2003-03-27 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 27, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
PRESENTATION:
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES: KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY MANAGEMENT PLAN
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll turn it over to Marilyn.
MRS. RYBA-Hi. Actually, there was a resolution from Tuesday night.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I forgot about that.
MRS. RYBA-Concerning the Open Space Plan that I talked with Chairman MacEwan about that.
The resolution was, and I can read it into the record, Draft Resolution, “Resolution to
Acknowledge Receipt of Town of Queensbury Open Space Plan Committee Public Hearing
Draft Open Space Vision Plan and Map and Intent to Participate in Joint Public Hearings
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has received from the Town of
Queensbury Town Board a copy of the Town of Queensbury Open Space Plan Committee
public hearing draft Open Space Vision Plan and Map, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has, through its representation on
the Open Space Plan Committee has actively participated in the creation of this document, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board has recommended that it hold one or more
joint public hearings with the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury and the Open Space
Plan Committee, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby agrees to participate in
a joint public hearing with the Town Board and Open Space Plan Committee, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that any comments and/or recommendations to be made on the public hearing
draft Open Space Vision Plan and Map by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will be
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
provided to the Town Board in advance of that joint public hearing.” And as I said on Tuesday
night, that hearing is expected some time in May.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it, please.
RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
OPEN SPACE PLAN COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
OPEN SPACE VISION PLAN AND MAP
AND
INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS
INTRODUCED BY: John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Catherine LaBombard
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has received from the Town of
Queensbury Town Board a copy of the Town of Queensbury Open Space Plan Committee public
hearing draft Open Space Vision Plan and Map, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has, through its representation on
the Open Space Plan Committee has actively participated in the creation of this document, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board has recommended that it hold one or more
joint public hearings with the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury and the Open Space
Plan Committee, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby agrees to participate in
a joint public hearing with the Town Board and Open Space Plan Committee, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that any comments and/or recommendations to be made on the public hearing draft
Open Space Vision Plan and Map by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will be provided
to the Town Board in advance of that joint public hearing.
Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2003 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MRS. RYBA-All right. Now for the next order of business which is, one of the reasons we’re
here this evening is to hear John Munsey, who is with C.T. Male Associates. C.T. Male was
hired to assist the Town with developing a Karner blue butterfly recovery plan. There are a
number of reasons why this plan is being developed, and I wanted to introduce those reasons
and then George Hilton will talk about, give you a brief overview of the Sketch plan plans that
are presented this evening, and then Mr. Munsey can go into his presentation. Essentially, the
applications that have come forward to the Planning Board at this point, there has been, I think
the proper way to phrase it is Planning Board struggled a bit with how to look at the
Endangered Species Act and also how to be consistent with applicants, but at the same time
take the ecology of each particular parcel into account, and the other reason for this is to take
the unknown out of the development process for developers. There are also some things in
reference to items that have been talked about, such as habitat conservation plan, recovery plan,
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
GEIS or overlay district, and there really are some distinctions there in reference to the
Endangered Species Act and SEQRA. So, the other aspect is how SEQRA really applies in the
different applications that are coming up, so that we can still comply with protection
regulations but not have a negative impact on the species. The other part of it is, while we can
look at recovery, we also need to look a bit at the future management, how is anything that’s
going to be preserved or offered for use as a recovery area, how are we going to actually look at
that in the future, how are we going to manage it. So I think that’s what Mr. Munsey will be
addressing, and with that said, I’ll just turn it over to George.
MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary, rather than reading the entire nine pages of notes. The
three applications that are before you are three residential subdivisions, all at Sketch Plan
phase. Two of them are proposing to be developed under the Town’s cluster provision, that is
Mr. Schiavone and Mr. Schermerhorn’s subdivision. So they’re going to be looked at in light of
the Ordinance and what our cluster provisions are. The timing and the actual location of these
projects are occurring pretty much at the same time, in the same area. It presents an interesting
challenge to Staff and the Planning Board, as far as reviewing these proposals, in light of
SEQRA, in light of the Town Zoning Ordinance, in light of the Town’s Master Plan of
development. Various impacts from groundwater to transportation to emergency services, you
know, everything that you could think of when you think of a residential development comes
into play here, and it’s an interesting opportunity for us to sit down and look at everything at
once, but I think we’re also probably required to do this under SEQRA, to look at cumulative
impacts and look at them all as one. So this evening we’ve chosen to kind of present it as a
roundtable, all the applications at once. So, be that as my introduction, we’ll just go from there.
Karner blue is one piece of it as well, how these applications will impact or be effected by the
Endangered Species Act and State and Federal requirements is something to consider. C.T.
Male, I think, will speak to that as well, but I’d welcome any questions you have as we go along,
about the impacts that I’ve touched on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for some input, procedurally wise, after John does his presentation, do
you think it’s best to do a representative from each applicant all at once, or take each application
individually and discuss it? I mean, this is kind of a unique situation we have here.
MR. HILTON-Very unique. Yes, I don’t know. I wish there were enough room at the table. It
would be nice to get them all up at once and just fire off the questions. If you have one for, let’s
say, Mr. Dickinson or his representative to go that way. Maybe it’s better to go one, two, three
as we’ve listed them, and then if you have additional questions, we can always call people back.
MR. MAC EWAN-For Board members, I mean, when you guys reviewed these packets and
stuff, did you kind of like look at it from the same aspect like normal agenda items? Do you
want to go one at a time?
MR. STROUGH-We can start there, I mean, and if that’s not working, go to Plan B.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right.
MR. SANFORD-I have one sort of clarifying question, and it goes back to when we had a public
hearing in a prior night. A person from the public was interested in an applicant providing
some form of assistance to a homeowner’s parcel of land, and the Chairman and Staff pointed
out that basically it was outside of our authority, legally, to put restrictions or conditions on one
property owner in regards to another property, and while I appreciate all your introductory
remarks, and incidentally, I think Staff did an excellent job putting this together, I think one of
the big issues is the coordination of the project in regards to connector roads, and yet these are
all legally distinct entities, that if it wasn’t for the fact that their coming together at around the
same proximity in terms of time, you know, I’m wondering, legally, to what degree we have
authority in terms of this interconnection issue. We could request it and encourage it, but are
we legally empowered to move people in this direction if they choose not to?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Are you asking a question about a connector road? What direction are you
talking about? When you say, move people in this direction?
MR. SANFORD-Well, the three applicants, I think the Staff notes encourage that they work
together to connect these projects for traffic flow and what have you, yet it’s not one massive
project, it’s three distinct projects, and so I’m wondering, from a legal perspective, whether we
can suggest things, or can we actually demand things?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we can require things of applicants on their own property and we can
also require things of applicants on public property, and we can’t, I think the reference you’re
making to an earlier meeting was when the Board was contemplating imposing a condition on a
particular applicant that involved, correct me if I’m wrong, Board, but it involved that
particular applicant exercising some control over an adjacent property that was not part of the
applicant’s property or any other applicant’s property. It was just adjacent property, and it’s
correct that we don’t have that legal authority. This doesn’t sound like that for two reasons.
One is you have a group of applicants that are sufficiently in close proximity so that they’re all
applicants and you’re talking about interconnection. I mean, you’ve had this situation before,
and I don’t know, Rich, if you’ve been on the Board, but you’ve certainly had many, actually,
over the years, applications for contiguous properties, for completely unrelated legal entities,
you know, Store A and Store B, and sometimes the Board has successfully implemented
conditions requiring traffic coordination and interconnection, sometimes less than successfully,
but I think you’re on pretty safe ground, as long as you stay within the parameters of the
applicant’s property, whichever applicant you’re talking about, and/or public property and not
some third party unrelated applicant that’s not an applicant before the, I’m sorry, third party
unrelated property owner that’s not an applicant before the Board. That’s what you have to
stay away from.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just thought it should be brought up because I was unclear on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that, John?
JOHN MUNSEY
MR. MUNSEY-The first thing I won’t do is ask to come back a second time to prepare a better
presentation than this one, because I honestly thought I was here for purposes of asking
questions, but I can give a short presentation.
MR. MAC EWAN-By the way, if you have a bunch of questions to ask, go ahead and ask them
tonight.
MR. MUNSEY-I’m not going to ask you guys any questions tonight, but I’m prepared to
address any questions that might come up.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think he meant answer questions, when he said ask questions.
MR. MUNSEY-I’m sorry.
MR. SCHACHNER-You said you were here expecting to ask questions tonight. I’m guessing
you meant to answer questions.
MR. MUNSEY-I’m sorry, to answer questions. Sorry about that. So, what’s so special about the
Karner blue? The major aspect of its specialty is that there aren’t that many of them around
anymore, either in Upstate New York, New England and into the Central States and around the
Great Lakes region. The Queensbury Sand Plains Unit, in which all three of these projects are
located in, is a designated State Recovery Unit. It is also identified within a much larger Federal
Recovery Unit that’s called the Lake Albany Recovery Unit. So on both the Federal and the
State level, this particular geographic region in which all of three of these projects are located is
identified as a protected area under Federal and State regulations under the Endangered
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
Species Act. We just started working on a Karner blue management plan for the Town of
Queensbury. We anticipate, at the end of next week, providing a draft of that to the Town for
their review and comment before we finish it. What we’d like to do is get input from the Town
of Queensbury on what I refer to as a skeletal outline of the first draft of that management plan,
but I’ve seen it already and I’ve been working on it a little bit so I can tell you a little bit about
the outline of what we think it’s going to include. It’s going to identify protection zones. We
anticipate it will identify three protection zones, an inner core, and then outskirt areas
surrounding that core area as a secondary zone, and then a tertiary zone that would go to the
fringes of the recovery unit, for instance, the fringe of the recovery unit on the west side of the
recovery unit is West Mountain Road. It’s along the fringes of the recovery unit and perhaps
even a little bit beyond that, with higher levels of potential mitigation that would be required
for future projects, as they propose to come before the Town for subdivision. All three of these
projects are located in what we anticipate defining as an inner core area or the highest level of
protection area. The reason why they’re located within what we believe to be the highest level
of protection area is their proximity to the existing Niagara Mohawk electrical transmission
lines. In theory, it appears that the only reason that Karner blue has persisted in this area is
because of the maintenance activities that have historically been conducted along those
electrical transmission lines. For instance, every three years or every two years, they’ll go down
and cut all trees off, perhaps at chest level height, or a little bit lower at knee level height. As a
result of that, you know, manmade activity, maintenance activity along the right of way, what
that’s doing is it’s emulating a natural condition, the natural condition of the use of fire, and to
basically restore a habitat to its more original condition. Fire no longer takes place in this area,
and as a result, trees and forest growth is allowed to basically shade out the important plants
that are required for the Karner blue butterfly. Butterflies have a symbiotic relationship with
the plant in this particular, and the plant that is the host plant for the Karner blue butterfly is
the Blue Lupine plant. The Blue Lupine plant grows in areas of sandy soil, which we have a lot
of that in Queensbury, but they need to be open areas of sandy soil. The mitigation measures
that we will specify will be generic in nature, with the intent of providing flexibility to the
developer so that we’re not draconian in what might be proposed for them, but rather provide
some level of flexibility. We anticipate requiring of all developers that they conduct, all
developments within the recovery unit, that they conduct a biological survey of that property
before they come to you, and we’ll also give optimum seasonal conditions or timeframes in
which that biological survey should be done. Part of our management plan is doing a generic
checklist of what should be included in that biological survey. We’re in correspondence and
dialogue with Kathy O’Brien, at DEC’s Endangered Species Unit, as well as well as Robin Niver
from US Fish and Wildlife Service, and we have a team of people at C.T. Male that are working
on this. Primarily it’s a couple of biologists are helping out on the plan, with one lead biologist
doing the primary role. Then, since it’s a mapping exercise, we’re working with our GIS group,
and with George on that, and then an important aspect of the Management Plan will lay out
future actions that will need to be conducted by a management entity or by a Town. It’s one
thing to set aside a certain area, and the it’s totally, and provide for mitigation that will protect
the resource, and then a higher level of protection would be afforded at the timeframe where
there’s active management of that resource that has been set aside for protection. So, again, to
summarize, end of next week, we’ll be providing a draft to the Town, primarily to Chris and his
Staff, to get their input on our plan, and then we’ll be ready to finalize that plan with the Town
of Queensbury’s input and additionally seek input from DEC and US Fish and Wildlife on that
plan. It’s not something that, the implementation of this plan is not something that the Town of
Queensbury can do by itself. It needs to be closely coordinated with DEC in their Endangered
Species Unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, procedurally, a question I would have is what kind of a timeline are
we looking before this plan would be adopted and who would adopt it, the Planning Board or
the Town Board?
MR. ROUND-Suggestions? I don’t know that it’s necessarily a plan that any agency adopts in a
formal manner. I think we’d want the commitment of resources, and that’s going to be, and
commitment to a decision making. I think there’s going to be recommendations that are within
the plan that are going to require us to adopt a zoning overlay, and I apologize, I came in at the
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
tail end of this, to adopt a zoning overlay, so in that case the Town Board is going to have action
it needs to take, and it’s going to commit us to a series of actions. I don’t know, Mark, maybe
you can offer some insight.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there’s not any formal adoption of a plan step by this Board. That’s
not one of the things you have the authority to do. The Town Board has that authority. I don’t
know. This is quite unrehearsed, but I’m not sure that anyone’s, I don’t know if anyone’s
envisioning the necessity for the Town Board to formally the plan, or merely to adopt it by
consensus, if you will, both Boards basically agreeing to operate within its parameters.
Although as Chris says, if the C.T. Male work product contains recommendations for things like
zoning overlays and things like that, certainly the municipalities that have done similar things,
which are not large in number, by the way, but there are several that have done similar things,
not only about this particular type of wildlife habitat, but some other types of wildlife habitat
for other types of threatened or species, but the City of Albany has a, you know, a management
plan that relates to the Karner blue butterfly and its habitat, and there are other municipalities
that have somewhat similar plans, at least structurally, and in many instances, the legislative
body has formally adopted the plan, but the legislative body is the Town Board, here, not this
Board.
MRS. RYBA-I would like to make a comment, back in the introduction, one of the things we,
one of, I think, a primary reason for doing this is because we had had a number of developers
ask us, well, what kind of a plan do you have in place, and taking the guesswork out for the
development community. So that they know what to expect, and I think that’s a real primary
goal in all of this, as well as providing that direction for the Planning Board to work from.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we out on this, a month, two months out? Three months?
MR. MUNSEY-It depends on how quickly the turnaround comments come back from the Town,
and then from DEC and EPA. It graphically, from the map standpoint, in terms of what’s going
to go in the program, I think we’re pretty well set on that, that they’ll be easy turnaround time
for that. It’s just a matter of how strict do we want the mitigation measures, or lenient or
flexible. So we’ll be providing a first draft of that as a basis for initial discussions. I would
imagine it would be at least a two week timeframe, in order to get close to a final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. Is it fair to say that, then, the plan that you’re working on
wouldn’t involve any actual on-site surveying? You mentioned earlier that part of the plan
would be for an applicant for us to do a biological survey.
