1998-02-17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
MEMBERS ABSENT
GEORGE STARK
PLANNER-LAURA NOWICKI
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-JEFF FRIEDLAND
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 18, 1997: NONE
November 25, 1997: NONE
December 9, 1997: NONE
December 16, 1997: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 25, AND
THTH
DECEMBER 9 AND 16, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its
THTH
adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now we’ll get into Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 LEO LOMBARDO OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: 1587 STATE ROUTE 9 MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE
PLAN - THE MODIFICATION IS A CHANGE IN USE FROM AN APPROVED
RETAIL USE TO A RESTAURANT USE (SERVING PIZZA AND ICE CREAM).
TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10 LOT SIZE: 2.11 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
LEO LOMBARDO, PRESENT
MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes.
STAFF INPUT
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-94 Modification, Leo Lombardo, Meeting
Date: February 17, 1998 “The applicant proposes a modification of Site Plan
28-94. The applicant’s modification is a change of use in a building on parcel
33-1-10 from retail use to a restaurant use. The applicant’s original Site Plan
28-94 was approved on 10/18/94 with conditions; on 8/16/95 an area
variance, 36-1995 was approved with conditions; on 8/22/95 the planning
board approved a modification to site plan 28-94. The conditions are in
reference to curb cuts and setbacks. The applicant submitted a drawing
depicting the parcel and building of modification. The applicant will need to
apply for a building permit and comply with the code for conversion of retail to
restaurant. Also, the applicant will need approval from NYSDOH for the septic
system design. The applicant indicated that there will be no customer service
windows, no additional outdoor lighting, and no outside dining area. The
intended hours of operation are from eleven AM to eleven PM. The Building
and Use will be a seasonal operation, unless business warrants year round
operation. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There’s no engineering comments for this?
MS. NOWICKI-No, we did not send it to engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant?
Could you identify yourself for the record, please?
MR. LOMBARDO-My name is Lombardo. I put up a new building two years
ago. I put up a septic system, new. It cost over $10,000. I tried to lease it, I
couldn’t lease it for three years. I tried to turn it from a (lost word) to a
restaurant, and everything is the same. The building hasn’t been occupied.
Everything is the same. So that’s all. As far as I’m concerned, everything is
done. The building is brand new.
MR. BREWER-Just a change in use?
MR. LOMBARDO-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything else that you wanted to add to that?
MR. LOMBARDO-I’ve got a special septic system for the mall.
MS. NOWICKI-You’ll still have to apply to the DOH to get their approval for
your septic system for a restaurant in that building, which you would do it
anyway for your building permit. So that’s part of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just a change in use. It doesn’t affect the SEQRA.
MS. NOWICKI-It’s not a significant change in use.
MR. BREWER-It doesn’t change any curb cuts or anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Does anybody up here have any questions?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Not really.
MR. MAC EWAN-No? Does anybody want to make a motion, then?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 FOR MODIFICATION FOR
CHANGE IN USE LEO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
And there is no significant change in the site plan, and no significant impact in
the SEQRA findings.
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1998, by the following vote:
th
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a standard boilerplate we’re supposed to attach to
that, is that not correct, Jeff?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. I don’t have that with me, but there is. Basically, you
need to make a decision whether or not the modification will encompass any
significant, will encompass any environmental impacts not already considered
in initial approval.
MR. BREWER-I thought I said that it wouldn’t.
MR. FRIEDLAND-And if you decide that there are no additional impacts, then
you don’t need to do anything further.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but I thought there was a standard boilerplate that we
were supposed to read or whatever.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM &
LISA GEREAU OWNER: MARK BRANSON ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION:
CLENDON BROOK RD. & TUTHILL, 1 MILE UP TO CORNER OF TUTHILL &
CLENDON BROOK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT CLUSTERED
SUBDIVISION - A 44.50 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS OF 4.0124 AC.,
3.7838 AC., 4.3826 AC., 4.1690 AC. AND 30.7998 AC. ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 123-1-21 LOT SIZE: 44.50 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing tonight because this is
Sketch. Before we get started, I have a question here on the map that was
given to us. It’s just, I knew where this land was, because I travel this all the
time on my way to work. It’s just that I think you have on the map the names
of the roads incorrect. In other words, where Sherman Avenue intersects with
West Mountain, the east part is Sherman Avenue, but the west part, isn’t that
Tuthill Road? Or Clendon Ridge, Clendon Brook. Right. And then when you
go up around the corner where the chimney is.
MR. STEVES-That’s Tuthill Road.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s Tuthill, because we have Bellews Circle here, and I
just was wondering if any way, was Bellews Circle supposed to come into play
in this? In this map?
MS. NOWICKI-Not that I know of.
MR. STEVES-No.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STEVES-You do have a copy of my map then, the larger map?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I do.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I did take a look at the larger one, too. That’s fine.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1998 Sketch Plan, William and Lisa
Gereau, Meeting Date: February 17, 1998 “The applicant proposes a sketch
cluster subdivision in RR-5A zone. Tax parcel 123-1-21 would be subdivided
into five lots. The applicant has submitted the subdivision proposal to the APA
and is awaiting APA determination. The applicant has presented a project that
could meet the Town’s Cluster regulations. A cluster subdivision may benefit
this area because it contains environmental interest. The site contains APA
delineated wetlands, moderate to steep slopes, and a majority of the site is
wooded. The Board should consider the following information in its review of
the application. The preliminary plot plan must include all items on the
subdivision checklist except: 1g) land dedication; 3a) proposed streets; and
5a-d) landscaping. The Planning Board has the discretion or flexibility in
determining plot plan requirements. The conditions are requested so the
applicant provides a lot that can support a house, driveway, utilities, septic
and a well.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record?
MR. STEVES-Yes. My name is Matt Steves, with VanDusen and Steves, and I
represent the Gereaus. It’s pretty simple. It’s a five lot subdivision, four new
lots with the existing lot remaining at around 30 acres. We’ve tried to break it
up into such a manner that to use the most, the sites would be the best for
homes. We know that when we come back in for preliminary, we’ll have to
have the topography, the deep tests and that kind of information for you, but
conceptually, this is what we would anticipate it looking like.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Is the fifth lot, Matt, everything that?
MR. STEVES-Everything that would remain, that’s correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So you’d never put five on? That’s what I was wondering.
MR. STEVES-No. Right, there is five lots.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. PALING-Now the last lot is on both sides of the road?
MR. STEVES-It would encompass all the rest of the property. That’s correct.
MR. PALING-Which is on, it’s going to be on both sides of the road?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BREWER-Matt, why wouldn’t you, it’s less than, probably, four acres to
make these all five acres. Why wouldn’t you do that?
MR. STEVES-We’re trying to accommodate where the best spots are for home
sites, and try to keep the critical sites all onto a larger lot. They will maybe
adjust a little bit larger, at the time we do the topography and decide the exact
placement of the homes.
MR. BREWER-There’s no way you could do that, adjust these lines so that they
could meet the five acres?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. STEVES-No. I said, that’s what I said, I’m sure we can, but I’m not going
to lock myself into that they will all be five acres.
MR. BREWER-The reason I ask you that is because this word “cluster” comes
up, and to me, this is in no way, in any kind of imagination, clustering.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. STEVES-No, not really.
MR. BREWER-So that’s why, I hate that provision that allows somebody to do
that, when it’s not the definition of clustering.
MR. STEVES-Right. The cluster provision inside the five acre zone is so that
you can have lots to meet that requirement of at least an acre in size. So we
could, you know, create five one acre lots. That’s not our intention. Our
intention is to create them around five acres in size, but there either could be
the possibility, as we have outlined, that some of them could be around four
acres, but the density of five acres would be used.
MR. BREWER-I just wanted to make that point, if there were any way to
accommodate the five acres. That’s all.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Lot Two, where the stone wall goes through, does the stone
wall go through Lot Two there or does it stop at the road? See, what I’m
saying, Matt, is this other part here, on the left of where it says “Lot 2”, is that
part of Lot 2?
MR. STEVES-This in here?
MRS. LABOMBARD-No, right there.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I didn’t know what that dotted line was about.
MR. STEVES-That’s the great lot line that comes through there. That doesn’t
divide the lot.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So, wait a minute, then. Lot 2, then, includes all
that other part, and it looks like you’ve got it down smaller than this one. All
of this, isn’t all of this larger than this?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But you’ve got this as 3.7, and this is 4.0.
MR. STEVES-Right. Then it would probably actually be at around five and a
half acres.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, so then all of this is Lot 2?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So that’s closer to five, all right.
MR. STEVES-The smallest lot is four acres.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So then really that should be more closer to five?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. STEVES-And then this would be all the remaining.
MR. PALING-I guess it bothers me to see that lot by itself on the other side of
the road. Why don’t you make that a separate lot? You could certainly take
some from Lot 3 and make, isn’t that going to be just left alone?
MR. STEVES-Well, the reason for it is if you look at the wetlands that border
against Tuthill Road, you really can’t get across to do anything anyway. We’re
going to attach it to Lot 3, or we’re just going to leave it as the rest of the
property. I’m open to suggestions. That’s not a problem.
MR. PALING-It just seems strange to leave it on the opposite side of the road
with no use ever to be made of it.
MR. STEVES-The Gereaus plan on building their house on this lot here, which
would protect them from any houses across the street. It’s just kind of like
protecting their interest of where they’re going to build their home.
MR. PALING-Attach it to Lot 3, then.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, when you get up to Fuller Road, and it borders on
Fuller Road, that’s not even a paved road. That’s like a dirt road.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So it is plowed up to a point through there.
MR. STEVES-Right up to this line.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s all it’s plowed to, maintained?
MR. STEVES-Maintained is up through that lot. That’s correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That’s what I thought, because I’ve driven up there,
and the plow, when the weather’s bad, it stops.
MR. MAC EWAN-The berm. Bob, anything else?
MR. PALING-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s going to be the future use of the 30 acre parcel, long
goal, subdivide that?
MR. STEVES-That would be up to my clients. I don’t think they have any long
term goals for it. Just maintain it with their house.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else have anything else?
MR. STEVES-They’re trying to maintain the rural characteristic that’s up there
by separating the lots around, and like I say, it’ll adjust a little bit when we get
the topography and the deep tests done, and we’re also working with the APA.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to be requesting any waivers, be sure to include
them with your application.
MR. STEVES-No problem.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone have anything else? Staff? Okay.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. We don’t have to do any motion?
MS. NOWICKI-You can forward him to do preliminary.
MR. BREWER-We don’t usually make a motion. I mean, it’s not required.
MR. FRIEDLAND-No, you don’t need to.
SITE PLAN NO. 4-98 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 13/14, HUNTER BROOK
LN. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING
AND A 6 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
SITEWORK. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.1
LOT SIZE: 1.98 ACRES SECTION: 179-18
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-98 Lots 13/14 - Hunter Brook Lane, Richard
Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: February 18, 1998 “The applicant proposes two
apartment buildings. One building will contain six units the other will contain
eight. All uses in the MR-5 zone are subject to site plan review. The buildings
will be located on lots 13 and 14 of Cross Roads Park, Hunter Brook Lane. The
design and lay out will be similar to the other apartment units on Hunter Brook
Lane. The storm water drainage plan was submitted to Rist Frost Engineers for
review and comment. The application has also been submitted to the
Beautification Committee for comment. The applicant has addressed all items
of the site plan check list and application requirements. Staff has no
additional concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-Would you like me to read Rist Frost and Beautification?
MR. MAC EWAN-Please. Yes, go ahead.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Rist Frost “We have received and reviewed Nace
Engineering’s letter of February 14, 1998 responding to our comment letter of
February 10, 1998. The responses are satisfactory.”
MR. BREWER-What about the letter dated February 10 about the perc test?
th
He did them?
MS NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You also have something from the.
MS. NOWICKI-Beautification?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Site Plan No. 4-98 Richard Schermerhorn No one
appeared to review planting plan with Committee. 1. Committee recommends
oak & white pine trees along Blind Rock Road be planted in a 5 ft. wide by 3 ft.
high berm planting bed to screen parking lot. 2. Committee recommends
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
fence enclosed dumpster in addition to plantings on landscape plan. 3.
Committee recommends more extensive plantings installed along Blind Rock
Road, ex. addition of burning bushes to accent proposed pines & oaks.” That
is it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing Nace
Engineering, here for Rich Schermerhorn.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Perc test.
MR. NACE-Perc test was done. There was a response letter issued, I believe,
the 11, or the 14, rather, to Rist-Frost saying that the perc test was two
thth
minutes, thirty-nine seconds, which is excellent for the septic systems.
