1998-03-24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 24, 1998
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
GEORGE STARK
ROBERT PALING
TIMOTHY BREWER
ROBERT VOLLARO
MEMBERS ABSENT
LARRY RINGER
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER
-LAURA NOWICKI
TOWN COUNSEL
-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH BUILDERS,
INC. SHERMAN PINES, PHASE III OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION:
SHERMAN PINES, PHASE III, SHERMAN AVENUE PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF PHASE III - 20 LOTS OF THE SHERMAN PINES SUBDIVISION.
TAX MAP NO. 121-15-35 THROUGH 45, 75 THROUGH 83 LOT SIZE: 11.70 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TIMOTHY ALDEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1992 Final Stage, Phase III, Meeting Date: March 24, 1998
“The applicant is proposing final subdivision approval for Phase III of the Sherman Pines
Subdivision. The subdivision received preliminary approval for 83 lots on 6/23/92. Phase I
approval (35 lots) was granted on 7/21/92. Phase II approval (28 lots) was granted on 4/25/95.
The applicant has presented a plan that meets the zoning requirements for subdivision of land. The
application has been sent to Rist Frost Engineers for review. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Do you want to read in Rist Frost’s letter if you would, please.
MS. NOWICKI-“Rist-Frost has received and reviewed the documents submitted with the above
referenced application. 1. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide individual lot
grading on the Phase 3 Grading Plan. This grading should conform with the Town of Queensbury
Subdivision Design Standards. 2. A note should be added to the grading plans that the Contractor
shall comply with the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control as published
by the Empire State Chapter of Soil and Water Conservation Society.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that note’s on there now, right? Do you have a copy of the plat with
that note on there?
MS. NOWICKI-Not as of yet, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No other outstanding issues?
MS. NOWICKI-No.
MR. ALDEN-Good evening. I’m Timothy Alden, attorney for North Builders. Paul Male, who
was the engineer for North Builders and did the plan drawings for Phase III is present as well, and
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Richard Schermerhorn is here who is actually building the subdivision, under an agreement with
North Builders.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to give us a real quick overview of what you, so the
audience knows what’s going on?
MR. ALDEN-Well, basically, Phase I of Sherman Pines has been completely built. Phase II is
now 64% complete. By my records, 18 out of 28 lots have been completed, and we are seeking
approval now to complete the roadways and begin the preparation for Phase III, under the plan that
was originally approved by this Planning Board back several years ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anyone up here have any questions?
MR. STARK-No, I don’t.
MR. PALING-Just compliance with the Rist-Frost letter.
MR. ALDEN-As I understand it, Paul Male has complied with the individual lot drawings, and
those have been prepared.
PAUL MALE
MR. MALE-I spoke to Bill Levandowski last week. He told me to prepare this, just have you take
a look at it. It matches pretty much what we did with the prior sections, but before I put it on the
map, put the note on, I wanted to make sure that that was acceptable, or, except it was built
anyway, and then if the Board had any additional comments or concerns, I could put those on also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your plats, when they’re turned in for signature, will have all these revisions
on here for these individual sites. Is that correct?
MR. MALE-That’s correct. This is a composite. It’s actually on three different sheets. So I just
put it together so you could take a look at it.
MR. PALING-Has Bill seen this?
MR. MALE-Bill has not seen this. I wanted to see if you had any other comments first. I spoke to
him on the phone, I believe, Monday. He told me what he wanted, and I prepared this, based on
our conversation. I was going to submit that to him, following this meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-Is that note on there, the note he refers to in item.
MR. MALE-It’s not on here. It’s going to go on the final drawing. It’s not on here at this time.
MR. PALING-It’s not on there yet.
MR. STARK-It will be on the final.
MR. MALE-It will be that one, that’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you guys want that?
MR. MALE-I have a copy for you, so you can have that.
MS. NOWICKI-If you have a copy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. MALE-I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t have any other comments or concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing right at the moment.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to get some clarification on the Rist-Frost letter. It says “We
recommend that the applicant be required to provide individual lot grading on Phase 3 Grading
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Plan”, and I notice in the Offering Plan, we have a copy of the Offering Plan as well, and the
Offering Plan makes a statement that this will be provided by the individual. The plan says,
Offering Plan, states grading and parking provided by the individual. Can you make and clarify
that for me in any way?