MR. MUNSEY-It’s correct in that we’re not conducting any fieldwork, to put together this
management plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. MUNSEY-However, we anticipate that an appendix to this plan will be a biological survey
checklist. When doing fieldwork, what sort of things do you need to look for, so the data is
collected similarly in systematic fashion, by different landowners as they propose to come here
for development. Similarly, that form, as well, could be used by the Town, because one of the
other components of a future action would be to try to prioritize sites for future acquisition.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MUNSEY-But we’re not in a position right now, I don’t think, to identify those priority
sites and we’re not in the position to do the fieldwork either, because fieldwork optimally needs
to be conducted, you know, when the Blue Lupine plants are flowering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s why I asked the question. Because we, from prior discussions,
we know that happens in the summertime.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. MUNSEY-Yes. One of the things that does come up, and with this particular application,
I’m sure that the dialogue is going to head this way, is that in areas that are heavily forested,
treed right now, you don’t, we have made this argument successfully in the past, that you don’t
need to wait to do a biological survey because the Blue Lupine plant cannot grow in a forested
canopied area. However, that assessment would be subject to DEC’s review and approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-How, then, did you determine the, you mentioned you were going to have
three zones. How, then, did you determine where the borders of those zones would be?
MR. MUNSEY-The borders of those zones are being determined in consultation with DEC and
based on butterfly count and Blue Lupine plant identification data that currently exists, in the
existing knowledge base, and then I might mention it’s confidential information as well. It’s
kind of like, you know, it’s very analogous to historic or pre-historic sites. You try to keep
them, you try to keep them hidden from the general public, so that they can’t go out and
investigate that resource or collect butterflies, however that might be. So we have to be careful
in our final publications of some of these reports that we’re not disclosing information that the
Federal and State agencies would consider confidential.
MR. SANFORD-I’m a little confused about maybe not formally adopting this plan, and if it’s
not formally adopted, it’s my opinion it’s sort of a guideline, and if it’s a guideline, then I don’t
understand the mechanics of going back and forth for the Town Board if it’s not going to be
something that they have to vote on. So maybe it could be expedited, we could quicken the
whole process just by dealing with it at the Planning Board level, but I’m wondering, if it’s just
a guideline, are we on legally firm ground in utilizing it as we review applications? I mean,
what’s the basis of us relying on it if it’s not, in fact, something that’s been legally endorsed.
MR. SCHACHNER-Two things. First of all, you do have the legal authority to rely on
guidelines, as long as they’re appropriate guidelines, and that doesn’t require formal legal
endorsement, but secondly, I don’t want my remarks to be misconstrued. I’m certainly not
sitting here saying the Town Board shouldn’t or won’t formally adopt the plan. All I said is it’s
not required to. Probably from our standpoint as Counsel, we’d just as soon have the Town
Board formally adopt the plan.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-But that’s up to the Town Board and input from you all and the Staff and
others.
MRS. RYBA-I would like to make another comment, too, in terms of your whole SEQRA
review, and once again going back to the reason for putting this together, is that there has been
a struggle in terms of how do you look at each one of these applications, and you don’t
necessarily have to look at each one exactly the same because the ecology of each area can be
different. So if you have a good guideline policy document, management plan in place, it’s
really going to make it fair and consistent and appropriate for each applicant that comes
forward, and it’s meant to help the Planning Board, certainly, as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-As you’ll recall, Rich, the two previous applications we stumbled when it
came to the SEQRA point because under SEQRA, you know, we have to recognize it, and as
part of our determination is how are you going to mitigate the problem. If you don’t have a
plan, how can you come up with an idea on how you’re going to mitigate it? And this is the
whole thrust of why we’re here tonight.
MR. SANFORD-I understand.
MR. SCHACHNER-But I think, in fairness to Rich, I think his question really had to do with the
level of formality of the adoption of the plan and how sound Planning Board decision making
would be. Is that a fair characterization?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. SANFORD-It really was, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-But by way of analogy, I mean, you’ve had other guidelines, informal
policies, if you will, that you’ve developed over the years. For example, you had joint access
plans which I think now may be reflected in the new Zoning Ordinance, but were not clearly
reflected in anything formally adopted previously, but because they made good planning sense,
we’ve always been comfortable with the Board proceeding on those basis, and you could do the
same here as well, but again, I want to reiterate, if it’s up to me, I’d say have the Board adopt
the plan.
MR. SANFORD-See, my concern is if it’s not formally adopted and we use it for a while,
because we think it’s a good tool, to what degree should we have, or are we kind of obligated to
be consistent with this guideline, and at some time in the future if we deviated from it, does that
present certain legal difficulties, because we had been relying on it, now we’re deviating from it.
MR. ROUND-Rich, I think we’re struggling with how we are we going to implement, and I
think we’re thinking by adoption that’s implementation. I guess that’s what I’m struggling
with. By adopting a plan, it doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to execute the plan, and I
think we will encourage the Town Board to adopt it as a policy. How that binds them, I don’t
know, you know, politically it binds them, but I guess we expect that implementation will be
through a series of amendments to our Land Use regulation, through zoning, through
commitment of resources, identifying a land acquisition on our Capital Improvement Plan. So
we expect that it’s going to be implemented in various fashions and I think we’re struggling
with, well, does adoption of the plan mean it’s being implemented or does, you know. I think
the answer is yes to all those things.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I have just one question. On the biological survey by developers, the last time
Kathy was here to speak with us, there was a level of understanding that people who were in
the field had to have, in order to do a biological survey. Now, what does a developer do? Does
he go out and does he go to DEC for those resources? Does he pay for those resources himself?
How does he train people to do the things that Kathy knows how to do, if the developer himself
wouldn’t know the butterfly from a dragonfly? That’s what I’m trying to understand.
MR. MUNSEY-That’s a good point. In short, you know, the biological survey will be conducted
by what we’re referring to as a competent biologist, and the definition of a competent biologist
is one that does work that, I think a working definition of that is one that does work that’s
accepted by DEC and their Endangered Species Unit. One of the things, the first time a firm or
an individual presents the results of their field surveys to Kathy O’Brien, and this happened to
our firm maybe nine, ten years ago, is they asked for, I’d like to see resumes of the people that
did the work, and the field characterizations of that. So, not anybody can go out and do that
work. However, I think it’s appropriate to have some level of flexibility in terms of what a
competent biologist or a competent individual is that’s doing the work, because in many
instances, you know, I know that my wife is an excellent identifier of species and she’s not a
biologist, but she can identify, you know, she can identify trees and shrubs, and flowering
plants really well, and a lot of people can. They just have a knack for it. So I think, and plus,
you, in the future as the Town, if one of your future actions is to conduct future surveys, and
identify high priority sites, then you’re going to be bound by that as well, and I could see the
Town wanting to perhaps consider getting a couple of college interns on board to aggressively
do some field collection of data. So it needs to be done by a competent individual.
MR. VOLLARO-And that would be incumbent upon the contractor to find and employ,
probably, competent individuals to do this. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. ROUND-It’s not unique to this, you know, a biologist. I mean, you see engineers,
engineers are lucky that they have a certifying or a licensing organization. Biologists don’t have
that. Wetlands Biologists, you do a delineation according to a prescribed standard, and it’s
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
always subject to verification by the regulatory agency is involved. Archeology, I think it’s
actually recognized in the Federal Register the level of an archeologist and what’s acceptable.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what Kathy said the last time was interesting. She went out and got
some college students. She trained them how to do this and she sent them into the field. Now
that’s a fairly low level of financial commitment to the developer. I just don’t want to see a
developer have to go out and hire a PhD to walk around the field and figure out what’s going
on.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m just glad that Bob’s remembering what Kathy O’Brien when she
was last here. If you remember, you’re right. She described, as Chris and as John have said,
we’re not talking about a specific threshold level of education, PhD, masters or anything else.
There is no certification of biologists. She said that lay people can do it so long as they’re
adequately trained, and if you recall what Kathy O’Brien said is that her DEC Endangered
Species Unit is happy to train people on behalf of others to do it, and what John mentioned is
that, as I understand it, is that part of the plan that C.T. Male’s going to put together is going to
include some guidelines and criteria for people to utilize in conducting their field reviews. So, I
don’t think, I mean, there are firms, as we’ve talked about at that meeting when Kathy O’Brien
was here, there are certainly a number of firms in the area that hold themselves out as having
qualified biologists who do this on a regular basis, and certainly applicant/developers can
utilize any of those firms, but applicant/developers can also utilize their own personnel, so long
as they’re appropriately trained and schooled in this discipline, and it does not require any
formal level of training.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was driving at, basically. I think you’ve very well couched it.
That’s exactly what I wanted to get across.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
MR. SANFORD-Well, just one, in regards to these applications in front of us. Are we looking
for any insight, in terms of these projects and whether or not they’re going to fall within one of
the zones he identified?
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s already identified, all three of them fall within the most intense zone.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s a preliminary determination, as I understand it, although I
gather it’s one that C.T. Male has a pretty high level of confidence in, but understand, unless I’m
misunderstanding John’s presentation, as we sit here today, that plan doesn’t yet exist in any
even final draft form, but they’re working on it. It’s pretty close, and the preliminary
identification is that all three projects are in what John called the inner core protection area.
That’s a preliminary determination at this point. Is that right?
MR. MUNSEY-Correct. However, it’s been made in consultation with DEC.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It’s a pretty good guess, pretty good bet, preliminary determination,
is what I’m saying.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question and then I won’t ask any more. The Federal and State
Recovery Unit that you talked about, is there a set of metes and bounds that kind of goes along
and defines that Federal and State Recovery Unit, so that we know what that is? Because that’s
going to take up, I suspect, a lot bigger area than even the core or its other units. Is that correct?
MR. MUNSEY-Well, no, there is not a metes and bounds for it, but both the Feds and the States
have existing mapping that define them on USGS maps. So that’s what we’ll be using.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s close enough.
MR. MUNSEY-I’d say it’s close enough, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? John, thank you very much.
MR. MUNSEY-Thanks, and I look forward to doing a more formal presentation another time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to stick around, because there’s probably going to be another
question or two coming up. All right. Then we’ll move right in to the first Sketch Plan.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED *NO SEQR
REQUIRED THOMAS SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS AGENT:
VAN DUSEN AND STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN
AVENUE, AND WEST SIDE OF NI M O LINES APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF 49.87 ACRES INTO 44 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 9-79, 11-80
TAX MAP NO. 121-3-8 LOT SIZE: 49.87 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; T. SCHIAVONE,
PRESENT
MR. ROUND-Craig, have you instructed the people that are here how we’re going to proceed
with this tonight and what we want to accomplish? Have you talked about that?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, not really. We discussed it a little bit, and we’re still kind of waffling
here. Do you have any suggestions?
MR. ROUND-Let me start, maybe we can talk a little bit about it. Sketch Plan review is an
informal presentation, in front of the Board, to try to obtain feedback, and I think what we’re
trying to accomplish through Sketch Plan review of subdivisions is identify regulatory
requirements, jurisdictional, coordinate jurisdictional issues amongst DEC, Department of
Health, identify additional information needs that the Planning Board is going to ask for as we
progress through the approval process. Specifically with two of the applications you have
clustering that’s being proposed, and I think the Planning Board needs to provide sufficient
feedback to the applicants whether the concept that they propose is an appropriate application
of clustering, whether the land that they’re proposing to set aside is an area that they’re
interested in preserving and that holds a particular value, whether an aesthetic, a historic, some
kind of, has some value to the community that’s worthy of preservation and clustering in
concept is supposed to preserve land as well as limit the amount of infrastructure that is
necessarily constructed. So it’s through clustering we’re looking to limit the amount of road,
the amount of drainage systems, the amount of infrastructure that needs to take place, and so,
and clustering is specific to particular projects. Just because somebody calls something
clustering, it may not necessarily, in the eyes of the Planning Board, be a particular design that
the Planning Board likes or wants to move forward under clustering. I guess tonight, Craig,
you and I, we’ve talked to Staff, the reason we have the three applications in front of us tonight
is they are in the same geographical area. There are, I think, elements that the Planning Staff
would like to see incorporated that will affect adjoining landowners. I think the Planning Board
and the Planning Staff is concerned about cumulative impacts. The environmental
characteristics of all the properties, there are some similarities, there’s some differences. I know
like depth to groundwater, presence of wetlands, those are some areas of concern, and I’m sure
we’ll talk about some others. One of the other elements that we’re concerned about, when
we’re, we’d like the Planning Board to address, is density calculation. A lot of times that’s
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
handled administratively, but when an application’s presented, we need to be able to have
comfort level that the wetlands are an accurate depiction, because wetlands are not used in the
calculation for density. We need an accurate depiction of areas that are undevelopable for other
reasons whether it’s they’re public right of ways, whether they are shallow depth to
groundwater, whether there’s bedrock outcrops, excessive slopes, and so we need clear pictures
of those things on the plan, or at least before we progress to preliminary. I know we haven’t
been very formal about that process. We haven’t seen some significant subdivisions in recent
history. I think they’ve all been five and six and seven years ago. We’ve seen some smaller
ones where density wasn’t a particular concern. I know we did struggle with it on the Western
Reserve project most recently. So I think we want the Planning Board tonight to give clear
instruction what it is that is required of the applicant so that we can move forward with an
accurate density calculation. I think what we’re looking to do is have each applicant make a
presentation tonight, not get into a formal, it’s not a formal public hearing tonight, but provide
a presentation. Have an informal dialogue, and have the Planning Board provide the
instruction to each applicant what it is they need to come back with. I don’t know if you want
to expand on that, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. That’s fine. It sounds like a good game plan. So why don’t we do
Subdivision 4-2003 first. That’s Thomas Schiavone. George, a quick overview, without getting
into a lot of detail on it, just the basics.
MR. HILTON-Sure. The applicant proposes a subdivision of approximately 49.87 acres into, we
show 43 single family lots with one larger lot to be set aside. The purpose of that lot, I guess
should be determined. The current zoning of the property is SR-1A, and some of the lots do,
that are proposed are less than one acre. The applicant is seeking to develop under the Cluster
Provisions of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Planning Staff has
mentioned before it does have some concern about shallow depth to groundwater, the presence
of DEC and/or Army Corps wetlands on the property, determining the appropriate density
calculation in light of those environmental constraints, as well as in light of the Cluster
Provisions that I mentioned. We have some concerns about potential vehicular connection to
other subdivisions in the area that are proposed this evening, and of course the Karner blue
issue that’s been mentioned. So, as Chris said, we’re kind of looking for the Board to provide
some direction to the applicant, as to what you might be looking for at the time of Preliminary
and/or Final, and with that, that’s all I have for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, as well as Tom Nace and Tom Schiavone
representing this subdivision. As Staff has stated, it’s a proposed 44 lot subdivision on the
south side of Sherman Avenue, just west of the Niagara Mohawk power line, and that’s not an
easement there. That is actually ownership by Niagara Mohawk, unlike other subdivisions in
the area where the property or the power line going through the subdivision is an easement
owned by the property owner, this is actually owned by Niagara Mohawk. We were in front of
this Board a few months ago with a discussion item, if you’ll recall, and I think one member that
might not have been here was Mr. MacEwan, and we had talked about the boulevard entrance,
leaving the large lot in the front to whatever, whether it be something that the Town would
want maintained by the developer. We’re looking for some guidance from the Board. That is an
area, as the Staff has mentioned, that there is some higher groundwater in that area, and the
remaining lots are developed in an area where the groundwater table, as these test pits will
prove, that were witnessed by, done by Charlie Maine, witnessed by Tom Nace and Glen Bruso
of DOH, predominantly 28 to 61 inches down to mottling. So sufficient enough depth for
stormwater and for septic. The area of concern that I think has been brought forward by the
Staff and we are still awaiting an answer from DEC, is that there was a wetland that was
delineated on the State wetland mapping, in this general area, we believe to be just to the west
of our subdivision, in the area off the end of Michael Lane and Amy Lane, and that. Mr. Ken
Cogate from the DEC has walked the property, and said because of all the snow that was there
at the time that he didn’t encounter anything that he said that would alarm him, but at the same
time he couldn’t make a definitive answer until such time as the snow had receded some. I
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
gave him a couple of phone calls this week. I haven’t heard back, but that would be the one
item that we would have to resolve (lost word) they would approve as far as the density
calculations. Otherwise, if there is no wetlands associated with this property or setback
requirements from that, it does meet the density calculations in the zone, and I’ll maybe let Tom
explain a little bit more about the, if there’s anything else, road or drainage or anything like that
that you have questions on.