However, it did require me to go back and recalculate the storm drainage
system because it was a little longer than I had estimated for that, but I did re-
calculate that. That still works, and I responded to Rist-Frost, to that effect
and they responded that everything was okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-When you had to re-calculate the stormwater. Did you send
that to Rist-Frost for their review or not?
MR. NACE-Yes. That was part of the, do you have a copy of the February 14
th
letter?
MS. NOWICKI-No. They don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-All I have is the letter here saying that they’re asking for it.
MR. NACE-Yes. The February 14 letter says, first of all, Number One, “On
th
Friday February 13, a percolation test was performed in the area of the
th
northern most leach field for the above referenced project. The test was
performed at the approximate elevation of the proposed field. The stabilized
percolation rate was 2 minutes 39 seconds. This confirms that the design of
the sewage disposal system is adequate. 2. Since the design of the drainage
system was based upon a percolation rate of 1 minute 40 seconds, I have
recalculated the system using a rate of 2 minutes 39 seconds. With this slower
percolation rate I have included the infiltration trenches in the design, but I
have maintained a safety factor of 2 in the calculations. With these
modifications the system still works with a maximum height of water in the
drywells of 8.4 feet (as compared to 8.3 feet in the original design report).”
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of that letter?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody up here have any questions?
MR. BREWER-As I look at this, Tom, and I knew this was coming, there’s a ton
of leach fields in this whole project.
MR. NACE-Correct.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. BREWER-What is the expected life of them, and then what happens when
they start to fail?
MR. NACE-The soils here are fairly good, I would expect because they’re built in
accordance with the new Reg’s. They’re also built, when we designed them, we
spaced the trenches out wider than you normally would, okay. The Health
Department requires a set aside area for replacement systems. The best way to
do that is to space the trenches out wider, leave space for a trench in between
if you ever have to replace the field. So you just leave the old field in place, if
you do go in between and replace it. With that wider spacing, the loading on
the system is really pretty small. I would expect, you know, the old systems
with the higher rates that were designed 30 years ago to have a life expectancy
of 25 years, 30 years. I would expect these would be more.
MR. BREWER-I’m just thinking down the road, when they start to go, are they
all going to go, one right after another?
MR. NACE-Probably not. If a leach system fails, it’s normally because people
have been throwing too much grease and too many solids down the kitchen
drain and the leach field plugs up for that reason. It’s normally not just too
much water, and these sandy soils around here, that’s not a typical failure
mode.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know how many fields are there, but there’s a lot of
houses there.
MR. NACE-No. I would not expect, if there are failures, I would expect it to be
intermittent, due to the use of the system, and not due to the soils or site
conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. BREWER-The trees, you don’t have a problem with the trees the
Beautification recommended?
MR. NACE-I don’t know where Rich is. He was supposed to be here, but I
think he thought this was going to be on a little later. Why don’t you go ahead
with the public hearing. He will probably be in. I’ll let him respond to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing on this application.
Anybody who wishes to speak to it can come up and address the Board. Please
state your name for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB PALING
MR. PALING-I’m Bob Paling, and I live in the subdivision just north of the
subdivision that’s on for tonight, and our main concern is run off from this
subdivision, and they’ve dug a ditch on the north side, which helps it, and the
principal, Rich Schermerhorn, and John Goralski and myself agreed to have a
swale put above the ditch. It’ll run out approximately 50 yards from near the
end of one building down to the end of the property, and this hasn’t been done
yet. All I’m asking that things are okay, but we want the swale that was agreed
to, and we ask that you make it part of the motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a swale that’s along the westerly?
MR. PALING-North, north side, yes, and Rich Schermerhorn has already agreed
to it, and I know it’s okay, but I would like it to be part of the motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. PALING-No. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
BOB VOLLARO
MR. VOLLARO-My name is Bob Vollaro, and I’m representing the Homeowner’s
Association of Baybridge, but I just have one question. The percolation tests
that were done, were they done on original soils, or was fill brought in there
and then done over fill?
MRS. LABOMBARD-We’re not on Walker Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I know that. I’m asking the same questions that I’ll ask on
Walker, but I just wanted, for the record, to know that the percolation tests
were done on the original topography, the original land.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask. We’ll ask that question.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Before we do, could you respond to
the question regarding the perc test?
MR. NACE-Yes. The perc test was done. We had a back hoe in. They dug
down through the fill had been piled in on that lot, and it was done down below
the original topsoil, and it was done at the elevation that the proposed system
will be constructed at.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Wasn’t all that done a long time ago?
MR. NACE-No. The perc test was done last Friday.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So you’ve done separate individual perc tests for each
time?
MR. NACE-Well, we did a bunch of them when Rich took over this subdivision,
okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. NACE-And up to now, we’ve had ones that are fairly close to where the
systems are going. This one, the existing perc test was removed a ways from
where this exact system is going to be. So Rist Frost asked that we do one
where the system would be located.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why did you conduct your perc tests where you filled?
MR. NACE-Because that’s where the system’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which fill is there?
MR. NACE-In the middle of the lot there’s maybe 10 or 12 feet. That’s just a
stock pile area that was used when the road was constructed and some of
these other lots were leveled off, okay. That fill is going to be removed as he
constructs this lot. It was just a stock pile. It was not fill that’s going to be
used in the final grading of this lot.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-How deep was the perc hole?
MR. NACE-The perc hole was down below the existing root layer. You could see
as we dug the hole for the perc test, we were down about a foot and a half, two
feet below the existing root layer, the existing topsoil.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you went down a total of maybe 14, 16 feet?
MR. NACE-It was out to the edge of the topsoil, or the stock pile that’s in there.
So, I don’t know, they cleared maybe eight feet of fill or six feet of fill off and
then dug the hole for the perc test.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was Rist-Frost aware of this? I guess I confused it. When
you do a perc test, you supposedly do it on virgin soil, right? Am I right on
that or wrong?
MR. NACE-It depends on the design of the system. You do it where the system
is going to be located. Okay. In this instance, the system will be located in
virgin soil, in the original ground, and that’s where the perc test itself was
done, okay, it was down in the original ground, below the old topsoil. So it is
correct where it’s done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and Rist-Frost signed off on that?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Now we’re ready to do a SEQRA.
MS. NOWICKI-It is a Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-98, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and
Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department
of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental
effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute
and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 1998, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Schermerhorn, in your absence, two things came up. Do
you have a copy of the Beautification Committee’s recommendations for that,
for Hunter Lane?
RICH SCHEMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a problem?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, and just for the record, it’s Rich Schermerhorn, and
I asked if I should go to the meeting, and it was recommended that I didn’t
need to go. That’s the only reason I was absent. I don’t have any problems
with any of these things. The enclosure, I’ve been doing that all along on all of
them. Maybe, I thought it said on the plan, but maybe not, but as far as the
trees go, I have no problem with any of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The other thing that was brought to our attention
tonight, I guess in a meeting that you had had with John Goralski and Bob
Paling.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-About the trench?
MR. MAC EWAN-A swale?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I assured Mr. Paling, and we can make it for the
record tonight, that it will be taken care of, as soon as the ground thaws, and I
have been checking. A week and a half ago we had that heavy rainstorm, and I
went out and I checked, and no water was leaching that way, but we’ll still do
the trench as soon as weather permits, and I can assure everyone that will be
taken care of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I thought it was a berm.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or a swale.
MR. MAC EWAN-Kind of off the record here, but was there any discussion as to
how long this was going to be, exact location?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There was, if I remember, I met with Mr. Paling, John
Goralski, and one of the people that live over there, who was an engineer from
Cedar Court, and I don’t believe they asked for it to be, or maybe they asked for
it just to be sketched on the plan when it was done, and John Goralski assured
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
everybody that he would take care of making sure it was sketched on there. I’ll
handle it any way you want. I couldn’t get to it quick enough, just because of
the way timing was, and the weather, but I’m not opposed to show it on the
plan, or to meet Mr. Paling out there when we’re done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the thing I want to be sure is if we make it part of the
condition of any approvals, that there’s some sort of way that we’re going to be
able to document this so we can track it.
MR. PALING-It’s about 50 yards long, I think. Is that a good guess?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I’d say it’s about 50 yards.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the northern most?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. It would be on the northern corner of Lot 12.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And Bob said it was going to be above the ditch.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, above the ditch. We’re going to leave the existing
one that’s there now just for back up, but I told him we’d add another one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody want to make a motion?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-98 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Timothy Brewer:
With the following stipulation: That a swale be constructed along the northern
corner of Lot 12 to be 50 yards long, or as long as it need to to make it
effective.
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1998, by the following vote:
th
MRS. LABOMBARD-And that the Beautification suggestions will be adhered to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we could just re-phrase that, swale along the northern
corner of Lot 12 to be 50 yards long. How’s that?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Shouldn’t we decide on how many trees he should put in? It
says, recommends oak and white pine trees along Blind Rock, five feet wide by
three feet high, bermed planting bed to screen parking lot. It doesn’t say
anything about how many on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you just go by their previous landscaping plan, if
they’re going to make a planting that’s five feet wide and three foot high berm,
you’re not going to get a lot of trees in there to begin with. Right?
MR. BREWER-I guess my question is, if he puts a berm in, five foot high by
three foot wide, he puts one tree in it, how many of them does he make? One,
two, ten? Do you understand what I’m saying?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. NACE-I may be speaking out of school here, but I’m not sure what the
Beautification Committee was looking at. There is a plan here that shows, you
know, the landscaping plan in front of you, shows 19 white pine screening that
parking lot, along with two white oak and, actually there are two pin oaks,
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
three white, okay, those are Eastern White Pines. They’re larger than. Wait a
minute, no, I’m sorry. I’m looking at the wrong.
MR. BREWER-I don’t have a problem with what you’re showing here, Tom, but
I don’t understand what it says by how many or.
MR. NACE-What I’m saying is, the plan already shows quite a bit. It shows 19
White Pine, two Pin Oaks, and I was mistaken, four Red Maples screening that
lot.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And also, Tim, it does say dumpster enclosure on the
plan. I wasn’t going to say anything earlier, but I didn’t know how close they
looked at the plan, but it says right on here, dumpster enclosure.
MR. BREWER-I see that. I guess what my point is, Rich, I don’t know why we
need that Number One on there, if you’re showing it on your plan.
MR. NACE-Yes. It seems to me, I had not looked at the landscape plan before
Jim Miller had done it, but there’s quite a bit already there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Honestly, when we first designed it, we knew to go real
heavy because we knew it would be a request of the Planning Board and of
Staff. We are leaving all the existing trees, as many as we possibly can,
because it is heavily wooded on the western corner of this property. So I have
no intentions. I’d like to keep as much as I can for privacy. The building
across the street, obviously, they just didn’t have any trees, and it was pre-
existing that way.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And Jim came up with this after he read the Beautification
Committee?
MR. SCHERHMERHORN-No, this is all original. I didn’t want to insult the
Beautification board, but when I got the letter, I don’t know if I said something
to Laura or Chris Round, but I said, gee, I don’t know if they read or looked at
the plan because I thought I addressed all these things on the, in the
beginning, but I didn’t want to say anything to offend anybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did they get a copy of this landscaping plan?
MS. NOWICKI-They came in and requested information, as far as I know. I
don’t know what they picked up or any manner of that, because no one spoke
to me about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any idea what they’re referring to in this
recommendation?
MS. NOWICKI-No, I do not.
MR. BREWER-I say just leave it right out.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would seem to me, by looking at the landscaping plan, it
exceeds what their recommendations are.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I think so, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Do you want to amend that motion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So we really don’t have to say anything about the
landscaping because it’s all on the final print anyway.
MR. BREWER-Right.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-So my motion would be for the only stipulation, basically,
to be the swale on the north side, above Lot 12, above the ditch, that will run
50 yards, or as long as it needs to to make it effective.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark
SITE PLAN NO. 5-98 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: WALKER LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 6, 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK - 48 UNITS TOTAL.
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-13.2, 13.3, 13.4
LOT SIZE: 11.76 ACRES SECTION: 179-18
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. NOWICKI-I’m reading this from the amended staff notes that you received
today.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-98, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date:
February 17, 1998 “The applicant proposes to construct six buildings each
containing eight townhouse style apartment dwelling units. Site plan review is
required for all uses in the MR-5 zone. The applicant addressed all items on
the site plan check list and application. The storm water drainage report was
submitted to Rist Frost for review and comment. The application was also
submitted to the Beautification Committee for comment. The applicant has
consolidated parcels 60-7-13.2, 13.3, 13.4. The County Tax office now
recognizes this parcel as 60-7-13.2. The application site development data as
presented remains the same. The proposed garage is a storage building, and
will not store vehicles. The Fire Marshal has submitted a letter to the planning
department requesting the applicant provide a fire hydrant to service the site.