MR. ALDEN-The Offering Plan has been changed since I was involved in doing the legal work for
the subdivision. You’re referring to parking?
MR. VOLLARO-No. It talked about really the grading plan, and the Rist-Frost letter recommends
that the applicant be required to provide individual lot grading, and in the Offering Plan, it says
that the grading and parking is provided by the individual. There seems to be some dichotomy
there that I don’t quite, can’t resolve in my own mind.
MR. MALE-I believe that that issue originally came up at the Planning Board back when Phase II
approval was going through. North Builders built a portion of Phase I, and then under contract,
contracted out the balance of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III to Schermerhorn Construction, who
is actually doing the building. It’s been revised on several occasions since then, but I was involved
in the Phase II approval plan, and it’s my understanding that based upon certain concerns of Mr.
Martin, back at the time that Phase II was being approved, that recommendation was placed by the
Planning Board at that point in time, and I’m not sure whether or not that change, which now
required us to provide an individual lot grading plan was ever incorporated into the Offering Plan
itself, but I think that what that refers to is that we’re providing the grading plan. I’m not sure
we’re responsible for the final grading. Ritchie can probably speak more to that than I can.
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. As far as the grading has gone, the
building inspectors have come out toward the end, when I’ve gotten a certificate of occupancy.
They’ve done the final walk through, and they’ve always been the one that has inspected the
properties for me, and like Tim just said, we’ve now completed maybe 60 homes, and they’ve
inspected each one and to this date, we’ve never had a problem, but as far as the grading goes,
they’ve done the inspections at the end, when I’ve been completed.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess, I’m not questioning how you do the grading, Rich. What I’m
really questioning is that I see two different things in front of me, one in the offering plan, that
states, fact number one, and two, the Rist-Frost letter which says that, you know, provide
individual lot grading in Phase III, and I’m just trying to determine whether I’m looking at a
document, two documents that match, or are mis-matched. If they’re mis-matched, I just want to
know the reason behind the mis-match. That’s all. We’re just trying to clear up whether the
Offering Plan is current or not current. Because you’re the present sponsor, right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I’m the current sponsor right now. To be quite honest with you,
I mean, it may not match up. I don’t know. I’ve just been following the way I’ve been doing it for
the last two and a half, almost three years now, and the Town’s been out several times.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the Offering Plan is more than just a plan with you, the sponsor. This is
really with the Department of State as well. These plans are all registered, and I’m just wondering
if the plan needs to be revised in any way, so that the people that buy those houses get an Offering
Plan that they can depend upon.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Like I said, I guess I don’t know how to answer you. I’ve just
been doing the grading the way we’ve been doing it, under the Town standards, and quite honestly,
I don’t recall where it says it in the Offering Plan. I’m sure it’s in there.
MR. VOLLARO-I can dig it out if you want it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, in past history with projects in front of the Planning Board, when we’ve
dealt with Offering Plans for subdivisions and homeowner organizations and such like that, for our
review process, we primarily go by the grading plans attached with the subdivision plats, to ensure
that that meets stormwater management plans. As far as anything to do with the Offering Plan, we
really don’t have a role in that.
MR. ROUND-Right. Mr. Vollaro has a good point that there should be consistency between the
two documents. In this case, if there’s an inconsistency, it’s in the favor of a land purchaser, or an
individual lot owner, in that the Town is going to require conformance to the site plan approval,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
and we won’t issue, as Rich correctly stated, we won’t issue a CO until the grading is completed in
conformance with the site plan. So, from a compliance standpoint, the Town is responsible for
compliance with the site plan approvals, or responsible that the applicant is complying with the site
plan approvals. So, it’s really not an issue to address, other than should direct the applicant that
the two documents are consistent.
MR. VOLLARO-And who’s responsibility is it for the consistency of the two documents? In other
words, the homeowner’s Offering Plan.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I don’t know what particular document you’re looking at, whether that is the
correct, the most recent Offering Plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s what we got with the packets.