MR. NACE-No. Offhand I don’t have any comments regarding that, other than Matt said the
test pits showed depth to mottling between 27 and 60 some inches. Generally, that goes from 27
up at the north end of the subdivision up to deeper soils at the back end of the subdivision.
Something that might be helpful for the Board.
MR. STEVES-That map that Tom is going to hand out is a blow up of the tax map of this
particular area, with the existing subdivisions that are in place in this area, as well as the three
proposed, and the vicinity of each to each other. They’re also labeled as far as the names, so
you know, to make it a little bit easier for everybody to look at, instead of having to turn around
all the time. I will just make one more comment, and then after you review the map for a
minute, and open it up for whatever questions you may have. One of the key things that was
brought up in the discussions with this prior to the applicant getting up to the table was
interconnections, and one of the things that we have here is that we do not border, individual
properties, the subdivision for Schiavone and Schermerhorn do not touch. The Niagara
Mohawk that goes between it is not an easement over one of those properties. It’s an actual
ownership by Niagara Mohawk. So if any interconnection was going to have to take place, they
would have to be involved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Matt?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open it up to questions, and maybe we can just say that, keep
our questions generic relative to, you know, planning, the concept itself and maybe not get
bogged down in engineering type questions, in an effort to move things along a little bit. Chris,
we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an interesting map you passed out. Is this Niagara Mohawk?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions was on the front 13 acre lot, where it sounds like you’re
looking for direction from us as to?
MR. STEVES-Well, we necessarily set it aside. That’s the area where the groundwater is about
21 inches. So you could build on it if you wanted to bring in a lot of fill.
MR. NACE-Correct, Matt. For a subdivision now you can’t. One of the things that has changed
in the last couple of years is that the Health Department used to allow subdivisions that have a
smattering of fill systems, septic systems, in them. It’s gotten to the point now they will not
permit any fill septic systems in a new residential subdivision. So we now have that magic 24
inches to mottling that cuts off any possible residential subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t you say, though, the lowest here was 28 inch?
MR. STEVES-Twenty-one.
MR. NACE-Twenty-seven, I believe, up at the front..
MR. STEVES-Twenty-seven.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-The groundwater does get a little higher as you come to the front. So, as you get
out toward the road, it’s maybe in the low twenty’s or teens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-So therefore it really excludes that from development reasons, purposes, and
we’re open to suggestions. We can leave it, you know, if the Town would like to have it,
suggestions from this Board, perhaps. I had talked with DEC and Kathy O’Brien on this site,
because one of the questions that the Staff had brought up is Karner blue. I believe she had
discussions with Marilyn on this, and when we gave her the subdivision plan, the tax map, the
USGS and an aerial photo of the site, she said that the site itself is too heavily wooded to
support any Blue Lupine. The area of concern, naturally, as the gentleman from C.T. Male has
pointed out, primary, is the Niagara Mohawk transmission line. That’s where they cut it down,
you know, they mow it, and that’s where it has the ability to grow in a nice, dry, sandy soils, in
the open conditions. So what we had proposed in the subdivision is to have the setback along
the power line of the back of those lots in the east side. Not only as a setback line but as a no cut
line. So, therefore, you know, you’re not promoting the people, or encouraging the people in
the subdivision to keep creeping out into the power line and try to use it as a back yard. We
have no control over the Niagara Mohawk Power line, except for, you know, for protection
purposes, except to try to stop people in the subdivision from using it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I know in some of the other subdivisions the concern with adjacent
property owners, it’s not so much clear cutting their lots, but dumping grass clippings and
other things into the Niagara Mohawk property or right of way, then kill the habitat for Blue
Lupine.
MR. STEVES-Right, and we had talked to Staff and we had other applications in front of this
Board with the same scenario, stating that, you know, we will have the no cut zone. As we have
done in Wilton on other subdivisions, you put in a sign that states, a laminated sign on the back
of every lot indicating that you’re approaching a protection zone, that no dumping is allowed,
you know, you go through a list of tings that we can discuss with this Board, and with Staff as
to what they want to say on those, and place them along the back of every lot, note in the, you
know, on the subdivision plan itself, when it’s ever filed, so that the person purchasing each lot
knows that, and do the best we can in that standpoint.
MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to the earlier comment about Department of Health not allowing
fill systems, it sort of creates an interesting issue when it comes to the density calculation,
because if those acres aren’t buildable, they aren’t wetlands or water, so we would include them
in the calculation, but they really aren’t able to be developed.
MR. STEVES-Right. I think in your Cluster it says for steep slopes (lost words) bedrock, it
doesn’t state, I don’t think, for shallow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. NACE-It does create an interesting issue, but it gets into, if you’re going to have a
clustering provision, it’s got to work to help keep open space available in the Town. I mean,
that’s the real purpose of it is to encourage developers to leave open areas, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and some of the existing clusters, you know, I mean, what I always
think of as sort of the typical cluster is where you have, you know, a large piece of property and
bring all of the development closer to the road so they have a lot less public infrastructure, and
then, you know, whether it be to the rear or wherever, you have a lot left of open space, and this
seems to be sort of the opposite of what you think of as a typical cluster.
MR. NACE-I think your regulations really read that you’re trying to leave the more sensitive
area, you know, the purpose of it is to discourage development toward the sensitive areas, and
to cluster, to confine the amount of infrastructure required.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STEVES-No question, and not that anybody would want to do it, but, you know, we we’re
aware of the property. We’re aware of the constraints on the front, and we set it aside, and we
had talked to Kathy O’Brien, and I believe the applicant even talked to her and said, you know,
would you be interested in doing some kind of plan inside that area, too, for the Karner blue.
We’re open to whatever they want to do with it.
MR. SANFORD-What I’m hearing here, though, is that for a number of reasons it wouldn’t be a
suitable habitat because, A, it’s probably not dry sandy soil, and, B, it’s wooded.
MR. STEVES-It’s dry sandy soils to about two feet.
MR. NACE-Habitat for blue Karners, that’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-It wouldn’t work for that.
MR. NACE-No, no, it would not.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Not unless you cleared it and created a habitat. That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just think, I was just trying to in my head, and I can’t do this because I just
can’t do it, the density of this in conjunction with the other ones. I just seems so much, you
know, the lots are so small, and I’m curious as to why, or how we’re going to benefit from
clustering on this.
MR. STEVES-I can go through the density calculations for you, Tony.
MR. METIVIER-It’s not the density calculations, but more the density homes versus acreage.
This is one acre, and I understand, you know, with clustering and everything, but it just seems
on the other lots are at least bigger.
MR. STEVES-Predominantly, this area they’re this size or slightly smaller. Queensbury Forest is
this size. They’re even smaller on the duplexes on Queen Victoria’s Grant. All the lots to the
east go down into the duplex subdivision of Smoke Ridge. There’s duplexes on the same size
lots, half acre lots. There’s SFR-20 zone on the Burnt Hills subdivision. All the lots on the north
side of Sherman, Leo, Howard, those are all half acre lots. Even in the back over here on
Michelle and Herald Square, those are all half acre lots. I mean, this whole area spattered
around, okay. There’s some open areas that are now starting to fill in. This whole area has been
predominantly 15 to 20,000 square foot zoning, at the time that these other subdivisions were
developed, and so we’re consistent with that.
MR. METIVIER-So each one of these homes will have its own septic system?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. NACE-Yes, there’s plenty of room, and like Matt said, you know, the whole west side of
the Northway, really, with the exception of Bedford Close and some of the back end of the
Hudson Pointe, even the front end of Hudson Pointe is mostly half acre or smaller lots.
MR. STEVES-Yes. The very first lots in Hudson Pointe were third acres.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-Yes, that’s right.
MR. STEVES-There’s a lot of subdivisions that, you know, you look at it on a hundred scale or
two hundred scale map and they look really small, but you’re talking about lots that are 125 feet
by 200 feet deep.
MR. METIVIER-All right. I have nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just a couple of questions. First of all, this rectangular piece of property, I don’t
know how to describe it, I guess I’ll point to it, right here, who owns that? What’s the story
with that piece of property?
MR. STEVES-That is part of the Schermerhorn application that is currently owned by Mr.
Centebar. He owns on both sides of the power line, that piece is kind of landlocked in behind
the power line.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Going back to what Chris said earlier, and trying to come to terms with
the benefit of the cluster, you know, if this land in the front was, you could develop it, if you
could build houses on it, you may very well have elected to do so, but you really can’t, even if
you wanted to. So it philosophically begs the issue as to whether or not there’s a benefit to the
Town for the cluster development, because you’re not electing to do something that you could
otherwise do. You couldn’t do anything with it.
MR. STEVES-Well, I understand. The answer to your question, when we came in quite a few
months ago for a discussion item, we had indications but we hadn’t had all the test pit data, and
we had talked to the Board, and we gave them the scenario like a Surrey Field. We have a
boulevard entrance. You have the buildings back away from the road. So as you drive down
Sherman Avenue you don’t necessarily see this subdivision sticking out with the lots right
against Sherman Avenue, and that 13, or 12, 13 acre parcel in the front that remains
predominantly wooded is going to buffer and shield this development from the Sherman
Avenue corridor, and if I recall, that was a fairly positive aspect from the Sketch Plan from this
Board.
MR. NACE-I think one of the other original goals of clustering was that, you know, if you can
environmentally squeeze more lots in a particular area, then you’re going to take development
pressure off other areas. Okay. There’s a demand in the community for X number of lots, okay,
and if you can develop them here with cluster, maybe some other piece of land somewhere else
doesn’t get developed.
MR. SANFORD-No, I know, but I guess my question was, if the land is undevelopable, does it
even enter into the calculation? Like, do you remove it from the equation before you then look
at the area that you’re developing, or do you include it? And say, hey, it’s this size land.
MR. ROUND-Can I speak to that? Because I think, you know, our Ordinance talks about how
to calculate density, and it provides for examples. I don’t think it’s exhaustive, and I think,
based on what I’m hearing tonight, if it’s not buildable land, that we would discount it from the
overall calculation. So you’d need to subtract that from the entire balance of the property. It
doesn’t say all DEC wetlands. It says wetlands, and wetlands are a different bodies. I think
shallow depth to groundwater, the ability to site a septic system is a strict component of
buildability.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just from, you know, the philosophy of clustering, I mean, this Board’s often
perceived the theme of clustering is preserving open vistas, of preserving unique landforms.
Given an opportunity put a development in a small area, saving infrastructure, and things like
that, and what I see as a trend that seems to be happening here a lot, as less and less land in
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
Queensbury that’s left, that’s developable, we’re like cramming as much as we can, as much
density as we can on these parcels of land, and I think it’s driven by the cost to purchase the
land, because land in Queensbury is at a premium, and what land that’s left to develop is going
at a really extraordinary rate, and I think for the developer to get his money back out of it, they
try to put as much on that parcel of land as they can, and just by looking at this subdivision
here, I see problems with it already, and I think that some of the other Board members and Staff
have echoed those concerns.
MR. ROUND-Craig, can I just comment? Something that Tony was talking about is, I’m not
concerned with, personally, we’re not concerned, when you look at clustering, you’re not
concerned with lot size. I think five thousand or ten thousand square foot lots, if what it is
doing is setting aside land that would normally be developed, and that we value in the
community, I think we would encourage smaller lot sizes. I think a large part, I think the
people in the home construction industry are trying to tailor their product to the market that’s
out there, and I think a lot of people like the, you know, they want to move to suburbia because
they want 20,000 or 40,000 square foot lots, and I think we’re not opposed to smaller lots. I
think what we don’t want to do is I think what we’re talking about tonight is provide a density
that is not normally there, and I think that’s what you’re going to struggle with on this
particular project tonight.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. The only other question I have is really going back to the Karner blue
butterfly, and I found it rather unique or unusual that the environment where the habitat has
basically been created by man, through the power lines, and normally you would think, you
know, you want to protect the natural environment from what man does, and so I’m wondering
if this enters into the equation at all. I think of the person who clears land and puts a pasture in
and raises livestock and a mountain lion jumps in and starts killing livestock. Well, now you
have a habitat for an endangered species. I suspect you’d be able to get the mountain lion
removed. I’m wondering, does that matter, the fact that Niagara Mohawk created this
environment, where otherwise there wouldn’t have been an endangered species. Does that
change anything?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. ROUND-Taking a very narrow look at that thing, the reason that this area is not, I think
what you see in the Pine Bush in Albany is that they burn, and the natural succession of
vegetation helps or impacts, you know, the natural evolution of terrestrial environments has an
impact on a particular species. I think if this area wasn’t available for home sites you might see
fires. You might see that happen naturally, rather than as a result of maintenance activities by
Niagara Mohawk. So there’s different things that could influence that process.
MR. SANFORD-I guess. I’m just saying it’s a good thing mosquitoes aren’t an endangered
species, because we’d never be able to clean up the used tires, because they breed them, but I
mean, okay, I guess.
MR. ROUND-These kind of debates are occurring for various species and various, you know,
wetlands and migratory water fowl, and you hear it at every level, whether as a result of man’s
actions that’s caused it or impacted.
MR. SANFORD-All right. So man’s action caused this environment and we have to preserve
that, is what the bottom line is.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I said no so quickly.
MR. MUNSEY-If I could just add one point to that. That’s their refuge. They were always here.
Except the areas in geographic areas, the extent of the Karner blue with development and with
the suppression of fire, it’s significantly limited the geographic area of the butterfly, and they
migrated to the refuge, so to speak, of the power line, because that’s where they can propagate.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Then the only, if that’s it, then really we should be looking for sort of a
buffer surrounding the power line, and kind of discourage construction coming right up to it,
which this project tends to do, at least on one side of it.