The parking design allows for tenants and guests to have a parking space and
not obstruct internal circulation. The applicant proposes only one curb cut
onto Walker Lane and has provided internal traffic circulation on the site this
will minimize traffic impacts on Walker Lane.”
MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read Rist Frost comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and you also have comments in there from the Fire
Marshal.
MS. NOWICKI-Yes. Okay. “Dear Mr. Round: We have received and reviewed
Nace Engineering’s letter of February 11, 1998 submitted in response to our
comment letter of February 10, 1998. The responses are satisfactory to this
office. Regarding Item 2(b) response. We concur that a shallow absorption
trench system could probably be installed which would comply with Town and
NYS DEC standards and that the proposed system, partially in-fill, is
technically superior even though it may not conform to 136-10 B(2) of the
Queensbury Code.” Okay. This is from the Fire Marshal. “A new fire hydrant
must be incorporated into this plan, possibly on Walker Lane, immediately east
of the entrance to the site. This is because the distance from the closest
existing fire hydrant to the most distant proposed building would exceed the
recommended standard for hydrant spacing. To further explain, the travel
distance from the closest existing hydrant to the most distant building would
exceed 1000 feet, which is the total length of 5” supply hose carried on any of
Queensbury Central’s fire engines.” And then from the Beautification
Committee, for Site Plan No. 5-98 Richard Schermerhorn, “No one appeared
to review planting plan with Committee. 1. Committee recommends oak &
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
white pine trees along Walker Lane be planted in a 5 ft. wide by 3 ft. high
bermed planting bed to screen townhouses on west side of plan. 2. If any
fencing installed, Committee recommends, bushes be heavily planted along the
fencing. 3. Committee recommends fence enclosed dumpster in addition to
plantings shown on landscape plan.” I think that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom.
MR. NACE-Okay. The fire hydrant is no problem. That can be put in on
Walker Lane near the entrance to the complex. The engineering comments with
Rist Frost I think have all been cleared up. The only other thing would be
Beautification comments. There are, looking at the plan, there are screenings,
pin oak and white pine, in the area along Walker Lane adjacent to the nearest
complex. There’s also an existing hedgerow right along Walker Lane. It has
some fairly substantial trees in it, and that’s over on the west side of the project
that I believe Beautification was talking about, and I think that’s already on the
plans. The east portion of the frontage on Walker Lane is going to be existing
tree and brush cover that will remain, and the units on that side of the site are
set back fairly far off the road, and there’s just natural screening there that
they will have.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the Rist Frost letter of the 12, the paragraph regarding
th
your shallow absorption trench.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you just kind of give us like an overview of how that
differs from what was?
MR. NACE-It all stems, there are three codes here to comply with or to look at.
One is the Health Department Sanitary Code. One is the New York State
Department f Environmental Conservation code for what they call intermediate
size sewage facilities, and the other is a Town code. We fall under the
jurisdiction of DEC for this system. This system is over 1,000 gallons a day for
the entire property. Therefore, we have to get a SPDES Permit from DEC, and
that is under way. We should have that permit in hand within a day or two.
The regulations for those three different codes differ. The Queensbury Code,
for some reason, and I don’t know what, says in it that any system constructed
in fill, or I guess they say fill systems, have to have existing grades which are
less than 10%. Now 10%’s a fairly flat grade. The Health Department and
DEC codes both allow normal construction of fill systems on grades of 20%,
and the DEC code even goes on in part of it to say that if you have a grade
that’s steeper than 20%, if the system’s properly engineered, they will review it
and if it’s properly done it’s approvable. The slopes here are somewhere
between, if I remember right, eight and about eighteen or nineteen percent. It’s
just under 20% at the very steepest. The soil conditions on this site don’t
require us to put a fill system in. We could put systems in that were designed
as what are called shallow trench systems where the bottom of the trench is
down just in the top layer of the existing soil. Because of the site conditions, I
felt that it was better for the lower series of fields, the lower three absorption
fields, to be put in on fill. That’s why I designed them that way. Rist Frost
agrees that that is better. If we absolutely had to, we could go back and design
shallow absorption systems just to make them comply with the Town code, but
I think that we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the last party to have a blessing or say that this is okay is
DEC?
MR. NACE-DEC issues the permit on this. The Town also looks at it when they
issue the building permit, okay, and just to make things formal and complete,
we have applied for a variance with the Town Board of Health, okay, to ask for
a variance from that 10%, okay.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is 136-10 is what you’re asking relief from?
MR. NACE-That is correct. That is the exact paragraph, but that’s, pretty much
at this point, talking to Dave Hatin and talking to Bill Levandowski, that
should be just a formality, make sure all the T’s are crossed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions up here?
MR. BREWER-Not yet.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. PALING-I just have one question or comment, in regard to the, I’m on the
utility plan, and I count pole lights. It seems to leave the rest of the
development without lights. Not without lights, but not (lost words) a light, and
I was wondering if you’d consider one or two more lights, somewhere in the
corner of Townhouse Four and the middle of Townhouse Eight.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I’d certainly consider it. The only reason I didn’t
show more than that is I have similar buildings over on Hunter Brook Lane,
across the street, and the lights that go on the front of these buildings are quite
bright, and I don’t have exterior lighting on that project, and when you drive in
there and night, it is pretty bright, and I just, in consideration of some of the
adjoining people, I didn’t want to over do it and make it too bright. Because
there are surrounding neighbors, but I’m not opposed to adding them if you’d
like them.
MR. PALING-Are any of the house lights on all night long?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, they are.
MR. PALING-All house lights?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I have that, I have all the exterior lights in these
buildings, which consist of eight on each building, and it’s on a house meter
that I paid for, and that’s more for liability, and the people cannot shut them
off because they’re on an electronic eye outside.
MR. PALING-Right, and if that’s the case, then I don’t think you’d even need it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. PALING-Not right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Not right now.
MR. BREWER-I do have one question. I talked to Rich about it, but I just want
to know, how close can we let him be to the wetlands without, it doesn’t make
any difference?
MS. NOWICKI-It doesn’t make any difference.
MR. BREWER-That doesn’t make sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you explain that?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MS. NOWICKI-It’s Federal, it’s a Federal wetlands, and my understanding is if
he’s in it, that’s when it makes the difference.
MR. BREWER-He can go right up to it. Is that right, Jeff?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Off hand, I don’t know. I can look into that if you want.
MR. BREWER-Yes, I’d like to know, because he’s like 30 feet from wetlands,
and.
MR. NACE-Can I respond to that?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. NACE-Okay. Again, with the wetland laws, there are a bunch of different
agencies that you have to comply with. One is DEC. One is Federal wetlands,
and of course the Town has their own wetland law. The DEC wetlands have
been delineated, and they decided a long time ago what they were going to
make jurisdictional, okay, and they decided that there was a certain acreage
and a certain importance that wetlands had to have before they were going to
be jurisdictional. The Corps of Engineers didn’t decide that, okay. With the
Corps of Engineers, anything that’s classified by soils or plant material can be
a wetland, whether it’s 10 square feet or 100 square miles. So I think that’s
part of the reason that with Federal wetlands you can go right to the wetland
border.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does this apply with the magic 13 acres?
MR. NACE-The magic, I think it’s 12.7 with the DEC wetlands, yes.
MR. BREWER-So under that is Federal?
MR. NACE-This is Federal. This is not part of DEC wetlands, okay. DEC
wetlands are not mapped anywhere in this area, or right adjacent here. I think
they are further to the south on Bay Road.
MR. BREWER-So what do our own Town regulations?
MR. NACE-Your Town regulations pretty much mimic DEC. They say if it’s a
flagged wetland, and they really use the same map as DEC. Then you’ve got to
be 100 feet away with septic systems, and you’ve got to do all these different
things.
MR. BREWER-So the Town says if it’s not up to 14 acres or 13 acres, you can
do anything you want with it?
MR. NACE-If it’s not a Town flagged wetland or mapped wetland, then you just
have to comply with the Corps of Engineers, which we are doing here.
MR. BREWER-How big are these wetlands?
MR. NACE-These? I forget what the total is on site.
MR. BREWER-Is it just confined to on your piece of property, Tom? Or is it
continuous wetlands?
MR. NACE-With DEC, it’s continuous, okay, but we have checked. This is not
a DEC regulated wetland, okay. It’s just Corps of Engineers. With Corps of
Engineers, you can disturb up to a certain acreage under what they call a
Nationwide Permit, and that used to be one acre. Now it’s a third of an acre,
but that only applies to your property, okay, but it applies to all of your
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
property and forever. If you disturb a third of an acre now, you can’t come
back in five years and disturb another third.
MR. BREWER-You’re not disturbing any of it?
MR. NACE-We are disturbing, yes, it’s a little less than a third.
MR. BREWER-Does that require a permit from Army Corps?
MR. NACE-It falls under their Nationwide System, permit system, and it
requires, it has been flagged by Charlie Main, and he has touched base with
the Corps, okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I talked to the Corps two months ago, when I first
started this, and I spoke to them several occasions, and there is no permitting
process, because we are not disturbing more than one third, but I did ask if I
could send it on for informational purposes, which I have done. So they have a
copy of the plan, but there’s still, there’s no permitting process, as far as
they’re concerned.
MR. BREWER-They just take your word that you’re going to disturb one third of
an acre or less?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, no. They don’t take my word, they take Charlie
Main’s, which is approved by them, and he’s a, as a matter of fact, he just did
the one you approved for Monday Leombruno, but that’s why I chose him,
because he did the delineations for the wetlands right up to my property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Jeff, can you research that and concur that for us?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Sure, although Laura says she’s already looked into it, and
what the applicant says is correct, but if you’d like, I could double check it.
MR. MAC EWAN-You just concurred it. Okay.
MR. FRIEDLAND-So we’re all set with that? The Board’s okay?
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess. Your application, it says that you’re going to
construct six, eight unit townhouse and apartment buildings. What are they
going to be townhouses or apartments?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, they’re going to be apartments, but there’s a
difference. You have garden style apartments and you have townhouse
apartments. Townhouse apartments are where you have your living
room/dining room below, with your bedrooms on the second floor. Your
garden style apartments would be where you have four lower apartments and
four upper apartments. That would be a classification of a garden apartment.
I’m going to classify this as a townhouse apartment, which is the same thing
that’s across the road on Hunter Brook Lane. These are not condominiums, if
that is a question, because I do not have the fire separation walls that is
required with townhouse construction. These can never be sold the way they’re
constructed, because there’s a fire wall, only in the middle, and I have my hour
separation in each unit, which is not enough if I was to sell these units. These
can never be sold. These will be apartments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an architectural style?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The same architectural style that is next door, but what
I’m going to do is I’m going to keep the coloring similar to what’s over on
Baybridge now, and I’m just going to do the best that I can to match their style.
Now this site is a little different. The buildings are, I tried to centrally locate it
within the land the best that I could. I know, you know, I can’t please
everyone, but I can’t please everyone, but I feel it’s the best way that I can lay it
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
out. The other reason for the plan is, I currently have 90 apartments now, and
68 of them are this style. It rents well. It lays out well, and people like the
design. Aesthetically, people do like the fronts. I do understand that they are
big buildings. That’s why we’re going to do as much screening as we can.
That’s why I positioned the buildings the way I did. The only building I feel
that is probably going to be a little bit of concern is the one where the back
faces the road, but we’re going to leave all the vegetation that’s out front. We
have no reason to disturb it. I guess that’s the best I could put it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Okay.
We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to address this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, I have one letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody who would like to address this application,
please come up, identify yourself for the record, and if you could address your
questions toward the Board, we’ll get them answered as best we can.
JOHN WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS-John Williams, 59 Walker Lane. My question is going to be a
quick answer. Is that the plot plan over there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is.
MR. WILLIAMS-May I look at it?
MR. MAC EWAN-You may.
MR. WILLIAMS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
JAMES BRIGGS
MR. BRIGGS-While he’s looking at it, maybe I could address the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please, come right on up.