MR. ROUND-You did receive it with the packet?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. One thing I’d just like to mention is when I finish these, I
grade them so that there’s not going to be potential problem or future problems. The one thing I
can tell you is when a builder is done with the lots, I don’t put the lawns in for the people, but a lot
of them do do their own grading, or should I say fine grading and things like that. So, I mean, the
grades do get changed a little bit after I’m even done with them, but I think if you went through the
subdivision and you looked at the consistencies of the grades that exist now, you can clearly see
that there hasn’t been any problems.
MR. VOLLARO-And just for reference, on Page 96 of the Offering Plan is where this is talked to,
and it says grading and parking. Underneath that it says, “to be provided by the individual”. Just
so that you know what reference I’m looking at, on Page 96 of the plan.
MR. MALE-The issue of grading really came up when we attempted to bring to the Phase II, and
that, I think, was the reason why Rist-Frost, in Phase II, requested that we do individual grading
plans with regard to that. I think what you’re referring to is final grading. Because neither North
Builders, nor Schermerhorn Construction has ever been involved in the final grading of a lot, and
maybe it needs to be clarified by inserting that word.
MR. VOLLARO-The word “Final”?
MR. MALE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The one thing I did notice is, as far as posting a Performance Bond, there is
no Performance Bond posted on this. It’s a requirement in the Offering Plan, I noticed. Now, I
don’t know whether I’m dwelling on the consistency of this Offering Plan with the rest of this, and
I’m erroneously dwelling on that or not. I really don’t know. What I tried to do, we got the
Offering Plan in this package, and I tried to read the Offering Plan to see that it was consistent with
the rest of the documentation, and I find some inconsistencies. Maybe we on this Board are not
absolutely responsible for Offering Plans. I don’t know how that, you know, I just don’t know
how that works.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, maybe you can shed some light on our rule, as far as Offering Plans go
and our review process.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, speaking generally, we don’t have any specific requirement or even
authorization to review or need to review the details of a particular sponsor’s Offering Plan. Our
concern is the various site plan review criteria. If, however, one of the criteria you’re looking at in
site plan approval or site plan review, is discussed in the Offering Plan, it’s certainly fair game to
look at how it’s discussed and see if the manner in which it’s discussed is acceptable to the Board,
complies with whatever conditions you may be thinking about and adequately meets the criteria in
our Zoning Ordinance. I guess what I’m saying is there’s nothing that mandates that you go
through the Offering Plan on a page by page basis, but if there are things in the Offering Plan that
relate to the elements of site plan review that you typically consider, you’re certainly allowed to
look at those.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if that’s helpful or not.
MR. PALING-I don’t think we usually have an Offering Plan in any of the information we’re
given, as a general rule, and I wonder why Staff put it in this particular application.
MS. NOWICKI-I put it in because some of the elements were site plan related, not specific, but
they were related to the issue of site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You were getting around to a question about a Performance Bond, I
think?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Based on what Counsel has said, I think I can understand, and we need not
go into that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. There’s not a public hearing scheduled on this,
but in our willingness to be open and share our evening with everyone, if anyone would like to
come up and address the Board on this particular project, please come on up, and identify yourself.
I didn’t think so. So we’ll move right along. There’s actually no SEQRA to do. So if someone
wants to put a motion up on the table, we’ll entertain it.
MR. STARK-Any conditions?
MR. PALING-The Rist-Frost.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE NORTH
BUILDERS, INC. SHERMAN PINES, PHASE III
, Introduced by George Stark who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As written with the following conditions: All conditions of the Rist Frost letter of 3/18/98 be met.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 5-1992, Sherman Pines, Phase
III for Final Stage approval for 20 lots; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/12/98, consists of the following:
1. Application
2. Maps - M-1, M-2, M-3, S-1, S-2, G-1, G-3, D-1, D-2, P-1 sealed 3/1/98
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 2/19/98 - letter to L. Nowicki from T. Alden - Offering Plan
2. 2/24/98 - letter to T. Alden from L. Nowicki - Need for further info.
