6/59-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 3.07 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
FRANK DE SANTIS & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-2003, Michael Della Bella, Meeting Date: January 21, 2003
“Project Description:
The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 1960 sq. ft. addition to an existing
automobile dealership. The addition will provide expanded vehicle service area for Della
Honda.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed expansion of an automobile dealership in the HC-Int zone requires Site
Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. The expansion will meet setback
requirements for the HC-Int zone.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically,
could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the
supporting public services and facilities?
No increased burden on public services is anticipated as a result of this proposal.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion
or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the town?
The Site Plan submitted with this application shows a reduction of parking spaces to 49
on site. Providing 49 parking spaces satisfies the parking requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the
project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological,
wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park
or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made
necessary by the project?
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed building expansion.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings,
lighting and signs.
The proposed building addition and wall-mounted lighting will be constructed on the
east side of the existing building and appears to be compatible with the existing site.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Traffic circulation should remain adequate at this location.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The reduction in the number of parking spaces will still result in enough parking spaces
to satisfy Zoning Ordinance requirements.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience.
No changes to pedestrian circulation structures or patterns are proposed with this
application.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No additional stormwater facilities are proposed with this application. The site will
continue to handle stormwater as it currently does.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site has access to municipal water and sanitary sewer service.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings,
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the
applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation
and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
No new plantings are proposed as part of this site plan.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire
hydrants.
Emergency access will remain adequate with the proposed addition.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan.
Staff comments:
The proposed building expansion meets the required side-yard setback for
the HC-Int zone. Vehicular access around this addition should not be a problem at the
present time. In the future, if a fence were constructed along the property line were to be
constructed, a 20-foot drive aisle may be a concern for two-way traffic.
The Site Plan submitted with this application shows three (3) wall-mounted lights to be
installed on the new addition. No information on foot-candle levels or cutoff details for
these fixtures has been provided with the application. The Zoning Ordinance requires
lighting to be downward facing with cutoffs directing light to the ground.
A review of the most recent aerial photographs (April 2001) for this site shows that vehicles
are being parked on the rear of the site in an area shown on the Site Plan as permeable area.
The status of this area of the site, whether parking or permeable, should be clarified by the
applicant.
The aerial photographs, along with current site visits, show that vehicles are being parked
on lands of Niagara Mohawk directly in front (to the south) of this parcel. The applicant
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
should also clarify if any agreements or consent from Niagara Mohawk for off-site parking
exist.
SEQR Status:
Type II: No further action required”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-As proposed, the building expansion meets the side yard setback requirements of
the HC Intensive zone. However, there is a property line there where existing pavement exists.
Should, for some reason in the future, that property line be fenced or somehow that pavement,
that open area be blocked, there may be some concern with two way traffic on the east side of
the proposed addition. In addition, three wall mounted lights are shown. However, no
information on foot candle contours or cutoffs have been received by Staff at this time. In the
rear of the site, currently there seems to be some parking of vehicles. However, that’s
acceptable. The status of that land as either being permeable or non permeable should be
discussed and defined by the applicant. There also seems to be some parking of vehicles off the
site to the south on some land owned by Niagara Mohawk, and some proof of any agreement
that Niagara Mohawk may have given the applicant to park on this land should be clarified.
That should be presented by the applicant. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. DE SANTIS-Good evening. For the record, I’m Frank DeSantis. I’m here on behalf of
Adirondack Construction, the agent for the applicant. To my left is Tom Center who’s here for
Rist-Frost, the engineer for the applicant. As Staff has said in its notes, this application is for a
1960 square foot addition to the existing Honda Sales facility at Quaker Road. The finishes will
be the same. It meets all the setbacks. No variances were required. Addressing Staff’s
questions that were raised, these questions were all surveys by the engineer retained by the
Town, Mr. Houston, and they were answered by Mr. Center for Rist-Frost. So I’m going to
defer to him on answering those questions. So go ahead, Tom.
MR. CENTER-We corresponded. I don’t know if you have copies of all the letters back and
forth between myself and Mr. Houston. We took care of all the comments that he had, as far as
clarifications on the existing site plan, and some proposed work with the contours and some
drainage patterns, which I have some copies of the drawings where we changed those details.
As of today, he gave me a letter back. The only question he still had was at time of construction
to provide proper cross drainage, cross grading in the back of the, what would be the northeast
corner of the existing building where we have some grading going, tying back into the original
which I had brought a disc. Unfortunately it’s not working. So we can’t show you the change,
but we’ll provide that change in the approved drawings, to meet all his comments, but we have
met all those conditions. There’s quite a few there. If you have any questions on any specific
one, I can answer those, but we’ve met, satisfied those questions at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the first and most obvious question to me would be directed at Staff.
If you have a copy of the most recent C.T. Male letter that Mr. Center has referred to?
MR. RINGER-We got it tonight, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. It was passed out tonight. I hadn’t seen it yet.
MR. HILTON-You do not have a copy?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I have. I hadn’t seen it yet. It was here tonight when we came. I really
didn’t have any questions, other than that. I mean, there were a number of comments that were
unresolved. What is the status of the Niagara Mohawk property that cars are parked on?
MR. DE SANTIS-To answer, I was going to let the technical questions be answered by Mr.
Center. The parking question in the front, unfortunately, there’s not a written, formal
agreement that we could present to you, or we would. Mr. Della Bella is, Niagara Mohawk is
aware that the cars are parked there. At Niagara Mohawk’s request, back in 1998, Mr. Della
Bella had what is known as a power line profile completed by, it was actually done by Mr.
Nace, who’s here this evening, but not retained by Mr. Della Bella on this issue, but that was
done to address any concerns that NiMo had that the cars were somehow too close to the wires
under any conditions, but there’s just a verbal agreement, an understanding that the cars may
be parked there. They ebb and flow, based on how many cars are on the lot, obviously, early in
the season, car selling season, they’re out there more often than they are toward the end of the
season, and with the car parking in the rear that was mentioned by Staff, that pretty much falls
into the same category. That area is permeable. It’s not paved or crushed stone, if we’re talking
about the same area, and I think we are, it is grass, and when it is dry, you know, in the summer
time, on a temporary basis, there are cars parked there. We don’t dispute that, but obviously
when it’s wet and muddy they don’t park cars there.
MR. HILTON-The reason for that comment is, in visiting the site, it is permeable, technically.
It’s green, but with the vehicles being parked there, we’re looking for some definition and
updating your site statistics if necessary.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay. Yes. I don’t know if we’re going to be able to get a formal agreement
from NiMo for the border. I don’t know if that’s possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-How big of an issue is that?
MR. HILTON-Well, it’s in the Zoning Ordinance, parking section states that parking should be
on-site. The Board, I think, has some latitude to approve off site parking, and any kind of
agreement would be helpful.
MR. DE SANTIS-We will attempt to do that. I don’t have it right now. I mean, since 1998, that
is what has been done on the site. They had an issue. They were aware of the cars there, and
the profile was completed. We can certainly get you a copy of the profile.
MR. MAC EWAN-The reason why I asked that question, remember about a year and a half ago
we dealt with the machine shop on Corinth Road, and the old West Mountain tractor sales
building, and they were parking, the employees were parking in the NiMo right of way there,
and I don’t think that they had some sort of easement agreement with NiMo, and that question
was brought up, and it didn’t seem like it was an issue at that time with the Planning Board. So
I’m just wondering what the linkage is here, I guess, between these two.
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, it’s obvious if you look at the aerials and you go by the site that
there’s parking underneath the power lines. Again, just from looking at the Zoning Ordinance,
it states that parking should be on the property, on the site’s, you know, on your own property,
I guess. Just bringing it to the Board’s attention, this is in for site plan review. All elements can
come up for review, and, you know, I’m not saying that it’s a problem or anything. I haven’t
heard of any complaints.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. Yes.
MR. HILTON-But it’s just for your information.
MR. MAC EWAN-The map that you’ve got up there on the screen, is that the two boundary
lines you’re showing on those properties right there that are in bold?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. HILTON-This is the property in bold, and this is the NiMo property in front.
MR. DE SANTIS-That is the property line, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the property line.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So basically what you’re looking at is all three dealerships are displaying
well within the NiMo right of way.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of issues. This is going to be a vehicle service area, as I
understand. Correct?
MR. DE SANTIS-It’s an addition to the service facility. It’s really more of a drive through drop
off area than a, cars won’t actually be serviced there. It’s more of a valet kind of a, like you’re
going to drop your car off for service, and instead of just bringing your car outside, walking
into the facility, you’re going to be driving in to the facility and getting out of your car indoors.
If you’ve ever utilized the facility on the adjacent sales facility for Pontiac, it’s very similar,
except this is the Honda facility, a very similar sort of facility. If you look at the drawings, it’s a
drive through. It’s set up to literally drive right through the facility.
MR. SEGULJIC-With doors on either side.
MR. DE SANTIS-Exactly.
MR. DE SANTIS-You’re going to come in the front, and cars are going to go out the back. So it’s
not really a place where a lot of mechanical work’s going to take place, is what I’m saying. It’s
not big enough, if you think about it, you know, 1900 square feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the Rist-Frost letter, dated January 20, there’s a reference to an oil/water
th
separator inside the building.
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m going to let Tom address that.
MR. CENTER-Yes, that’ll be for the floor drains when they wash, in the winter time primarily,
when they wash down, you know, the cars come in muddy, dirt, what not, they plan on.
MR. SEGULJIC-And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see it on their drawings anywhere.
MR. CENTER-It would be inside the building, and that would be inside the building, tied in to
the existing sanitary within the building. On the site plan we wouldn’t show it. That would
come on the building plans itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It’s not on the site plan, but it will be.
MR. CENTER-That’s correct. It was brought up. The mention, the Town Engineer asked about
loading to the existing system, and that would be the only loading that would be there would
be from when the cars, you know, drop their mud and what not on the floor, that the floor
drains, when they clean off the floor, they go into these floor drains. The oil/water separator
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
would pick the oil and grease up. That would be cleaned out just like a normal house trap, a
normal grease trap, a 12 by 24, underneath the slab, with a little thing to clean it out, tied right
into the existing sanitary. It’s a small, two inch line, just for when they clean it out, primarily in
the winter time, the mud and dirt season.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then with regards to the lighting, there’s no.
MR. CENTER-They will be cutoff lights.
MR. SEGULJIC-When you say “cutoff”, what do you mean by that?
MR. CENTER-That per the zoning standards, downcast lights that will keep light on the site. If
you need a cut sheet of that light, we can submit something with the approved plans. That’s
not a problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-My only concern was the new addition, is that going to be adjacent to that? Is
that going to be paved? I mean, just to the east?
MR. CENTER-To the east? Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now, is that going to have a tendency to run off onto Nemer’s property?
MR. CENTER-That will follow the same drainage path as it does currently. It just comes, as
opposed to being on the asphalt, it’ll be coming off the roof. It’ll be the same area, the same
amount of stormwater. It’s paved now, so it’s just up 10 feet. It’s still going the same direction.
It’s still the same amount of stormwater going in the same direction.
MR. DE SANTIS-There’s no additional pavement.
MR. CENTER-There’s no additional paving.
MR. DE SANTIS-Where there is paving now, there will be roof, after the addition is built.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. DE SANTIS-And the next, adjacent to that, there is paving now, and that paving will
remain.
MR. STROUGH-Has that had a history of being a problem between the two? I mean, is there
puddling or?
MR. CENTER-I don’t know the history of the property. It’s relatively flat in there. The contours
show it. Both buildings coming right down along the property line and going out to the back,
so both buildings come to the same point, both areas, and then it goes out to the back.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’m going to assume that, you know, during the public hearing,
if there is a problem with that, Mr. Nemer or the representative of the Nemer’s will be here to
address that, and if they don’t, I guess it won’t be a problem. I just thought it was worthy of.
MR. DE SANTIS-There’s not one that we’re aware of.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the lighting question’s been asked, and all your C.T. Male, all
those concerns have been addressed by the applicant, and I would just like, as a condition, I
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
would like that the applicant would not further encroach upon the northern wetland, as
identified as GF-19 by the New York State DEC. I don’t think that will be a problem. Right?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. STROUGH-I’m going down through my list. It seems like all the issues have been
addressed, as far as I can see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just going to ask, are the parking areas delineated with the stripe
elsewhere? If not, they should be laid out on Drawing C-2. In looking at C-2, are there any
parking areas that are not delineated on this that are to the north of this property.
MR. CENTER-If you’re asking about the new vehicle parking spaces?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. CENTER-I did not get into delineating new vehicle parking spaces. We delineated, you
know, Staff parking, employee parking, dealership parking, per the Code. We didn’t have the
parking changes.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems like the DEC’s letter was referring mostly to the parking that’s out to
the north side there, encroaching on that.
MR. CENTER-The north side? Which DEC letter?
MR. DE SANTIS-The DEC letter is actually referring to the property that’s behind the Pontiac
store.
MR. HILTON-I believe it’s referring to the property just to the west, that DEC letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Just to the west of that.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. That’s the property what I’ll say is behind the Pontiac dealership. The
wetlands that Mr. Strough referred to, there is an identified wetland that’s also behind the
Honda dealership.
MR. VOLLARO-This is GF-19? Is this what we’re talking now?
MR. DE SANTIS-I believe GF-19 is behind the Honda dealership, in what I’ll call to be, I may be
wrong, but I think it’s the northeastern corner of the parcel. There’s a wetland, if you move just
to the right there with your, you might find it there, with your magic computer. That’s one of
them, and then there’s another small area in the northeastern corner, right there.
MR. HILTON-Which we do not show as being mapped on this.
MR. DE SANTIS-Right. That was identified when we sent people out in the field. This was an
issue that was raised by Staff early on. Mr. Della Bella commissioned C.T. Male, in a separate
part of C.T. Male, to go out and do an investigation and then subsequently C.T. Male, we also
had representatives of DEC go on site and that was the result of their investigations was the
letter I believe you’re referring to, and that site that I believe they’re referring to, Mr. Vollaro, is
behind the Pontiac sales facility.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is essentially misrepresenting the area around the Honda dealership. It
talks in here at the end, it says, please make sure that the owners of Della Motors are aware of
the need to obtain a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the Department prior to completing any
additional work within the wetland, or within 100 foot of its protected buffer.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. CENTER-I believe that, this was brought up by Staff, and they considered that since both
properties are owned by the same owner, they wanted to make sure that when we came to the
Board that any problems we had on the Della Pontiac property were resolved, to the Board’s
satisfaction.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’re kind of mixing.
MR. CENTER-They’re mixing two properties. That’s correct, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting. So this letter really isn’t germane to this application. Is that
what you’re saying?
MR. CENTER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think I do want to see some cut sheets for the wall packs. I’m just
looking to see if there’s any light spill that’s going over onto Nemer Ford here. If they’re
downcast wall packs, I wouldn’t suspect you would get any light spill out of them.
MR. DE SANTIS-We don’t believe so, but we’ll supply you with the cut sheets.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just going through my notes, but I recollect that C.T. Male picked
this up, too, that the permeability on C-2 should be 46%, as opposed to 54. I think that’s just a
mathematical thing. Now, I notice that the side yards, west and east, the setbacks from side
yards on Drawing C-2 are not on there, at least I couldn’t find it. You’ve got your front/backs
set in, but I don’t see side yard separations there from property lines.