MR. BRIGGS-My name is James Briggs. I live at 43 Walker Lane, which
apparently is right opposite the means of ingress and egress, and I would like
to ask the Planning Board to consider rejecting this application on the basis of
aesthetics, and if you haven’t been up and seen the style of building in the
Baybridge development, I would encourage the members to do so, and then
visualize this, the ones that Mr. Schermerhorn has just referenced, and see if
you feel that there’s, if the two are compatible, I don’t think they are. I
understand that this is, he’s within the provisions of the zone for which he
purchased the property, but I feel that this style is definitely incompatible with
that in the neighborhood, and the Planning Board has recently, I think some
help in their deliberation. If you recall just within the last two weeks, the State
Court of Appeals has backed the Town of North Elba in denying an application
for Wal-Mart based on aesthetics, and if you don’t mind, I’d like to read just
one section about that. This is from a press release that this is from the Times
Union, and it says, “J. Michael Naughton, an Albany lawyer who fought the
case for the Town said the Appellate Division’s decision expands regulatory
power for local Planning Boards. Specifically, Naughton said the decision may
be the first to allow aesthetics to be used in deciding a project’s fate.” I would
ask that you consider that, and take some time and deliberate, and I would like
to leave with you two copies.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Briggs, could I ask you a question? In other words,
you have no opposition toward these apartments, except for their architectural
design?
MR. BRIGGS-That’s right. I realize that the property is zoned for multiple use
dwelling, or multiple dwelling units, and that probably something will go in
there. Certainly I would prefer to have it in silver maples and the other trees
that are there, but I realize that, you know, that probably won’t happen. So I’d
just ask that the Planning Board guide and direct what goes in there, and I just
can’t visualize the units that Mr. Schermerhorn has described fitting in that
unit, and I applaud him for the efforts that he’s taken to try to minimize the
visual impact. I would like to see him go back to the drawing board and maybe
come out with something even closer allied to those on Walker Lane.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But those on Walker Lane, though, I’ve been in quite a few
of them. They’re a whole different philosophy over there. You bought each one
of those units.
MR. BRIGGS-True.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And, I mean, we have three bedrooms. We have two and a
half baths. We have lofts. There’s cathedral ceilings. There’s a porch that’s in
the back with a slider on it. I mean, those are 1800 square foot places.
MR. BRIGGS-And a lot of visual diversity, which will be totally lacking in his
proposal.
MRS. LABOMBARD-What about a hip roof on these instead of a gable roof? I
mean, that would lower it. I mean, there still is, you know, to some people that
is a nice design, because it’s a colonial type of design, you know, very, not
unsimilar to many of the big, white colonials that are on Glen Street, you know,
circa mid 1800’s. In other words, maybe when you got so many of them in one
spot, it might have thrown the look off a little bit, but.
MR. BRIGGS-Well, we have such a perfect model, and every time I go by there,
I try to visualize that across the street from me, and I don’t feel good about it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Now will you be able to see it all from the road, though?
MR. BRIGGS-It depends on how much vegetation they cut down. I mean, I
gather they’re not going to.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I get the impression they’re not cutting down hardly
anything around the periphery.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can see it well into that lot.
MR. BRIGGS-Take a look at the Wal-Mart decision and, I don’t envy you your
job.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But now we’re not doing apples with apples. I mean, that’s
a map.
MR. BRIGGS-By the way, they used SEQRA in their denial. I have a copy of
the law.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand what you’re getting at, but I think that when
you bring up the Town of North Elba, we’re talking apples and peaches here,
because, I mean, a Wal-Mart store is 80,000 square feet or whatever.
MR. BRIGGS-Well, of course. The point is that they were allowed by the State
Court of Appeals to reject the application based on aesthetics, which I think is
a real important judgment.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-There haven’t been very many of those that have
happened. You’re right.
MR. BRIGGS-And here’s a case where I feel aesthetics is important. Thank you
all very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
JOYCE REID
MS. REID-My name is Joyce Reid. I live at 37 Walker, directly across from the
units to be built. One of my major concerns is I have not seen the plan. Can
someone tell me where that driveway’s coming out?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you want to look at my plan?
MS. REID-Please.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Here’s the Bay Road, Walker Lane coming up,
and then it’ll come up and (lost word).
MS. REID-Is that about where the cut in there now is?
MR. NACE-It’s fairly close, yes.
MS. REID-I really have a problem with an extra maybe 80 cars coming in and
out of that driveway, when there are, I live in the first building on Walker
toward Bay and everybody in that building is going to either have to back in or
back out of their driveways. There’s not a turn around in there.
MRS. LABOMBARD-There’s lots of.
MR. BREWER-There’s plenty of places.
MS. REID-Well, there’s not a turn around in our driveways. So we have to
either back in or back out of our driveways, and I think that’s going to be
difficult at certain hours with this added traffic. That exit is away from Bay
from our units.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You’re Baybridge.
MS. REID-I’m Baybridge.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yours isn’t one of those little streets where, yours is right
on.
MS. REID-I’m right on Walker, directly across from, a little on the Bay side of
where this driveway’s going to come out. So that’s one of my major concerns.
I’m also concerned about property values in Baybridge. I think that’s
something maybe we should think a little about, too. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
BOB VOLLARO
MR.VOLLARO-My name is Bob Vollaro, and I’m here representing Baybridge, at
least I have been in the past on this particular proposal. I’d like to give you
just a little background, because I think the Board has to look at this as a total
package now. Baybridge is currently built out to 69 units. Walker Lane is the
only ingress/egress to Bay Road, and I don’t know what the Town classification
of Walker Lane is. Does anybody know how that road is currently classified?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MS. NOWICKI-It is a Town road.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Town road?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Does it have specifications from its center to its ends to
determine a width?
MS. NOWICKI-As far as I know, if it’s considered a Town road, it meets all the
Town’s requirements.
MR. BREWER-That’s a road by use, I think.
MS. NOWICKI-No. It is a Town road.
MR. MAC EWAN-What, specifically, are you asking?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m asking, is it 25 feet or 50 foot from center? I just don’t
know what your.
MS. NOWICKI-I could, I mean, we could find that out, if that’s information that
is necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Historically, and this has come up before, and I may be wrong
on this, but as I remember it, Walker Lane is a road that’s a Town road by use.
It wasn’t a dedicated, spec’d out, constructed road. It was a road that was
adopted by the Town. So if you’re asking where set delineations are to
frontages and easements along that road, I would probably venture a guess to
say it varies in some places on the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The current water lines are designed to handle a total
buildout of 256 units. Baybridge has got approvals for 256 units in that
development, 248.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and you knew that when you purchased your house,
that down the line you could have approximately 190 more cars. times two,
going up that road.
MR. VOLLARO-No question that I knew that.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-No question at all, but I know that if it’s designed to put the
248, according to Dan, what I’m trying to do is to take a look at the whole
system. You’ve got 250 some odd units possibly to be built out. You’ve got a
water system that was designed to handle that. Now you’re putting another 48
units in there, including fire protection. Now, I know in the zoning law there’s
got to be some analysis done. It says that in the law, I can pick it out of that.
There’s got to be some analysis done on how much water pressure will be
there, and is the existing line or enough, or when Mr. Valente goes to build out
his remaining units, does he have to put a new water line in? I don’t know, is
that analysis available from the engineer?
MR. MAC EWAN-You direct the questions up to the Board, please. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. It’s just my opinion that some forward planning is
essential in determining the capacity of the current delivery system. In other
words, the ability of that roads, water to handle the additional 48 above the
possible 256. I’m not looking at this as just Rich’s 48 units. I’m looking at it
when it gets totally built out. I understood, when I bought it from the Offering
Plan that this was a fact, but the facts of the matter, you’ve got to look at this
as a system now. Do you have enough capacity to handle a possible 256
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
buildout plus 48? That’s what we’re really talking about. So you’re looking at
a total system as opposed to just 48 units.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that question answered.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I noticed in, and I’m going to go back, at the last ZBA
meeting, I think there was some discussion about stabilizing the exposed soil,
and Mr. Goralski made a comment that he had asked Mr. Schermerhorn to pay
attention to stabilizing some of the exposed soil, and my comment, and I can
get it because I have the meeting minutes with me, my comment was that there
hadn’t been any stabilization there at all, and there still isn’t. I mean, we’ve
heard a lot of things from Mr. Schermerhorn tonight, but there’s something on
the record that says it should have been stabilized and never was. I think the
last thing I wanted to say is that, and it probably doesn’t directly pertain to this
site plan, but the Chairman of the ZBA at the last meeting made a comment
that I thought was interesting. He said that, this is with respect to bringing in
a lot of fill on the property, and he understood that the Town’s zoning law for
Queensbury doesn’t cover that, but he made mention of the fact that Lake
George only allows a small amount of fill to be brought in with permission of
the Planning Board, and he recommended, at the ZBA meeting, that the Town
look into that, and I’d like to pursue that at some point in the future. I guess if
I can get my questions answered on the water and traffic studies, I’d like to
hear what they have to say on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else?
WILSON SMITH
MR. SMITH-My name is Wilson Smith. I live on Dorlon Drive in Baybridge
townhouses. I, too, am concerned about the aesthetics of the proposed
development. I think I’ve heard comments on the units that have been built
prior to this up on what is the Hunter Brook lane, that they look like barracks,
and I am concerned about several things. I’m concerned about the aesthetics.
I’m concerned about the traffic that we have going in and out of the place, and
I’m concerned about some of the things I’ve been hearing this evening in the
original presentation, when we’re talking about regulations. It mentioned all
the different DEC, the Corps of Engineers and the Town regulations, and it
sounds like we all know that municipalities have the authority to make laws
that are more stringent than the State or Federal governments. Why does it
sound like it’s cut and dried because the Town says 10% slope, DEC,
somebody else says 20%. It’s almost 20%, so, fine, it sounds like rubber
stamped. I think that’s what I heard it said, it was just a matter of formality. I
don’t think that’s right. I think if we have Town regulations, they should be
followed, just a matter if you take all these regulations, say, well, lets see,
which one of them do we want to follow? Which one’s the easiest? We’ll follow
this one, and we’ll get the other ones taken care of. I don’t know how, but they
seem to be getting taken care of. So I would like to make it, to put it on record
that I think that the Town’s regulation should be carried out. If it requires, the
Town requires 10% slope, then it should be 10% by golly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome.
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-My name is Dan Valente. I’m the owner of Valente Builders. I
live at 153 Sweet Road, and I’ve been in this Town for 22 years. Rich
Schermerhorn called me the other day in regard to this water situation, where
there might have been a possibility that the pipes weren’t sized to include the
48 units that he was going to do, and the other day he called me and said it
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
was a done deal. The pipe doesn’t have to be enlarged. That’s not my issue,
and that’s not why I’m speaking to you. I’m speaking to you on behalf of
Baybridge homeowners also because when we did this subdivision, we planned
for another road to exit that subdivision where you see the dirt road right now.
It’s a construction road, which is a gentleman’s agreement between myself, the
Town of Queensbury, and the Highway Superintendent. That road is not for
public use. That use is only for the construction of the continuation of
Baybridge, so that we don’t put traffic on Walker Lane, Baybridge Drive, etc.
Ultimately, on the build out of this project, that road becomes a Town road,
and on that road, there’s a six inch water main that has to be run into the Bay
Road corridor. At that point, it completes the loop of the water system. My
concern is this. Rich’s project will get approved, and he’s going to be done way
before I am. I’ve got a long way to go. It’s the Town’s responsibility, as far as
I’m concerned, from 1985, to make sure that when I get to build that road, and
to put my water main in, they’re not going to say, hey, Dan, you’ve got to put
an eight inch or a 10 inch water main in here, and I’m asking this Board to
make sure that the Water Department is going to stand behind it, and I want it
in writing, because things that have been said over the years, I’ve been involved
in this project for 13 years, and a lot of things get said and a lot of things don’t
get done, but when I say I’m going to do something, I do it, and another issue,
on the water. This developer should not have to put that hydrant on Walker
Lane. The Town ran that extension up Walker Lane, and they didn’t meet their
own criteria that they make the developers meet, year in and year out, and
that’s an issue that really irks me, because we have to build roads a certain
way. The highway doesn’t build them the same way. We have to do water a
certain way. The Water Department doesn’t have to do it the same way. Why
don’t we play by the same rules? If all these roads and all these water mains
and all these things that we do for the Town and turn it over, and for that
benefit, we get our taxation doubled, because now we have a developed lot, why
can’t the Town abide by the same rules that we have to abide by? So I’m
staying here tonight, and I’m going to watch this development go through, but
I’m going to put pressure on the Town to make sure that my development and
my main doesn’t have to change later on down the road. Just like this Town
had promised by 1990 we’d have sewers down the Bay Road. We don’t have
that because we have a political system in this Town that’s changed three or
four times since 1985, but when the sewer starts running down the Bay Road,
then we’re all going to have a problem. This gentleman here had a good
suggestion, Mr. Brewer did, about what happens down the road when these
systems fail. They do fail. We had a failure at Baybridge. We had to put
another bed in. We have a switching system now to make that, to extend the
systems. We all know it. The people here know it. Sooner or later they’re
going to fail. What are we going to do then? We’re going to wait until it’s on
the ground, and then what are we going to do? We have to address these
issues now, not 10 years from now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you what your gentleman’s agreement was with
the Town regarding that future road?