MR. NACE-Well, these are 200 foot deep lots, okay, and then you won’t, the very back yard of a
200 foot deep lot tends to remain natural. People want that buffer. They don’t want, you know,
the residents here won’t want to see the four-wheelers and snowmobiles and what have you
going up and down the power line. So they’ll maintain the buffer back there, for their own
protection.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have no further questions right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was listening to what you were saying and I kind of forgot what I had,
was thinking of. Come back to me, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Before I start, which of the two developments north of the Schiavone
development is Queensbury Forest here on the map that you gave us?
MR. MAC EWAN-Way up near the top. Right there.
MR. VOLLARO-Right here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Straight down, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is Queensbury Forest. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-To your right of you hand, that’s Queen Victoria’s Grant.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is Queen Victoria, right.
MR. VOLLARO-Having said that, I have a reason why I wanted to know that, but I guess this
piece on the Schiavone property that is left undeveloped really is left due to the 27 to 61 inch of
groundwater? Is that the reason why we’re not developing that corner?
MR. NACE-The reason yes. We could, however, the Health Department will allow you to fill,
leave the fill in place for a couple of years and come back and treat it as natural material. Okay.
So when I say Health Department won’t allow you to subdivide that, they will if you put the fill
on, go to the expense ahead of time and let it set for a year, and come back.
MR. VOLLARO-So what is the intended use, long range use, of that piece?
MR. NACE-That’s kind of what we’re asking the Town a little guidance for.
MR. SCHIAVONE-I had envisioned, at one point, making it, you know, for the community to
use. Maybe putting a nature walk through it, you know, something of those means. We did
discuss the ramifications and the expense of stockpiling the soil over a year or so until the Board
of Health would let us build on it, and we kind of wanted to be, you know, through that project
and, you know, preserve the rest of the land and not go back to another construction site after
being almost done with everything else. So, I came up with, let’s put a couple of nature trails
through it, things of that nature.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what you expect to do with it?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. SCHIAVONE-I would do that, yes. I mean, that was what I was expecting to do with it.
At least so that the people in the community could use it. I’ve noticed in other subdivisions that
there were “forever green areas” that you’ve noticed, you know, the people in the community
using it for jogging and mountain biking and what have you, and I’ve noticed that in the area.
So that wasn’t something I just came up with. It’s something I’ve noticed happening in other
areas. I also wouldn’t, you know, wouldn’t be opposed, if the butterfly concern prevails, to
clear a portion of it in the center, completely, and make it closer to that sandy area that you have
there, create another patch like that. Maybe with trees all the way around it and just a sandy
area in the center. So people can’t really get at it. We wouldn’t be opposed to doing that as
well. The fact that it is not buildable, it is buildable if we stockpile the soil and leave it there.
Then the Board of Health will let us build it. What they don’t want you to do is rush in and
dump the soil on it and say, okay, now we can put the septic because it’s this deep. That’s what
they don’t want, but if it’s left long enough, we can do it. So on the clustering issue, the
calculations are pretty close to correct, and pretty consistent with the surrounding subdivisions.
This particular one has quite a few lots that are over three quarter, quite a few that are over one
acre. There’s lots in the back that are 1.2 acres, one and a half acres almost. So, I mean, all in all,
I would say there’s not one lot that is less than a half acre. There’s not one lot. I think the
smallest lot is .52 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what I would like, personally, first of all, the habitat for the butterfly is
well established along the Niagara Mohawk lines. We certainly want to preserve that. Making
another habitat adjacent to that, I’m not sure that that’s what I would envision. I like your idea
of doing some nature trails in here and opening this up to public use. Then I could see a real
benefit to the Town in terms of the clustering requirement.
MR. SCHIAVONE-And before any of this really came to light, that was one of first things I said,
because we were weighing out the option, should we put the soil in, should we wait, or should
we maybe get the homes that we would get anyway maybe make the more affordable housing
because if we use the entire lot, and all the lots are bigger, obviously we’ve got to charge more
for the homes. So keep the homes consistent with the pricing in this neighborhood and give
them a little something extra in this particular development that these people could use.
MR. VOLLARO-I would certainly be in favor of that approach. That’s an approach I would be
in favor of, as one Board member.
MR. STEVES-That’s what we discussed with the Board when we came in for the discussion
item, to use it for some kind of public benefit but to let this Board give us some guidance in
what they would like to see.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Along those back lots, the lots that run adjacent to the power line, I
would prefer if you came in with some no cuts zones in the back of that, and x them out a no cut
zone.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Yes. I mean, I’ve got to figure that anybody that’s going to buy along there
doesn’t want to see the power lines anyway, and all those trees that border those power lines
are taller than the power lines.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the no cut zone is really a buffer to the Niagara Mohawk trail. The
Niagara Mohawk power lines. I see that more as a protection issue to the power lines, to the
property under the power line.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Yes. As Mr. Nace said with a 200 foot deep lot, you know, to leave 30, 35
feet as a no cut zone and posted is more than reasonable.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, yes.
MR. SCHIAVONE-And especially again, I don’t see that anybody would really want to clear
themselves right out to the power line anyway, and then have to see that.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. VOLLARO-There was another suggestion, in reading Staff’s notes, about an
interconnection between your property and the Schermerhorn property, and I, you know, I’d
like to ask the biologist a question. We’ve got a habitat there that runs very well, and what
significance is it if we put a road through there?
MR. SCHIAVONE-Well, if I may for a minute. As Matt said before, you know, that’s not an
easement. That’s owned property.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. We can certainly go to Niagara Mohawk and talk to them about
this.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Right, and, Number Two, I feel that a lot of this meeting here is because of
the Karner blue habitat and here we are proposing to throw a road across it.
MR. VOLLARO-It just doesn’t make sense to me to do that.
MR. ROUND-Can I interject here? I think if you look at Queensbury Forest, there’s two
crossings there.
MR. VOLLARO-I see those crossings.
MR. ROUND-It can be done, and it can be done where it will not impact the butterfly.
MR. STROUGH-Not only that, it could give you access for management.
MR. ROUND-So it’s something that, we strongly encourage the interconnection. I think in our
conversations with the Highway Superintendent, that the road configuration is a cul de sac. It’s
in excess of one thousand feet long, and it is in excess of 35 lots. So I think, in the past, they
have allowed for a boulevard entrance. I think it’s going to be his position that the
interconnection is preferred over the boulevard, and that it may not allow the configuration to
proceed as it is.
MR. VOLLARO-I would argue on the other side of that, Chris, if I might. There’s already two
crossings in Queensbury Forest on this very ecologically sensitive strip of land, this very small
strip when you look right at it, for protection of habitat. The more crossings you put in there, I
think the less protection a habitat gets. Automobiles, you know, you’ve got exhausts. You’ve
got people that are going to get out. You’ve got all kinds of stuff.
MR. ROUND-I guess, Bob, rather than you dismiss it, I think we would defer to DEC and to the
biologist to make that judgment, and I don’t know that John’s prepared. I guess it would
depend on the location. I think in our conversations with Kathy O’Brien, is that roadways are
not a barrier to the butterfly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually I would think in a way it would help them move around a lot
easier, really.
MR. ROUND-Yes, and it doesn’t restrict the mobility, and the concern I know, again, we’re
giving instruction to the applicant to provide for no cut zones and in fact we may want to clear
forest areas along the right of way to provide for habitat.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s back up to your comment regarding the in excess of 35 lots and having
another access. Can you expound upon that a little bit I guess. I’m looking Schermerhorn’s
subdivision. He’s got 36. He’s got two accesses.
MR. ROUND-He’s got two access points.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is counting the big lot has 43 lots on it, with only one.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. ROUND-I think interconnection provides a number of benefits. It allows for a better
transportation system. It allows for choices for travelers so that you’re not cycling all traffic to a
single constraint point. For plowing, it allows for a continuous movement of plow rather than
enter and exit, you know, it allows for efficiency for plowing. A number of factors, emergency
services. It allows, the reason, I think it’s articulated in the Subdivision Regulations. The reason
for a secondary access point is that if there is some kind of catastrophic event and there’s a
failure of the roadway or a blockage of the roadway, you have an alternative means for
emergency access. So those are the kind of things that you’re trying to create this kind of
transportation network and get away from cul de sacs and loop dead end type facilities.
MR. SANFORD-I appreciate what you’re saying, Chris, but this goes back to before you came
in, my opening comments, which were pretty legal, which address whether or not you can ask a
property owner to undertake some kind of a project.
MR. ROUND-It’s in our regulations.
MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second, NiMo is not here. They own this property.
MR. ROUND-They will facilitate. It’s just like, we’re the highway. The Town is the Highway
Department and the Town has the permit, particular application. You’re a permit facility here.
They’re engaging with you in order to obtain a permit. You just provide instruction to the
applicant to engage in a dialogue, and you facilitate it. NiMo has provided the crossings.
Previously NiMo provided crossings to any number of projects. It’s not foreign. It’s not
unusual. It’s not outside the realm of possibility.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Hoffman site plan on Quaker Road. They’ve got to get an easement to
cut across Niagara Mohawk’s property.
MR. ROUND-It’s a common thing. I just want to make sure you know it’s not foreign, and it’s
something NiMo will entertain, and it provides benefit for NiMo. Some of the problems they
have now are policing of their areas, and illegal use, illegal dumping, and when you provide
those, you know, de facto, you know crossings, you’re providing some policing of those areas,
and it is a benefit.
MR. SANFORD-But if this is desired on the part of the Town, should the Town talk to NiMo?
MR. ROUND-Well, we’ll provide comment to them, and I’ve been in communication with them
on these projects already with the project representatives.
MR. SANFORD-So would you, just to get way out on this, and I’m out of turn. I know that, but
where do you like a connector, by Lot Two?
MR. ROUND-I think we leave that, you know, to engineers to provide those type of design
decisions.
MR. STEVES-I would just make a statement on that. We can investigate the possibility of an
interconnection. One of the key factors is with Niagara Mohawk, is the KV of those lines, what
the height requirements are, and whether or not there’s even enough room to even think about
putting a road there without having to make it a tunnel.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’ll make it. It’s the same height as it is in my development. It’s the same
transmission line. It’ll make it.
MR. NACE-They have different standards, Craig. If they’re going just cross country, their lines
can be so close to the ground. If they’re going over a highway where they’re going to be trucks
or there could be whatever on the highway.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. ROUND-It’s a question that needs to be asked and answered.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. NACE-There’s only a small portion of Mr. Schermerhorn’s property that abuts the power
line, that would be available for a crossing. So we have to look within the confines of that. It’s
the only place that it could be done.
MR. STEVES-As you look at it, the power line that runs east/west on the south side of the
proposed Schermerhorn subdivision, we have a few hundred feet in there that we could
accommodate a connector. We’ll look into that.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is that, specifically, that you’re looking at? I’m trying to determine,
myself, where this would be, and I can’t come up with a good spot for connection without
destroying some lots.
MR. ROUND-There’s no lots there right now. I think that’s what you’re reviewing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then that cuts off that nice big lot in the corner. Those nice one and a half
acre ones.
MR. MAC EWAN-Remember, this is at Sketch Plan. This is the exchange of ideas here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand it’s a Sketch. I guess you know by now I’m just not in favor of
crossing that habitat.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m not in favor of crossing it either.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you took over Mr. Strough’s limb, didn’t you?
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. Craig, I’m trying to get used to this butterfly idea. You understand
that from a long time ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anymore questions, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I just have one question, and I guess I wanted to ask that to Mr.
Nace, and it’s a question that doesn’t necessarily, because we’re looking at this now in two
ways. One, we’re looking currently at the Schiavone proposed subdivision and we’re also
trying to take a look at it from a bird’s eye view as far as Dickinson, Schermerhorn and
Schiavone are concerned. Having said that, what I’m trying to think of is the number of septic
tanks that are going to be going in, throughout here, and I asked about Queensbury Forest. I
know that Queensbury Forest has had some problems in the past. The elevation of Queensbury
Forest, I think, is below, I believe this is true, Tom. You’ve got to ask that question. I haven’t
been out on survey, but I think that the elevation of the Queensbury Forest area may be a little
bit lower than these three subdivisions.
MR. NACE-There is a very small portion of the back end Queensbury Forest, on the end of
Ferris, and I’ve forgotten what the other cross street is, that has high groundwater. It’s a very
narrow band, and it is, the back end of Ferris is lower than this subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay, but as far as I know, and I just asked Chris, there are no septic system
problems with Queensbury Forest.
MR. VOLLARO-With Queensbury Forest. Okay.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-Okay. This was just a wet basin. The septic system’s down two and half, three feet.
The basement’s down to six feet.
MR. VOLLARO-So what I’m trying to get at is once we know what the depth to groundwater is,
in general, in the area where our systems are going to be, and if we put 90 some odd septics in,
I’m trying to see what impact they would have in raising the general groundwater level, if at all.
This is a substantial number of systems that could tend to raise the groundwater just a little, by
the fact that we’re pumping the Hudson River in here to use. John Salvador usually talks about
pumping the Hudson River. You’ve heard him talk about that. It’s a kind of interesting
concept, but we’re going to have public water on these lots, and I’ve always considered public
water and on site septic to be a sensitive area when you do it in large quantities like this.
MR. NACE-Well, I’ve done the calculations. You’re an engineer, okay. For your own
edification some time, take 330 gallons per day, and spread it over a half acre lot, and spread it
over a year, and then see for yourself what it really is. It’s not very much.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not very much.
MR. NACE-It’s one of those issues that environmental groups can make very big, and it’s really,
in some soils where you may have localized, very, very localized mounding conditions, yes.
Okay. It’s a concern. These sandy soils, the water moves laterally fairly quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-So it doesn’t perch, is what you’re saying? There’s no perching involved.
MR. NACE-That’s right. One of the issues down through Queensbury Forest is there’s an area
of very granular material there that almost seems to be an underground river.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t any cross pollenization
between Queensbury Forest and these developments. That’s the thing that concerned me, but I
guess I, you know, it probably isn’t going to happen that way. Other than that, let me just see
what I have. I guess, from a wetlands point of view, you also have to go to DEC and ACOE to
get your wetlands delineated properly so that the calculations for density can be made
correctly. That’s something you’ve got to do.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We have been in contact. As I said, they walked the property. We’re
just waiting for them to come back, particularly Ken Cogate from DEC, so that he can assure
himself. He walked, we went out and flagged the entire west line, let him walk from Sherman
Avenue all the way back to the extreme southwest corner, and he walked back and forth with a
member of my company and kept moving westerly until he thought he hit what was the edge of
the wetland, and he was beyond our property, but he said during the snow cover, he couldn’t
say that that was definitive without, you know, being a few yards off either direction. So he
wanted to be able to confirm that when the snow was reduced. I have called him twice this
week and left messages. I haven’t received a call back, but he assures me that it’s going to be in
the very near future.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, the basic question, will it be delineated properly so that the
calculations can be properly made?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-And I guess that those proposals would, if there were wetlands there, you
would have to have a wetland to get close, to penetrate further than 100 feet.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Correct. Just as an academic question for me, is 100 foot area in the wetlands
something that’s standard with DEC? In other words, is this traditionally 100 feet, or is it just
something that they apply now and then, or how is that 100 feet arrived at?
MR. NACE-It’s just in their Code.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in their Code.