MR. CENTER-They do show on both C-1 and on C-2 it shows right in the north, it would be,
I’m sorry, the southeast corner of the proposed addition, the 20.6 feet, and then there’s another
one which has been corrected on the C.T. Male drawings, and it would be the southwest front
corner, which is the shortest setback, would be 74.25 feet. It actually shows 80.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this the one that shows 87 and a half now?
MR. CENTER-That’s correct. That was an error. It should be 74.25 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-But those are not going to property lines. Those are.
MR. CENTER-On the new drawing, on the one that we revised per C.T. Male’s comments, it is
corrected, and it goes to the property line, and I can show you the drawing right here if you’d
like.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I notice it goes to the back of the property line, but it didn’t hit
the property line.
MR. CENTER-The one in the back goes to the back of the property line, but the one in the front,
which is actually the control, because that’s less than the one in the back, shows 74.25 feet on the
revised drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a revised drawing that shows dimensions to property lines on it?
MR. CENTER-Yes, I do.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, should we have a look at those drawings, or is this a set of
drawings that we don’t have for this application?
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have the revised set. I mean, if they have revised those drawings
per C.T. Male’s direction, and should we be inclined to want to approve this application, we’d
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
just make it part of our resolution to ensure that those revisions have been made to C.T. Male’s
satisfaction, because they’re ultimately going to sign off on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Can you tell me what the update is on the drawing?
MR. CENTER-It would be revision, you want the exact, what was changed?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, whatever date the new drawing has on it. It’s been updated.
MR. CENTER-The new drawing is dated 1/20/03.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and those drawings reflect all the C.T. Male comments?
MR. CENTER-That is correct.
MR. DE SANTIS-Those drawings were submitted along with the letter of the 20, that resulted
th
in the very short letter that I believe you have a copy of from Mr. Houston.
MR. CENTER-They were submitted directly, I e-mailed them to Mr. Houston. We got the letter
late last week from him with his comments. I made the changes. They were submitted to him
yesterday. I e-mailed them to him. Copies weren’t, there wasn’t enough time to get all the
copies back and forth to the Town, satisfied in the past, as long as we’ve satisfied his comments.
When we came here it was the corrected drawings and the final submission needed to show all
the changes, like it was mentioned before.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the only addition he asked for on that was that the northeast corner of
the existing building should be further reduced prior to construction.
MR. CENTER-That’s correct, and that change, I received that notice today. I talked to him this
afternoon, and the final drawings that get submitted, you know, once the approval, that can be
a condition if you’d like, will show that change.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All my concerns were taken care of a while ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? Any questions or comments from
Board members? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROBERT NEMER
MR. NEMER-My name is Robert Nemer, Nemer Ford, and I just have one concern. Actually it’s
probably easier if I show it to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take that microphone right with you, Mr. Nemer. Thank you.
MR. NEMER-Mr. Della Bella and I have been great neighbors for probably about 20 years and
I’d like to try to keep it that way. His proposed addition, I believe, is in this corner over here,
and with the expansion of his business and my business, it’s become more and more difficulty
with the traffic in here. It doesn’t really concern anybody else, but it’s become more and more
of a concern for both of us, and I did propose to him, or his son I think it was, his son, that for
him to consider, and I don’t know what jurisdiction the Planning Board has in this, but some
divider, some type of wall, whether it’s concrete, whether it’s stone, whether it’s brick,
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
something over here to keep the traffic directed either to the east side where the Ford store is or
the west side to where the Honda store is, and maybe also that would help with any kind of
drainage problems, because if there is some kind of wall there, everything will go flow back
toward the north part of the property. Other than that, I wish them a lot of good luck, and
that’s all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. Do you gentlemen want to
come back up?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you care to offer a suggestion to Mr. Nemer’s concerns?
MR. DE SANTIS-At this very moment, I don’t have any. I don’t think it’s a bad idea. Certainly
Mr. Della Bella’s here, and, you know, I’d recommend to both of them that they talk to each
other and try and figure something out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a traffic problem on the sites now where cars cross from one
property line, from one dealership to the other?
MR. DE SANTIS-Not that I’m aware of. You’d have to ask Mr. Nemer and Mr. Della Bella.
They’re there every day in their operation. It is close. There’s no question about it. They’re
growing dealerships. Between the two of them, there’s a lot of cars there for sale and being
serviced and so on. No doubt about that. I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I don’t know, personally,
if a solid wall is the right thing, because then you’ve just got people bumping into it, but
something that maybe would separate the properties and minimize any potential for damage
that somebody would slide into something. It might not be a bad idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two things I’m thinking about, right off the top of my head, that if you put
some sort of a permanent barrier there, whether it be a stone wall, a jersey barrier, or something
like that, you’re really going to affect stormwater runoff that would go down that natural swale
that’s there.
MR. DE SANTIS-I think you’re right on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-However, if you went with something, and I’m also thinking snow removal
as well, that could be a problem. What if you went with something that was just as simple as
pressure treated guardrail type thing?
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s kind of open.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s open, that would allow for snow removal, all for stormwater to
continue to run, but yet act as a separation between the two property lines, and define one lot
from the other lot. Is there something like that you think is doable?
MR. DE SANTIS-Again, I think it is doable. I think we need to talk with, you know, Mr. Della
Bella and (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that idea?
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds feasible to me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we were concerned about the proximity to the property line, how
close everything was.
MR. RINGER-If they can do it, it’s great. The problem is, by putting something up there, it’s
going to really narrow that up. So you will have trouble perhaps getting two cars or one car, in
the winter time, through there. I don’t want to create a problem.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. CENTER-As addressed in Mr. Houston’s comments, that is going to be a one way only
going north to south. On the Della Bella property, that’ll be signed for one way only on the
back side, you know, a do not enter sign, coming the other direction. So we realize there wasn’t
24 feet there to get two vehicles going, so it is just going to be, that flow of traffic will be set up
to be for service only. The signs will point them to service, and the back side will have a do not
enter, and it’ll be, you know, one way signage on the front of the building.
MR. RINGER-So a wall or a fence really would not present a major problem there.
MR. MAC EWAN-As long as it was open.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I agree with guardrails like you’re saying, is a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But how could guardrails hold the water?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m saying, if you build something permanent like a stone wall or put
up jersey barriers, they’d act more as a barrier for runoff, as where if you just had open
guardrails with a guardrail post every, I don’t know, what are they, every 12 feet, 10 feet,
whatever they are.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That wouldn’t work.
MR. STROUGH-Well, at this point, I’m not comfortable telling the applicant, at this point, with
the information that we have, to go up and put up a cement barrier, and not seeing what it
would look like on a plan, and not going over there and taking a look at that with that issue in
mind.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not asking for a cement barrier.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what are you thinking, guardrail?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, just an open, wooden guardrail.
MR. VOLLARO-Pressure treated rail, is what he’s talking about.
MR. STROUGH-That doesn’t seem to direct the stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we don’t want it to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean a plate at the bottom?
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Nemer said that he thought it would be advantageous in directing
the water towards the back area of the lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-(Lost words) referring to something like a stone wall or something like that,
where I think it would be more prohibitive than it would be beneficial if you went that route.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. I think that between Mr. Nemer and Mr. Della Bella, they can
work it out between themselves.
MR. DE SANTIS-We’re really not increasing any runoff that’s not, that’s on the site right now.
MR. STROUGH-No, but if there is a problem, now is the time we could address it.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. DE SANTIS-I agree. I’m glad they’re both here. I’m going to, you know, if I wasn’t talking
to you, I’d be talking to the two of them telling them to talk to each other about it.
MR. STROUGH-And Mr. Nemer said that they’ve gotten along fine for 20 y ears, which also
leads me to think that there hasn’t been a big problem.
MR. VOLLARO-I view it almost as an internal problem between the two sites as well. That’s
how I feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have a problem either way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion then?
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a SEQRA here?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Type II.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-Type II. Okay. I’ll take a crack at the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2003 MICHAEL DELLA BELLA, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
Site Plan No. 3-2003 Applicant: Michael Della Bella
Type II Property Owner: Famiglia Bella LLC
Agent: Adirondack Construction Corp.
Zone: HC-1A
Location: 313 Quaker Road
Applicant proposes addition (1,960 +/- sq. ft.) to existing Honda Auto Dealership. Includes 56’ x
35’ service reception drive-thru with four overhead glass doors. Finishes and colors shall match
existing building.
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-6 / 59.-1-8.1
Lot size: 3.07 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: January 21, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 1/17/03, and
1/20 Rist Frost Assoc. response to CT Male comments dated 1/13/03
1/17 Staff Notes
1/14 Notice of Public Hearing
1/13 CT Male engineering comments
1/8 K. Johnson, Adir. Construction from K. Kogut of NYS DEC: Unauthorized
wetland fill
1/8 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact
12/30 Meeting Notice
12/26 Wastewater Dept. comments
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on January 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver requests granted: Stormwater Management Plan, Lighting Plan and
Landscaping Plan.
2. That the applicant will not further encroach upon adjacent DEC wetlands unless the
property owner obtains a Freshwater Wetlands Permit as stated in the DEC letter of
January 8, 2003.
3. Cut sheets of the three wall mounted lights will be submitted with the final plan
submission. The lights will be of the downcast type to prevent light spill.
4. The applicant will conform to C.T. Male’s January 21, 2003 letter, and the applicant’s
final submission plans will reflect the agreed upon changes as detailed in the Rist-Frost
Associates letter of January 20, 2003 to Mr. Chris Round.
Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-With the following comments, that prior to approval we’d like to see some cut
sheets for the wall packs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Whoa, stop. Prior to approval you’d like to see cut sheets?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, prior to the drawing approval. In other words, we’re going to be
supplied a new set of drawings with this. This is a drawing revision.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t you mean submitted with the final plans?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, with the final drawings. The final drawings will be dated 1/20/03. Is that
correct?
MR. CENTER-The final drawings will, sir, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And with those drawings, I’d like to see the cut sheets supplied.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re actually requesting that this be tabled, then, so you can review the
cut sheets?
MR. STROUGH-Well, no. He’s just asking.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. STROUGH-That the three wall mounted lighting fixtures, or that the cut sheets for those
three proposed wall mounted lights will be submitted with the final plans, and that those lights
will be of a downcast type, I think.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a new set of drawings here that we haven’t seen. So a condition of this
approval is that those drawings be submitted dated 1/20/03 for approval. We’re not going to
see them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Approval by who? You’re approving it. This Board’s approving this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not going to approve a set of drawings that I haven’t seen. I’m
saying that these drawings are going to, the drawings we have here do not completely reflect
this site. He has a set of drawings that does.
MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s addressed every one of the concerns that C.T. Male had regarding
the revisions that he needed to make to those drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but those are the drawings that are going to be submitted for.
MR. MAC EWAN-As part of the final record.
MR. VOLLARO-As part a of the final record.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s correct. Do you feel that you need to see those drawings?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I do not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then the way you’re starting to word that is you’re implying that we
need to see those drawings again before we render final approval.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. That’s not what I, well, I might have misspoke, but that’s not what I
mean. I want to make sure that the final drawings are submitted for Town approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, you’re using that word “Town approval”. We are the Town. We are
approving. You need to take that out of your resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They just want to be submitted, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the final revised drawings that address C.T. Male’s concern, in their
letters, note the letter dates, and along with those drawings, when they’re submitted.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get into the motion that the drawings that are presently before
this Board are not the drawings that we’re approving. They’re not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then just say something like the revised drawings.
MR. RINGER-Yes, just refer them to the revised drawings of January 20.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-The final submittals will reflect C.T. Male’s comments in both those letter
dates, because the C.T. Male comments address the changes that they required the applicant to
make. We’ve done this like 100 times before.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re going to skip and do the applicant, Richard Schermerhorn, next,
and do Western Reserve last.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ALBERT OUDEKERK AND HOWARD
TOOMEY, ET. AL. AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST
SIDE BAY ROAD OPPOSITE MAID MARION WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 22 LOT
SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-8, 9, 10/48-3-51.5, 49.1, 51.4 LOT SIZE: 51.45 AC.,
41.07 AC., 5.08 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, RICH S., REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing. It’s not required for Sketch.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No 2-2003, Sketch Plan, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date:
January 21, 2003 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 62 acres of property into 22 single-family
residential lots. The property under consideration is currently zoned Suburban Residential One
Acre (SR-1A).
The proposed subdivision includes the extension of Berry Patch Drive west to Bay Road, as well
as the construction of a cul-de-sac and an additional dead end street. The new lots would have
frontage on the newly constructed roads within the site.
As proposed, a number of the lots shown on the subdivision plan do not meet the area and
dimensional requirements for the SR-1A zone. Based on discussions with the applicant’s agent,
Planning Staff understands that the applicant wishes to construct the 22 proposed lots as a
cluster subdivision. A cluster subdivision as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and cited in
Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, states that a cluster subdivision is a subdivision with less
than the required lot area and lot width, while at the same time preserving and including open
space as common area within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision as proposed does not
provide for any common open space to be set aside within this development. Staff believes that
the development as proposed, without any common open space, does not meet the definition
and requirements of a cluster subdivision.
Allowable densities for subdivisions are calculated in accordance with Sec. 183-22 of the Town
of Queensbury Subdivision Regulation. In order to accurately calculate the Maximum number
of building lots (allowable density) for this subdivision further information on the extent and
area (acreage) of ACOE wetlands on this site must be submitted by the applicant. Based on
data available to Planning Staff, it appears that the extent of the Federal wetlands may cover a
more substantial area of the rear portions of Lots 13-17 than indicated on the proposed
subdivision plat. Clarification of the extent of on-site wetlands, as well as confirmation of this
extent from ACOE, may be needed in order to accurately account for wetland areas and
compute allowable density.
On site septic systems will be constructed to serve the proposed lots. It appears that this
property may be located more than 2000 ft. from the nearest water district. As a result, the
applicant may not be required to connect to the municipal water system. On site wells will
most likely be constructed to provide water service.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
Drainage and stormwater details will be commented on during Preliminary and Final
Subdivision review for this site.
The proposed connection to Berry Patch Drive will require connection to the existing cul-de-sac
located to the east of this site. During Preliminary and Final Subdivision review, this
application will be referred to the Town Highway Superintendent for comment on construction
of the required connection.
The subdivision plan shows a dead-end street to be built which will provide access to Lot 20.
Any future development plans for other areas along this road should be included in the overall
discussion of this subdivision in order to better coordinate and plan for future development in
this area.
Construction on this site should seek to retain existing mature vegetation at this location. In
particular, areas indicated on the subdivision plat as Lots 17, 18 and 20 contain mature trees
which should be retained as much as possible.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This is a Sketch Plan subdivision that is before you. The proposal is to extend,
the name is Berry Patch Drive, west of Bay Road, and create 22 additional single family lots.