MR. VALENTE-The dirt road? That road wasn’t supposed to have to be built
until I developed the back side and came through. So, as you said, Walker
Lane was a road by use. At the time Baybridge was approved, that road was
roughly 25 feet wide. That road today is 33 feet wide. It’s still not by Town
standards, but that was the maximum they could get. We gave them, if I
remember correctly, it was three and a half or four feet on one side, and the
people gave them three and a half or four feet on the other side to make the 33
feet, so that they could get the utilities in and extend the Town water. The
agreement for the dirt road was that road wasn’t supposed to go in until 100
and some odd units were built.
MR. MAC EWAN-And your main cuts off shortly after the last townhouse, right?
I mean, you don’t have a main coming all the way down that dirt road right
now?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. VALENTE-No, not yet, because what we have is we have a “T” at the end of
Baybridge Drive with a hydrant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-Okay, and there’s a “T” on that end ready to receive the pipe to
continue on, when the day comes that we go across the brook, and extend that
road out, but we put the dirt road in that place, because that, if you look at the
original subdivision maps, that’s where it is, and we were just going to expand
upon it, put the drainage in when we did the engineering for that phase, and
put the water main in, but the water main is shown at six inch, and what I’m
concerned about is the capacity is at its limit, and I’m not an engineer. I can’t
tell you that. All I know is what we designed from what concerned about is the
capacity is at its limit, and I’m not an engineer. I can’t tell you that. All I know
is what we designed from what we were doing, is that I don’t have to go for
more money later on to meet my own needs, and if there’s a difference in the
pipe, I want the Town to pick it up. I mean, I’ll put the water line in, but I don’t
want to pay for an eight inch line if it’s not my, you know, I didn’t approve the
subdivision or if there’s anybody else that does anything along there. That’s
the responsibility of the Town to take that into consideration.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what about the hydrant that you’re referring to on Walker
Lane?
MR. VALENTE-You’re supposed to have a hydrant I think it’s 650 feet, and
when the Town ran that water line, they just hooked up to that hydrant and
shot it right up the road, went up 1,000 feet or more, I think it is, and they put
a hydrant on the end, and there should have been one in the middle, and they
never did it, but, you know, that’s the way it is, but I’m just asking to play by
the same rules here. That’s all I’m asking. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m a big believer in that. Thank you. Anyone else?
STEVE PINCHOOK
MR. PINCHOOK-Hello. My name is Steve Pinchook. I’m the adjoining
neighbor. I have a couple of questions for Tom Nace.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you would address your questions to the Board, we’ll get
them answered for you.
MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. It appears that the pumping stations are pumping to a
higher elevation than my property. Am I looking at that correct, Tom?
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Pinchook, you address your comments to us and we’ll get
them answered for you. Higher elevation.
MR. PINCHOOK-Than the adjoining lands.
MR. MAC EWAN-Than your property. Okay. Next question. We’re going to do
this as a package deal. After everyone’s done speaking, we’ll get the applicants
back up here and we’ll fire all the questions to them.
MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. My other concern is right now I enjoy a nice view of the
mountains as I look out my windows to the east. I assume these are all two
story buildings, similar to what’s across the street. My concern, I’m going to be
looking at the back of a bunch of apartment buildings, and there’s been a lot of
questions brought up here about aesthetics tonight. That certainly is one of
mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Your property is roughly sitting at what elevation?
Because it’s not shown on our map.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. PINCHOOK-It’s not shown on this map either.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have a rough idea of where you are?
MR. PINCHOOK-No. There’s no relation to existing contours shown.
MR. BREWER-Do they come up to a knoll, Steve, and then drop back down in
your yard? Or do they continually go up?
MR. PINCHOOK-Probably the high points, and I don’t have a topo.
MR. BREWER-Do you want a map?
MR. PINCHOOK-I’ve got what was presented tonight. That’s all. My land
slopes from what this right-of-way is, there’s 25 foot which is a right-of-way,
and I also believe that that right-of-way crosses Mr. Schermerhorn’s property.
MR. PALING-Have you got lines on that, topography on there?
MR. BREWER-Yes, but they stop at the lot line, though.
MR. PINCHOOK-Yes, they stop at the property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can see where they picked up on the original 10 foot
contours here, then they added their own two foot. So roughly at the high
point next to your property I see it as high up as 360.
MR. BREWER-370, right at the lot line, isn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the back lot line. You’re looking at maple row.
MR. BREWER-All right. I’m up a little bit higher.
MR. PINCHOOK-The dark lines, are they the proposed or existing?
MR. MAC EWAN-The dark lines that are on two foot contours are what they’re
proposing. The very light ones, if you look along your easterly property line,
you’ll see 340, 350, 360. Those are existing.
MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. It really doesn’t show how it’s going to blend in to my
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. PINCHOOK-Yes. What’s the width of the entrance into the complex, at the
curb cut?
MR. MAC EWAN-My guess, 24 feet.
MR. BREWER-Twenty-five feet, I was going to say. It looks like a half an inch.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could find that out for you as well.
MR. PINCHOOK-Okay. It appears the data, the perc tests were done on March
8, 1996. Does that fit the current window frame for acceptable results? There
is a window for perc tests.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll find that out. My guess, initial guess here is that if Rist-
Frost has signed off on this saying that it’s fine with them, that that perc test
met that window. We’ll find that out for sure for you.
MR. BREWER-It says down here, Craig, doesn’t it says percolation test data,
percolation test by Van Dusen and Steves, November ’97?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you see that?
MR. BREWER-SP-1, down in the middle, the bottom of the page.
MR. MAC EWAN-So they were re-done November of ’97.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Good. That’s been answered.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question for you. Tell me about that right-of-way
behind your property.
MR. PINCHOOK-There is a right-of-way to the north side. It adjoins my
property, and to my knowledge it does go across this parcel also, all the way to
Bay Road. There’s also an easement, and I don’t know if it crosses Mr.
Schermerhorn’s property or not, but it comes up through Bay Road. There’s a
pole line there that’s existing now, and I’ve read in some of the old deeds, and I
tried to find it today and I couldn’t find it, but there is a pole line that goes up
through this property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what the right-of-way is for, behind your
property, that goes all the way to Bay, what it was used for, what it’s intent
was?
MR. PINCHOOK-I was told that it used to be to get cattle from one pasture to
another.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PINCHOOK-It does show on the tax map that I do have, and that’s what
that definitive 25 foot wide strip is right there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PINCHOOK-My main problem is with the two story building, and I’m going
to be looking at the back side of the buildings there. I understand he has the
right to construct the complex in an MR-5 zone, but I just don’t feel like looking
at the backs of buildings. Also, there’s no buffer between his property of any
sort that I see here shown.
MR. BREWER-There doesn’t have to be, does there? I mean, only because it’s
the same zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-His isn’t. You’re not MR-5.
MR. BREWER-What’s your zone?
MR. PINCHOOK-This land is MR-5, where I have a single family residence.
MR. BREWER-Is the zone the same, or is?
MR. PINCHOOK-No, I don’t believe it is.
MR. BREWER-The zone is different?
MR. PINCHOOK-Right. It’s actually two parcels of land. I bought adjoining
land to me.
MR. BREWER-Can we find that out?
MR. MAC EWAN-Your home sits on the one that says “Lands of N.F. Pinchook”,
and the lands of Stephen Pinchook, the flag shaped lot is the additional one
you bought that’s MR-5?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. PINCHOOK-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That should probably answer the question.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It is MR-5, because Lucas Wilson’s project is right
above Mr. Pinchook and he’s the one that got the approvals for the town
homes, or apartments. I’m sorry. There’s a very vague line. It is MR-5.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Steve?
MR. PINCHOOK-No. I think that’ll take care of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those questions answered for you.
MR. PINCHOOK-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Anyone else?
JOHN WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS-John Williams again, 59 Walker Lane. It seems to me that
some place along the line you said that they were going to maintain the buffer
between Walker Lane and this particular project. Is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what was kind of suggested or brought up for
conversation was that there was some concerns with the apartment building
that’s proposed that would have its back facing toward Walker Lane. A good
deal of the vegetation would be left there to kind of act as a buffer.
MR. WILLIAMS-I don’t know how many of you have looked at that particular,
what’s there as a buffer now, but those are old, old trees. They’re not going to
last forever. Is it possible to put some new trees in there, put a new buffer in
there?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s possible.
MR. WILLIAMS-Wouldn’t it make sense? If you’re going to maintain a buffer
there, the trees that are there are not going to stay there very long.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is relatively open there, at that point.
MR. WILLIAMS-You also mentioned trees and shrubbery. So wouldn’t it be
possible?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely possible.
MR. WILLIAMS-Wouldn’t it be a good idea?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing lots of good ideas tonight.
MR. WILLIAMS-Are you hearing them?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I am. Anyone else?
INNEZ WILLIAMS
MRS. WILLIAMS-My name is Innez Williams. I live at 59 Walker Lane. I have a
different concern. Since these are rentals, there will probably be an influx of
children, and to my knowledge, the school bus stops on the corner of Bay and
Walker Lane, because I have seen children come up in our development from
that bus. Now, my concern is the safety of these children. I mean, you’re going
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
to have all these cars moving up and down Walker Lane, and that is my
concern, with only one entry to the property. You’ve got double there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador, and I’m here
tonight as a member of the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Committee, and I’m speaking tonight because a member of your Board, Mr.
Roger Ruel, is also a member of our Board, and he’s absent tonight.
MR. BREWER-He’s not on the Board anymore, John.
MR. SALVADOR-He’s not?
MR. MAC EWAN-He resigned.
MS. NOWICKI-No, he’s no longer on.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Fundamentally, I think you should either put this
project on hold or reject the application, for the following reason. The infra
structure of the Bay Road corridor simply cannot support MR-5 zoning any
longer. This issue has been discussed at length in our Committee meetings. I
think it’s our recommendation to ultimately change the zoning, change the
density of the Bay Road corridor because the infrastructure cannot support
MR-5. Three issues have come up here tonight to prove this, the road, water
supply, domestic water supply, and waste water, not to speak of stormwater.
Danny, if I understood correctly, you said that 25 foot wide road by use was
expanded to 33 feet to accommodate the installation of utilities?
MR. VALENTE-That’s correct.
MR. SALVADOR-As I understand the highway law, that cannot happen. If the
Town is going to open a road by use, it must open it to three rods. That’s 49.5
feet. That’s the law, that’s the highway law. If a road has been used by the
public for 10 years, then it shall be opened to three rods, and treated like any
other road. When you map a road, when the Town maps a road, it must be
three rods. That’s the law. I don’t know how they did 33 feet. So much for the
road. Wastewater, Mr. Nace stated that they stripped five feet of fill that had
been stockpiled there and did a percolation test. Well, I dare say the ground
down there has dried out. It hasn’t, it’s not seeing its natural water level, and I
think that percolation tests should be done during a season of high seasonal
ground water. That’s the real test. Now, the biggest issue on this
infrastructure in adequacy is wastewater. The Town got an engineering study
done that substantiated that it was not feasible to install sewers in the Bay
Road corridor. Personally, I think it was a lot of junk science, but in any case,
the Town decided that no longer were they going to support a concept of
sewering the Bay Road corridor. Be that as a it may, as soon as that decision
was made, the zoning should have been changed on that Bay Road corridor,
and all development should have been put in a moratorium mode, and then
everyone could have come up to the starting gate at the same time. That wasn’t
done. Now sooner or later, as Mr. Valente said, these soils are going to become
saturated, and what are you going to do? Take the people out of their houses?
This issue has got to be addressed. Density change is an answer to that
problem. Stormwater, road, the water line. That’s a problem that should be
sorted out. I don’t know who’s got first dibs on this water, whether it’s Mr.