MR. NACE-It’s called the adjacent area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-And any disturbance of a wetland or the adjacent area requires a DEC permit, and
the adjacent area is just defined as 100 foot.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a reason I’m asking this question, because I needed to catalogue it for
another reason, but I just wanted to ask it to get it on the record. I see Mr. Strough’s got a tight
sheet here. So I’ll let him take up the rest of the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, actually because my sheet’s pretty tight, I think I can run through this
fairly quickly. I went through, and I just, for all three landowners here, got eight concerns.
Some of them have already been addressed. There’s no sense in repeating them, but my first
one is, yes, the capacity of the land, basically here I’m talking about hydrologic concerns, and
we’ve talked about that enough, and it remains a concern, and I think Tom Nace is kind of, well,
I was going to bring up Queensbury Forest, but he’s addressed that. What I did think was
interesting, in doing my research and reading the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is that in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan it says, and I quote, there are no DEC designated wetlands
within Neighborhood 12, and this is Neighborhood 12 and 11, kind of on the border, I don’t
know if that’s true, but, and then it makes reference to a wild cat swamp some place in this area.
I don’t know where that is, but, anyhow. Moving on, and that’s the last time I’ll mention that.
So land capacity and hydrologic concerns was one of the concerns that we have, and then the
internal and interconnecting street network, which has been talked about, I support the concept.
I’d just say that. Impact on public services, I guess we’ll get a review done by the emergency
services fire and police. Karner blue, frosted elfin protection, we’ll probably have to get a
survey done at the end of April, beginning of May, during the first egg cycle.
MR. MUNSEY-Not necessarily.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re way early.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is it the end of May?
MR. STEVES-Kathy O’Brien has already discussed it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, whenever that is.
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s two flight periods, and you’re way early. I think it’s late May, early
June, and then late July, early August.
MR. STROUGH-That could be it, yes, late July, early August is the second one. Yes, I may be
wrong on that, but whenever that is.
MR. MUNSEY-Consistent with Marilyn’s, or the Planning Board’s memo, we would
recommend correspondence from DEC on that.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So, whenever that cycle is, there’s going to have to be a survey done, on
all three of these. Now, have we done an overlay with the batcher survey that was done on
these properties?
MR. MUNSEY-I have that here.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So, I’d want to look at that, and I haven’t had an opportunity to, and,
so I suppose that would be coming with the draft?
MRS. RYBA-Right. That’s part of what of what Mr. Munsey’s going to be looking at.
MR. STROUGH-So, that will have to be addressed. The buffer zone, that wouldn’t pertain to
you. Density calculations and clustering. Let me talk about those two at the same time. Now
clustering is a concept, and if you read the State’s definition of clustering, as well as the Town’s
definition of clustering, I think, you’ve got to arrive at, we’re going to give a density bonus to a
contractor, so that the contractor can reduce the size of the lots and reduce the infrastructure
and reduce the cost for himself as well as for the Town, and that’s fine, but the Town is also
supposed to get a bonus out of this, and the bonus isn’t a parcel of land that normally would
not be able to be developed, like a developer wants to cluster and offers us a wetland, I don’t
think, it misses the concept of clustering. I think it degrades the concept of clustering. The
community is supposed to get something out of it, and I think Mr. Nace spoke to that open
space, etc., etc., but I don’t think it’s necessarily the land that wasn’t developable to start with. I
think it’s bonus land. It’s land that would have normally been developed, but here, if you allow
me to have smaller lots, shorter streets, I won’t develop that land. Now that’s what I got out of
clustering, and then if you do, if you take the 50 acres and then you knock out the 14 acres that’s
not developable, and then you knock out the roads and you knock out what may be potentially
wetlands and you knock out what may be potentially confirmed Karner blue habitat sites, I
think we’re going to end up with something less than what we’re offered here. Okay. That’s
just a surmisal. I don’t know that to be a fact, but it’s a thought. Another thing is pedestrian
paths, trying to interconnect green spaces and connect these developments is something I favor.
I’m just mentioning that, and there seems to be an addressed need for recreation facilities and
green space, and that’s something I am going to be looking at, as far as all three lots. Now, it
would be nice, because I think we’re supposed to be looking at this in kind of a holistic,
comprehensive coordinated manner. If maybe the three developers could get together and offer
us something really nice, or at least the two on the south side especially. I don’t know if Mr.
Dickinson could come into play that much, but I’d be open to any kind of creative ideas from
that area, and so that’s it for me. I just went kind of through my list and the things I’m looking
for as a Planning Board member.
MR. SANFORD-Well, John, just one quick follow up, maybe to anybody. Are the value of the
homes that are likely to be built on these two plots on the same side of Sherman, are they
comparable economic value or is one development going to have a higher end housing than the
other?
MR. STROUGH-You’re asking me?
MR. SANFORD-I’m asking whoever wants to jump in on that. Because, I mean, if you’re
looking for more of an integrated plan, that makes sense if it’s apples to apples, but if it’s apples
and oranges, it might not make, really, a whole lot of sense.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know. I imagine most of these home are going to go for between
$160 and $225, and, Tony, that’s about the going rate here?
MR. METIVIER-That depends. What’s the size of the house?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t know. I mean are they going to envision?
MR. METIVIER-Who’s building those homes?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STROUGH-I mean, is $160 to $255, Bob, the mark here, probably?
MR. ROUND-You’d have to ask the applicant. What’s your target price?
MR. SCHIAVONE-That seems to be the market that we’re targeting.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-The same with Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Lower.
MR. SANFORD-Lower.
MR. METIVIER-I mean in that area it depends. On a half acre lot, you’re not going to get $225
for a house.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Yes, but they’re not all, you know, you take range from $165,000 to $225,000.
MR. METIVIER-But they’re also not going to get $225,000 for a house with a house next door
that just sold for $100,000.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Right, but the houses that are next door to the house that might be $225, are
next door to another house that might be $225, the way the lots are spread out. All the houses
that are going to be in the $180 range, $170 range, are next to each other. You’ve got one
neighbor, towards the end, that’s going to border a three quarter acre lot, and then the next one
is a half acre lot. So the way it’s kind of laid out is, you know, as the lots go down and get
smaller, the prices go smaller. So the houses next to each other are going to be more
comparable. It’s not like you have a half acre lot next to a three acre lot.
MR. STROUGH-Well, a 2,000 square foot house, at, I’ve been out of it, $90 a square foot, that’s
$180,000.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s $100 square foot these days. It’s gone up. Just one thing that’s been left
out, I think nobody’s mentioned, and I hadn’t thought of it until I looked at my notes is, in the
Planning Staff’s notes they talked about some method of interconnecting with the Luzerne
Road, tying, essentially, Sherman Avenue to the Luzerne Road, but I’m just looking here to see
whether that’s possible on either of these properties, on Mr. Schermerhorn’s property.
MR. STROUGH-It’s not because they don’t own, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re not in the
contract with anybody for parcels?
MR. SCHIAVONE-I did pursue two of the land owners, almost a year ago, when we first
started looking at this project, about bringing the road all the way through, and pretty much got
the door slammed in my face.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but what we’ve done in the past is, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Yes, you’ve got to plan ahead. You’ve got to provide that opportunity so that it
will happen.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, we’ve stubbed out the roads, and then when the landowner comes to us in
the future, we say, this is what you’re going to have to do. So, you know, regardless of what
they feel, it still can be done, and as I said.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Well, I believe it was their land.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t go through all the details in the Staff notes and things like that, but the
interconnected idea is an idea I support, not only between developments, but as well as the
north/south effort here.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, but typically in the past, when you see stub roads that go over to
other adjacent lot lines is when it borders a larger parcel with the potential for a development,
you’d be talking about bordering parcels on the south that are a couple of acres in size that
aren’t really suited for future development, you’re talking only for future interconnection, to
Luzerne Road, not for connecting to a future development parcel.
MR. STROUGH-And you might be right, and one of the things that I don’t have, I don’t have
the tools available to me, as I’m looking at the maps, and Tom did a nice job on this map. I’m
looking at the other map supplied me, I just don’t have enough information, and you might be
entirely right, but I would like it investigated. That’s all I said, but I can see there may be
problems, but I’m sure Chris Round and his Department and George are going to investigate
this and work with you on it. I support the idea.
MR. STEVES-We’ve met numerous times with them and we haven’t heard that statement yet
until we got here tonight. If you were to purchase one of those properties and tear down a
house to put a connector road to Luzerne Road, that’s about the only option you have.
MR. ROUND-I guess, what we’ve done, it’s part of our regulations. It’s something we do when
we sit down with developers ask for. It’s something that we like the Planning Board to ask for
at Sketch Plan. If you look east, you see Larry Clute’s property, and I see Mr. Clute here
tonight. He’s provided two stub connections. You look at Queensbury Forest. There’s a dead
end that we’re going to ask Mr. Dickinson to consider incorporating in his design. We’re going
to ask Mr. Schermerhorn to allow interconnection between his building, and we’re looking to
provide opportunity for connection. We’re not looking for a developer to acquire an adjacent
property to build a road.
MR. STROUGH-Right. I’d just support the idea, the idea being investigated a little bit further.
That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-What does the Town Board, the legislative body of the Town, think about?
MR. ROUND-If you read our Subdivision Regulations, it’s articulated in the Subdivision
Regulations. We’re looking for an interconnected highway. So we’re not looking to create a
municipality full of cul de sacs that cause greater maintenance responsibility.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that comes out in the subdivision, and I’ve read that, but I’m trying to
look at the practical side of it, too.
MR. ROUND-The Highway Superintendent encouraged the, the Highway Superintendent is
the one who’s going to be, you know, driving.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as somebody puts money on the line to put the road up.
MRS. RYBA-Well, the other thought, too, and we did sit down with Highway Department and
with Sewer and Water folks, or Departments. The other consideration is emergency services,
and that’s something that you’re going to be wanting to look at, and how those organizations
are going to work with all of these developments.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at this map itself, I mean, taking a look at the Schiavone
property with the boulevard entrance, emergency services, certainly, and highway, certainly
have an opportunity to come in and plow, go around that circle and come right back out again.
I don’t see an impedance there to that, either of those two entrances.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we’re trying, Bob, you’re missing it, though. If somebody has to
come in and go in and out of Schiavone, they’re not on a continuous route. They’re going to hit
a road twice, per se, versus if you’re able to go in and provide a route, and this is right out of
the Superintendent’s, Highway Superintendent’s mouth, able to provide that and include it in a
larger route, you’re saving time, money, and resources.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no problem to putting a stub in.
MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s all we’re trying to do. We’re trying to articulate good planning.
MR. STEVES-And we agree, okay, in good planning. We definitely agree with that. We were
the ones who were putting in stub roads 20 years ago on some of our subdivisions. We had no
problem with that, and as far as investigating interconnecting the two subdivisions, we have no
problem with that. We will gladly investigate connecting on to Luzerne Road. I’m just saying
from my standpoint, that’s not going to happen.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I don’t disagree with Mr. Steves. I think maybe on the Schiavone property is
the likelihood of those properties to the south to be subdivided, probably not. So I think when
we look at these projects as a group, is that we’re probably looking for an east/west connection,
and then possibly on the Schermerhorn property, maybe that’s a more logical location to
provide a stub, or as long as we have enough east/west connections that allow for the
north/south connection, you know, you try to build a network, and it’s not, the solution doesn’t
always, for each project and incorporate those kind of things.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. You’ve got to look at each one on its own, and that’s what we’re
trying to do. So, just like we did up on Bayberry when we had the cul de sac, we were just here
a couple of weeks ago on that, and connecting to the next one that goes up to Bay Road. That’s
why it was there, because there’s a large parcel with the potential for development, and you
don’t want to have two cul de sacs coming in that go nowhere, obviously, if this is a large piece
of property to the south of this one, we would definitely leave the stub or a “T” intersection, just
as we have done on Larry Clute’s subdivision, which, you know, while we’re on the subject,
you can see that subdivision to the east of this with the stub roads, because he has under control
the rest of the properties and we’ll be coming back with proposals for that, and that’s why it
was there, but we will definitely investigate everything, and we also would provide that, no
question, and getting back to one other question I think that John had, as far as the density
calculations, when you were talking about that 13 acre parcel being non-developable, it is not
non-developable. It just is expensive to develop because you would have to fill it and let it sit
for a year. Then you’d have Department of Health approval to subdivide it. So it is not a
parcel, in our opinion, that has to come off your density calculations.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and also, I’m not, the way I heard it was the same way Chris heard it the
first time, okay, but, aside from that, and you might be right, too. I’m not closing any doors, the
Rec Department, when we get done talking to all three developers here, there’s a whole lot of
open doors that can happen. It could be a win/win situation for everybody. You get your
development. The Rec Department might want to chip in here and they might come up with
something that might be a nice creative plan. There might be some possible interconnectedness
we could do. I mean, so there are some positive things that could come out of this, and I’m not
closing any doors.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Can I add something, just for my own knowledge? Is there a benefit to
creating, on a traffic standpoint, more traffic flow in one subdivision coming from another
subdivision, and vice versa? Is there a benefit to that? We’re talking about the interconnection
here. I mean, if you connect the two subdivisions, you’re obviously going to have traffic flow
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
from both subdivisions in both subdivisions. Now is that more beneficial, or is it more
beneficial to have the people traveling within the subdivision who live within the subdivision?
MR. MAC EWAN-Philosophically, you just answered your own question. Even if you had an
interconnection, people would probably be more habitual to drive in their own subdivision
than to go through someone else’s.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, with an interconnect, you give people a choice.
MR. STEVES-Right. It’s mainly for maintenance for the, that you will see more people.
MR. STROUGH-And for pedestrians and kids with bicycles, it leads them off the main roads
and allows them to go to their friend’s house in the other development without going on to the
main road. Okay. So there are benefits.
MR. STEVES-You’re going to find that, even if you have a connection, the people that live in
one subdivision are going to use theirs, and the people that live in the other are going to use
theirs.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s also the bigger picture, and Marilyn talked about, you know,
public infrastructure, water, sewer down the road. I mean, it’s all those reasons.
MR. SCHIAVONE-I’m not against the interconnection at all. We’re just trying to find a
reasonable, feasible way to do it. I mean, to not put the boulevard in and to have another way
in and way out would be fine. It’s just a matter of can it be done with what we’re left to do it
with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHIAVONE-There’s certainly nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, when I first
approached Matt about this, we, pretty much racked our brains on how to get in and out, you
know, in a reasonable manner, which is why we approached the people on Luzerne, you know,
and they really, I mean, there were some numbers thrown around, but they were ridiculous
numbers.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have just one question. Going back to that large lot that you chose not to
want to develop because of the high water table, were there any other lots that had high water
table on there?
MR. SCHIAVONE-Not past that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not past that point.
MR. SCHIAVONE-We could actually probably squeeze it a little bit further, but, you know,
being that we’re keeping the lots pretty much consistent.
MR. STEVES-Consistent.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why do you think that the water is just in that one area?
MR. NACE-We’re going to, we have to go back to the Health Department again and do some
more test pits to fill out some of, you know, they want a spattering of every couple of lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-When did you do your first test pits, what time of year?