The subdivision as proposed contains some lots that are less than one acre in size. The zoning
on this property is Suburban Residential One Acre. In conversations with the applicant’s agent,
it’s my understanding they wish to pursue this as a cluster subdivision. However, the cluster
subdivision, as referred to in the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, the intent
may not be met with this subdivision. There doesn’t appear to be any land for dedication or for
open space recreation purposes. However, whether or not this subdivision qualifies as a cluster
is in the Board’s hands. That’s your decision to make, as has been the practice in the past. Also,
we, at the time of Preliminary subdivision, we may be looking, well, we will be looking at some
density issues, and per Section 183-22 of the Town Code, density is calculated with a number of
factors. One is taking out areas of wetlands. The submitted plans indicate some Army Corps
wetlands at the southern end of this property. A detailed delineation may be necessary for
purposes of determining density and also determining setbacks. Again, that’s something that
we’ll look at in more detail at Preliminary. It appears that this property is far enough away
from the water district that it will not be required to connect to the municipal water system. So
on site septic and wells will be provided. Drainage and stormwater details will be commented
on at Preliminary and Final, and the Highway Superintendent will have this application
referred to him, in order to comment on the extension of Berry Patch Drive. That’s all we have
at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, the gang tonight is Jon Lapper, Matt Steves, Tom
Nace, and Rich Schermerhorn. In general, Rich was able to get under contract two different
parcels. In order to provide access back out to Bay Road, that was the big issue that precluded a
good design of this subdivision, and as a result of being able to tie together two people’s
property, we think we came up with a pretty nice plan to make this whole thing work for the
neighborhood. The issues that George has raised, we do have the calculation of the Army
Corps Wetland, and we are well within what’s necessary, but we will submit that for
Preliminary and for the Staff to review. That’s certainly a legitimate request. In terms of the
cluster, most of the lots are in excess of the minimum, and there are a couple that are about
35,000 square feet, that are just slightly less than an acre. So, just the way the property lays out,
and the location of the wetlands, it made sense to make some of the lots larger to create a
cluster, but just to make it work, in terms of the road layout. With the open space ownership,
we haven’t specified that, to date, but the way the Code works, there are a number of choices.
One possibility would be to grant, the simplest would be to grant the conservation easement,
and perhaps the Town Open Space Committee would accept that because it wouldn’t require
any maintenance, other than just the fact that it would be forever wild, and that’s something
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
that we can discuss with the Board, but certainly we have the ability and plan to comply with
both of those provisions. I guess if you’d like, we could just ask Matt or Tom to go through the
plan and show you what we’re talking about.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Matt Steves, for the record. What you’re looking at is an extension of the
Berry Patch Drive, which is part of the Cerrone subdivision, and Bay Berry Meadows. Going to
the west and extending up to Bay Road, so that it comes in opposite, I believe it’s called Maid
Marion Way, which is a subdivision that was done by Danny Barber. So we aligned those two
roads. We had Deb Roberts of Roberts Environmental delineate the northerly edge of the
wetland, as you can see depicted on the plan, and then she did a detailed delineation of the
northerly edge of the wetland, and then we walked and she did a basic approximate location of
the southern end, and what I did for calculation reasons is just said anything south of the north
line, even though there’s about a 10 to 12 acre chunk in the south end of the property that is not
part of the Federal wetlands, I just ran the north line of the wetlands right to the westerly
property line and divided out the area from there, and subtracting the roads, you have 24.31
acres, and we’re proposing 22 lots. So we’re well within the density calculations.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s being conservative.
MR. STEVES-And that’s being conservative, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Matt, this is your letter of 21, today?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and that was taking, like I say, not including any lands that would
be uplands by Army Corps standards, south of the proposed lots, or I should say south of the
approximate wetland line. That would be just taking all that right out of the picture, and the
lots that are proposed on the northerly end of the property, on the cul de sac, there are a few
that are around 35, 38,000 square feet, t hat are consistent with the lots in that neighborhood.
All the lots that are in the Bay Berry Meadows subdivision are around the 28 to 30,000 square
foot range. We went down, I think, as low as 33, 35,000 was our smallest lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that last part again, please.
MR. STEVES-The lot sizes that we have in there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STEVES-I’ll take a look at it now. Lot 12, 30,000, and then we have Lot 10 and 11 that are in
the mid 20’s, and Lot 7 that’s 28,000. So they basically average, on the smallest lots, just around
30,000 square feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to pass for now. Come back to me later.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Let me address the big one first. All right. I was on the Committee
when we re-wrote the Town Code, and I can remember clustering was an important thing to
me. Because you can, as a tool, as a community planning tool, there’s a lot that you can do with
it, but the whole idea is when an applicant wants to come in and wants to cluster, is the
community gets some benefit from this. Let me explain. We’re going to get some open space.
We’re going to get some kind of recreation development out of it. It might be an amenity for
the public, available to the public, and this would be on land that would have otherwise have
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
been developable, okay, and I think that’s an important point, on land that would have
otherwise been developable. So I don’t count wetlands and undeveloped areas as part of the
scheme. In other words, your community gains something from this that it normally would not
have had, that the developer could have developed all of this. So we’re gaining something from
it. The community gains something from it.
MR. LAPPER-We have that land available. I mean, we are here to talk about that. We have all
that land that Matt said he was being conservative, on the south side, which is many acres, and
if the Board, rather than a passive open space project, if the Board would like active recreation, I
mean, there’s all sorts of possibilities.
MR. STROUGH-Well, speak to that, Jon. What are we going to get out of this? I mean, show
me.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Why don’t you show them what we’re talking about.
MR. NACE-Okay. It may be easier to see on the plan here. These lots on the south of the road,
okay, are big, long lots. They traverse a section of wetland here, but there is a strip along the
western boundary that’s available to access that, okay, and this southern line, as Matt said, is
approximate, but beyond that southern line, and I think you can kind of tell here by the change
in vegetation shown on the map, and even in fact in the back end of the property there’s a field
back there, an old field, that this is upland area, okay, that could be developed by bringing a
road down along here. This land will stay, either through conservation easements or dedication
to the Town, if they prefer that, but this, not only the wetland area here in the middle but this
large chunk, to the south of that, would remain undeveloped, natural habitat.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I think you could make your case, and this is just a Sketch Plan.
Right?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-So this is just trying to talk out loud.
MR. LAPPER-Conceptual.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the other things that I, what’s that line running to the west of 18,
that goes through Lot 18?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a property line.
MR. NACE-That’s a property line. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-The current property line?
MR. NACE-As Jon mentioned, in order to make this work and allow access out to Bay Road,
okay, there are two properties here that are being put together, okay, and that’s the existing
property division there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and, thank you, and how about going over to Oudekerk’s
property line. Now is that a line that runs, well, it runs south to northwest on, the dotted line
on the Oudekerk property?
MR. NACE-Up along Berry Drive, to the south of Berry Drive?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, parallel to Berry Drive, but just to the west of it.
MR. NACE-Okay. That’s the current property line, and the area to the north of that would be
melded back in to their existing lot, to their existing house lot.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. STROUGH-So their property would, okay, would increase?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, the cul de sac. The way it’s drawn, and maybe it’s not the way it’s
going to be, but solid pavement cul de sacs don’t go well with me. I’m speaking as one
Planning Board member. I’d rather see green space in there, and furthermore, I’m familiar with
cul de sacs. I’ve lived on my second one, now. If the roads are pitched toward the middle of
the cul de sac, and the cul de sac is green space, it makes a perfect stormwater drainage area.
MR. NACE-Well, this is just showing the property line. None of, in the new subdivision, none
of the actual pavement is shown. These are just property lines. So, this would be a standard
Town cul de sac with green area in the middle.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let’s see. Again, the road that goes, is that going to be an extension of
Berry Patch Drive, that road that goes out to Bay?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-You’re proposing a new road?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the road going off of that, to the west, only services one lot, Lot 20. It
seems to me that that, the cost of the road would be more than you’d ever get out of the lot.
MR. LAPPER-That’s true, but what you can’t tell from the map is that Lot 20 is going to be
retained by Mr. Toomey, the seller. So as part of the contract, Rich agreed to apply to this Board
to subdivide that, so that he would have a lot for a family member.
MR. STROUGH-So would that be actually a private drive, then?
MR. LAPPER-No. It would be a road, because that also is how you get to the driveway for Lot
19. It also provides a possibility, if he wanted to sell that in the future or develop it, that he has
access. So Rich has agreed to bring that road in as far as needed for a driveway for Lot 20. So in
the future it could be developed, but it’s not for sale now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Lot 19 might be proposed, as part of.
MR. LAPPER-Open space.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Either way, you have access to Lot 19 and to Lot 20.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And future development of the remaining Toomey parcel.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I see. All right. The density calculations thing is going to have to be
addressed. Maintaining mature vegetation as much as possible seemed to be a concern by the
Staff, and as we go along we can address that. I don’t like those long lots, and I’m willing to bet
$10 Bob’s going to speak to that, and test pit data, I didn’t see any, but I guess we don’t need
any at this point.
MR. NACE-We’ve done a bunch of test pits. It’s not on here. This is conceptual, but we have
done quite a few in order to configure the subdivision.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, those are my immediate thoughts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I wanted to know if, for example, if I were to purchase Lot 16, would I be
purchasing really 6.61 acres?
MR. LAPPER-Well, yes, but you have a wetland in between your front and your back.
MR. VOLLARO-What does my deed say about, it’s a restrictive deed?
MR. LAPPER-Well, if the Board were going to approve it now, the way it’s proposed, your deed
would show that whole lot, with all those acres, and there would be a deed covenant about
leaving the wetlands alone, but after John’s discussion, it could be that we come back and have
an active recreation proposal or something else that, you know, that uses the land in the back, in
some way.
MR. VOLLARO-So Lot 16 may be cut down considerably in terms of the size of the lot?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because this gives us the opportunity, because there are all those acres back
there, if that’s what the Board wants to see.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed on the drawing it says there’s zero acres of DEC wetland. Is this all
Army Corps wetlands?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. STEVES-There are no State wetlands on the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Lately I see Army Corps playing a more and more active role.
MR. LAPPER-Because all the good lots are already gone.
MR. VOLLARO-I see.
MR. LAPPER-In the Town of Queensbury. All the cheap lots are gone, let’s say.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any really comments on the layout of this. I think it’s laid out
well. I think just taking a page out of John’s book here for a minute, that we want to see what
benefit the community’s going to get for the cluster operation. That’s what I’m really looking to
see, just what innovative sort of thinking you want to put forward the next time around. That’s
what we’d probably be mostly looking for on the cluster. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, that’s all I
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s the, my concern is where the ingress and egress is on Bay Road,
opposite Maid Marion Way. You don’t foresee any traffic problems there?
MR. STEVES-No, just the opposite. Aligning a four way road or roads opposite each other is
the best way to do it. Otherwise you should have about 150 to 200 foot separation between the
roads, and that would be basically impossible in this situation. So the only way to do it is to
align it so that you have the cross traffic that can see each other when they’re making left and
right hand turns out of each opposing road, is the best way to do it.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now, another concern is the school bus, I think, stops over by,
at the end of Berry Drive, and probably there would be another, I’m just thinking safety
concerns.
MR. STEVES-They would probably drive through, now, with the.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It might drive through now.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I would imagine because of the interconnecting, because what you
have now is, if you go down in there, it blocks itself in. Now with the loop road I would
imagine, I can’t speak for the school bus, but I would think that they would then drive through
and pick up at a couple of different points throughout the subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because that’s been a big issue. All right, now, back to this clustering. I’ll
be quite honest with you, when I look at this, I don’t see any clustering at all. What I see is the
best way to configure 21 lots, with a wetlands in the middle.
MR. STEVES-That’s why we’re here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I don’t see, to me, I don’t see any clustering effect at all. I just see,
okay, this is a good way to configure 21 lots where you’ve got a wetlands kind of in a nasty
area, if you’re a builder. How else would you do it? So where do you get this clustering
notion?
MR. NACE-One of the issues is that we could put a road in along the western boundary and
put a cul de sac down in the highlands to the south of the wetlands.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. The western boundary, okay, would be up here, coming
down like this.
MR. NACE-Between, we could put a road in along Lot 18, come down along the property line,
put a cul de sac in back and develop one acre lots back there. Okay, but, you know, it would
chew up more land. It would create additional road that the Town would have to maintain,
additional infrastructure, and it wouldn’t necessarily solve any problems or be any better than
what’s here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But couldn’t you do that and then just double those other lots, 10 and 11,
and make them closer to an acre? I mean, this has to be.
MR. NACE-Well, that’s my point, but we could make all of the lots one acre, okay, but in doing
that, we could still probably get 22 lots or more, okay. We would end up with a lot more road,
and we would end up chewing up a lot more open land.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. NACE-By doing this, I think we’re meeting the intent of the cluster provision by reducing
the amount of infrastructure, by keeping open space that will in one way shape or form be
restricted from any future development, and the way I read the Code and the way I understand
it, that’s really the intent.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what, I want to hear that.
MR. NACE-To make better use of land and to leave open space.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, Tom, I appreciate, I wanted to hear you say that. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’d like to see some benefits to the Town, for sure, if we’re going to come through,
and apparently you’ve looked at an alternate plan without clustering, Tom. Have you got one
down that you could show us?
MR. NACE-We could certainly provide one, yes.
MR. RINGER-I would just like to see what a plan would be. You say you could get 22 lots
without clustering, I think I might like to see that.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess John lost his bet, because Bob didn’t say anything about the cigar
shaped lots, but I guess I will. I, and I’ve mentioned it before on projects that we’ve seen that
have those. I mean, I think it’s bad planning, but, you know, maybe there’s some other way to
change those lot lines around to have community open space or something else, and I’m not
sure what your thoughts were on future open space, who would maintain it, or how that would
work. I mean, because I think typically when you think about clustering you think about a trust
that was maintained, a space that’s set aside or something like that. I mean, there’s so many
different ways to do it.
MR. NACE-Well, there are different ways, and I think your regulation, your new zoning, you
know, looks at those. It looks at having an Open Space Conservancy or some other
organization maintain it. It also looks at having the individual homeowner maintain it, with a,
what do they call it, the conservation easement pursuant to either General Municipal Law or
Conservation Law, that, you know, strictly forbids development of it. I mean, it’s a matter of
whether the organizations are there that would want to own and maintain it, or, if not, you
know, I think the end result, unless you pursue active use of it, active recreation on it, if you’re
just looking for passive open space, I think the net result is probably the same either way.
MR. LAPPER-But we have the choice of either active recreation or passive open space, and we’ll
do what the Board wants us to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the things that would be helpful, I think, is to see what some
of the land patterns are in the adjacent property lines. I mean, obviously these must be some
large sites that the are, the tax parcels adjacent to the proposal here.
MR. NACE-On the south end down here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, primarily to the south, but also to the west.
MR. NACE-Yes, we can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-I think some of that, at the very south end, I believe some of it backs up on to the
original Hiland project. Right, Matt?
MR. STEVES-The original Hiland project is directly to the south of that.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. NACE-Right, and some of that is, the back end of that Hiland, the northwest corner of that
Hiland parcel is pretty inaccessible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It still ought to be useful, I think, particularly if we’re going to be
looking at open space and other, you know, issues.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. STEVES-Not a problem. At Preliminary, we will provide you a location map that shows
you all the lots within a few thousand feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Last chance, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I can agree with the layout. I think it’s good in that it reduces the (lost
words) I guess the view shed in there, and that’s something I’d be concerned with is (lost
words) really nice view from there, and the other thing I’d like to see is, you know, a proposal
for the open space and what we’re going to do with that, and that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments? What’s the message we want to send?
MR. VOLLARO-I think the message we want to send is to see what benefit to the community
this clustering gives us, what kind of open space are they going to set aside, how it’s going to be
used.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come back with a plan at Preliminary for how you’re going to propose that
open space. Okay.
MR. RINGER-And an alternate plan on what it would look like without a cluster.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. George, while we were reviewing this application, it
caught my eye. I was looking at the existing subdivision next to it, two lots. See south of the cul
de sac right there, those two lots right there, would you investigate for me and find out how
they became landlocked?
MR. HILTON-There are two drives on the east side here that you can’t see.
MR. MAC EWAN-That you can’t see, okay.