3. 2/27/98 - letter to C. MacEwan from M. O’Hara - Phase requirement met
4. 3/2/98 - letter to L. Nowicki from T. Alden - info requested delivered
5. 3/18/98 - Rist-Frost comments
6. 3/24/98 - Staff notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/92 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning);
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1.Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/92 concerning the above project; and
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning);
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1.Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/92 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning);
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Subdivision
No. 5-1992, Sherman Pines, Phase III, Final Stage
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map
4. Engineering Fees must be paid prior to having mylar signed by Planning Board Chairman.
5. Recreation Fees to be paid at the time a building permit is submitted.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 7-98 TYPE: UNLISTED NOBLE TRUE VALUE OWNER: KEN
NOBLE & CHRIS ST. ANDREWS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: NOBLE TRUE
VALUE, UPR. GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 32’ X 80’ 2 STORY
WAREHOUSE ADDITION AND A 10’ X 130’ WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO
EXISTING RETAIL BUSINESS. PER SECTION 179-22 ALL USES IN PC ZONES ARE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 23-1989, AV 72-1995, AV 8-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
MARCH 11, 1998 TAX MAP NO. 72-6-24 LOT SIZE: 1.264 ACRES SECTION: 179-22
KEN NOBLE & CHRIS ST. ANDREWS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-98, Noble True Value, Meeting Date: March 24, 1998 “The
applicant proposes to expand an existing structure with new warehouse facilities. Site Plan review
is required for new construction of additions within PC-1A zoning. The applicant received an Area
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Variance for relief from the requirements for setbacks, permeable area, maximum building square
footage, buffer setback and parking (attached). Initial review of the project required additional
information and clarification. The applicant submitted a corresponding drawing that addressed the
issues of a letter dated 2/26/98. The application was then forwarded to Rist-Frost Engineers for
review. There are two additional site plan review comments: 1. There are two dumpsters on the
site - these will be moved to accommodate the new addition. 2. There is no new proposed outdoor
lighting. The applicant indicated that if security lighting is needed the lights would be over the
loading dock doors, not on the roof line (By not being on the roof line the lights should not be
shining onto neighboring residential properties). Staff has no additional concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read Rist-Frost comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, would you please.
MS. NOWICKI-“Rist-Frost has received and reviewed the information submitted with the above
referenced application. The information submitted is not detailed enough to permit an adequate
technical review of the proposed site work. Specifically the following information is required: 1.
A detailed description or contour map of existing drainage patterns including any flow to or from
adjacent areas and any proposed changes to those patterns or stormwater rates. 2. The design
basis for the proposed drywells including the date and depth of perc tests, determination of
seasonal high groundwater, the design storm and storage infiltration requirements of the proposed
system. 3. Elevations, size and construction details of the proposed retaining wall. How will
lateral support be given to adjacent properties during construction of the wall? Will the wall return
along part of the Aviation Road frontage? 4. Details of any proposed changes to the entrance
from Aviation Road. 5. Construction details of paving and retaining wall. Drywells should have
the traffic loading specification noted.”
MR. MAC EWAN-You also have a letter in there, too, right, from a neighbor?
MS. NOWICKI-I have two letters.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets hold off on those until the public hearing. This laundry list that
came from Rist-Frost, was everything been addressed, or has been answered, responded to? Is the
applicant aware of any of it?
MR. ROUND-The applicant’s been made aware, and they may address some of those issues
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Chris St. Andrews.
MR. NOBLE-Ken Noble.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of the Rist-Frost comments regarding the project?
MR. NOBLE-Yes, we did. I got it on Friday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy in front of you that maybe we can go down this thing, line
item by line item, to make sure that we have everything addressed, or how we’re going to rectify it,
I guess?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Sure. Before you start, I don’t really have everything, you know, like maps
and drawings for you, yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-I just got it on Friday, and I didn’t get everything drawn up for you yet. We
intend to. We could go down through them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, why don’t we, and if anything pops up that maybe the Board might have
further questions on, further clarification, we can go with that.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Item One, I guess, “A detailed description or contour map”. He needs to have
five foot contours, two foot contours on this?
MS. NOWICKI-That’s what Rist-Frost recommended.
MR. BREWER-On site plans, are we required to have contours?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, no?
MR. ROUND-It’s not a requirement. In order to address, most of the five items relate to
stormwater, with the exception of the retaining wall. I spoke to Bill, and in discussions with Mr.