MR. STEVES-October 26.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-October. It would probably behoove you to do some more, then.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-Well, we have to do more, at any rate, but when we left with the Health
Department, you know, we knew there were areas we had to fill in, and now that, you know,
this thing up front has become a concern, we’ll go a little further up front. We don’t know
exactly where that line is.
MR. MAC EWAN-It may change your lot configuration. You may find another two or three
lots may be too wet to build on.
MR. NACE-It’s possible.
MR. STEVES-If anything, it’ll push it northerly. We erred far to the side of conservative, as far
as the northern end of the lots. We gave the benefit to larger lot, as far as saying it’s non-usable,
as far as at this standpoint. We gave it the benefit of the doubt and brought it way south.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. STEVES-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it seems like the issues that are hanging out is obviously we have to wait
for C.T. Male to come up with this management plan for the Karner blue, and how to tackle
that. Density calculations, that’s something I’m assuming Staff will look into, in detail, as well
as C.T. Male, and the potential for an interconnect. That seems to be the three things looming.
Right?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Do you want these answered before, or when would you want to see this come
back in for a Preliminary?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s up to you.
MR. STROUGH-We have to wait until after at least the Karner blue survey is done.
MR. ROUND-John Munsey talked about, I think that there needs to be additional investigation
and correspondence with DEC. Whether that requires a butterfly survey, I think, on this site, I
think we’re going to be able to dismiss that.
MR. MUNSEY-Yes. I think that there’s a mechanism for exclusion of doing a biological survey,
or a substitution for that would be to submit some level of photographic documentation to
DEC, or just submit a request letter to DEC, the site is totally forested and we don’t believe it’s
habitat, potential habitat for Karner blue, and to just get DEC’s confirmation of that.
MR. STEVES-I want to just step in real quick on that. I did do that. I met with Marilyn, met
with the Staff. I called Kathy O’Brien. I sent her everything. We sent her the letter, sent her the
aerial photo, the topography of the USGS quad, as I had stated at the beginning of this
presentation, and she said that it’s, this site she was not concerned with Karner blue on this site,
but Karner blue on the surrounding property, mainly the power line, and on other properties
east of this with open areas. Not on our particular property, and at the time she was getting
ready for a conference and two weeks of some kind of a training thing and then two week
vacation. So she said she would get something in writing and get it back to me. I have yet to
receive that, but I do have verbal confirmation from her that she is not concerned with the
habitat on this particular parcel.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just a little bit worried about using an aerial photo as a singular
determination of whether a site has or has not gotten habitat for Karner blue because, if you
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
take a look at the Bell Nav site, on the corner of Potter and West Mountain Road. It would
appear by an aerial photo to be forested, but in fact it has Blue Lupine.
MR. STEVES-John, I’m not the one that made that determination. I’m just telling you what I
gave her, so I can ask her for a determination.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could probably banter this topic all night long. So why don’t we just
leave it in the expert’s hands.
MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as, that’s why we got him on board. So his recommendations are
followed. With that being said, my only particular concern with this site is while you may not
be infringing on Karner blue habitat, you are bordering it. So as part of his game plan, he’s
going to give us a management plan, and maybe it will address what you need to do as a
developer, to ensure that you’re not going to infringe on that habitat and what you can do to
buffer it.
MR. STEVES-Right. Absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MUNSEY-I’d like to add real quick is that there’s a notation, and we’re going to be
presenting this to the Town as any and all subdivision applications that come in within the
recovery unit of which all three of these are located, should they all be contributory, in some
way, towards mitigation? That’s not something I’m looking for an answer to that question
tonight. However, we will be addressing that provision if we make to the plan.
MR. SANFORD-But that could take a number of different forms.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why he’s working on the plan.
MR. SANFORD-That could take land or economic.
MR. MUNSEY-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to poll the Board about our feelings specifically on the cluster?
Because I know at least John and I didn’t feel that this met the requirements for clustering.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s pretty much the consensus of everybody, doesn’t feel, I mean,
that’s my understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-Does not meet?
MR. MAC EWAN-Does not meet the clustering provision.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if I were Mr. Schiavone, I’ll tell you what I would do. I would say, okay,
if it doesn’t meet the clustering, what I’ll do is I’ll build out regular lots here to the size, I won’t
cluster. I’ll fill this and next year I’ll put stuff on there too and it’ll be all full of houses. That’s
what I would do if I was Mr. Schiavone, I’ll tell you that.
MR. SCHIAVONE-Well, that’s exactly what we were trying to avoid, based on our meeting
with the Town (lost words) and they approved what we were looking to do, and what we were
telling the Board is, you know, taking up the whole land with houses.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STROUGH-If I was Mr. Schiavone, I would develop a concept plan for a park on that. A
concept plan. I think you’ve got the guys to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he said that he would like to put some trails in there.
MR. STROUGH-I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-At this stage of the game, because this is only Sketch, it’s only an exchange of
ideas, I mean, when the formal application is made, that’s when Staff will sit down and review
it for its density calculations, whether it meets the clustering provision. C.T. Male will have
their input into it as well, and you take it from that point, but their getting the message what
our feelings, what our concerns are.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not the feelings of the entire Board, I can tell you that. Because it’s not my
feelings.
MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. I think in terms of the clustering, the thing that the Board needs to
come up with is what do you want to see out of this? I mean, do you want to see a park? Do
you want to see a plain old open space and nothing else? Do you want to see some
investigation of the possibility of having this for recovery area for habitat, whether or not there
is something on this site to begin with for Karner blue, is it possible to develop that for Karner
blue habitat. So those are all three very valid things in terms of cluster provision, and those are
things that could be explored, but what would the Board prefer, or would you like to see all
three options?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s hard to give an answer tonight on that. I mean, John raised a good point.
You’ve got two developments that are proposed next to each other. Maybe something could be
done to put those two vacant parcels together to come up with an idea. We haven’t talked with
the next applicant yet. So, I mean, it’s hard to say. I don’t know what everybody else is feeling.
I mean, I don’t have an answer. I don’t have any preference at this point, either.
MRS. RYBA-I think what I’m trying to say is, before you make any decision about, yes, it meets
cluster or no it doesn’t meet cluster to see what the options are, what can be presented in terms
of possibilities.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody got any thoughts?
MR. SANFORD-I think we move on, and then, I agree with you. I think we have to move on
and hear all three, before we could form an opinion, but I certainly don’t rule out what John
said, but I would much prefer to hear the other two applicants first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s valid.
MR. STROUGH-I think Richard said it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED & NO SEQR
REQUIRED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ERNEST CENTERBAR
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF
SHERMAN AVE., EAST SIDE OF NI MR. O'CONNOR- LINES APPLICANT PROPOSES A
37 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, PROPOSING 35 NEW HOMES. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV/UV 47-89 [BOTH WITHDRAWN] TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-3/121-4-5.1
LOT SIZE: 60.53 ACRES/SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-Well, right across the power lines to the east we have this property, and what the
applicant is proposing is 36 single family homes, same issues, similar issues apply,
interconnection, open space, application of the clustering provision. This subdivision is a little
different in that they’re proposing a 12.72 acre lot to be set aside, and our conversations with the
applicant, they’ve indicated that it would be potentially for Karner blue mitigation area, for
recovery of the species in this area. So that, obviously, will need some addressing and some
comment from DEC and/or the US Fish and Wildlife. Again, similar issues, interconnection of
roadways, cluster provision, emergency services, provision of park land, pedestrian access. All
the things that we’ve discussed I think are very pertinent to this application as well. That’s all I
have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-First question I’ve got, what’s going to happen to the pig farmer?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-He’s going to stay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The large parcel of land, he’s retaining that. That’s why I left the stub.
He doesn’t want to sell that property. That’s Mr. Centebar. He’s only selling what you see that
I’ve laid out here, plus the 12.72 acre parcel, which is behind another existing power line. Most
of the open area that you see on the aerial, that’s all of, still his land. I won’t take a lot of time.
I’ve heard everything that everyone has said. Just to read a few of the things, I’ll get sign off
letters of course and everything, because I know the list of things that everybody will be looking
for. Currently, there’s no wetlands on my property. From my experience, there are no Karner
blue on this property, from what I can tell, but again, I have no problem getting someone with a
PhD or a Masters. Deb Roberts, which does my delineation of wetlands, has the qualifications,
and I’m certain that she can do this. So I’ll provide this when I come back for Preliminary with
a signoff. The 12.72 parcel, just because of the Karner blue issue I keep hearing about, I said,
well, gee, this is an appropriate piece that we could possibly use. Now this is all wooded land.
It doesn’t mean that we couldn’t clear it, and create more Karner blue, because again it was
mentioned that it’s on the power lines, but this piece is usable. I don’t want anybody to think
that it’s not usable. It also could be, I guess, open space. A few other things, as far as the water
table, I have done test holes. Again, we’ll come back with all this information, but mottling, our
lowest point of mottling was 60 inches, and then I think it went to 60 inches to 72 inches. So as
far as ground water, we’re pretty good in that Department. As far as the interconnection road,
again, we just (lost word) this last week. I’m not opposed to it. The only difficulty I see is you
have two different developers, and I guess everybody’s on a different schedule, different
timeframes. He has one layout proposed now. I have one layout. I suppose we could possibly
change it, but one of the benefits, and I know interconnection’s are nice, but one of the benefits
of what I consider this to be a smaller neighborhood at this time, I think mine is 35 lots. I
believe he’s 41 lots. You interconnect them. Now you’ve got what parents consider a large
track subdivision. Not saying these are going to be track homes between the two of us, but
people do like some of the smaller subdivisions I’ve done, like Brookfield where there are 24
lots. There is a benefit to having the smaller neighborhoods, because people feel secure when
they know maybe all 35 neighbors versus knowing, you know, maybe combine 75 neighbors,
but again, I’ll talk with the other developer and see how he feels about connecting. The other
thing I don’t want to do is be competing with the other developers. Burnt Hills, which I’ve been
a part of, which Larry Clute’s developing, he has homes that start at $117,000, and I think right
now they’re at the $117,000 to $140,000, and I could be wrong. They might even be a little
higher. He’s doing very well in there because they’re affordable prices for Queensbury. These
homes I’d like to bring in at the $150,000 to $175,000, maybe a little higher, because I feel, well I
know it’s important to have what we consider affordable housing. I know some people might
say affordable $150,000 to $175,000, well that is what’s considered affordable these days, and I
was just as a Town Board meeting just last week, or two weeks ago, and they passed a
resolution authorizing $25,000 to have Shelter Planning Development Incorporated, and that’s
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
just an estimate, to do an affordable housing strategy study on how to get affordable housing,
which kind of surprises me. I mean, that I’ve spent $25,000 to do this study, and what they’re
saying is they need affordable housing, but affordable housing, as I see it, is, one of the ways to
get it is to do what I believe the Master Plan has set out to do, is to allow us the smaller lots, to
cluster, but yet leave open space. So, what I’m getting, at my intentions are, are to have the lot
sizes that they are, which are not really considered small, because I developed a fair portion of
Hidden Hills, which they’re half acre, and I just finished, a year ago, Sherman Pines
Development, which was 83 homes, and those were quarter acres. So, you know, that’s, you
know, my feeling as far as the clustering goes. The other things about, John, you know, read off
eight things, the interconnection, the groundwater concerns, DEC, impact of public safety.
Now, that’s something I just want to address, is the Board may be looking for, I guess, a traffic
study, is that some of the concern with three developments at this point? I mean, I’ve done
traffic studies before. They are costly. I hate to be the one to burden it, but if this is a
requirement, I’d rather know now, because I’ll get on it, so that I can provide this information at
Preliminary. The other thing is, I’m just going through John’s list. I might be repeating myself,
but the Karner blue again, I’ll have somebody appropriate that can do this for us. Density
calculations, the clustering, and as far as buffer zones, I have no problem leaving buffering
zones. I have no problem if ,you know, we can come back with buffer zones by the power lines.
Because I have power lines to the south of my properties. I think that is important, because I
developed in Hidden Hills. I was part of Burnt Hills, and power lines tend, sometimes people,
they tend to not want to look at them, nor do they want to be associated with them. So, but
again, this is an opportunity, where I have this 12.72 acre parcel, that I could develop, but it’s an
opportunity, if we need to do something with this Karner blue, I can clear it, leave a perimeter
of trees around it, because it is forested right now, and it’s an opportunity maybe to address
some of this Karner blue problem. I don’t see it as a big deal to go in there and maybe clear it,
because I know there is Karner blue in sections of the power line. We had it in Burnt Hills, and
that was addressed, and we dealt with it, and one of the things that was brought up was, I think
John mentioned, a bonus to the Town is being able to cluster. What is the bonus to the Town
being able to cluster. Well, the bonus to the Town, which I feel is the most important thing, is
being able to offer affordable lots, which means affordable homes for people. There’s, you
know, just after I left the Planning Board meeting the other night I went to the Harvest for a bite
to eat, and this woman comes over to me, she says, Rich, don’t you have anything in the
$120,000 to $130,000 price range. Well, that’s kind of difficult, but, you know, we won’t meet
those goals of these type of people if, you know, we’re not permitted to do some of the
clustering provisions. So, and again, as far as the recreation again, I hate to keep dwelling on
this every meeting, but all these projects that I’ve done, every project that I do, it’s $500 per unit
on apartment units, or it’s $500 per subdivision. Now, if you take Sherman Pines that just
developed, 83 lots times $500. Larry Clute in Burnt Hills is $500 times 28, and all the other
developers around here, unless they did some land in lieu of rec fees, which I don’t think too
much of that’s been going on lately, but there is money that we keep contributing to the Town’s
Rec fund, and I believe it’s quite large. So I don’t know if maybe it’s a suggestion that the Town
Planning Board suggests that we maybe talk with the Recreation Department to work
something with these. Because it sounds like what you’re looking for is maybe a community
recreation facility for other people, or just in the developments we’re developing ourselves,
because I mean, if that’s the case, like the 12.72 acre parcel, which is a developable piece for me,
I suppose I could turn that into a, you know, a small park area for the people in my
development.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re asking me, I’m more intrigued with the idea of you creating a
Karner blue habitat.
MR. VOLLARO-Me, too.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Well, I’m happy with that.
MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense to me.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe to respond to your other question regarding a traffic study, that
hasn’t been discussed. My personal opinion is I don’t think one is warranted here. I mean,
we’re dealing with a collector road. What would a traffic study show us? It would show the
traffic is going to increase on Upper Sherman Avenue.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the end result? Are you going to put a traffic light in the middle of
Sherman Avenue? No. I mean, I think it would be a fruitless endeavor to do a traffic study
when we all know what the answer’s going to be before you even do it. That’s my opinion. I
may be using John’s limb here tonight.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, I’m confident that I can come back with everything
that I heard that everybody was discussing. The only one that could be questionable is doing
the interconnection road. I don’t know how a developer, if he’s proposing $200,000 to $225,000
homes, I don’t know how he’s going to feel if mine are going to be the $150,000 to $175,000.