MR. HILTON-But they’re flag lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I know that that one larger lot that’s more to the west there, to the
hedgerow, there was someone talking about developing that about a year and a half or so ago,
and they had an option on buying that parcel, and I recall when we approved that thing, there
was a rather long, “L’ Shaped configuration to be able to get into that lot, and looking at the
property lines there, and I didn’t see that anymore.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I’d zoom in and show you. It would take all day, though, with the photos,
but they are two “L’ Shaped.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s fine. Okay. Very good.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF
POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.8 ACRE LOT FOR 6
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 26 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01,
AV 22-02 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, M. HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on November 26 was tabled, and there is one
th
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. The new information that we have for this application consists of a blue
lupine management plan, and additional commentary/narrative, for purposes of conducting
combined SEQRA review for the subdivision, single family lots in the front, and the concept
proposed development in the rear, that being the town homes. This information, the SEQRA
information, supplements the Short Form that’s been provided originally with the application.
I’ve broken my notes down into various sections, commenting on each of the bits of information
that the applicant has provided. I guess as a general comment I would just state that the
information that’s been provided to date with the application makes it difficult for us to
comment, in terms of doing combined SEQRA review, septic, stormwater, traffic, visual impact,
in general. It’s difficult to provide any detailed staff comments without the information that
C.T. Male’s comments and our previous comments have stated is missing as a part of this
application. If you have any specific questions on the items, in regards to SEQRA, I can answer
them as best I can, but that’s our general comment. I’m going to turn the microphone over to
Marilyn. She’s prepared some comment, and may have some comments for you on the blue
lupine management plan.
MRS. RYBA-You did receive some notes from me in reference to the management plan that the
applicant submitted. There are some items that could be clarified, certainly, in reference, and
I’ve listed those. One was that there be a Long Environmental Assessment Form, and that
would address some of the other SEQRA issues that George had raised. The second is showing
all of the blue lupine areas, not just what’s on this site but along the County right of way,
because you do need to make an assessment of whether or not the shared driveway location
would impact habitat, and then the other is that, and this is a very difficult issue that I know
everyone has been struggling with, which is we don’t know whether or not there is endangered
or threatened species on the site. The applicant has proposed some temporary measures, but
we really have no idea what long term mitigation would be offered, and the applicant has
proposed piggybacking on a Town plan, but we don’t have one developed yet. So it makes it
difficult to make any kind of assessment on a plan that the Town hasn’t put together, and in
terms of the temporary measures, the question asked is are those reasonable, and to avoid
impacts at this point, and I do believe that that’s the case, that those temporary measures are
reasonable, and that’s all I have to say on that right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Mickie Hayes, Tom Nace, and Matt
Steves. I guess I’d like to start out just to recap where we were last time. Of course we have this
tired industrial site that the Hayes’ have been in the process of starting to do the remediation
before we came before this Board for subdivision approval, and ultimately site plan approval on
the back site. This Board was very gracious, last time, in terms of positive comments about the
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
remediation work and the design of this subdivision, so that we had the single family, even
though both single family and multifamily are permitted uses in this zone, we had designed it
so we would have single family lots along West Mountain Road, to maintain that character, and
locating the townhouses in the back, so that they would be buffered, but at the same time
keeping them low so they’re not going up the mountain, so that it wouldn’t be a visual impact
from a far distance or from someone driving on West Mountain Road. So we’ve tried to be as
thoughtful as possible in terms of how we laid this out. We then got a little bit caught up in
Karner blue last time, partly because we had the applicant across the street that had a very
significant blue lupine habitat. We have two very small areas on the site, and as Marilyn
mentioned, one area within the County right of way that’s not on the site, and we have had
communications and a letter back from DEC, which we believe acknowledges that what we’ve
proposed, in terms of avoidance is acceptable to DEC, but in general, in terms of the SEQRA
review, we’re here specifically just for subdivision review of the six residential lots and the
seventh lot in the back, because we’re precluded from submitting the site plan review for the
townhouse part of it until it’s a subdivided lot, conforming lot. So in terms of the application
procedure, we had to submit for subdivision first. At the same time, it is correct that when the
Town Planning Board is doing a SEQRA review, you need to contemplate the maximum
potential impacts of the action, of the entire project, including the back. So for that reason, we
submitted some additional information as a SEQRA supplement, of maximum potential
impacts, maximum development of the back site. We’re still discussing with the Zoning
Administrator how we calculate density in the back, and he disagrees with us on basically two
lots, whether it’s 26 or 24 units, and we haven’t really worked that out yet because we haven’t
made that application because we’ve got to deal with the subdivision first. So what we’re
looking for is for the Board to be able to make a thorough and appropriate SEQRA
determination on the whole thing, and then grant subdivision approval and then subsequent to
that, we would work out the density issue with the Planning Staff and then come back for site
plan on the townhouses.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you electing to go this route? I mean, you’ve represented applicants
numerous times in the past where you’re going to do a subdivision and a site plan, and you’ve
shown them together when you’ve made your applications. Although we deal, usually on the
agenda we do the site plan, or the subdivision, then we jump into the site plan. Why are you
electing this way, to go a different route this way, and not show us the total build out,
everything we’re going to be dealing with for SEQRA?
MR. LAPPER-We were told by the Planning Department that we couldn’t submit the site plan
yet because it had to be subdivided first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, for the purposes of doing SEQRA, if we’re looking at a maximum build
out.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Even though we know the site plan potentially could come down the road,
and we’re only dealing with the subdivision issue, it would be beneficial to the Board, to Staff
and everyone involved that we see maximum potential build out for these sites in order to
evaluate SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that, yes, the concept plan shows that, the maximum number of
units, and we submitted an impact analysis that talked about stormwater, septic, traffic, visual
impact. So we think that we’ve covered the impact issues and given you a conceptual site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of George’s memo of January 17, 2003?
MR. LAPPER-Right in front of me.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you look at the last paragraph on the front page, and you’re looking at the
last line. It says, “A combined layout/subdivision plat would be beneficial to the overall review
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
of subdivision and SEQRA issues, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, grading, and
drainage.” And it goes on to Page Two where he goes in depth into what he’s looking for. It
seems to me that would be practical. If you jump even farther ahead, and you look at the
November 21 from C.T. Male, they give you several bulleted items that are missing from the
st
application that they need more to review it.
MR. NACE-Okay. I talked to C.T. Male subsequent to that letter, and they were under the
impression that they were reviewing a site plan. When we submitted the concept site plan, they
weren’t looking at it in the realm or in the light of having a SEQRA review for the subdivision,
simple showing a concept with maximum build out, maximum impact for the rear lot. They
thought that they were supposed to reviewing the complete site plan application for the rear lot,
and that’s why they were asking for all the site plan detail, but the map, you’ll see the map that
was submitted for the concept, which is on the board there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, I’m reading this letter, and they are referencing the subdivision, and it
says, the intent of the proposal is clear, a seven lot subdivision, the following items will be
needed to complete our review, and they list all those bulleted items.
MR. NACE-I’ll make sure we’re looking at the same letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Am I missing something here?
MR. SCHACHNER-Just to add to that, I was confused by Mr. Nace’s comments, because just
above where you’re reading, the C.T. Male letter seems to make clear that they’re looking at, it
says. we’re in receipt of Preliminary and Final subdivision applications. So I was confused as
well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any correspondence from C.T. Male, or does Staff have
correspondence from C.T. Male since this November 21 letter?
st
MR. HILTON-No. We’ve included a re-print of their comments, just to keep you up to date. I
talked to Jim Edwards, and those are the only comments they have. I can just bring to your
attention that Section 183-9 of the Subdivision Regulations lay out in detail what’s required with
the subdivision Preliminary plat. Certainly the Board has the ability to grant waivers. It’s my
understanding that waivers haven’t been requested, but as far as answering your question, we
have no new comments from C.T. Male. Those are the current ones.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-No. I simply have my conversation that I had subsequent to the letter with Jim
Edwards, but if you look, those are the detail, I mean, a grading and erosion control plan for the
site development is what you would see at site plan review. Okay. It’s not what you would see
with the concept site development plan for SEQRA purposes of potential maximum build out of
the site. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everything that they’re asking for in that November 21 letter is relative to a
st
subdivision approval process.
MR. NACE-No, I disagree with you. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Proposed grading plans? We don’t get those in subdivision?
MR. NACE-You do for the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes we give waivers to them, but typically a subdivision this size we
ask for it.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. NACE-You do for the subdivision road. If there’s no subdivision road, do you get a
grading plan? Okay. This is not a subdivision road. Well, regardless.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would disagree with that, Tom.
MR. NACE-Is it, you’re looking for the complete site plan to review, then, at the same time? Is
that what you expect to see?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, it’s all surrounding the issue of SEQRA. I mean, you know,
if we’re looking at trying to get all the available information in front of us, so we can make an
informed decision, I would think that it would benefit everyone if we had all the information
that’s available to us to review. I mean, I think that’s what Staff is looking for. That’s what C.T.
Male is looking for. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, Mark. I mean, from a SEQRA standpoint,
that would be the route to go, wouldn’t be?
MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t disagree, but I’m still confused in that I also think, in addition, that
regardless of whether Mr. Nace is actually correct or not, C.T. Male seems to clearly believe that
what it’s reviewing is subdivision stuff and that it needs all this additional information, just for
subdivision, even before we get to site plan review. So I think for both purposes, for SEQRA
review of the overall action and to satisfy C.T. Male’s concerns, unless somebody can convince
C.T. Male that it’s concerns are misplaced, the applicant seems to be lacking a bunch of
information.
MR. LAPPER-I guess simply we believe that what they’re asking for is the full site plan
submittal, which we weren’t planning on doing at this stage because until the Planning Board
passes on the subdivision, we don’t know if that’s what the lot’s going to look like.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t mean to interrupt, Mr. Lapper, but when you say “they”, you mean
C.T. Male. Right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have had no independent conversations with them whatsoever. I’m only
reading from the letter, and from the letter, it seems to me they’re not saying these are the
things we need for site plan review. It seems that they’re saying, these are the things we need
for subdivision approval. Does it not seem that way to the Board members?
MR. MAC EWAN-Very first line.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s clearly stated in the first line.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. I’m just saying that’s how I read the
letter.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the letter says, no question about it.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, I mean, the other approach, I mean, if the applicant feels otherwise, if
C.T. Male’s going to issue some clarifying letter that comes around to the applicant’s way of
thinking, that’s a different story, but I think based on what we have before us, and you all have
before us as a Board, it seems to me fairly clear that C.T. Male is not suggesting that the bullet
items are things it needs for site plan review, for review of site plan stuff, but that these bullet
items are things that C.T. Male feels it needs to review for subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my view on that as well.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the simple answer is that it’s not worth, nor do we want to argue about it.
So if that’s what the Board wants, we’ll submit it and we’ll come back and talk about it next
time, but I guess the other kind of threshold issue that, where we were last time, that was
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
somewhat of a case of first impression for this Board, was the blue lupine area, which again are
very small areas, and we submitted a specific avoidance plan for these areas on this site. So if
we could get some direction from you on that issue, that perhaps we’ve nailed that down, and
Marilyn said that she thought that that was sufficient, maybe we could then come back and deal
with the rest of the issues so you could do the full SEQRA review next time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally my position hasn’t changed. I’d rather have the survey done, just
like we told the Bell-Nav. application, during the brooding season.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what’s different now is that we have the benefit of the Town Attorney
here who wasn’t at the last meeting, and I know that Mark has extensive experience dealing
with blue lupine issues. Our position is that we don’t have any indication that it’s actually a
habitat. We just have the potential habitat, because we have the blue lupine, and that even if we
had the butterfly, all we would have to do is what we’re proposing now, which is a detailed
avoidance plan, that it doesn’t preclude development. It just precludes disturbing that area. So
we think we’ve gone the full extent of what we would need to do, even if there were frosted
elfins or Karner blue butterflies. So we think that, legally, we have completely addressed it,
although in our discussions on site, and over the phone with DEC, we believe that these two
patches are too small, and she even said that in her prior letter, that they’re too small to support
Karner blue habitat. It’s possible to support frosted elfin. We think it’s unlikely. So we think
that the best way to deal with this is to do it as some sort of a mitigation payment to DEC if
that’s required, because these are just not significant areas whereas across the street there are
more vast areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to certainly come across sounding snide here, but what expert
opinion do you have that basis the fact that you don’t think it could potentially support the blue
lupine?
MR. LAPPER-She said that in her letter that was.
MR. MAC EWAN-You said “we”.
MR. LAPPER-No, she. Kathy O’Brien, the expert on endangered species.
MR. MAC EWAN-The reason why I asked that question, Jon, is because you said “we”, “we”
don’t think it would support blue lupine.
MR. LAPPER-Based upon what she said. That’s in the letter from her that we discussed last
time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that this Board, I mean, this is my opinion. I think this Board needs to
be consistent. I mean, we’re heading into a whole new area here in the Town here, there’s more
and more land that’s less desirable to build on, becomes potential sites to build on. You said
that moments ago with the previous application, all the good land in Queensbury is gone.
MR. LAPPER-On this one, Craig, the reason why this lot has sat there in a booming residential
market on the west side, a booming side of Queensbury, the reason why this has sat there, I’ve
had three developer clients that have looked at this and said they weren’t going to get involved
because there was concrete all over the place under ground, there were rotted trucks. I mean,
this is an expensive site to develop because it’s an old industrial site. It’s a mess, but the Hayes
have come in and said that they’re willing to roll up their sleeves and to deal with it. This is a
prime site. It’s a beautiful site.
MR. MAC EWAN-But because a developer, Jon, has taken the initiative to take a less than
desirable site as a potential project to develop, shouldn’t preclude this Board from turning its
back on it and our obligations and what we need to do in the best interest of the Town.
MR. LAPPER-No question. I’m just saying that the Karner blue area.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if we’re starting to deal with these issues throughout this area of the
western portion of the Town, we have an opportunity here to ensure that any potential habitat
is going to be protected. It’s going to be protected to the maximum.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s our obligation as well, but these are just two tiny potential habitats.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s not like you’re going to break dirt next week to start building
things.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I’ve already told you that we are happy to come back, if that’s the Board’s
request, with all of the information, even though we wouldn’t usually be doing all that work
now, and deal with the site plan in the back, but I just don’t think that the Board should take the
position that these two areas of blue lupine preclude any kind of significant development,
because they’re just little patches.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two things jump out at me. Number One, is being consistent with
applications that come in front of this Board regarding this specific issue. Number Two, in the
general location of this particular site, we have cumulative impacts of other sites that all have to
look at the big picture here. I’m looking at that from a SEQRA standpoint.
MR. LAPPER-You’re right, but the answer for both this site and the other site is avoidance, and
we’re proposing to stay away from the blue lupine areas, and that’s what the law requires,
avoidance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I appreciate your position. You know my personal position.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I’d like to comment, because I have a little different opinion than you on this,
Craig, and I feel that what they’ve offered for mitigation on this, temporary mitigation, is
sufficient. I do have the problem with consistency with what we did with the other, and that’s
where I would struggle with this, but I think their recommendation, for Kathy O’Brien’s
recommendations, and their recommendations are sufficient to do away with the issue of the
Karner blue on this particular site, but I still have the problem with consistency because of the
other application we had before us. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but we
obviously have a difference here.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s wide open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to go down the line?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I tended to agree with Larry, until I read Marilyn’s memo today, in
terms of making our SEQRA determination. Personally, I don’t feel that there’s enough
information to come to a negative declaration, which only really leaves us a positive
declaration.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll supplement.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that?
MR. LAPPER-We’ll supplement the information as you’ve requested.