Levandowski, he indicated that developed analysis of the stormwater related issues in a narrative
format. It’s not necessary to develop contours for the whole site. They’ve indicated on their plans
that they’re going to grade two additional drywells, as a part of the project, and, typically, and in
general, there’s not a stormwater problem with the site right now. It’s minimal addition to the
structure. Typically, we refer commercial activities to Rist-Frost, and if there’s an increase in non
permeable areas, we like to see the stormwater addressed, and that’s why it was referred, and the
applicant’s taken the approach, well, we’re going to, a simplified approach, we’re going to add
additional stormwater management capacity to the site, and hopefully improve a condition that’s
not recognized as an aggravated condition right now. Typically, I mean, from my visual
perspective, from my visual inspection of the site, stormwater flows east and west on the site, on
paved surfaces, and is handled on Route 9 and on Old Aviation Road, and there aren’t any
observable problems with stormwater. So I guess it’s at the Board’s discretion, what level of detail
you want to see for stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-So Rist-Frost is basically saying that you don’t necessarily need the two foot
contours, as long as they give a narrative description on?
MR. ROUND-Right. In order to provide a technical analysis of the stormwater information, they
need this, and whether that’s required for this particular project, that’s at the Board’s discretion,
and there are some things that should be addressed. There should be, any of the drywells should be
rated for traffic. The retaining wall should be approved structurally by, you know, or at least
developed in conformance with accepted practices. I guess that’s it, and I guess I’d put it back at
the applicant on this one.
MR. PALING-Well, where are the two drywells going to be located?
MR. BREWER-In the back.
MR. PALING-Okay. So that isn’t near the addition of the roof space.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, one is.
MR. BREWER-One is in the back, Bob.
MR. PALING-No, that’s not, well, there’s a little bit of roof space added, but this is where most of
the roof is going to go is out here. Well, that’s an extension going up.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-All we’re trying to do to this whole project is to improve the building and
the facility that we’re in right now. We’re putting two drywells in in an area where we really
don’t, there’s no problem that exists now. We’re just trying to take care of any water that does
come our way.
MR. BREWER-Who’s idea was it to put the drywells there, if there’s not a problem?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Ours. We were just paving more area back there. Had a little more roof
space. We thought that would improve the site.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you’d like to see done, Chris? I mean, would you be satisfied
with them just showing two foot contours on it, or would you be satisfied to have the narrative go
along with it?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. ROUND-I guess I’d defer back to Rist-Frost, but I would like to see a narrative. I mean,
that’s part, on the plans, that it’s going to be directed to the drywells. If there is a concern that,
well, where is groundwater at the site, and are we going to aggravate a condition by putting
drywells in, and we’re going to have flooding conditions, now we’ve got, you know, if the
permeability of the subsurface soils isn’t adequate to address on-site discharge, maybe that’s not
the way to go. So there should be some additional documentation, as far as the design’s concerned.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that reasonable?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes.
MR. NOBLE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rist-Frost has looked at this drawing to make sure that the drywells
will conform with vehicle traffic over them?
MR. ROUND-They, it wasn’t specified on the plan right now. It’s not specified. That should be
included in the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Item Two, “The design basis”, which would pretty much just hit on that
all over again.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Item Three was, “Elevations, size and construction details of the
proposed retaining wall.
MR. NOBLE-What we’re proposing to do is on the, you can see where it says landscape timber
wall. I’ll give a little history on that, I guess. That turnaround that we’re leaving for Mrs. Macey,
which we didn’t get into the letter for, that’s actually our land, but we’re leaving that turnaround
for her, and we’re going to timber wall that, or possibly even poured concrete. I mean, we’re not
really sure yet, but we’ve spoken with her about coming onto her land in any way, and digging up
the soil and having to fix it after. That’s addressed in her points after her letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would need to be defined what you’re going to use, whether it be concrete or
the landscaped timber.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Timber.
MR. NOBLE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that it can be noted, in that it be followed up when the building inspectors
do their site inspections.