Valente, Mr. Schermerhorn, or first come, first serve, but that has to be sorted
out. You’re talking the fire hydrant that relies on that water supply, and that’s
a safety matter. So, seriously, I think that the fundamental flaw here in
everything you’re doing is the MR-5 zoning and the lack of infrastructure to
support that concept. Thank you.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, in our draft comprehensive plan, I have it here,
not for publication, Neighborhoods Eight and Nine have not been finalized yet.
That’s the Bay Road corridor.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? Lets see if we’ve got everyone first, and
then I’ll do a second round. Anyone else? I guess we’re doing second round.
MR. VALENTE-I’ll make this short and sweet. I like to make deals, so I’m going
to make you guys a deal here. Okay. We’ve been talking about this sewer
since 1985. We’re up to 1998 right now, okay, and he’s right about the
density, and Baybridge in reality, I could have gone in and gotten 560 units.
Can you believe 560 units on that land?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. VALENTE-Okay, but technically, I was entitled to 560 units, and went for
half. I’ll make you a deal. We get sewers come down the road, I’m willing to
give up units. That’s money out of my pocket, because that’s how important it
is to see the sewer on the Bay Road, and not only for Baybridge or for Richie’s
development or for anybody else’s. Once the sewers are on the Bay Road, the
Bay Road will flourish. It’s a cultural professional zone on the first thousand
feet, you’re going to get quality jobs. You’re going to get a lot of physicians,
therapists, all kinds of business wants to come on that Bay Road. It’s the
heart of our Town, and the reason it stays undeveloped is because we don’t
have the sewers, and because this Town especially, in 1985, Fran Walters, I
don’t know if any of you remember her. She passed away, God bless her soul,
had a lot of forethought, and she pushed the sewer, and we were close, we were
very close. It was so close that it had to go into my Prospectus to the State, in
my Offering Plan when I did Baybridge, and it was that important to also tell
DEC that when we did our sewer analysis. So it wasn’t some figment of my
imagination that we wanted to get this thing approved, push it through, and
worry about it later on. If I did, I’d have been long gone. I’ve been here, like I
said, 22 years. What I would like to see is the Town Fathers, the political,
whatever it takes, to address this issue seriously, and I have 178 units left. I’ll
tell you right now it’s on the record, I’ll give half of them up, if I see sewers
come down that Bay Road, in a realistic manner, because it’s important. My
kids live here. When I’m dead and gone, they’re going to be here and they’re
going to have to solve the problem. So why don’t we just address it? And the
Planning Board is part of the process. Your voice to the Town Board or
whoever else you speak to is going to make an impact. The developer, we’re the
bad guys, you know. All we do is come in, rape the land, make our money and
we run away, but that’s not the case here anymore. We’re trying to be
community minded, but we need help. We need infrastructure in place. It’s
not the developer’s responsibility to have sewers on the Bay Road. It’s the
Town’s responsibility to let the Town flourish and bring jobs into our
community, and Saratoga is a perfect example of how a Town or a County
helps it’s constituents. They’ve got 1,000 new jobs coming in this year.
They’ve had I don’t know how many the year before, and it’s growing. It’s
friendly to the people to bring them into the Town and give them jobs, and
that’s what we need here. I think the Bay Road will help us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Philosophically, I agree with you 120%.
MR. VALENTE-Practically, it will never happen in my lifetime.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Ditto.
MR. VOLLARO-Just while we’ve been talking, I’ve tried to review some of the
paper work here. I noticed that on the February 10, 1998 letter to Christopher
Round, RE: Schermerhorn/Walker Lane Townhouses, “Dear Mr. Round: We
have received and reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
application and have the following comments: The water system details have
not been reviewed as they are subject to the approval of the Town Water
Department.” It sounds to me like really no serious analysis has been done
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I think what we’ll do is we’ll leave.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I brought a letter in from a neighbor.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re going to add that in. No one else wants to speak?
Okay. Will you add that, please?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes. This is from Albert and Julia Coombes, “1. If a single
access road can adequately serve the area from the south side (Walker Lane) it
should be located east of the first Baybridge dwelling (near the present metal
gate). 2. If two access roads are needed (one in and one out) the “IN” entrance
should be BETWEEN present Walker Lane buildings - eg. between #41 and
#43 - NOT opposite driveways. The “OUT” road could then be located as in 1
above. 3. There should be adequate attention to a buffer zone between any
buildings and Walker Lane. ie. the new structures should be well back on the
north side of the street. 4. Is there any possibility of entry or access between
doctor’s office buildings? 5. It is of prime importance that adequate provisions
be made for a septic system. Since so much filling has already been done (and
was that done legally?) that ground surface levels have been artificially raised.
Therefore necessary depths MUST be calculated from the original surface level
and not from current surface levels. 6. In connection with #3, no buildings
should have direct road connections to Walker Lane because of traffic
considerations. 7. We would all like to see construction (if any) follow a neater
“motif” than the stark, barn-like appearance of the Blind Rock Rd. buildings
(especially from the rear). Albert and Julia Coombes 39 Walker Lane”
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’ll do is we’ll ask the applicants to come back
up here and we’ll leave, we’re going to leave the public hearing open at this
point. I don’t see any reason, and I’m not getting any indications where we
need to close it right at the moment. So if you’d like to come back up, lets see
if we can’t address some of these issues, and there are lots of them.
MR. NACE-Okay. I have some notes here, I think you did too, right, Craig?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. Lets go down, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your perc tests were done in November.
MR. NACE-Perc tests were done in November. There is no regulation that says
when the perc tests have to be done. There is a Health Department regulation
that’s also referenced in the Town Code that says that the test pits either have
to be done in the spring, when you can observe high water table, or has to be
done by somebody certified by the Town Board of Health to be able to identify
mottling, which is the indication of seasonal high ground water. The test pits
were done in the presence of both Charlie Main and myself. Both of us are
certified by the Town Board of Health. While I’m on the issue of septic
regulations, the other inference that was made that we are “picking and
choosing” which septic regulations we want to follow are blatantly not true.
The reason we’re designing a fill system here, and it’s stated in my letter to
Rist-Frost, verbatim, is that it’s a better design for those lower fields, in my
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
engineering judgment. We could work out a system where we didn’t require the
fill systems. We could use shallow absorption trenches and make it work. The
fill will work better. Therefore, I convinced Rich that that’s what he needed to
do. So, you know, we’re doing it because it’s better, not trying to get around
regulations. We’re doing it in spite of a regulation that was written, and I have
no idea why it was written, that it has no real basis in fact. The other thing,
the testing for the septic system areas, has been done in original ground. That
area, Rich went out and cleared the brush off of it, so that we could get access
to it, but there has been no fill placed in the area of the septic system. So that
it is all in original ground. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-One of the questions that’s sticking in my mind, along that
idea up there, where the septic fields are proposed, Mr. Pinchook said that he
has an easement that borders his back side of his property, and to the best of
his knowledge, he thought it continued straight on through your parcel, and
all the way down to Bay Road.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can answer that. As a matter of fact, I closed on the
property a month ago, and my land surveyor happens to be here, Matt Steves
from VanDusen and Steves. The 25 foot strip is a parcel that is owned by me.
There is no right-of-way on that property, and as far as the easement he was
talking about with Niagara Mohawk. As a matter of fact, there are no poles
there and no transformer, because I had them taken down because there is no
easement there as well. I currently know this because I just got title insurance
when I closed on the property, and Matt Steves is here, and he can verify all
this.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that small piece that’s behind Pinchook’s property is
basically an abandoned right-of-way?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Well, I think when Dorlon owned the property,
there must have been a purpose for it. I don’t know why, but it does connect to
Lucas Wilson’s property.
MR. NACE-It’s not an easement. It’s an actual (lost word).
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s an actual, I own it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Height of buildings.
MR. NACE-Okay. To speak to that, I guess the question came up regarding the
Pinchook property, and what was going to be visible, whether the buildings
were going to interfere with his view, and the height, the relative height between
the septic systems and Steve’s house. I do have some pictures here. I don’t
have topo which goes up to his house, but I think you can see from the
pictures the relative elevations. These were taken looking across the street into
the property. Here is where the existing construction road goes in, or existing
entrance goes in, and this will be about the location of the proposed entrance,
somewhere right in here. If you can see, right about where the snow ends
along here is very close to his property line. We’re looking, we’re standing here,
looking back up in here. Okay. This is Steve’s house up in here, somewhere
up in here. Okay. The land here that Steve purchased, separate from his
house, is fairly steep. Okay. I looked at this land several years back, before
Steve owned it, for development. You can see Steve’s house here, and you can
see the area out here where the septics are going to be. The high elevation out
here, existing grade is about 370, and finished grade is very close to the same.
It’s maybe, well, here’s 368 and that’s 368. So the existing ground out there is
going to be about, up at the top, about the same elevation as the finished
grade. Right there you can see existing grade. Up here, well above it, you can
see Steve’s house. Okay. This also shows the units that are closest to Steve
are going to be in here. These finished floor elevations are 334 at the highest
existing grade, and here is 332. Up toward the property line, actually behind
here, it’s 350. Okay. So that’s already, like I said, 334 to 350. That’s 16 feet
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
right there to this property line. Out to this property line is another, probably,
there’s 10 feet right there. Probably another 20 feet above that. So 20 plus 16,
that’s at least 36 feet above finished floor elevation of these units, per floor.
MR. BREWER-How tall are the buildings?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thirty-two, that would be with a seven-twelve roof
pitch.
MR. NACE-That’s from the property line. He may even be higher than that.
You can see here there is quite a hill in here. The back here where it’s cleared
is the back, about the property line, or just off the property line, and way up
here is the house.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Tim, I correct myself. The building height would be 27
feet. That’s to the peak.
MR. BREWER-You’re not cutting into this hill?
MR. NACE-Here? We’re cutting, by the time you get to the property line, we are
not. Okay. We are cutting in here. Here you see finished elevation of 334, and
there’s 340 existing grade. There’s 350 grade existing here, and there’s 340.
So we’re cutting in about 10 feet back in this corner. So, you know, even
beyond what you see back in here, the units are going to be fairly low.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Two questions that came, I guess are relative to
each other, the width of the driveway, and can the driveway be relocated
farther down Walker Lane?
MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. The driveway width is 24 feet, standard. Really, the
driveway location is pretty much dictated by the frontage along Walker. We
have this stream over toward the eastern property corner. We have the Corps
wetlands in there. There is, you see that one little strip that goes in between, if
you come up from the stream coming to the west, there’s a little strip that’s not
wetland. That’s where that old gate is, if you’ve been out to the property, but
that’s not wide enough between those wetlands to get an entrance drive in. So
we’re really pretty much dictated where we are.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would be the problem with making a little culvert type
crossing over that brook at that corner?
MR. NACE-That’s all wetland in that area in the corner. You see the ACOE
Wetland to remain? Okay. We’re trying to minimize, well, everywhere we’ve
been working with this, we’ve been trying to minimize the amount of wetland
we’re impacting. Yes, it would be a problem if we had to locate down there.
Plus, the townhouses go down past the corner of Rich’s property here, I believe.
So I’m not sure that that would actually be of any substantial benefit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Which was brought up at the ZBA meeting, the
stabilization of the hillsides.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and I had spoken to John Goralski about that. At
the present time, I stopped. I had a couple of days worth of filling in there, but
he went out there, did a site visit, and he said in the future, when you start
construction, you’re going to have to do something about it. I do currently,
right now, I don’t have anything out there because there’s nothing that’s been, I
haven’t been near the wetlands. I haven’t been any place where it would be
questionable where there would be a problem. Because the place where I build
is actually the entrance coming in, in part where it says lawn, and where the
dumpster enclosure is. He didn’t feel that it was absolutely necessary at the
current time because of where I placed the fill.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, two points. One, he’s no longer with us.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I know. I mean, I can address that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did Chris Round say anything to you about it? Has he looked
at the site?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, and they’ve been out there several times. As a
matter of fact, Fred Champagne’s been out there. I think the whole ZBA’s been
out there, and the Town Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t count.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Right now there is no impact whatsoever on any
of the wetlands or anything that’s of any concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else have we got?
MR. NACE-While you’re looking through your list, why don’t I get into the water
issue for a second.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. All I’m seeing on my paper is water, water, water.
MR. NACE-Okay. We have, in fact, dealt with the Town Water Department.
When Rich proposed this, one of the first issues that came up was, is there
adequate water there? Do we have to increase the size of the pipe back to Bay
Road in order to serve these apartments. So I sat down with Ralph VanDusen,
back in January, and we worked out, we looked at what the existing approved
number of units for Baybridge is, and I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, Dan,
there are 97 currently approved for construction, under your current
approvals?
MR. VALENTE-We have a negative declaration for the entire project for 248
units.