MR. RINGER-Well, I would think that we’d need, along with Marilyn’s letter, we would need a
Long Form.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And I thought that we would get a Long Form anyway.
MR. LAPPER-We would have liked to have known that before tonight, that that’s what the Staff
requested, but we will certainly submit that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not disagreeing with you, but I just don’t think that, well, maybe I need
to ask the question of Counsel, how accurate this statement is, but if a condition requires
analysis of future study, whether or not that’s appropriate. In Marilyn’s memo she said that
that’s not appropriate. Well, I’ll just read what she said, according to SEQRA, a condition that
requires analysis of the results of a future study is inappropriate.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. That’s not from a final memo. That was from a draft.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-And that refers to something that comes right out of SEQRA, which is a
conditioned negative declaration, and so that’s verbatim from, if you were doing a conditioned
negative declaration. There were several options that were outlined how to deal with a
negative declaration, a conditioned negative declaration or a positive declaration. So there was
a memo distributed to you tonight that’s a final form.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you took that out, yes. I like the draft better.
MR. LAPPER-It sounds like I like the final one better.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Could you read me that again, Chris, just that sentence?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the statement says, according to SEQRA, a condition that requires
analysis of the results of a future study is inappropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and generically, and in the context of a conditioned negative
declaration, that’s true. I mean, don’t take that out of context and take that as the gospel and
say that no condition that requires some future analysis is ever appropriate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-But the general idea is if you have to speculate so much so that you’re
saying, you know, if something works out this way in the future, then the negative declaration’s
okay. If it’s that speculative, SEQRA very much frowns on that. SEQRA implores us to have
enough information up front to be able to say whether there will or won’t be adverse
environmental impacts. Not, well, based on some future study, we hope there won’t be. Now,
am I answering your question at all?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, in fact, you’re saying exactly what I thought it said.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how I read it, because my feeling was that until we have the Karner
blue study, and we’re able to draw conclusions from that, we don’t know, we have Kathy’s
letter that says that she believes that the small areas on this site are, you know, can’t support
habitat, but that’s drawing conclusion that we can’t necessarily draw, in the absence of a larger
study.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. LAPPER-I’m betting that I can get Mark to agree with me on this. Mark, what we’re
proposing is complete avoidance. So there’s no impact that we’re proposing. We’re not
disturbing the blue lupine area at all. We’re saying we avoid it, and if it turns out from the
future study that it can’t support a habitat, and it doesn’t support a habitat, then the blue lupine
wouldn’t even have to be protected, or we could pay into some mitigation fund to get rid of it,
whatever the Board thought was appropriate. So in this case, it’s not a question of there may be
an impact. We’re saying there won’t be any impact, but there may not even be a reason to stay
away from it, and I think that, therefore, we’re not talking about a future study that justifies
what we’re doing now. We’re just avoiding it.
MR. NACE-I think what we’re proposing is that we’ve got a condition where the future study
couldn’t create an impact that we weren’t already taking care of .
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess my thinking is, what if, when you do the study in the
summer months, that you find out that there is, indeed, endangered species on the site?
MR. LAPPER-The answer is exactly what we propose now, and if we have the board here with
the signs that DEC wants, we have to fence it and not develop it, and stay away from it, from
those patches. That’s the extent of what the endangered species law requires, that you can’t
harm the endangered species habitat.
MR. STEVES-The conditions that would be placed upon it, if the species study was performed
and found, is the same conditions we’re placing on it without it.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my feeling is a little more basic than that, in that we can’t even
answer the question, do we know whether or not there’s endangered species on the site. We
can’t even say yes or no.
MR. LAPPER-We’re saying it doesn’t matter because we’re doing everything we have to do,
even if there were, and so we think that we’re in a legally tenable position.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you know what his position is.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I like Larry’s position.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I feel kind of at a disadvantage because I wasn’t here for prior discussions, but I
think, what’s the problem with waiting until the study is done?
MR. LAPPER-We’ve already said that on that lot where they are, we won’t develop. We’ve
offered that last time as a condition. We feel that you don’t have to hold up a 33 acre site,
because one lot, Lot One, we’re not going to develop that lot until we get this question
answered. So not only are we going to do what we have to do to fence it and post it and stay
away from it, we’re not going to put a house on that lot. So we’re doing everything we’ve got to
do, and we’re avoiding it, because it’s all in one specific area, but we’re saying you don’t have
to hold up a 33 acre project because you’ve got a patch of, two patches of blue lupine on one lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-And those have been identified by Kathy O’Brien?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’ve all been identified and limited to the one lot?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-Now is that on the edge, in the middle of that one lot?
MR. LAPPER-Show him where it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, who flagged this site for lupine?
MR. HAYES-We had a biology study flag, and Kathy, she, Mickie Hayes here, and Kathy came
and actually tried to, in the summertime, to try to see if there was live butterflies, but she did
not see the butterflies in those patches.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who flagged the site, did you say?
MR. HAYES-We did.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did it on your own?
MR. HAYES-Yes, with a biology student, yes, but Kathy O’Brien also walked the site. She
designated the areas in the right of way.
MR. LAPPER-Her letter indicates where they are. That letter from last meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m trying to get at here is that, was the site flagged under the?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Endangered Species Unit?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. She is from the Endangered Species Unit, and she verified it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, did Kathy O’Brien set you up with the field biologist, or is that
someone you went out and acquired on your own?
MR. STEVES-She walked it herself.
MR. MAC EWAN-How did it work?
MR. STEVES-She is the field biologist
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing two different people here, Matt.
MR. STEVES-Kathy O’Brien is the person with DEC that does that. She comes out and defines
the areas, and.
MR. MAC EWAN-If I misunderstood Mickie, though, Mickie implied that someone else did he.
MR. STEVES-He did it and she confirmed them.
MR. MAC EWAN-You went out and picked out all the lupine sites and she went out and
confirmed that the lupine sites you found were indeed lupine sites? So she didn’t actually, or
someone else from DEC didn’t actually walk the site to see if there were other lupine sites.
MR. HAYES-Kathy did walk the site. She looked for evidence of the actual butterfly itself in the
summertime. She did not find that, that’s part of her letter she discussed (lost words), if you
could see them, it was a mushy area, it was a question they were still in their breeding or
whatever they call the season.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HAYES-But she walked the whole entire parcel, inspected herself.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STEVES-And the two areas that we’re talking about is this one area here that’s just cross
hatched and shaded on Lot One, and that small little sliver that falls back on to Lot Seven, and
what we propose to do is just adjust the Lot One lot line, not changing the area of either lot, and
just incorporating all of that onto one lot, so that we can spare that development at this time,
and then put the protective mitigation plan into effect, until such time is that species study is
completed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d like to finish hearing comments from Board members. We kind of
got halfway done with it. John?
MR. STROUGH-Now let me start off where we left off. Mr. Chairman, do you want to stay on
the blue lupine issue?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for a moment, yes. I’d just like to get everybody’s opinion, so we can
kind of get some direction here.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m the one that originally supported the concept that if the
applicant came up with a satisfactory mitigation plan to protect what we know exists is the blue
lupine areas, and that was to the satisfaction of Kathy O’Brien and to all involved, then that
would be fine. Kathy O’Brien, in response to your mitigation plan, gave kind of a lukewarm
reception to it, not a real hot one, but a lukewarm one, and it might work. Now next Thursday,
I believe it’s next Thursday, we’re meeting as a committee to work on or initiate a look at
developing a Town mitigation plan, which needs to be done, as evident here. Weighing all that,
and considering that I think, when all is said and done, I almost think that the applicant, from
what I’m hearing, is going to have to come back with a more thorough plan, so the review of
this subdivision won’t be looked upon as being segmented. So I think there is going to be time
involved now. We may come to the conclusion, and I still tend to side with the way I originally
felt. I’m not strongly wavering from that. We may originally, when we start developing a
Town wide plan, agree to do the type of mitigation that the applicant’s proposing, which is
along the lines of what we talked about before with the exception of you didn’t include
waterproof signs, or weatherproof signs, okay, and then we should probably discuss what, you
know, wording should be on the signage when we get to that moment in time. So, I’m in kind
of limbo right here, because when Staff says something, you know, be a little bit careful here,
okay. Well, I’ve got to listen to Staff. I give great weight to what the Staff says and
recommends, but I also am sympathetic to the applicant, and I’m tending to think that the
applicant has submitted a fairly sufficient, you know, without hammering out the few details,
mitigation plan at this point. So, I don’t know if that answers anything, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to get a handle on where people are sitting on this issue.
MR. STROUGH-If you want to stay on the Karner blue mitigation issue, kind of I’m on the fence
here. I think that’s where I am. I’m leaning a little bit towards favoring the applicant’s
mitigation plan, but like I said, next Thursday maybe more things will come to light as we have
our meeting. So, unless you’ve got other issues you want to bring up, Mr. Chairman, I’ll leave it
at that for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, John. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m leaning on the side, after having read all of this supporting documentation
that’s in here from DEC, the letter of December 16 that Mr. Hayes wrote as part of the
th
mitigation plan itself I think is quite acceptable. So I would, in the short, would come down in
favor, accepting that plan as written. My concern, I think here, from a fairness point of view,
however, is to consider what we do with the other applicant, which is Bell-Nav. When we do
our SEQRA here, I think we have to take a look at the cumulative impacts of both parcels, if I
read some of the supporting information that was given to us by our counsel, and that’s where
I’m a little bit hung up, in the fact that when we do this SEQRA review, it’s got to be done for
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
both parcels, to get the cumulative effect, and I think Bell-Nav. has to be given the same
opportunity as we may be giving to the applicant before us, but I think that the mitigation plan
as proposed is acceptable to me, and I don’t see any, in reading both DEC memo’s from Kathy
O’Brien, I really don’t see any, she really didn’t come down hard on either of these two areas. I
read them and read them and read them, and she said, well, if this were in the Niagara Mohawk
area, I’d be very much more interested in this than I am now. I mean, I think essentially that’s
what she said. She’s looking for areas where she has a really good feeling that there is both
lupine and species. That’s how I read her, that’s a short synopsis of how I looked at her letters.
So, staying on the same page here, I’m going to stay with Larry and stay where John is partially
at, and accept Mr. Hayes’ recommendation of 16 December.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is a tough one for me, but when I read Kathy O’Brien’s letter, I
thought, for a short term suggestion, for remediation, I thought I’m writing, good suggestion,
wow, she’s kind of liberal here, you know. I expected her to really come down with a hammer,
but her letter to Mickie is, I think, very liberal, and I thought it was very easy to understand,
and I thought it made a lot of sense. I don’t feel that the whole Karner blue butterfly is the main
issue, though, right now, as far as this whole application. I think we’ve still got all these bullets
to address from C.T. Male, and another thing that’s bothering the heck out of me is the term you
use “townhouse”. When I think of townhouse, I think of all those places up at Hiland, that you
purchase as a house, you know, and that you own it, but that’s not what we have here. I think
we have apartments, don’t we?
MR. LAPPER-The difference is that townhouses usually have garages. Just in terms of how
they’re laid out, but certainly in this zone, this is a permitted use. It’s a multifamily dwelling. It
is a permitted use.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I understand that, Jon, and another thing is, so then I go back and I
look at the map again, and I see that we have six lots in the front that are one acre, I guess what
I’m looking at, then I see something positive. I see the way you’ve laid out those townhouses,
and I see, you know, you have a nice configuration, and you have nice driveway, and you’ve
got tons of trees, and you’re planting even more, and you’ve got that nice pond, and you’ve
cleaned out all the pollution that’s in there, and I’m like, you know, that really looks nice if they
weren’t apartments, but then I go back and I say, well, you’ve got to get your money back, and
it’s got to be worth all your endeavors, but then I go back and I think, well, that’s not really my
business. I’ve got to look at this, but yet, apartments are a use for the land, but is it in
conformance with the area? So then what Bob says, when Bell-Nav. comes to us again and we
start the SEQRA, we may not even get to the second statement when we do cumulative impacts.
MR. LAPPER-I guess when you talk about cumulative impacts, and Bob said that also, the only
thing I could think of is traffic and Karner blue butterflies, in terms of cumulative impacts, and
in terms of traffic generation, we’ve submitted our numbers. It’s 20 trips peak hour, compared
to the numbers that I know that the Town Staff has. We submitted 2500 average for the year,
for a day, and they have numbers during a period over the summer where it was 6,000 a day.
What we’re talking about is so minimal for that road, that we just don’t see that traffic could
possibly be an issue, that it’s a County road, that any mitigation would be required. We put the
curb cuts together for the driveways and we’ve got one road coming out, good visibility,
straight part of the rood. So we just don’t see that that could be an issue, and in terms of the
butterflies, the distance for a butterfly to travel between the two patches on this property and
the stuff across the street, I mean, you can’t look at that cumulatively, because it’s just too far
away.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when I think of cumulative impacts, I also think of, you know, the
garbage truck’s got to go up in there.
MR. LAPPER-We’re in the main residential area of the Town on the west side, and it’s all
houses. I mean, this is totally in keeping, and this is less dense than the surrounding area, in
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
terms of the number of acres, and the total number of dwelling units. A lot of those are on, you
know, those are older subdivisions on very small lots.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I guess what I’m saying is, you know, it’s not just the traffic
generated of the people that live there, it’s the services that are going to go in. It’s the services
that are coming out. It’s just more.
MR. LAPPER-We’re doing one dwelling unit per acre. I mean, it’s just not dense.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it. I’ll tell you, the configuration is really nice, but boy that whole
apartment.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there are many neighbors that would like it to stay undeveloped, and we
heard that last time, but we’re trying to do a well thought out plan, to deal with this parcel.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So right now, I see lots of good things that you’ve done, and then I see
things that I feel are a little antagonistic, and I’m not ready to deal with this right today, and
thank God, and I don’t have to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff want to offer any comments?
MRS. RYBA-I have a couple, and Mr. Lapper had asked about some specific things for the blue
lupine. There’s some confusion, because what I heard you offer tonight was that we would
keep these temporary measures in place if we did find species on site. So that it would be a
permanent thing, and up until tonight, my impression has been that the management plan you
offered was a temporary measure only.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if I could just respond to that, we think that because of the size, that even if
it turns out there’s butterflies, what the Town and DEC might prefer is that we pay into a fund
so that more land can be acquired that could support a larger habitat like the NiMo right of
way. So that might be the permanent solution if it turns out that there are species here, but
we’ll do, yes, whatever permanent solution the Town wants.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. The second thing is, the subdivision, which also lead me to believe that it
was strictly a temporary offer, was the subdivision plat shows here’s where the location of a
house might be. Here’s the location of where a septic system would be. Here’s the location of
where a drive would be. So it might be helpful to either not show that, because, until there’s
some more definitive information, and I don’t know. I’m just questioning it. The second thing
might be to actually show on the plan, here’s where we would put our fences. Here’s where we
would put our signs. It would be helpful because as you see, it’s not just involving Lot One,
there’s a little bit up on Lot Seven, and that plan’s not showing right now, but when you look at
the subdivision plan, there’s also some lupine that’s very close to that Lot Two, and so just
showing where the buffer would be, I think would be helpful on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. We have no problem with that and we’ll supplement and do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, any comments? Where do you go from here?