MR. NOBLE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re on the timber wall, there’s supposed to be a six foot high fence
on the top of that wall. Is that correct?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s correct. Again, that’s just addressing one of her concerns. I was
just going to continue her fence down all the way for her.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I don’t know that that’s something that shouldn’t also appear on the
drawing. It doesn’t appear on the one I’m looking at.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s correct. It’s not on the drawing. It’s addressed in her letter and her
response to it. I’ve spoken to her for the last couple of months about all these issues, and making
sure that she’s got it the way that she wants it, really.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s got to be really reflected, so that the records show, the drawing
shows what you’re going to do, and that’s part of the concern.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s perfectly fine.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Four is “Details of any proposed changes to the entrance from Aviation
Road.”
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. We’re going to take the shed down. As far as details go, I guess
we’ll have to submit something in that narrative or whatever to you, to address all these points. All
I can tell you is what we’re trying to do in the back is to improve the parking space back there.
What we want to do is take that, which is a brown shed there now, cut some of the bank away, so
that the trucks have better access to the back of the new addition, so that they’re not going cross
ways across the parking lot, and ruining all the parking spaces that we have right now. At least
we’d be able to tuck that truck over closer to that retaining wall, and we’d better be able to use the
parking space for everybody that likes to come in the back door.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was Staff trying to go, maybe see about getting the curb cut cut down, so, you
know, it’s pretty much wide open in there. Is that what your ideas were, to have something
smaller?
MR. ROUND-That was a Rist-Frost comment, if we didn’t have any concerns with the access to
Aviation.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t, either.
MR. ROUND-I mean, it should be noted, Noble’s, that barrier in between the two roadways was
done at their own volition, at their own direction. It wasn’t something that was mandated by the
Town.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re referring to the steel pipes?
MR. ROUND-The steel pipes, the ballards.
MR. NOBLE-We don’t get deliveries from the front entrance. We get them all from Aviation
Road. So I think it would be really difficult for trucks to, for what we’re trying to do. If you put
curb cuts in there, you’d really, really make it more difficult for what we’re trying to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I wasn’t implying that, I didn’t want to see that, because I thought that’s
where your deliveries came.
MR. BREWER-The pipes are going to stay?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. They’re safety. They’re not for any other reason than to keep people
from bombing through there because of the light. I mean, that’s the main reason for those.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and Staff and Rist-Frost are also going to be looking for construction
details of paving and retaining walls, and back to the drywells, they want the loadings on them.
Well, at this point, does anybody up here have any questions? If you guys would like to give up
the table for a second here, does anyone from the public want to speak regarding this site plan?
Please come up and identify yourself, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. Just a question, with regard to the, I believe
this is going to be a warehouse? Do we know what items would be stored in the warehouse,
specifically, whether any toxic substances would be stored, such as pesticides or herbicides? If so,
how far away from the neighboring residences would such items be stored? Are there any
regulations that relate to that, in terms of public health and safety?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. Thank you. Anyone else? I think you had a
letter or two, you said?
MS. NOWICKI-I have two letters. This is addressed to Mr. St. Andrews, “Please consider this
my acknowledgment of your proposed store addition indicated on the preliminary site plan dated
Feb. 19, 1998. I have no objections to this addition provided the following conditions are met: 1.
The landscape timber wall is designed and installed to handle the earth and live loads from the
adjacent parking area. All required maintenance to the wall will be provided by Noble True Value.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
2. A 6 foot high cedar stockade fence will be properly installed and maintained by Noble True
Value along the top of the landscape timber wall. The fence will taper down to the roadway level
to provide proper line of sight for pulling out of the driveway. 3. We will agree on any specific
tree(s) which are to remain prior to clearing this area. 4. Any property disturbed for construction
purposes will be properly restored as soon as possible by Noble True Value. Sincerely, Susan
Macey Property Owner 17 Old Aviation Rd.” I have one, Noble True Value “We do not have
any problems concerning the proposed 10 foot additional to the True Value Hardware Store next to
our property. We realize that this brings the building within eight feet of our property line. If you
have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Joshua E. Saxe
President/Owner”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Come on back up, please. A question about storage in the warehouse,
items that were going to be stored in the warehouse.