That’s the only concern that he may have. Maybe he doesn’t want me connected, but if, you
know, we’ll certainly talk and we’ll see where we go with that, but I know I can address all the
other concerns. So, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-What’s Lot 36?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the home for the pig.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The owner, Mr. Centebar, he’s an elderly gentleman. He did not
want to sell that land to me. Because his house is there, and I think when I close on this
property he’s proposing to build a new one there. So he’s not proposing to sell it any time soon,
and Kathy O’Brien, by the way, was out there on his property last year, and she did, I guess on
the power line up by Sherman Avenue, did identify some Karner blue on the power line there,
and again, I’ll come back with information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, when I mentioned the pig, everybody started chuckling over here.
There’s one up there that’s five to six hundred pounds.
MR. ROUND-Can I ask a question? Gentlemen, the number, you have 35 lots. What’s the total
acreage of the lots that are proposed, the 35? As far as trying to provide the calculations. So if
you have 35 lots, whatever that acreage, plus the 12.72, does that equal 35 acres?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ROUND-Okay, and so the 22, you’re not using any density from Lot 36?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. ROUND-And then the temporary turnaround, the purpose of that, if Centebar’s not
developing?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-When he gets ready to sell, because that’s been an important thing that
we’ve all been discussing, is that could continue back out to Sherman Avenue, or interconnect.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. ROUND-Well, you’ve already got all this road frontage.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s planning for the future.
MR. ROUND-It just looks like Phase I of a two Phase subdivision, the way it’s laid out.
MR. LAPPER-That’s just because it’s intelligently laid out. If Rich could have bought it he
would.
MR. SANFORD-Just a couple of more questions. I actually have no problems with lower or
more affordable housing, but I don’t believe with that, in and of itself, being a benefit. I think if
you probably looked at tradeoff’s between revenue and infrastructure expenses associated with
housing, the cost of education, school taxes and all of that, you’ll probably find that more
expensive housing contributes more to a Town than does lower end housing, in terms of the
burden it also places on the community, but that’s another issue. I think, it’s not just about
money, but I just thought I’d throw that out for what it’s worth.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, I agree with you there, but we’ve got to understand one thing. We
keep approving all these large, big box stores, which, hey, I’m favorable of, you know, the
Lowe’s, the Home Depots, and the rumored Target and everything else, but you’ve got to
remember, these people can’t afford to live in our community, a lot of them, so a lot of them are
coming to me and they’re like, gee, Rich, do you have anything that’s $120,000, $130,000,
$150,000, and, you know, no, and I think that’s why the rentals have been so successful because
they can’t afford to live here.
MRS. RYBA-I have some comments I’d like to address, to try to clarify a couple of things.
Number One is that when you’re looking at these interconnections, we’re looking at residential
use, and we’re not necessarily looking at the dollar value of the properties, in terms of the site
plan review. One of the reasons we are doing an affordable housing study is to perhaps try to
put some kind of bonus density provisions for situations like these, and then in terms of what
really is affordable housing, we need to look at a definition, which, typically, is two and a half
times 80% of the median income, which is $40,000, close to $40,000. That makes an affordable
house $120,000, under Housing Urban Development definitions. So, this may be affordable for
middle income folks, but it may not necessarily be affordable for what’s typically used
throughout the country as the definition for affordable housing. So I did want to make those
couple of clarifications.
MR. SANFORD-I’m in support of it anyway, socially. I just wanted to point out that, in terms of
the impact it might have on the cost, or marginal cost, in terms of school systems and things of
this nature, generally speaking, your more higher end housing provides a greater contribution
to infrastructure than does lower. I’m all in support of the lower housing for other reasons, but
anyway, the other thing is I think, though, going back to your comments, I think this piece of
land that you’re willing to set aside for the habitat is exactly what, you know, what I think of in
terms of clustering and giving something back, and I think that’s exactly, you know, this could
be developed, but you’re choosing not to do it, and I think that’s, you know, in keeping with the
spirit of what we’re all about here. So, I think it’s a great idea, and I wish you well. That’s all I
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have to agree with Rich, but I probably should have said this when Tom
was, because if that other land, I guess I’m talking to the wrong applicant, but I just want to
make this statement, Tom. If that other land that you have up there, the mottling is no good
there, so you’d have to bring in fill and all that, but I was thinking, you could have done the
same type of thing, where you could have taken those lots that are adjacent to the NiMo right of
way that goes north and south and made that, undeveloped, and then develop the top part, and
then we would have had both areas, but it’s not going to work.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Schiavone’s, obviously, is right there, but Rich’s is down in here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and Rich’s is right here, I know, but he doesn’t have much.
MR. LAPPER-Cathy, there’s an advantage to what Tom did, because by keeping the green space
along Sherman, it just tends to keep it a little more rural.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does. I understand that, too, and I like that, and that’s why I didn’t say
anything before, and I did like that concept, because you don’t see everything from the road.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a matter of fact, just speaking of Mr. Schiavone’s layout, this is, I
would say, is probably one of the better layouts, because I know that property well, and right
across the street, I believe there’s an old junkyard just down the street, and there’s some
unsightly visual stuff out there. So I think the way he did it, this is a really nice set up.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And another thing is, where you have your 22 acres, and then you have
the NiMo right of way, and then you have the boulevard of Tom’s, and then you have all of his
open space, you’re right. There is something that is kind of special. I mean, I like that there,
and maybe something could be done, as far as recreation or having all that land to be used for
the people in each development.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that 22 acres is something Rich doesn’t own. That’s the pig farm. You
can’t do anything with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if he owned that. It would be great.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s just that little bit. It’s just that little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s one pig that wanders.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I had to have clarified, and, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Believe it or not, I have no comments on this one. I think this is fine.
MR. VOLLARO-The fact that the power line goes down on one side of the property and then
goes along the back of it and he’s going to put a Karner blue development area in there, I think
that just plain works for me, in terms of giving back to the community. I’m happy with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-First of all, Ernie Centebar is an elderly gentlemen. What’s elderly?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, that’s his son. I don’t want him to get mad at me, but I believe
he’s probably 75 or 77 years old.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That must be his father then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or a very slow student.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, the other Ernie’s probably about 50 year old now. All right. Well, let’s
start off with our Subdivision Reg’s, okay, Article 9, cluster development, objective. Okay.
Cluster design shall achieve, shall achieve, okay, a development pattern that preserves
outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas and trees and prevents
the disruption of natural drainage patterns. Okay. Shall achieve, the preservation of
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas and trees, be in harmony
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Land Use Plan, I think, identifies parks and
open spaces as a need for this area, and it speaks, on Paragraph E, it speaks to lands available
for parks, recreation, other municipal purposes, retained open spaces, shall be shown on the
plats. So, you know, you certainly get the temper here that, of what I’ve been trying to say
about clustering, okay, and I’m not directing this to you. I’m directing this to the people that
keep coming before us with this clustering concept, but, you know, we’ve gone through this
before, and your plan’s better, and the Sunnyside one is better. So I’m not directing this at you,
Rich. I’m just directing it at probably the Planning Board in general. So this concept is there,
and it says on F, it talks a continuation of clustering, lands to be set aside for public use, such as
park land, and it goes on. See, you get the feeling here, of what clustering’s supposed to be.
Significant wildlife, plant habitats, but anyhow, going on to 179-11-040, Paragraph F,
Calculation of Maximum Building Lots, okay, and it has all the things that we’ve talked about,
steep slopes in excess of 15%, unbuildable areas, rock outcrops, street right of ways, but it says
in Sub F, the areas to be set aside for other public use also have to be subtracted from the
density calculation. It’s right here, F, Subsection F.
MR. LAPPER-It can’t mean what you’re saying it means.
MR. STROUGH-179-11-040.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not being set aside until it’s approved for clustering.
MR. STROUGH-I am just, it seems like it’s self-defeating.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a Catch-22.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I’m reading it the way it is. Now you can read it the way it is.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a recreation area, but it’s only to be used by butterflies.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just reading the Code. I’m not here to argue, but, you know, like I said,
we’ll work things out, but I always, you know, I’ll take the position here that, and I don’t have, I
agree with Bob. I don’t have too many problems with this. I would like to see the
interconnection, though, but because pedestrians, kids walking, I like to give them more option.
Going from neighborhood to neighborhood without going on a main highway. The cars on
Sherman Avenue travel pretty fast, and I could go through my eight items, but Rich copied
them down, and the hydrological consequences, the interconnection and the internal network
and the impact on public services and the Karner blue butterfly and the buffer zone, the density
calculations, the pedestrian paths, nobody’s talked much about, and need for recreation
facilities and green space that’s been the general conversation tonight, so, I do support the idea
of an interconnectedness. I would like Kathy O’Brien to give an opinion of what she thinks of
Rich’s proposal to give us that back space there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that would be, at this point, (lost word) by C.T. Male, you know, John’s
going to do that.
MR. STROUGH-I think it’s probably going to be part of C.T. Male’s observation, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, John, you bring up a point. If I can just interject this for a minute. You
talk about a sort of a bike path and walk path for children to get back and forth between those
two communities which I think is a good idea, as opposed to an automobile path. I would
certainly back up a way to interconnect those properties for a walkway, and for a bike path, for
children to get back and forth between communities. I think there’s a merit to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If a interconnect’s doable, I would prefer a road interconnect, but I’m not
100% sold on the idea of doing it.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. ROUND-Let me just add. I think with the road day lighting on Sherman Avenue, I think
there’s a concern about these two roads line up with the proposed road on Dickinson’s, and
then the offset there, whether that’s a safe situation or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was one of the thoughts I had about lining up.
MR. VOLLARO-There was also a thought, there, I guess to line Dickinson up with Ferris Drive
so now you’d have a complete through. Would that be what you’re looking to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s one of the Staff comments.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the Staff comments. I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you done, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I just had one more thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you aren’t done.
MR. STROUGH-Then I’m not done. Well, if we do end up with some habitat, and we can
develop that lot as Karner blue habitat, what about access to that lot, for maintenance and
other?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You have two power lines.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I don’t know, can we get a permanent easement from NiMo to access
the property? Can we drive on there? I mean, sometimes when you.
MR. ROUND-I think we commented on this. This subdivision, again, we would look, is this the
appropriate location? If we had Schiavone and Schermerhorn connected, east/west, and then
possibly a north/south connection off of Schermerhorn, that would traverse Niagara Mohawk
lands, then that would also provide you with access to that parcel, whether it’s, you know,
pedestrian initially, and then motor vehicles subsequently, I think that’s something we need to
explore.
MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about the area through the butterfly area would be the proposed
connection to Luzerne?
MR. ROUND-Yes, somewhere through there. Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what I wanted to say on that, Larry Clute is here tonight, just to watch.
He will be back. He has the land under control south of Burnt Hills, and the Board required a
connection, which is right on the map, in Burnt Hills. So I know that we’re envisioning that the
north/south connection from Luzerne to Sherman would be through the Burnt Hills subdivision
where all of that is controlled by one party, and you don’t have that ability here, at this point.
MR. ROUND-I guess the way, is we have Schermerhorn at the table. We don’t have Clute at the
table. So I guess we’re asking that of Mr. Schermerhorn. The other project is, no disrespect, but
speculative. The property’s zoned Light Industrial at this point, and I think what we want to
encourage is multiple opportunities, multiple interconnections, as John said, for pedestrian,
bicycles, vehicles, to give opportunities and choices.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So you want me to put it through my proposed Karner blue habitat,
then?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we 100% sold on that?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. ROUND-Well, I think if today you provide that connection to go through NiMo, we’re not
saying that it necessarily needs to be constructed at this point, but you’re providing that when,
if the landowner on the other side comes through, that you have that ability to construct that
roadway. I think, the other thing it provides, we mentioned it previously, is these
interconnections are providing for interconnections of water systems. Rather than have a bunch
of stub loops off of a main line, you’re allowing for interconnection of the water infrastructure
that provides for better pressures, better circulation. Same thing takes place with the other
utilities, whether we’re looking at storm systems. I know in the Schiavone, we’re looking at just
the catch basins and drywells, and whether that’s going to be feasible, given the amount of fill
and this depth to groundwater. That’s going to be a concern. So you may need to look at
interconnecting stormwater systems, that provides benefit. I mean, we need to get out of the
mindset that these basically isolated subdivisions, we’re talking about building a road network,
and not necessarily about building a residential subdivision. Because that’s what the Highway
Superintendent has to take care of is the road network.
MR. STROUGH-And you’ve got my support on that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’d really like some direction on this. Because I’m going to come
back with it, and if you guys want a stub, I mean, do we want that going through the Karner
blue habitat I’m proposing? I mean, I’m offering to work with Schiavone to tie in with him. I
do know there’s a few smaller parcel beyond my habitat. I don’t see where it’s going to be any,
I mean, it could be an interconnection, but I also know there’s a top secret DEC clean up that
went on a year ago over there that was, you know, on one of the parcels on Luzerne Road. So I
don’t know what will ever become of development over there, if any of us are aware of what
went on over there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to spend the day with him tomorrow. I’d prefer the Karner blue
habitat, but I’d also like to defer and wait and see what John’s going to have to say about it,
because maybe it’s something that might not be doable. So I guess I’d like to leave the cards on
the table right now, and not, in my opinion not to make a decision one way or the other.
MR. SANFORD-Regarding the connector road, I’m not sure that the connector road has to, I
don’t even know if it makes sense for the connector road to go through that rectangular parcel
of land anyway. I mean, if you’re going to do a connector road, why would you want to go
through that and go over to the other development? I don’t understand that. Maybe I’m
missing something here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, for one thing, Rich, if you read the Staff notes, and it’s something that
Chris and others have talked about for a few years now, is the lack of connections between,
well, basically Corinth Road and Luzerne Road, Luzerne Road to Sherman, Sherman to Peggy
Ann.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not that I don’t appreciate the connector road. It’s why does it have to go
through that habitat? Why can’t it go across the 12 acre, is what I’m talking about. Why does it
have to go through the 12 acre, 12.72 acre piece. Why can’t it just go through?
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’re talking about connecting south of here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but where are you talking about putting that road through?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t understand that at all.
MRS. RYBA-You know what, I would like to make a suggestion, which is, DEC and Kathy
O’Brien have said this in the past. It really, roads don’t necessarily impact negatively. It
depends. I-87, yes. A small pathway or other type of road that may not be used extensively,
and she may very well have a suggestion, and we’re looking at recovery versus something
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
that’s already there. Once again, there may be a suggestion to do something. So, I would even
ask her, and Mr. Munsey, of course, if there’s a possibility.
MR. SANFORD-Who owns this land? South of that?
MR. ROUND-Three different owners. George can identify them for you, if names matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but I mean your thought on that is sometime down the road you would
feel that a developer would be interested in say purchasing those six parcels there.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I mean, we see the same thing with commercial developments. If we don’t
plan for it, then it’s not an alternative that we have available to us in the future.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I understand what you’re getting at here, but I’d like to make a
comment with just any kind of a road that goes out to Luzerne. Right now, Revere Road in my
development has become a major thoroughfare for people trying to get from the Corinth Road
to Pitcher and out to West Mountain, and they’re just flying right through.