MR. HAYES-Craig, I have some additional information about the lupine, how we plan to set up
our temporary measures, if I could show that to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. When we have employees or subcontractors come on our jobs, we make
them, basically have a checklist and no drugs, drinking, etc. Also on this handout we have
specific instructions about the lupine that they all have to initial and sign to be able to work on
the site. It’s just a combination of the safety program, but an awareness program, and following
our letter from Kathy about her signage, some of her concerns were ATV’s and snow mobiles
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
because they have a tendency to destroy the habitat as she expressed. So there’s quite a few
trails in and out of this property as most of you are aware if you walked the property. So this is
an example of the sign that we intend to put in the areas, the access of the ATV’s, snow mobiles
or motorcycles, and the mid sign is basically a general awareness sign that would be strewn
throughout the whole property to make people aware that there is designated areas of Karner
blue that will be fenced off, and the third sign is basically the sign that would actually go on the
exact, the fencing itself. So you have a two tier system of warning, as well as the sign here with
the ATV’s which lists some lupine, but I doubt anybody would actually read that part.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And those signs would be a little bit bigger than that?
MR. HAYES-Yes. These are just examples, but for example, there’d probably be, the general
sign would probably be 75 to 80 strewn throughout the property, and those would be ringed
every 10 feet along the fencing, and this would be at every access point that we could assume
that somebody would come with a motorized vehicle. So we’re trying to take it seriously, our
program. So we just want to make sure, show you what we’re trying to do. We’re not taking it
lightly, and we’re willing to work with the Town any way they want to go with it, but we don’t
feel that a small, one-tenth of an acre parcel, two parcels, should preclude us from using a
gigantic piece of property. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for direction, aren’t you?
MR. LAPPER-I guess what we’re looking for is we would like to be able to submit all this
additional information and be on the agenda next month.
MR. MAC EWAN-If I did my math right, I got an informal poll here of four to three in favor of
the survey? Is that what I got out of it, or did I miss somebody?
MR. VOLLARO-I think Larry, John, and I are on one side of the fence. Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t naming names, but I’m just.
MR. RINGER-Why don’t you just take a poll and see if the Board feels that what they’ve
submitted on the Karner blue is sufficient for the mitigation, and then we can address the other
issues. There are other issues. I might feel you’ve satisfied the Karner blue, but I’ve got some
concerns about neighborhood character changing and stuff like that that I’m concerned about.
MR. HILTON-I believe the public hearing has been left open.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, as far as the Karner blue issues, there’s, you know, if we were
going to get down to hammering out details and such, I think the applicant has to address the
Karner blue on the right of way, as Marilyn pointed out in the letter, and I think Kathy
O’Brien’s referred to it as well, and after proposed mitigation for that, the signage looks real
nice. I mean, it looks great, you know, the fencing and things like that, and the other thing
that’s kind of up in the air is when we speak to this matter next Thursday, what kind of
conclusions are we going to come to?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, John. I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I thought about, in terms of the blue lupine along the
right of way, would it be impossible to turn those houses around so that they look internally
and have the back of the house along West Mountain Road?
MR. LAPPER-Well, backs of houses usually aren’t as neat as fronts.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they might have to put some fencing up, but that would be one way to do
two things, eliminate the curb cuts. That would do one, and have everything come in to the
development along the main road.
MR. LAPPER-No, that doesn’t work because of the pond. I mean, it would be so far from that
road, but in terms of the driveway issue that Marilyn talked about, we can’t mitigate, the
County either mows, doesn’t mow. We have no control.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Kathy O’Brien mentions that in her letter. She says she’ll get together
with the County and make sure they don’t mow it down or whatever.
MR. LAPPER-What we can do is change the location of the common driveway to move it to the
north, so you’d come in on Lot Two and then come over to Lot One and just stay away from
that area.
MR. STROUGH-Is that where the blue lupine is?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We didn’t put it on the map because it’s not on this property, but we can put
it on the map and we can change the location of the driveway, to just avoid it, but the County is
either going to mow it and spray it or not.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s a County DEC issue, as I read Kathy O’Brien’s letter.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But how does that fit into the scheme of things from a SEQRA standpoint,
though? I guess I’m asking you, Mark.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s not impossible to suggest that that’s an issue that one could gather
information about, the applicant could contact the County. The Board could direct Staff to
contact the County. It’s very common, in wildlife habitat protection issues, to have multiple
jurisdictions or, that’s not the right word, but multiple parties involved, including sometimes
governmental parties like in this case. It’s a County right of way situation, and the County is an
eligible entity to participate in a habitat management program. It’s not at all unusual for
applicants to work with other governmental entities like cities, towns, villages or counties in a
joint effort to preserve habitat if that’s necessary, but it’s certainly the applicant’s right, they
can’t take full responsibility for the County’s portion of the property. I guess what I’m
suggesting is that’s not necessarily a black hole vacuum that we can’t know anything about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Marilyn, I’ve got a question for you. When you have a situation
where there’s a potential for Karner blue habitat, which your requirement is to have lupine on
the site, who determines, or how is it set up to establish how much lupine is on the site or to do
a survey of the site to determine the viability of the habitat as far as lupine existence?
MRS. RYBA-Well, this is where DEC takes a look at it. They do not, as a policy, go out and
delineate sites because there are two Staff people for the entire State, and most of it is in this
area Albany, Saratoga, Clifton Park, Queensbury, but they are limited with their Staff, but they
will come up and take a look. Now in terms of the management study on a Town wide basis
we’re talking about, that’s something we’ll be discussing later.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking, in this case, and the other development projects that have been
in front of this Board, is who actually goes out and determines whether there’s lupine on the
site?
MRS. RYBA-It’s the applicant that does that, and then it’s verified by DEC, and that’s where we
have this referral process. We have an idea where the lupine exists, and then if Staff is
suspicious that there’s lupine in an area, then we have the applicant get in touch with DEC.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what I’m getting at is that, and not just in respect to this application,
with any application, does DEC take the information that the potential applicant gives them
and say, gee, on my parcel I found five sites of lupine on there, and DEC goes out there and
looks at those five sites of lupine and says, yes, it’s lupine, or, no it’s not lupine, or does DEC go
out there and say, well, no, there’s not five sites here, there’s eight sites here, or there’s only one
site here, you missed things. I mean, are they only verifying what people offer them for
information.
MRS. RYBA-They’ll go and walk the site. They’ll go and walk the site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that’s what they did in your case, they walked the site?
MR. HAYES-They actually found the site in the right of way. We didn’t actually pay attention
to it because it wasn’t our property. I wasn’t even aware of it and she actually found that site.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Larry asked that we take an informal survey.
MR. RINGER-Only to the extent of the Karner blue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Chris, I’ll start with you. Would you rather have the survey done or
are you comfortable with the plan that the applicant has proposed?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I felt more comfortable in waiting for the survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think they’ve done what was needed to be done.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that the applicant’s mitigation plan would work until we got to
the survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a middle of the road answer.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it says I think it would work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to go along with their survey, with their proposed mitigation
plan of their letter of December 16.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the applicant has been very sensitive to this issue, and I don’t
think, right now, that we need to do the survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we know where you stand, right?
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t want to be the, I just feel, from the beginning, in talking with Kathy
O’Brien and having a meeting with Kathy O’Brien, what she had said and what the applicant
had presented as far as the Karner blue habitat and their mitigation was okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, it seems like the majority is comfortable with your plan. Before
we move on to these other issues, just a note to Staff. Contact the applicants for the Bell-Nav.
development and tell them if they want to put together a plan that we won’t hold them up to do
a survey. If we accept their plan, we’ll move forward with their review process.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MRS. RYBA-One of the things, before you make that decision final, one of the things to
consider, and I think this was brought up in the workshop we had, is that every site is different,
and that there’s a lot more lupine on this site.
MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m suggesting is if they want to come in with a management plan for the
Board to consider, we will consider it.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I think that’s a great idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I’m suggesting.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. RINGER-That way we’re consistent, the way we should do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Let’s deal with the site plan issues, or the subdivision
issues.
MR. RINGER-Well, we know they’re going to come back, and some of the things, they’re going
to have to do a Long Form, and they’ve got to answer Male’s comments.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And some of my concerns when you do your Long Form is neighborhood
character, I mean, how it may or may not change. I don’t know if you can answer that, but it’s
one of the concerns that I have. Property values, I’m concerned, and again, I don’t know how
you’re going to answer these, but these are concerns that I’m thinking of right now, putting
apartment complexes in that area. If you’ve got some ideas or thoughts on that, I would
appreciate them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we focus right on the lupine issue, I sort of was feeling
sympathetic to the applicant because we have approved subdivision plans without grading
plans and drainage plans and everything else, but, you know, we all walked this site. We know
you’re going to have to do a lot of that in order to make the site developable, and I think that is
why, at least in my mind, that is why we need those things. It’s not because we’re saying, well,
we’ve always done it that way. It’s because we know the site. We understand the issues there.
MR. LAPPER-We have no problem with that. We’ve done much of the work already. So we
need a couple of weeks to get that in, and we’re not arguing that at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll get you all the information as to a more thorough way to do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess from my point of view, I think the memo from C.T. Male, you know,
if you address all of those issues, I can’t imagine anything that we would want in addition to
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll agree with C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, first of all, let me speak to the clustering concept. I kind of like your
clustering concept here. I’m going to suggest something, but, you know, I think that what
you’ve proposed here with eight building, where you could have twenty-five, is going to
preserve a lot of this as green space, and I’m sure we’re going to condition it that no further
development will occur.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I can’t guarantee that. I mean that’s the way I feel.
MR. LAPPER-We would expect that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think it does, keeping it low, keeping, I think the foundations are all
going to be under 480 elevation, 490, something like that. So, yes, and knowing the area, I
would think that that would not be a big blight on visual impact in my opinion, and I’ve seen
your proposals in the past, and we’ve gone from, I don’t know, what was it, 109 to 79 to
whatever, down to this. I mean, this is a considerable reduction, as we’ve seen the evolution of
this project, and I’ve even heard some of the neighbors say at one time that, you know, if they
were to propose a new project that met Town Code, I’d be happy.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And the one thing that we could probably add, I’m just thinking of it now, is
you’ve proposed hiking trails or pedestrian trails, let me say a pedestrian as opposed to hiking,
in and around, and, you know, if those trails were, you know, available to the neighbors to use,
it might be an amenity that softens the blow of a development being next door to you, and also
would enhance what we got into with Mr. Schermerhorn before, about, you know, giving
something to the community, but I’ve always said that, with that thrown in, it would certainly
shut the case, I think, as far as your clustering development does meet the Town intentions, as
far as clustering goes. Now as far as being multifamily units, you know, the Smart Growth
thing, and I’ve been looking at the Smart Growth thing for three years now. I study it pretty
thoroughly, and we’ve studied housing through the fifties and the sixties, and we had Urban
Renewal and we had suburbanization take place, and, you know, and we ended up with some
pockets, some rich people pockets, and apartments were left in one section of Town, and I think
we learned from that mistake.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That when you do that, you end up with, socially speaking, a lot of things that
are unpleasant, without getting into detail, and all the Smart Growth and all the reading that
I’ve done talks to mix, mixing multifamily housing with single family housing, that it makes a
healthy community doing that. The flaw in the past has been to isolate multifamily, and now
the whole idea is to incorporate, mix it in with single family. I mean, that’s the current thought
process, and going along with clustering and saving open space is going along with the current
thought process as far as community planning the way I see it. Sometimes we treat these
multifamily units as social pariahs, and I don’t think we should do that. I think that’s wrong to
think like that. I think a healthy community is a community that does mix these kind of things,
multifamily with single family.
MR. LAPPER-I would point to the Town Comp Plan which calls for a mix of housing types, the
need where when kids leave their $150,000 parents house and go to college and come back,
they’re not going to be able to buy a $150,000 single family house, and look to Hiland Park right
here where there’s townhouses, apartments, and $300,000 homes all right in the same area, and
it’s a very healthy community.
MR. STROUGH-And I speak to that, and what a lot of community planners are saying is,
integrated communities are healthy communities. If we’re learning together, worshiping
together, and living together, that’s the way it should be. A healthy community is a holistic
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
community. So I have no problem with the multifamily housing as it’s proposed, and I think
we may even see, you know, it was 26 units and it may turn out to be 24, I don’t know, after the
density calculations are done.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But I’ll let you work that out with the Planning Department. So having said all
that, and some other thoughts, and probably one of the reasons why we should go to something
more comprehensive, is let me just take one example. Your roadway going in, and it’s servicing
maybe, I don’t know, 75 people, right. It’s one road. In the past we’ve been a little leery about
that because with one car accident, it blocks the whole way, and if we have a fire in one of these
residences, it’s going to be an issue. So the boulevard concept has been the way to go. We said,
well that reduces the risk that both lanes would be blocked by a car accident because you have a
boulevard in between, and you’ve suggested the boulevard and the entryway. So I’m thinking
that, and this may be reinforced by emergency personnel when they review this. They may
want the boulevard concept extended up to your first residential area where you could actually
go around car accidents and manipulate. So if that’s the case, if that were the case, I’m not
saying it will be, and I don’t know if the other Planning Board members will agree with me, if
that were the case, I’m just giving you an example why we need something comprehensive
here. We might have to, in order to accommodate the boulevard concept, you might have to
take a corner out of Lot Six, which is 1.3 acres, you might be able to shave point, you know, a
little bit off of that somehow, to accommodate your boulevard. In other words, maybe take a
little corner off.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that.
MR. STROUGH-If that’s the case, but this is it. I can’t look at this separately. I need to look at
this comprehensively. Now one thing that the neighbors are going to bring up is the
stormwater issue. Now that’s one I really am sympathetic towards, and I think you have a very
good person to address that, and so I think that probably needs addressing at this point.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Parking. We’ve got one parking space per unit, from what I can see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we stick with the subdivision aspect of it.
MR. STROUGH-Or should we get into other issues, so that when they develop this, if the other
Planning Board members agree with me, they can come back to us with an approved plan and
we don’t have to keep doing it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but it’s that teetering effect here. We’re doing the subdivision, but we’re
looking at the cumulative impacts, so go with it.
MR. RINGER-They’re going to come back with site plan anyway, John, if they go with
townhouses.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, from the standpoint of the SEQRA aspect, the more he puts on
the table now, the better off we are.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let me summarize by saying that I think the apartment mix with
the single family housing is a good, holistic view, and I support the applicant’s mitigation plan
for the Karner blue butterfly. I think there may be, I think we do have to go to something more
comprehensive, because as I gave one example, and there may be others, and it doesn’t seem
that they want to talk to that specific, at this point, I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Bob?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I only have one comment. I’ll make it short, is that while I agree with
John’s concept of mixed environments, in terms of housing, I’m having a problem with the
rental side of it, and I would like to see that perhaps that those units be owned, under a
homeowners association, perhaps, but they be deeded properties, and not rented properties. So
that’s the one thing about this that I would like to see at least explored, because I don’t know,
under rental properties, whether there would be any sort of a decay factor that sets in over time,
whereas I think if they’re owned, the chances of a decay factor would not be setting in. That’s
where I’m coming from on that, and that’s all I have to say on it right now, because there’s a lot
they have to do before we can address this again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would like to hear what the public has to say right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to get to them. All right. I’ll ask you guys to give up the table
for a few minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TIM OLESKY
MR. OLESKY-For the record, my name’s Tim Olesky and I live at 13 Applehouse Lane, one
street south of the proposed project. One of my concerns is with the Karner blue issue. It’s not
just the development of the land, but it’s the effect it’s going to have on the habitat. It’s the
dust, the commotion around the site that is at issue. The plant itself, the blue lupine, is a very
delicate plant, and as a Board member, I would not want to be put in the spotlight of a, not only
a local or a State, this is a worldwide issue, and to be put in that spotlight, and to kind of brush
this aside that we’re going to block this corner of this property off and it’s going to be okay is
ludicrous. There’s more at stake here than just a corner of a piece of property. So I would ask
you to consider that. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOE BRAYTON
MR. BRAYTON-My name’s Joe Brayton, and I live at 231 Fuller Road. These boys seem to
always get us off on the butterfly issue here. I think we ought to be looking into the full site
plan water problems, traffic problems, and every time we come up here they get you off on this
butterfly issue and try to ignore all this other stuff that really is the issue. I think they better
start looking into a lot more of that, and let’s get off the butterflies a while and look into some of
the dangers of the traffic, and all the, and most of all get a full site plan of everything, not just
six houses on the front, or four. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
PIERRE CASTONGUAY
MR. CASTONGUAY-Pierre Castonguay. I live with my wife and three children at 24
Applehouse Lane, which is the street just south of the property under discussion. I’ve got a
question. When we go from month to month at the meetings, are the previous comments
included, is there cumulative?