MR. NACE-Okay. Your site plan approvals go to ’97 though, I think.
MR. VALENTE-My Phase III is approved, but there are other units in Phase IV,
V and VI involved in (lost words).
MR. NACE-I’m not talking the final, once the pipe is looped. I’m talking about
now just with the dead end pipe. The way I understood it from Ralph was that
with the existing dead end pipe coming in on Walker, that there were 97 units
approved before it was required to loop the water back out along the southern
access, the future southern access for Baybridge. So that’s what we looked at.
Ralph and I both sat down, said, okay, with Rich’s 48 units, with 97 units on
Baybridge for this existing approved phase, can the single pipe handle it? And
the answer is yes, and we have a letter to that effect from Ralph that it is okay.
With the loop, the issues are not going to be domestic use. It’s simply the peak
use for fire and a loop six inch I’m sure will provide adequate fire flow for the
entire approved whatever it is, 250 or 248 units, plus Rich’s. We will verify
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Has anybody up here got any questions?
MR. BREWER-I stepped out for a minute. Did you talk about the right-of-way
issue? You did?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. Another thing I have on my list here, Craig, is the traffic on
Walker, okay. I looked at it, to see what the traffic generation and interaction
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
would probably be. If you look at present with, again, 97 units approved on a
single access point for Baybridge and 48 units for Schermerhorn’s project, the
total traffic flow amounts, at the peak hour, to a little less than 60 cars per
hour, peak. That’s about one per minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just out of your proposed?
MR. NACE-No, that’s out of both, okay. That’s looking at, well, let me back up.
It’s actually 90 some cars per minute, okay, but that is trip ins, okay. So it’s
trips both into the project coming in Walker, and cars going out, okay. Of that,
there’s a projected or estimated distribution between in and out of 2/3’s
rd
going, at that peak hour, 2/3’s coming in and 1/3 going out. So the peak
rdrd
number of cars actually coming in any one direction would be 60 per hour, at
the very peak, okay. Now, there’s something to consider here, too, that
because of the differing types of development, that Baybridge would not hit the
same peaks, necessarily, that the apartment complex would, okay. The older
retired, a lot of that community is retired. Those people, typically, aren’t going
out to work at 7:30 in the morning.
MR. MAC EWAN-They might be heading for the golf course.
MR. NACE-Well, yes. The traffic studies that are available show that there is
some meshing, that those peaks don’t necessarily coincide from the two types
of developments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have those studies?
MR. NACE-It’s in the ITE Traffic Generation book. I don’t have the book with
me. No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The big word “aesthetics”. You’ve heard the concerns.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I guess the people here, obviously, don’t like the
buildings. If we remember the Planning Board, first of all, I wasn’t aware we
have an aesthetics committee, but I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have an aesthetics committee.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I don’t think we do.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Or an architectural review board.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, or an architectural, which, maybe that’s
something we should work on, obviously. The buildings that I have built over
on Hunterbrook, I mean, I have a lot of people that like them. I have a lot of
people that just dislike them. They say they’re too big. They’re just, you know,
they stick out, but people have to remember, and I’m not going back to
Hunterbrook Lane, but I bought a piece of property from a couple of developers
that stopped with a road that only had one course. The Town had to pick up
the tab to finish it. It was dead ended. I bought it as just a flat strip piece of
land where the sand used to just swirl around on windy day. It was left as a
big sand bank. I did not create all that openness in the back. I asked people,
and I’ve said this at other meetings, just be patient with me. I’m not done
building. I will plant more trees. I put the fence up. We’re going to do some
more plantings there. That’s not even required of me by any of the site plans,
but I’m trying to address that. I know that they’re big buildings, but the other
thing is, is MR-5 land is hard to come by in the Town of Queensbury to do
apartments. I currently have over, I have 85, 90 apartment units, and there’s a
need for them, obviously, if I keep building them, and I have a list of the type of
people that are renting these. Hunterbrook, well, I’m getting off the subject,
but as far as the aesthetics go, if you look at some of the pictures of the
Baybridge Townhouses, and everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.
Personally, they’re not what I consider overly attractive. You do, if you look at
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
where my project is and you stare out, you look at all the garage doors, and
there’s no buffering on Walker Lane whatsoever. So I guess a lot of things are
a matter of opinion. I am going to try and match the colors of the Valente
townhouses that have been built. Stay with more muted tones. We are leaving
as much natural vegetation as we possibly can. I don’t know what we could
compare these apartments to, other than maybe Monday Leombruno’s new
project, but they rent for a little over $1,000 a month, and to keep these
economical and affordable to people in Queensbury, you have to build them
such a structure that keeps the cost down. I mean, sure I’d love to put peaks
and gables and, you know, bow windows and bay windows and things like
that, but it would be unaffordable. So there’s a reason why I build them that
style, and like I said, I’ve had a lot of people that do like the designs, that have
said things to me, and I’m not asking, I’m building these things in land that is
zoned. I’m not, I mean, if there was other land available, and I check all the
time, where I could build these where nobody was around, I’m sure it wouldn’t
be an issue, but, you know, I’ll work with the color scheme the best that I can,
the shingle colors, but a lot of these buildings are going to be fairly protected
because I don’t know how many people have actually walked the site, but there
is a lot of natural vegetation around. As far as the front goes on Walker, we are
showing landscaping now, we can possibly increase that as well, if need be.
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of points of observations for me, personally.
Hunterbrook Lane is Hunterbrook Lane. We’re now talking a different
neighborhood, a different scenario. 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance gives us
all sorts of flexibility to make sure any project’s not going to have an undue
adverse effect or impact on any kind of neighborhood. So if you’re proposing to
do a project, even though it’s zoned MR-5 doesn’t mean, categorically, that it’s
MR-5, we can just put up whatever we want. What we want to try to do is try
to appease all the parties here and come to sort of conclusion and some sort of
ending that’s going to be suitable for everyone. Is it asking too much for you
maybe to supply us with some elevations, end views and front views, so we can
kind of see what they’re going to look like? And maybe that you can put some
architectural ingenuity into it. You just kind of change it around a little bit,
not getting into super exorbitant costs, but just kind of change the design in
front of it to give it a little more aesthetics to it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Would a hip roof lower it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A hip roof will lower it some. It will take away from the
gables, because the gables are quite large. When you have a building that’s 32
feet long, it does make big gables. I’m not opposed to going to a hip roof. It
would certainly bring the level of the buildings down. I wouldn’t say a lot.
Well, no, the roof height would be the same, but the gable, it would have an
appearance of being much lower, because we’re eliminating the gables. I’m not
opposed to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the site itself, we were there on Saturday. We looked at it.
Even though there are quite a few trees on it, it is fairly open, and with your
development, what you’re proposing here, there’s going to be a lot of trees
that’ll come down, which’ll open it up even more. I don’t have in my packet a
landscaping plan. I’d like to see one.
MR. NACE-You don’t?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Rich, what about placing some of this in the front and
moving it to the back? Is the topography conducive for that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. The way the topography is, this is the best plan
that works for this particular situation.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I know that we have the wetlands here, but I’m
saying like existing trees to remain and everything that’s right in front of the
septic, the septic field, like all that land in there where the contour lines are is,
does that go up too steeply.
MR. NACE-This is fairly steep, yes, in here. Okay, but, you know, these units
are back well on the site. One of the things that’s accepted, you’re used to
looking at site plans that are maybe 20 scale or 30 scale. This site plan’s
drawn at, I believe, 50 scale. This one’s drawn at 50 scale. That’s 30 because
it’s the landscaping plan, okay. This is, the overall plan is at 50 scale. So, for
instance, this house is about 120 feet from the road.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, right.
MR. NACE-It’s further back.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Three inches, yes.
MR. NACE-Exactly. It’s much further, distances are further than you’re used to
seeing them, on a site plan.
MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I don’t think that’s, I mean, because.
MR. NACE-The only real impact that’s visible close up to the end of the road is
at the end of the one building, and I think you’re right. A hip roof on that
would make a big difference.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The other point I wanted to bring up is my site also as
well will allow 102 units. I’m proposing just a little less than half, which is 48.
So, you know, I’m obviously not trying to maximize it, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. BREWER-Did we get any comment, or should we get any comment from
Highway about the traffic issue?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a list of stuff I wanted to ask, yes.
MR. RINGER-With the road.
MR. BREWER-With why it’s 33 feet, as Mr. Salvador said it has to be three rods
or whatever.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m just quoting from Section 171 of the Highway Law.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Where else are you going to quote? I mean, that’s what it’s
there for, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a laundry list of things you wanted to get
answered?
MR. BREWER-Well, I’d like to get the water issue, a letter from Ralph about
that, Highway Department comment. The right-of-way you guys said is all
done, and I want to know about the buffer issue. Is there an issue with buffer
or not?
MS. NOWICKI-Not that I know of.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The only way we have a buffer is between industrial zones
versus residential. There is no buffer in this zone.
MR. BREWER-Snow removal, what are you going to do with that, Rich? In the
back?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I talked briefly to Laura and Chris about it. I actually
have quite a bit of room to do snow removal, and I have all the equipment to do
it, loaders, plows. I designed these, or I helped design these plans, and I
designed it so there won’t be any problem with snow removal. Currently, there
might be for the neighbors because they’re plowing their snow onto my
property from their driveways, but that’s not really an issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tim?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I just hope that, just to concur with what Dan and
some other people have said is that if the Town is zoned, it has zoned this
property for this, but yet, the foresight and the long range provisions haven’t
been considered, then Rich comes in, puts his stuff up, and then Dan wants to
finish his, and then all of a sudden we’ve got a mess. We’ve got all these people
trying to live in this place, and all of a sudden we don’t have enough waste
water facility, waste treatment facilities and everything else that goes along
with that, and I feel like you do. I feel that maybe it would be nice to be able to
get a commitment from the Town, as to something like this.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but a couple
of years ago, I was going to buy Ron Newell’s property, and I was going to do
some apartments there, and I offered to pay for the sewer. I offered to pay for
the extension, and they made it so difficult, so much red tape, to just extend, it
was like 1200 feet, we were looking at, it was $40,000 to extend the line. Then
they hit me with what they call this one time users fee, because I was outside
the sewer district, and it was like a whole, it was astronomical. It was like
$60,000. I mean, it just wasn’t even sensible. I know Passarelli, I agree with
you, the sewer.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It’s crazy. I can’t believe this is coming up. We come out
of the movies last night, my husband and I get on to the Northway, go up to
Exit 18, cross over the bridge where the new bridge is being built, and right out
of the clear blue sky Jack says, you know, this Town needs some foresight.
Why don’t they just put the sewer pipe under the, right now while they’re
building that bridge, because it’s only going to cost $28,000, and why doesn’t
the Queensbury Board of Education say, just put it in. We’ll pay for the cost. I
mean, and then what’s going to happen 50 years from now? And, you know,
it’s really crazy, and I’m getting off the topic, but I just wanted to bring that up
because I’m kind of laughing. It’s like dejavu here.
MR. BREWER-What happens, though, if we sit here, as we sit here tonight, and
as John Salvador sits, they rezone this to SR-1A?
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, but then that’s where the ethics come in, and
we’ve gone through this with Indian Ridge and everything else.
MR. BREWER-What do you mean, that’s where the ethics come in?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Here’s where it is. Rich buys a piece of property that’s
zoned MR-5, then all of a sudden, and he buys it with the intentions of doing
something with it, and all of a sudden they just re-zone it right out from under
him, and that’s not fair either.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. BREWER-But that, I mean, he didn’t just buy it yesterday or whenever he
bought it. I mean, the process has been in, it’s been in process now for two
years, Cathy. I mean, they’re not just going and re-zoning it because Rich
Schermerhorn bought it. I don’t think that’s fair to say.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you’re right, but, you know, I think that your
Committee better hurry up and get this done, because maybe nobody should
buy anything because it’s going to be changed right out from under them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Moving right along. Bob?
MR. NACE-You have to work with what’s in front of you.
MR. PALING-The building height, 27 feet, what you said earlier?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Is Hunterbrook 27 feet?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Is Mr. Valente here? What are the height of the buildings
in Baybridge?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-He has single stories.
MR. BREWER-Not all of them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Dan, could you yell it out nice and loud,
what’s the height of your buildings?
MR. VALENTE-We have single story and two story complexes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Single story height?
MR. VALENTE-The single stories are 14 and a half 15 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two stories?