MR. ROUND-That’s just it, Cathy. If we only have one choice, and we provide a single
connection, north/south, between Luzerne and Sherman, then that quickly becomes something
other than a residential street, but if we have five choices, that impact would be spread over
those five streets, and what we’re creating right now, if we’re putting 100 new homes in this
area that are going to dump onto Sherman think about the downstream impacts at the City of
Glens Falls line, at Veterans Field. It’s already a problem intersection, and it’s already causing
impact to the new school fields, all right. If we provide an alternative, if people are looking to
get onto I-87, and they can, instead of traveling down to Veteran’s Road, hanging a right onto
Veterans Road, hanging a right on Veteran’s, going through Pine Street, if they can simply drive
down Luzerne Road, find a connection between Luzerne and Corinth. It distributes traffic, in a
broader sense, rather than putting it to a single conduit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it’s like VanDusen. There’s a connector there, and that gets a big
play.
MR. ROUND-Right. So if we build four or five more of those that impacts on VanDusen, it will
lessen the impacts on Revere Road, you know, what you’re trying to do is provide choices,
alternatives, distribute the impacts, and I think the reason you folks all said, hey, we don’t need
a traffic impact analysis for Sherman Avenue is because, hey, there’s not a capacity issue on
Sherman Avenue. There’s plenty of capacity. There’s not an operational or safety issue because
there’s not a dangerous intersection, but when we introduce 100 new homes and you’re talking
two and a half or three and a half multiplier for vehicle trips, you’re talking a lot of trips, and
we may soon need a signal not here, but you may need a signal at Sherman and Western
Avenue or Sherman and Veterans Road, because of all the new traffic, but if you’re able to
distribute it across the road network, you’ve minimized that impact.
MR. LAPPER-How about we’ll propose that we’ll put it on as a dotted line, as a proposed
easement, and the Planning Board can decide, when we get to the next meeting, if you want it
or not.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you’re going to have to eliminate one of your building lots to do that,
right?
MR. LAPPER-No. Matt said we can just move them.
MR. STEVES-We can adjust, if you look at the westerly entrance to this subdivision, coming
straight in to the “T” at the south end, is then just continue that 50 foot across, and then stub it
at the power line and leave it, and in past instances we have conveyed that, or the developer has
conveyed that to the Town, not necessarily the Highway Department. Then if anything ever
happens, then the Town can transfer it to the Highway Department for highway purposes. It
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
doesn’t have to be a paved road at this time. It just has to be a Town owned 50 foot strip
between the two parcels.
MR. ROUND-That would provide us access to the habitat land. It may never get constructed as
a road, but you have that alternative, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I wouldn’t be opposed to that. I just hate building stubs, just
because they’re costly, but I’d like the easement there, if the Town wants it, they could have it.
MR. STEVES-It doesn’t have to be a stub, but it can be transferred to Tom.
MR. ROUND-That’s what we’re looking for.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s doable. Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That, I think, makes sense, because in order to use that, somebody’s got to
build the road and somebody’s got to pay for it. I think that makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this discussion was the item I wanted to bring up, was the north/south
connector, and, you know, I read it in Staff notes, but until we got this great map, you know, I
don’t know if that was a good thing for the developer to do or not. I mean, to me, it looks pretty
obvious that, particularly in this proposal, that there’s a great opportunity for a north/south
connector road. We just beat it to death, so I don’t need to talk about it anymore.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what Rich said is a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s the perfect solution.
MR. VOLLARO-Perfect solution, because if the road never gets built, it never gets used.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that makes sense to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. ROUND-Do you need, I know Mr. Munsey’s still here.
MR. MUNSEY-I don’t mind staying.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED *NO SEQR
REQUIRED MICHAEL DICKINSON, CONTRACT VENDEE PROPERTY OWNER:
RICHARD & SANDRA BAKER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-20
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVE., JUST EAST OF POWER LINES AND
OLD DAY CARE BUILDING. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11.30 +/-
ACRE LOT INTO 15 LOTS. CROSS RERERENCE: SUB 4-1998 TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27,
28 LOT SIZE: 11.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL DICKINSON, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-Okay. This is a property that’s on the north side of Sherman, opposite the
Schermerhorn development, proposed development. If you can see my mouse here, I’m
pointing at this piece of land. We show it as one property. The applicant has provided two
deeds that indicates that the eastern and western portion are actually two separate parcels.
We’ve verified that they are two separate deeds. The one item of concern is just verification of
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
the acreages. The acreage on the deed doesn’t quite agree with the acreage that’s proposed on
the subdivision plat, and I’d ask the applicant to kind of address that.
MR. NACE-We will verify that. We have a survey that actually shows the acreage that’s on the
subdivision plat.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. NACE-But we will verify it and rectify the deed.
MR. HILTON-Okay. We do have some concern with the connection out at Sherman and the
distances, or the separation distance between the proposed drives to the south. Certainly
cumulative impacts that go along with SEQRA, with all the other lots that are proposed. We
did mention in our comments potentially some provision for a stub for future access into
Queensbury Forest. I’m looking at this plan here, and certainly a lot of that depends on
whether the radiuses are there and whether it’s feasible in terms of the requirements for roads
in the Subdivision Regulation, but, you know, any chance we can get, again, to provide
interconnection of existing roadways is a goal. That’s all I have at this time.
MR. NACE-Good evening. I guess the first thing is, yes, we didn’t recognize, until we married
these two maps together, that there is a little bit of a conflict. We’re at about 150 feet of
separation. We’d like to get that up a little higher. I’ve talked to Rich, and what we will be
doing is moving his entrance a little bit to the west and moving this entrance a little bit to the
east, not to line them up, but to get better separation between them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why can’t you line them up so they’re right across from each other?
MR. NACE-The properties don’t line up. To move them together, you would end up with the
road on the Dickinson property way over against one property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the Staff notes also suggest about wanting to make an interconnect from
Ferris into this?
MR. NACE-Yes. Looking at, okay, if you look up on, what is it, I can’t read the name of the
other, at any rate, coming off Ferris, that turn there from the adjacent roadway, Hampton.
That’s the minimum highway radius for the Town. Okay. That was put in at minimum radius,
and if you try to just transfer that by eye down to our property, to make two of those to get back
on to Ferris, you know, make one, and then reverse and make the other, it just is not going to
make it . I think that, you know, the only possibility for extension of Ferris would be directly
out to Sherman, and it would have to come when that other parcel in behind the old day care,
something like this, when the other parcel that this property originally came out of were ever
developed, it would be the opportunity to bring that road out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now what’s the reason why you can’t line up the Dickinson parcel with the
Schermerhorn parcel?
MR. NACE-Just because, you know, to develop the Dickinson parcel, economically, you’ve got
to double load the road. You’ve got to have both sides of the road with lots on it. If you push
that road over far enough to line up with Schermerhorn, you’re over near the property line, and
you won’t have lots on one side of the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, can Schermerhorn’s be realigned a little bit and Dickinson’s be
realigned, and both of them meet in the middle?
MR. NACE-We’ll look at it, okay, and this is just off the tax maps. So there may, you know, it’s
not 100% accurate, but we’ll marry the two surveys together, and see what’s practical. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else you wanted to add?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-Yes. It’s going to squeeze one way or the other, to try to do that, but I think it’s still
just as safe if we can get adequate separation, okay, rather than to be directly opposite.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t have much. It just occurred to me, and maybe it’s not
economically feasible, but one way you could probably line these up is if you did a “U” and
eliminated the road that you currently have, and did a “U” road around the perimeter of the
property, I noticed these lots are pretty deep, and if you did that, I don’t know what impact it
would have. Maybe it would have some impact on these upper lots, Lots Six and Seven, but
you’d probably be able to do something like that.
MR. NACE-And you’re saying line up with Rich’s roads and do, yes. What you’re going to end
up doing is doubling the length of road and for a small subdivision like that, you know, your
single, you’re doubling the length of the road and you’re single loading the whole length of
road. It just, it puts it out of the realm of economics.
MR. SANFORD-It would be a safer system, though, I mean, in terms of having two ways in and
two ways out.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can understand their point. It’s cost prohibitive at that point. I mean, if you
were dealing with a 200 lot subdivision or something, you know.
MR. NACE-If we had a bigger piece of property where you could double load at least half of
that length of road, then you’re in the ballpark.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t really have anything to add.
MR. ROUND-Target price?
MR. DICKINSON-Target price is $140,000 to $170,000.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I like the way Staff has proposed where we connect it with Ferris
and line is up as, you know, work something out with Rich, and I think it’s going to be fine.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I don’t think, from looking at it, that there’s any way feasible to ever
line it up with Ferris.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, you can’t just swing it around like that and get those lots
in.
MR. NACE-No. There’s just not the radius in there to do that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay.
MR. NACE-Actually, Chris is just drawing here, but if you take a look at the extension into.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then you’re not going to be able to hook it up with Ferris?
MR. NACE-No, but, take a look at the drawing in front of you, and Chris is drawing something
here that’s really apropos. If you take Rich’s “U” that is hammer-headed and dead ended
where it exits his property on the western side, extend that on up with a little curve in it back to
Sherman for future development, that would directly line up with an extension across the north
of Sherman, up to Ferris.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see what you’re saying. So then you could go from Ferris out to
Sherman without really impacting your lots.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The reason the problem is is that lot right there in the center that’s in the
middle.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what throws everything off. Well, that would.
MR. STROUGH-That’s New York State
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s that group home up there. It used to be a day care center there
years ago.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, Iknow what you’re saying.
MR. STROUGH-It’s a group home?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, well, then, there you go.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that just means you’re going to turn the stub that Rich had in and you’re
going to swing it about 45 degrees to the right so it kind of lines up with, eventually, with
Ferris.
MR. NACE-It would parallel the others coming into his subdivision, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, these are all stubs that make sense for the future. I guess that’s what
we’re saying. That’s fine. I don’t see any problem with that.
MR. NACE-That makes a lot of sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No, I had a question on what that State land was, and I got that answered, and
this isn’t being clustered. So there’s no density calculation here, and it is 10 acres, 14 lots. I
don’t know. I’m sure, you know, Staff will take a look at that road connection. I don’t know.
Can you take Ferris? I mean, where is that day care center over? Well, I don’t know what it is
now. It used to be the old day care center. Where is the building on that? I mean, can you
extend Ferris Drive in the sense that Tom’s suggested?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re only suggesting stubbing it so that some day it can be done. This
is all just future stuff. They’re not planning on putting a road in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here it is. Right?
MR. VOLLARO-Here it is. What he plans to do is to take the stub that he’s got here, swing it
about 45 degrees to the right, so that eventually it lines up with Ferris.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is, is there a house that’s here so you can’t do that?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I haven’t got a clue.
MR. STROUGH-I think Staff is going to have to, you know, I just don’t think we have the
resources to figure this out.
MR. VOLLARO-What Chris wants is stubs for the future.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s what I would like to see. I would like to see a plan, a
comprehensive plan, that might be workable in the future.
MR. HILTON-I think as far as that stub to the north, you know, the more I think about it and
look at this with everything on the same page, you’ve got some really strange curves there that
you’d have to construct. I think to the south it’s something to probably explore more.
MR. NACE-Just so we’re all looking at the same thing, here’s what Chris sketched, okay, from
Ferris down, and into the lower end of Rich’s road.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So what I’m saying is that this extension isn’t going to be going right
through a house, is it?
MR. NACE-No, the day care place is over here. They have a parking lot in here some place.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a State home.
MR. NACE-Yes, a State home.
MR. STROUGH-And the day care is on the other side.
MR. NACE-No, the day care is here, or this is the State home that used to be the day care.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t know you were going to extend Rich’s up to there.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. It’s just going to be a stub. Just a stub. He’s just going to stub it so
that it’s heading that direction.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. Where is he going to go from here to here, though?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s got to be discussed here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I don’t think this should come like that. Because then he loses these
right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought this one was a little easier, maybe because it’s a smaller
subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, and we also took care of all the issues on the other.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess one of the things I wanted to chime in is in looking through
your environmental assessment form that was submitted, just a couple of things to look at, and
I may not have picked up on this, except for at our meeting on Tuesday night, we had an
engineer say that he just, you know, pulled numbers out of his pea sized brain, I think is the
comment he used. Maximum vehicle trips generated per hour I think would be, you know,
significantly more than 14.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. NACE-That’s out of ITE. It’s approximately, it’s like .97, 1.04.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s not two or three times. I mean, I’m sitting here thinking well,
each house is probably going to have two cars.
MR. NACE-This is per hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-This is not per day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-This is per hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-Per hour. Yes.
MR. ROUND-So not everybody’s going to exit at once.
MR. NACE-That’s right. Some of the kids get taken to elementary school at 8:30, some get taken
to high school at 7:30.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just seemed kind of (lost words). I really didn’t have anything else to add.
MR. STROUGH-Does any of this site have any blue lupine habitat that we know of?
MR. NACE-I’ve walked this site when we did our test pits. It is all heavily wooded.
MR. METIVIER-A lot of these lots are irregular, especially in front. If you look at Lot Number
13, there’s no way you could put a house on that. Because if you have a 20 foot side yard
setback, that’s 40 feet. You’re looking at a 64 foot lot. You take away 40 feet, you have 24 feet of
house. It does get a little wider, but still, unless that’s an error on those.
MR. NACE-Which lot are you looking at?
MR. METIVIER-Thirteen.
MR. NACE-The front we’ve got 65 feet.
MR. METIVIER-Twenty foot side setbacks. So that’s 40 feet. So a 24 foot wide house.
MR. NACE-No, the side setbacks aren’t 20. This is an SR-20 zone.
MR. SANFORD-SR-20. It’s a total of 30.
MR. NACE-It’s 15 foot side setbacks I think.
MR. METIVIER-All right. That helps, big time, but I guess why are some of the lots?
MR. NACE-All you have to do is move it back on the lot. It’s a little bit of a pie-shaped lot, and
not all houses are long ranches these days. A lot of them are more compact, two story, semi-
colonials or whatever you want to call them. It’s not unusual for a house with garage to be 45,
50 feet, no wider.
MR. METIVIER-And I’ve always been against lining up if we can possibly do it. I know Craig
doesn’t agree with me, to line up, like roads, intersections. I think we should spread them apart
as much as possible.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/27/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s good planning.
MR. METIVIER-My only thought is, every time you look at somebody, and I’m going to say this
again, and you’re staring at somebody that wants to pull out, and you wave them and they
wave you, and you forget the fact that there’s a car coming down the street.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on Page Nine of the manual to get a license.
MR. METIVIER-What’s that?
MR. MAC EWAN-The car to the right of you always yields the right of way.
MR. METIVIER-All right. Never mind. I’m not going to argue with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Page Nine, motor vehicle guidance. Anything else?
MR. METIVIER-I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, anybody?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, is there anything that you wanted to add at the end of all this?
What did you think of the idea of creating habitat?
MR. MUNSEY-Well, I think that (lost words). You should be aware of the fact that the
rectangular parcel is currently forested right now. It is not.
MR. MAC EWAN-And he said he would, and create the habitat.
MR. MUNSEY-And then it’s a matter of, you know, future maintenance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is part of what your scheme is going to come up with. No, I thought
that was a positive note tonight. I really did.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s good contribution to a buildable piece.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s adjourn. Meeting over.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47