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean?
MR. CASTONGUAY-The last meeting that we had on this subject, the comments that were
made at the open forum, are they a cumulative? Do we need to repeat each and every time our
comments, so that they become part of the record each and every time?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re part of the record. I mean, every meeting is recorded.
MR. CASTONGUAY-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re part of the written record of the meeting.
MR. CASTONGUAY-Okay, and I don’t have my notes from the previous time. I notice this
time it’s Western Reserve, no, it’s, yes, where are my notes. Yes, Western Reserve, and then it
says, and Theodore Rawson. I don’t remember Theodore Rawson being on the previous one.
Maybe it was, and then two or three times before that, it was under a whole different name. I
think it was Hayes and Hayes or Hayes Brothers or something like that. Every time you change
the name of the property owner, does that kind of delineate that you don’t carry forward the
comments each and every time? I guess I’m just trying to understand whether I need to make
sure I come to every meeting and repeat everything, and all my concerns each and every time?
I don’t want to take up the time of everybody here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that’s made public comment, whether it comes from a Board
member, comes from an applicant, comes from the general public, staff, whoever, it’s all
recorded, every meeting, specifically, and if you look on your agenda you’ll see that the
subdivision has a number next to it that’s relative to this application. So if it goes for, and I’ll
ask the question of Staff afterwards, but if an agenda from month to month may change a name
on it, doesn’t change the application as far as I know, because the application is, was submitted,
and the application has been revised to show a different nomenclature put on it, per se.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I could just explain this. What we had last time, the application
was listed as Western Reserve. I don’t think anything’s changed. They’re still the applicant. If
you look at the plan, the entrance drive off of West Mountain, if you look at the plan closely, it
will show an existing property line and a proposed property line We were aware of that before.
We had the signoff from the property owner, Theodore Rawson. This time, however, we, to
cover ourselves, which we did last time, we notified everyone within 500 feet, but we also
included his name, as he is a property owner, as the property lines currently exist. He is not an
applicant, as I understand it, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-In fairness to the public commenter, I don’t think he’s only, or even
necessarily asking why the names have changed. I think what the gentleman is trying to
establish is to make sure that if he makes comments, they’re part of his same application.
MR. CASTONGUAY-Correct. That’s exactly right.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess I’ll tell you, as the Planning Board’s counsel, that so long as
you appear at a proceeding with the same application number, it’s the same application, and
your comments are part of the official record, and you don’t have, although you’re welcome to
come as often as you like, and you’re welcome to repeat them as often as you like, subject to the
Board’s discretion, legally speaking, they’re part of the record as soon as you enter them in any
public hearing on this application and they don’t ever have to be repeated.
MR. CASTONGUAY-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
MR. CASTONGUAY-I’m in favor of developing this property. I do have concerns the way it’s
being developed. I just want to be on record, again, that, you know, I do favor development, in
that sense. It would enhance the property, and I wrote down many notes and I thought a lot
about it, and individually, you’ve all touched many of my thoughts. I won’t review in detail all
of them. The previous gentleman made a comment that we seem to get redirected quite often
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
away from what I think is the grander picture. We seem to spend a lot of time on the Karner
blue butterfly, an important subject, but the grander subject is the whole impact. If we go with
the design as we see it here of this property, why does it not happen at the Peggy Ann
intersection? Why doesn’t it happen to the property just north of it? Why not to the property
just west of it? Something to consider, a cumulative impact, I think, is the term that I’ve heard
used. The other comment is, it sounds to me, you know, we talk about apartments. It sounds to
me, apartments is a commercial enterprise, and maybe I don’t fully understand what an SR-1A
and an SR-3A concern, but it seems to me it’s a commercial enterprise coming into a residential
area. I’m not the expert in that, but I’d just like to bring that out. Now I’ve personally lived in
townhouses, 18 years or so ago. They were called townhouses, and they didn’t have garages,
but they were deeded properties. My impression is a townhouse is a deeded property. It may
be managed by a group that handles it for all the deeded properties and then sublet, but deeded
properties. The other point, and I think it was brought up, is the applicant seems to be putting
in our mouths that there is 32 properties. Originally they said they wanted to develop 100 plus,
then 70, and kept going down. I don’t think we should be misdirected by that, and it sounds
like we’re dealing with it, but we need to understand, what is the real right density that this
should be allowed? Right now they’re telling is that it’s 32, or whatever, 26 and 6. I think we
need to make that determination, just to make sure what is it. There’s a part that goes through,
there’s a water line for the Glens Falls Water District that goes through there. Part of the
property they’re looking at is zoned for three acres. I don’t know how that plays into the
density, but I would think that should be considered. We also touched on the fact, let’s say we
do go with this concept of a rental unit, and, yes, it looks very nice on the map today, but where
do we have, what’s our check valve to keep it from staying like that, you know, how do we
keep it looking like that five years from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now? In
20 years time, it’s conceivable to change owners many times. It may not, but it may, and so
where’s our check valve to keep the cumulative decay of the property, how do we keep that up
at that point? There was a comment about the property being available numerous times and
other developers looking at it. I made the comment in previous hearings. My house is worth
$100,000, $120,000. If I put a $200,000 price tag on it, it probably won’t sell for many years. So,
maybe the property hasn’t been worth what they’ve been asking for it. Just a comment. Thank
you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else?
BOB NACY
MR. NACY-My name is Bob Nacy. I live at 605 West Mountain Road. The traffic there is
terrible, and it’s not only the traffic. It’s the speed there. I have all I can do some mornings to
get out of my driveway. The bend in the road there, where the Ashton property is, is terrible.
When it’s stormy at night, you can’t see anything there, and I can’t imagine traffic coming out of
there during the night. The place right now there has got all kinds of junk out alongside the
road, and it looks terrible. They’ve got tires out there. They’ve got junk out there. There’s no
fence there. No nothing. It looks terrible. I feel sorry for the people that also live in the area. I
think it’s a total disgrace. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MARY LEE SPECTOR
MS. SPECTOR-Mary Lee Spector, Applehouse Lane. Every since I heard of this project, my I
idea, because of the way things went along, was that the motivation, on the part of the owners,
the potential owners, they’re now the owners of the property, was profit, and I would like to
know at what point they were enlightened with the existence of the blue lupine on the property.
In their initial presentation to the Planning Board, it was not an issue. In the Zoning Board
hearings it was not an issue. This has gone on for 18 months. Suddenly it’s an issue that they
have made a decision about which has been accepted by the Town Board now. Back in the fall,
over a year ago, I wrote a letter and circulated it, sent it to the Zoning Board, and said that
there’s blue lupine on the property back then. It obviously was ignored or not given any
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
credibility, and suddenly it’s a big issue, that they have been able to make a decision on. I am
primarily interested in the character of our neighborhood. We’ve lived there since 1972, and the
value of the properties that are there, and I think there’s a lot of issues that need a lot of
discussion to give us, as property owners, some peace of mind that our interest is going to be
protected, because, so far, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
KELLY CARTE
MR. CARTE-For the record, my name is Kelly Carte. I’m the property owner to the immediate
south and west of the property. I’m sorry to hear that the majority of the Board members are in
favor of the mitigation proposal by the applicant for the Karner blue and the elfin butterfly.
Without having anymore information, it would seem to me that you would want to have, we’re
talking about protecting the butterflies here. We’re not talking about protecting lupine. It
would seem like the way to go on this would be to wait until lupine, it blooms, until the
butterfly could be there, and see if the butterfly is there, so that we can make a determination as
to what you do to protect it. Kathy O’Brien, it’s my understanding, Tim Olesky that spoke first
was the one that notified Kathy O’Brien about the lupine on the property, and that wasn’t done
until some time mid to late summer last year. So the fact that she found no butterflies on the
property could very well be because it’s beyond their season. Obviously, if they want you to
survey the thing in May and June, then July, August, September, you may not find what you’re
looking for there. Now the fact that there’s a little bit of lupine in one area on that property, and
she didn’t find anymore, doesn’t mean that there’s not more there. There’s actually, I found
lupine on my property in the back of this area, there’s a little patch there, after I knew what I
was looking for, and there may very well be lupine across the street in the watershed property.
There may be lupine on Ted Rawson’s property. She didn’t look anywhere except on this piece
of property. If we’re talking about habitat for a butterfly, the cumulative effect of where you
may or may not find this would only be known if you did a survey in May and June when the
butterflies are there. They may live here. They may fly to the southerland. They may do
whatever. The other thing to look at or consider is the fact that there was three patches of it
there last summer. What is going to be there this spring when the lupine blooms again? It’s an
ideal habitat. I did a little bit of research on line, and this type of cleared land that is reforesting,
more or less, is an ideal habitat for lupine, and what’s to say that, this spring, when it blooms
again, when the snow is gone and things bloom, that there are not more areas of lupine on the
site? Which, again, would be addressed, had you waited until May or June to do the survey on
the property, to see what the extent is of the butterfly. If there is none, then you take whatever
steps you want to take, but you can’t, I don’t see how you can rule on it without knowing what
the extent is of the butterflies, not the lupine. I mean, there may be more or less there, but that’s
not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for butterflies. The other, I hesitate to get into the
other aspects of this, because they are so vast that it’s going to take a lot of, let me just address a
couple of things here. The applicants have made a lot of, said a lot here lately about wanting to
take into consideration the sensibilities of the people that live around there and mitigating this
potential impact of these rental properties. If they were so concerned with the appearance of
the property to the neighbors around there, why is it that the trash that has been dragged out of
the woods, and the steel, the tires, and everything else, was piled along the front of the property
in late summer/early fall, and left there until now? It would seem like the thing to do would
have been to haul it away. It’s going to have to be hauled away anyway. Why not get it out of
there, if they were really concerned about how the neighbors thought about the property and
what they were going to be doing there. I just ask that for your consideration. Mr. Ringer, I
think, made a comment about rental property and land values. Allowing this type of project to
take place where it is now, in a predominantly, well, not predominantly, a completely single
family home area, neighborhood, on conforming lots. Nothing like this around for a distance of
at least a couple of miles. The closest one that I know of is Queen Victoria’s Grant, down on
Peggy Ann Road, and that certainly looks much more attractive and more spacious than what
these applicants are proposing for this piece of property. I have no doubts, and I would hope
that any of you would think about this aspect of it, would have to agree with me, that I have no
doubts that the land value of my property, being immediately to the south, which is a $250,000
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
house on four and a half acres of land, is going to take a drastic dive if these rental properties go
in as planned. I do not have any, I don’t want them to leave the property vacant. When I
bought the land that I bought, I looked at the zoning. I looked at the neighborhood around
there. I looked at all the aspects of it, and said I’d like to live here. It’s a nice piece of property.
It’s a nice house. It’s a nice neighborhood. I’d like to live here. I made the choice then, and I
can’t change that now. When Queen Victoria’s Grant went in down there, there was no other
houses around. That was a rental complex that was put in, and there was absolutely nobody
around there, living around there, to make any noise about it, and I know that because I own
the house on Peggy Ann Road, the last one down before the watershed from off West Mountain
Road. So I know exactly when it was put in. There were no other houses anywhere around.
Now the people that bought or built in the subdivision to the north of that made a choice. The
rental complex was there, and they decided that it didn’t impact, or it didn’t impact enough.
They weren’t concerned with it or whatever. They bought or built in the subdivision to the
north that borders that property, and they had that choice. They had to, you know, to be able to
make that choice, knowing what was there. We all, myself and other people in the
neighborhood, bought or built, in some cases, with nothing there but relying on the zoning to
protect our investment and to protect our neighborhood. I have reams of definitions or the
Town Code here with things highlighted in there, and one of the prominent things is that the
zoning is supposed to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, and if you think that
dropping this rental complex in the middle of this 25, 26 acres of land here in the back and
allowing it to be clustered, allowing it to be packed together on narrow lots, four unit buildings,
is anything like the rest of the neighborhood, I beg to differ with you. Because it’s not, and
there’s nothing, as I said, there’s nothing anywhere around there. You know full well that the
next closest subdivision that’s being proposed is the one on the corner of Potter and West
Mountain, which is going to be as zoned, and conforming lots, and will be a benefit to the
neighborhood. If these applicants wanted to put single family houses on one acre lots and do a
subdivision in there, I would have no problem whatsoever with this. That’s exactly what I
expected that some day the property would be developed. I expected that that’s what would go
into the property, and certainly with lot prices being what they are in Queensbury now, nobody
would be putting a $50,000 house on what’s going to turn out to be a $40 or $50,000 lot. The
reason that this is being done, the lots on the road, in contrary to what they’re telling you that
they want to hide the thing in the back, and if it needs to be hid, I would question as to why
you’d want it there in the first place, but the reason is because they can re-coop all the money
that they paid for the lot, or for the land, by selling those six lots. If you do the math, I mean, it
was $175,000 for the land, and figure whatever you want $30, $35,000, $40,000 a lot, six lots, is a
minimum of $180,000. So that’s the real reason. That’s the reason why the lots, they want to
subdivide the lots off without doing the rest of the stuff in the back because they know that the
back thing is going to be real controversial. If they can get all the money back by selling the lots
here, then they can take their time on doing the rest of the project. Mr. Strough commented on
the clustering, to him, was okay because he thought that rental properties should be intermixed
with single family housing, and I would have to say that they’re two different issues. The rental
property, if the zoning, the SR-1A zone certainly allows for multifamily or duplex housing, but
putting a duplex house or a triplex or something like that on a conforming size lot, on a Town
road, Town street, even if it’s not owner occupied, if it’s just for rental, does not impact the
surrounding neighborhood the way that something like this would. You would hardly know
that it was a rental property, unless you really paid much attention driving down the street, and
that, I thought, was the intent of the zoning, was to make the thing conform, or fit in, with the
existing neighborhood and the existing home construction and lot sizes and things like that.
This certainly is not going to look like anything around there. If you wanted to, I mean, in the
worst case scenario, require the applicants to put them on, put the duplexes, put whatever, the
buildings on conforming lots, and make them on a Town road and make them spread out, so
that they look like the rest of the property around, they’re going to tell you that the lots are, you
know, there are surrounding lots there that are whatever, the last meeting that we had on the
Zoning Board they were saying that they were 10,000 square feet. There are no 10,000 square
feet. Fifteen thousand square foot is the smallest lots that I could find anywhere around there,
and that was done a long time ago, and every time that the zoning has been changed, it’s been
to a larger and larger lot size, until we now ended up with one acre lot. So the fact that, 30 years
ago, somebody was allowed to build on a 15,000 square house, doesn’t mean that they should
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
be allowed to shoehorn these rental buildings in on a 10,000 or whatever, you know, it’s hard to
tell because the, we haven’t been given an exact plan here, but by scaling the ones that they
have put in here, they’re on, you know, 50 foot wide lots, or something of this nature here.