MR. VALENTE-Two story about 23 feet at the top.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-Twenty-three foot. Okay. Now the other question I have has to do
with the septic system. From what I hear some people saying here tonight, the
septic systems that we all live with aren’t going to be worth anything in a few
years, or some number of years from now, and I don’t think that’s true.
MR. NACE-No. That’s not true.
MR. PALING-I can’t buy that these septic systems are going to fail in some kind
of a permanent manner in which you’ve got to move out of the house, that
would affect all of it. That’s just not true.
MR. NACE-That’s not at all true. The septic systems here have been designed, I
heard Dan say he had to go back and replace one of his systems and put in a
valve or a pump that would alternate. These are designed already that way. So
that one field functions, the other field rests. Okay. Each pump station has an
alternating system so it pumps to one field, then the next. They’re designed to
current standards. They’re quite large. They take up quite a bit of room in
back. So, no, these systems are good for 30 years, plus.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. PALING-I’m operating on the assumption that these are properly designed,
an that they’re going to last indefinitely, as is the one on my own house.
MR. NACE-They will, and they’re also designed so that if you did fail to pump
the septic tank out and overloaded the field, if you came up with an operator
condition that made the system fail. They can be replaced in the same
location. The trenches are wide enough apart. You can go in between
trenches, put a new one in, and be back in functioning order again. So, no,
that’s just not the case.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we need to get some questions answered that
maybe Staff could help us out with.
MR. NACE-Well, lets make a very definitive list, before we table this thing, if
that’s the intention.
MR. MAC EWAN-The first issue I guess we need to get clarified is the issue
regarding the water service on Walker Lane.
MS. NOWICKI-You do have a letter in your packet that I handed out today, in
regard to water service.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think it would be appropriate to give Ralph minutes of
this meeting so he knows exactly, because there’s a lot of different things that
came up in conversation tonight regarding the size of the pipe for future
expansion. I’m curious, personally, about the scenario with that hydrant
obligation.
MR. NACE-Craig, Rich has already said he will put the hydrant in, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. I’m just curious about it from another
standpoint.
MR. NACE-I’m confident enough that the pipe size, we know the pipe size for
what we’re doing now is adequate. Okay. The only question that remains in
your eyes is the pipe size for what the future buildout at 256, or whatever the
number is, for Baybridge, whether the looped six inch is enough. I am
confident enough of that, that I will tell my client tonight that if it turns out
that Ralph’s analysis shows that an eight inch on that loop down on the other
side is a required, that he’ll pay the difference, the developer will. Okay.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Valente or you?
MR. NACE-No, no, Mr. Schermerhorn. It’s not an issue, and I feel that
confident of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-You’ll have that in your file. You’ll have the letter from Ralph in
your file before you issue a building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For peace of mind, we’d like to get that addressed by
the Water Department.
MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Can I interrupt one minute? I think what Dan
was saying, and maybe I’m wrong, I’m thinking he’s talking about the six inch
pipe he’s going to put down that road that’s not built yet.
MR. NACE-That’s what I’m talking about.
MR. BREWER-And that will be adequate?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. NACE-Yes. I’m 100% confident that it will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Let me just clarify a few things. I’ve carefully, knowing
these projects and the concern that Baybridge has had, I mean, I must have
drove the Planning Department and Bill Levandowski crazy. I called every day
with different questions. We went and we met with Mr. VanDusen. He
supplied us with where the water lines existed. We had my plans drawn with
water lines on the other side of the road, showing existing hydrants, none of
which was there. He has supplied us with the whole layout of Baybridge, with
Phase III shown. He did all the calculations. I thought I did what was, my
responsibility as a developer was to address these things before the meeting. I
just see, we’re going to table this for a bunch of issues, which that one, he’s the
professional. We went on his judgment, and he’s the one that signed off on it.
I guess because he’s not here we’re just asking for another.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’re asking this of the Water Department, and for my
own piece of mind, I want to hear it from them, and if you think, from me, that
you’re going to get an approval tonight, there’s other things I want to ask, too,
that I’m not getting the answers to tonight.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I’m not saying approval, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds like you’re saying we’re belaboring this thing, and
you’ve already done the homework on it, and I’m not doubting that you have
done your homework.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not trying to offend you, Craig. I just said that we,
both of us took our time. We set an appointment up with, I believe it’s Ralph
VanDusen, and he’s the one that said, you’re going to have to give me some
time. I’ve got to research this. We set a time. We went in. We sat down. He
wrote us a letter, said that you’re all set. That’s all. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just one thing we want to ask of him.
MR. VALENTE-Excuse me. I have to interject here. It’s very important, I’m
sorry, okay, but this is an issue I’m not going to let slide. Number One, Rich,
you called me on this issue and you told me you were going to make me aware
of what the final decision was. I never received a call in relation to this water
main, and I’m going to put you on notice, since you’re the engineer, do not
twist the words in front of this Planning Board. When it comes to the issue of
how many units were approved, this is a 248 unit subdivision that has
conceptual approval through the entire project. When you tell them I have 97
units, and Rich puts his 48 in, and then the Town’s going to tell me I have to
run that line to the Bay Road? I want that clarified now, because that is not
what I plan on doing, and I want to be involved in any meeting, in anything
that’s involved, because Baybridge is being effected here, and I will fight this
until the end, until we get it resolved.
MR. NACE-Dan, I apologize. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I
was simply stating what Ralph VanDusen had told us, that there were 97 units
in final approval, not conceptual, final. That’s what I said.
MR. VALENTE-You also said after the 97 units, that Rich had his 48, that I
would have to hook up to the Bay Road. Check the minutes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to get the answers to what we’re looking for
here, and this is one of the things. So make sure that Ralph gets a copy of
tonight’s minutes.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Is there a file number for the PUD? I couldn’t find it
today.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll find that out as well. Staff will have that. You’re also
going to supply us with an elevation drawing, an end view and a front view.
We talked about that 20 minutes ago. You said you would do that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess we ought to ask the people what they’re looking
for, as far as elevation. I was proposing these buildings. That’s what the site’s
designed for. I’ll go to a hip design, but I mean, the building design is across
the street.
MR. BREWER-I have a problem with that, personally. I don’t think we should
design people’s buildings.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not asking to design people’s buildings.
MR. BREWER-You are when you’re asking them to (lost words) building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Section 179-38 gives us a certain amount of flexibility to
aesthetics and how a project’s going to fit with the neighborhood.
MR. BREWER-We’ve been through this and through this and through this.
Suppose I don’t believe that those buildings are going to fit with what he
builds.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why you have seven members on a Planning Board.
Traffic. Can you get us some numbers from the County, what traffic is on
Walker Lane and that portion of Bay Road?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And also the questions in regard to the design and the widths
of Walker Lane from the Highway Department versus highway law and that sort
of thing?
MRS. LABOMBARD-And about children walking to the bus stop. I mean, do
they walk right in the middle of the road, on the side, is there a path, what?
MR. BREWER-No path, just a dirt road.
MR. SMITH-I’m going to say this, whether I get kicked out or not. I said this
before. The traffic eventually goes to Bay Road and that’s where the (lost word)
is going to be, right at Bay Road. It’s hard enough to get out of there right now,
as it is now.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s why we’re looking at the traffic counts.
MR. SMITH-But they’re only talking about one place.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else have anything else they want to add
to this list? Okay. So basically I think you have, what, four.
MR. NACE-I think I missed one, Craig, what was your fourth?
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, would you also look into the situation regarding the
stabilization of the property out there versus Mr. Goralski’s visit, when he was
with the Town, and what was the end results to be done.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Are we going to send this to the Highway Department for
comment you said, Craig?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-She was going to research it. So it could go either way.
MR. BREWER-Research what?
MR. MAC EWAN-The road widths versus.
MR. BREWER-We know what the road widths are.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, versus what is required by highway law. What was the
other portion of it?
MS. NOWICKI-You also wanted hydrants along there as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-The hydrant, yes.
MR. BREWER-What can we do about the road width?
MR. MAC EWAN-These are questions the public wanted answered, we’re going
to get answered. Is that it? Does anybody want to make a motion to table
this?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I’ll make a motion.
MS. NOWICKI-Craig, can I interrupt for a second?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. NOWICKI-With the County, with the Walker counts and the Bay Road
counts for traffic, is there a purpose for wanting those numbers?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a purpose for wanting those numbers. The purpose
for wanting those numbers is to see how his proposed development will impact
Walker Lane and how busy Walker Lane is at the intersection of Bay Road now.
MR. FRIEDLAND-You’ll end up with a bunch of numbers, but you’re not
looking for a traffic analysis of any sort, are you?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Those numbers should already be Transportation
Concept, or the Glens Falls Transportation Council did a traffic survey of the
Town, two years ago.
MS. NOWICKI-All right. I can find it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and especially the times like at between seven o’clock
and eight thirty in the morning when kids go to ride the bus. It’s busy.
MR. BREWER-It’s busy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you put a motion on the table?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I started to, but, are we ready?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-98 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Timothy Brewer:
Until all the aforementioned comments have been answered, and also the
public hearing is still left open. Until our next meeting, March 17.
th
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1998, by the following vote:
th
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to speak, but the public hearing is closed.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing will be left open.
MR. SALVADOR-Tonight I would like to speak.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Can we wait, well, should we?
MR. MAC EWAN-Once we table it, we’re done with it.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, before you table it, I would like to speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very quickly.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ve got a little bit of experience in wastewater management,
and Mr. Paling, your wastewater system is going to fail. It’s just a question of
time, and as Tom said earlier, the big function of that “T” is how you use it.
MR. PALING-Unrepairable when it fails?
MR. SALVADOR-You can hog it out and rebuild it. Sure, just excavate
everything.
MR. PALING-As far as I’m concerned, that’s not a total failure. That’s the way
they’re built. Lake George has got these that are decades old, it seems to me,
and nobody’s out of Lake George yet.
MR. SALVADOR-No, but maybe they should.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Anything mechanical’s going to wear out.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, the fact that the perc test was done in
November. I mean, that’s got to be the month where the ground is the driest.
That is the month out of the 12 where the ground is the driest. Tom mentioned
the fact that they did inspect the soil strata for the mottling level, and I’d like to
know how that compares with the surface.
MR. NACE-What do you mean, how deep?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. NACE-Generally, it was between 36, 42 inches I guess was the deepest
down to the bottom of the system I think was 34.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, the presence of wetlands is somewhat
indicative of what the ground water is in that area. Ground water follows more
the surface of the ground than it does a flat plane, and the elevation of a
wetland is just someplace where the ground water daylights. That’s why you
have surface water. The other thing that we should consider here, and this
may be beyond your scope, but these average daily rates that we use in
designing septic systems come from probably the Department of Health was the
first organization to do studies and establish 250 gallons per dwelling unit or
whatever it is. You have to understand that when they did this, and they were
making their analysis, they were thinking of a rural setting, not a development
that was being fed by a domestic water supply. Gentlemen, we are flooding
this Town. We’re pumping the Hudson River into this Town, and this is going
to be another one. Same as Danny’s.
MR. VALENTE-Seventy thousand gallons a day. It’s not like a house setting.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, I’m telling you that the combination of an on-site
waste water treatment facility was done considering a rural setting where you
might be pumping your own water, not just having the ability to open a faucet
and let it run. Also, there was talk of a private easement, but be sure private
easements can be used by other people. They may have a right to use it, even
though it’s private easement, and we certainly don’t want to be building on
something like that, and obstructing someone’s right to passage.
MR. BREWER-I just have one more question for Staff. Don’t we have regulation
as to when they can do a test pit? Isn’t there certain times of the year they
have to do them, Tom?
MR. NACE-Test pits, yes, perc tests, no. Because the perc test is generally run
in the soil (lost word) up above, well up above the high ground water table. The
high ground water table has to be established either during the spring, with a
test pit, or by a test pit observed by somebody qualified to interpret the soils,
okay, and that’s qualified, certified by the Town Board of Health.
MR. BREWER-And there are several of them, Charlie Main being one of them.
MR. NACE-Charlie Main, I am. We were both there on site.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. BREWER-That’s all I’ve got.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you ever get your motion up on the table?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I got it up, but we didn’t vote on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did we get a second on it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-No.
MS. NOWICKI-Do you have a date?
MR. PALING-How about putting a date on it.
MR. BREWER-For our first meeting next month?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Put it on a regular meeting for next month, either the
first or the second, whatever you’ve got room to put it on.
MS. NOWICKI-We could put it on March 17.
th
MR. BREWER-St. Patrick’s Day?
MS. NOWICKI-Sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have a second?
MR. BREWER-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/17/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else? We’ll do site visits
the 14.
th
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47