You’re saying that mixed use is a good thing, but the Town zoning, I mean, in the latest zoning,
they’ve made a zone for mixed use, saying that this type of thing should be in a separate zone,
when you’re talking about differences of this nature, of this drastic difference. I don’t imagine
they were specifically referring to this particular problem here with the rental complex, but a
rental complex as envisioned, with private roads and private pond and private green space and
all the other stuff like that is certainly a commercial enterprise. They’re not doing this for
philanthropic reasons. So it is a commercial enterprise, and entirely different than an occasional
rental unit on a conforming lot on a Town street. Mostly the thing is that we don’t have a choice
at this point in time. If the thing was, if this was done and then the subdivisions around it were
proposed, and people could make up their mind whether they wanted to live next to something
that may become a big problem in the future, could make up their mind whether they wanted
to take the potential land devaluation or whatever, that would be one thing, but to have
everyone and pretty much all the developable land around there being developed as single
family residential, and then have this dropped in the middle, you know, what choice does
everybody have in the matter at this point in time? Since we’re going to be tabling this thing, I
won’t get into the aspect of some of the other things there, but I do want to leave you with one
big, one other reason, I guess, to put this off until May or June. I think the butterfly is sufficient
in itself, but the other thing is, for the last two or three years, we’ve had very little snow melting
in the spring here, and the pond that they’re proposing, it’s interesting that the original
proposals on the thing showed the pond as being, well, you can see it on the picture there, how
much of the area it takes up, and the initial ones, if you scaled the thing, showed the pond as
being an acre and a half or two acres in size or whatever, and now the latest one shows the
pond at three-tenths of an acre. Now, I mean, I’ve lived there for five years, and a lot of people
have lived there a lot longer than that, and maybe this last summer, at the end of August or the
beginning of September, it may have been three-tenths of an acre, because it does get quite
small when it’s very dry, but I will guarantee you that about April, it will be ten times that size.
It is the catch basin for a lot of water coming off the mountain, and to talk about doing this, and
then paving over, you know, putting houses, impermeability of the houses, impermeability of
the roads and all this kind of stuff, and running even more water off into the pond, not letting it
soak into the ground, is going to be a very big problem, because if they modify the pond at all,
there’s no way that you can make this thing three-tenths of an acre and contain the amount of
water that comes off the mountain there, and I don’t believe that they have the right to change
this, appreciably, because, in the Zoning Regulations, it says that you have to maintain or give
great weight, I guess, I’m paraphrasing here now, to existing runoff patterns, existing catch
basins, existing water flow, whatever, you get the idea. Mr. Baker has stated a couple of times
in the past that he dug this pond. I’ll take him at his word that he dug this pond when Ashton
was there. The point is, there’s two points. Number One, why was it dug. It may very well
have been dug to mitigate the fact that their land was flooded every spring by runoff from the
mountain, and so they were going to contain it in this pond. Number Two, while it would seem
reasonable to say that the people who dug the pond could fill it in if they wanted to, and that
being Ashton. The new owners of the property are taking this in the water pond and stream
and everything else as existing to them. It’s not something that they can decide whether they
want to fill it in or not because they dug the hole. They bought the property with the existing
situation as it is, and I would think after the fiasco down on Peggy Ann Road with the
subdivision t o the north or to the west of Queen Victoria’s Grant and the problems that the
Town had down there, the money the Town had to spend to mitigate that, that you would want
to have a very thorough accounting of what’s going to happen, what’s going to be done with
the water and the wetlands behind it and the runoff from the mountain, and the only way that
this Board will be able to see what we’re talking about is if you see it in April or May, when it is,
I have no doubts that the water which is now, you know, three feet deep, is about ten feet deep
at that point in time and spreads out. I mean, that picture that’s there, the dark green circle is, I
don’t know when it was taken, but it shows the, let’s say the average size of the pond there. In
the spring it’s even larger than that, and it’s not just the pond, but the area behind that, you
can’t actually walk, if you started walking from the pond to the back property line, after you’ve
gone about a couple hundred feet, you’d be walking in knee deep water. I mean, you’d sink to
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
your knees in the ground back there. In fact, the owners here, when they first bought the
property, started taking some fill out of there, behind the pond, in an area that used to be a sand
bank and it used to be like a little target range and stuff like this there. They dug down, I don’t
know, probably a couple of feet and hit groundwater, immediately hit groundwater there,
behind the thing. So there’s a lot of water in that area that has to be dealt with because all the
people, my house and then all the people in Applehouse Lane and Lester Drive have contended
with water in the past, running through there, and I have no doubts at all that if this thing is
modified at all that we’re going to have that same situation. There’s going to be flooding down
through there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Carte, could I ask you to summarize, please.
MR. CARTE-Okay. I did want to mention the fact that when Pierre Castonguay was saying
about the different names that they’ve used, and you said that these things were a matter of
public record, at every change, when the Zoning Board, I understood, I asked the Planning
Department, all the information that was given to the Zoning Board, pictures we submitted and
all this kind of stuff I understand is not in the file that you folks have to look at. Not only was it
a different name, but it was a different number at that point in time, and that information has
not been carried forward, so all those comments are not there.
MR. MAC EWAN-They wouldn’t be because that was a different Board with a different
application.
MR. CARTE-Okay. So the only information that you have, so far, is what we said last meeting
and this meeting, as far as that goes, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. CARTE-Okay. I’ll address the other concerns on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Certainly, by all means, anyone can write a letter, submit any information
they want during the public hearing portion, write correspondence to the Town, and this
Planning Board will continue to hold this public hearing open. Okay.
MR. CARTE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
CHARLES BAKER
MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. As long as my name was mentioned a few minutes
ago, I’d like to give you some information on the property. My wife was born and raised on
that farm, the pond that we’re talking about, the Ashton property, whatever. I imagine you
people know where the Potter Road is. Do you know where Potter Mountain is? My wife’s
grandparents’ name was Potter. They’re the ones that settled the area. My father-in-law,
Raymond Bates, and I put a sand plant in down there, and it wasn’t Ashton, and it wasn’t
anybody else. It was Ray Bates, and we dug that hole that was just mentioned. There was
nothing there when we started but a potato field and a cornfield. There was no water there.
There was none of the existing things that are there now. That all came about when digging the
hole to produce washed sand as an income for us, a business. Dempsey, Ashton, whoever, the
contractors in the area bought sand from us, washed sand, topsoil and fill for the construction
of the whole area around there. My wife and I have lived in the house that we live in now for
45 years. We have never had any problem until the people started going on to that property,
was just mentioned as a rifle range. There’s no such thing as a rifle range. That was private
property. People went in there and fired guns. I owned a house next door which Ted Rawson
owns now. My tenant threatened me, several times, to move out of there because people and
neighbors were coming down there, using it for a rifle range, ricocheting bullets going over the
house, and they were using it for a play area, I guess. I went down there one night to check,
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
and there was a fellow down there with an automatic rifle, firing into the bank. He’s in this
room tonight. He knows what I’m talking about. He knows he shouldn’t have been in here.
This is the kind of stuff that’s been going on for the last 32 years. Ashton, Tom Ashton died.
They sold the business, or didn’t sell the business, he just folded. He just didn’t have the
business anymore. They didn’t clean up the area. It went into an estate. Several people have
tried to buy it. Apparently the price was too high. I don’t have any idea what the price was,
but now the Hayes Brothers came along and wanted to buy it. They looked into it, and they
bought the property. They went ahead and started cleaning up the property. They dug all this
garbage, and it’s not all from Tom Ashton’s business. It’s some of the neighbors coming in
there and throwing the garbage out in there. There’s nothing in the transit mix business that’s a
baby carriage or a refrigerator or anything like that. The place was loaded with, an old dump
truck down in there, the mixers were there, yes, all this stuff was all contributed to that. I was
going to say, when I went down there to check on this firing a gun, the police officer came along
and he told both of us that there’s been several beatings, a rape, and I don’t know what all on
that property. I would think that the people in the area would take into consideration what
kind of a place that is and get it cleaned up. It isn’t cleaned up now, because apparently, I don’t
know the particulars of it. I don’t plan to know the particulars of it, but it was cleaned up and
gotten ready to get out of there, to fill in and then they had to stop the clean up process, for
whatever reason, whether it was the Town telling them they couldn’t work anymore, or they
decided they couldn’t do anything more until they found out where they could go from there,
and apparently that’s what they’re here for tonight is to see if they can go ahead and develop
this property. If you don’t want the property developed and the neighbors want the property
the way it is, why don’t they get together and offer a fair price and buy the place and clean it up
themselves and then they can go in there and play, shoot their guns, ride their machines, do
whatever they want to do in there. I would think that they would be glad to see the area built
up and used in a useful way. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
STAN PRITZKER
MR. PRITZKER-Stan Pritzker. I represent Kelly Carte. Thank you for your patience. I’ll be
brief. First, will I have the opportunity to address the Board at the next meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. PRITZKER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing will be continued and left open.
MR. PRITZKER-Thank you very much. Just a couple of things. I don’t think there’s anything
wrong with mixed uses. I think they’re a good idea, in theory at least, but I think when people
purchase properties in a one acre zone, I think they have the right to be protected by what they
reasonably believe they’re buying, and I think in this case they reasonably believe they’re
buying into an area that will not have rental units, primarily, and will not have mixed uses
primarily. I think if you set up a mixed use, and plan it that way, and people buy, that that’s a
great thing, and it’s a good planning tool, but to force it on people that did not buy with that
understanding, I don’t think that’s fair, just on a bottom line level, I really don’t. With respect
to the Karner blue, I would just point out a couple of quick things. I would want to find out
what the Department of Environmental Conservation actually did when they went out there.
When did they go out there? Did they go out there after the drought? I mean, we had a pretty
dry summer. I remember in August it was pretty dry around here. What was out there? I
mean, I don’t think you found that out, and you did make a decision to accept the mitigation
plan without finding that out. I think that was a critical piece of information. I think a couple
of phone calls could have done the job. Thirdly, as far as reviewing this application to make
comment on, I can’t do it. There’s a dearth of information. I can’t even tell what the density is.
I don’t know if they’re going to need a variance. I think they will considering the amount of
units they want to use. Just looking at that pond, the road, and the other things that have to
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
come out, and the 25% slopes, that will also have to come out, before you adequately determine
density. I also heard a couple of things, just very briefly, the estate received $175,000 for selling
the property. I don’t know why they didn’t clean it up. I’m just curious about that. They’re the
ones who received the money. They’re the ones who did most of the contamination on the site,
or whatever it was. Perhaps they should have been made to clean it up when they got the
money. The final thing, I heard crime was mentioned. They talked about a rape perhaps and
some other things happening there. I would dare say that if a rental transient comment is set up
there, there will also be a rise in crime, and to play it fair, you have to look at it both ways. I’ll
address all the other issues after I get a chance to look at the submission, and I thank you very
much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open.
Do you gentlemen want to come back up. Is there anything, briefly, that you wanted to add,
respond to?
MR. LAPPER-A couple of quick thoughts. We’re not looking for a Use Variance. The
multifamily residential is a permitted use in the SR-1A zone, so that the Town Comp Plan and
zoning code calls for this as permitted uses. Even though the adjacent neighbor said that he
would prefer to have single family homes, as Mr. Strough pointed out, we’ve got hundreds of
feet of wooded and vegetated buffer that will be left here, and if you were going to put a
standard subdivision of one acre lots, you’d be taking down a lot more trees and going right up
to the edge of the property. So, I mean, I understand that he says that that’s what he prefers,
but I think reasonably this will give him a better buffer than what he has. We didn’t mention it
this time. Mickie mentioned it last time, the market that they’re going for, this isn’t Section
Eight, low income housing. These are $800, $900 a month units, similar to what they built
elsewhere in Town, but, you know, newer and nicer, and we’re talking about the expensive
development that they’ll own and manage, and that the Planning Board will ultimately pass on
the site plan with the green space and all of the site amenities. So it’s going to be an expensive,
nice property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Comments from Planning Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Well, the one thing I just want to mention is the stormwater issue, as I said, is a
significant issue to me, and I agree with the homeowners. It’s something we’re going to take a
close, hard look at, but, you know, if you divide that up into 25 lots, put 25 buildings on it, and
then the greater roadage that you would need to accommodate those 25 lots, you’re going to
have a whole lot more stormwater problems than with this proposal, as far as stormwater goes,
and when I say mixed use, yes, well, there’s, I meant it in a generic way. There is a specific
zone, mixed use, and it provides for a lot more, but when I said mixed use, I meant it in a
generic way, and, so, with that said, that’s all I need to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff’s turn. Any comments, requests?
MR. HILTON-I guess I would just ask the Board to be as specific as possible when looking for
the applicant to return with information.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to take a little breather and ask a couple to pen it up, but is there
any information, specifically, you’re looking for, that we haven’t really touched on?
MR. HILTON-No. I think our notes, you know, outline what we’re looking for, additional
information. We’ll go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What I’d like to do is take a five minute recess. I’d like Tom, Chris,
and Larry to draft a resolution for tabling this thing, specific as to what we’re looking for for
additional information, please. Okay. Have you guys got something drafted up you want to
run by us?
MR. RINGER-We’re going to make a motion to.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to discuss it first, before you do it, just to see if anybody wants
to add anything to it?
MR. RINGER-Well, I was afraid to do that, we’ll be here until midnight, but I’ll go over them
anyway. Okay. We’ve only got four comments for tabling. One that the applicant has to
complete the Long Form SEQRA. Two, that they address all of the comments of Male’s letter of
11/21, that they address density issue that Staff has brought up, and, four, that they address all
the comments of Staff’s letter of January 17, 2003.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine with us.
MR. RINGER-And we feel we’ve addressed everything that’s been brought up tonight, in those
four items. The Long Form will address many of the issues brought forth by the public tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Put it through.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002, WESTERN RESERVE, LLC
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
For the following reasons:
1. The applicant is to come back with a completed Long Form SEQRA.
2. The applicant is to address all of the comments of C.T. Male’s letter of 11/21/02.
3. The applicant will address the density issue brought up by Staff.
4. The applicant will address all the issues of Staff’s letter/memorandum of 1/17/03.
Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, we’d like the permission to submit this two weeks from today,
which would be Tuesday the 4. We don’t have to go back to County because we’ve already
th
been there, and to be on the second agenda in February, which would give the Board enough
time to review this additional information.
MR. HILTON-That was my next point, is that they’ve missed the deadline to be on a February
meeting, which January 15. Certainly the Board has some latitude. I think, given that we’re
th
going to have to review a lot of information an C.T. Male will as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s way too much information that you’re going to have to
respond to, and to give time for a thorough review, I think you’re better off being on the agenda
in March.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/03)
MR. LAPPER-Well, with all due respect, we submitted on the 15 and we heard tonight that the
th
Long Form. I mean, just in terms of fairness, we certainly, we did what we were requested.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, we’re being fair. We’ll see you in March. Okay. I mean, there’s an
awful lot there to respond to, especially from C.T. Male’s standpoint of just doing the review.
MR. RINGER-Before the public leaves, are you going to put them on the first meeting in March
or the second meeting in March?
MR. MAC EWAN-Put them on the first meeting in March.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The first meeting in March, if you want the date, we’ll give it to you.
MR. SCHACHNER-March 18.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The third Tuesday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-18.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-The 18. March 18. Anything else?
thth
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
68