MR. NOBLE-The hardware items that we’ve continually had in the store, as it stands now. We’ve
had no regulations or governmental regulations on what we can store in there, except for
flammables. We’ve been addressed on that, and we’ve taken care of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I have one question to that. Does anybody else remember, when we did the body
shop down there on Bay Road, Bay Street? Wasn’t there something, at that time, Jim said that
Haz Mat sheets have to be given to Kip Grant or something?
MR. NOBLE-He comes once a year and gives us the forms that we have to fill out on any
flammable.
MR. BREWER-There is?
MR. NOBLE-Yes, there is.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re doing that now?
MR. NOBLE-Yes, we are.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, we are.
MR. NOBLE-And he comes by and inspects the building and looks it over.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And what we’re storing, and what’s in it, and he goes upstairs. He goes
everywhere in the whole building.
MR. BREWER-I just recollect that there used to be some sort of forms, or whatever.
MR. ROUND-It’s the community right to know. MSDS sheets have to be on site.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. We’ve got all those.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody else?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one question. On the letter, your letter of March 8, Number Six,
we said we will address the building height and elevations at the meeting. There is nothing on the
plans to show building height, and you suggested that we talk about these at the meeting? Are you
prepared to talk about those?
MR. NOBLE-Okay. Sure, anything. Just a little bit maybe backwards on this whole thing. We
started everything with an idea of what we wanted to do. We were originally thinking about
moving. We had a road coming through our parking lot. There’s a lot of things that go on with
this project that we’re talking about right here that I don’t really know how much we need to get
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
into, but as it sits, we just want to improve the building and the facility that we’re in, to remain
competitive with what we have to do, with Lowe’s coming to Town. We just want to make this
place a better facility than what it is now. All the things that we’re doing with this building,
they’re just going to improve it. I mean, the parking in the rear, the contours of the parking lot, we
only want to improve it by putting drywells in. Our intentions are only good here. We only want
to do what’s right for you. The elevation on the back, I haven’t gone to anybody to get drawings
yet. I’ve talked to some construction people, but I really haven’t gone to that point of having an
architect and drawing everything up yet. I can tell you that the addition in the back would be two
story, no higher than the barrel vault roof now. All it’s going to be are flat, blocked walls, with no
windows. There’s really not much to that drawing. That’s what our intention is.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only reason I brought this up is because the letter says that we would
discuss that at the meeting, because it was absent from the drawing, and I thought you had some
specific heights in mind.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I thought I’d give you the opportunity to talk about that.
MR. NOBLE-We really don’t. We just want it to tie in and look as nice as possible in the back.
MR. VOLLARO-The thing you don’t want to do is come up with a height that’s outside of some of
the regulations, and then have to talk about that at some later date. I mean, I’m trying to get fixed
in my mind how high the building’s going to be.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, no higher than it exists right now with that barrel roof. I don’t exactly
know what that height is, to be honest with you, but we wouldn’t want to.
MR. BREWER-The regulations only allow for a certain height. So if they go any higher than that
feet, they’d have to apply for a variance or reduce it.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I think we’re safe on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. STARK-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-I closed the public hearing, yes, I did.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an Unlisted.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 7-98
, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NOBLE TRUE VALUE
, 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.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
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
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.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Mac Ewan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion?
MR. STARK-What about the conditions?
MR. PALING-Yes. We’ve got quite a laundry list here, and I’m not against anything, but I think
that we should make a list of them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m wondering if it just wouldn’t be better to table this, to get the
drawing corrected the way we need to have done along with your narrative.
MR. BREWER-Give it to the engineer and then back next month and go from there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we would all feel more comfortable.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Are there too many things to?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s too many stones to.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay.
MR. STARK-Chris, when did you plan on starting construction?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-It’s really not, there’s not a set date right now. I mean, we’d like to start,
you know, maybe June or something, if we could. I didn’t know how quickly all this would move
along, and.
MR. STARK-No. I thought if you were under the gun or something like that, we can always set a
special meeting or something.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-It’s not a problem if you do it a month from now.
MR. NOBLE-We’re not under the gun.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-If there’s too many things, I didn’t know if there was enough that you could
do it based.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-That would give you plenty of time, if you had any questions, in the meantime,
if you leave here, you could certainly get it ironed out with Staff.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Is there something that you could hand us what you want, exactly, in
writing?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ll put a list together and make sure you get them.
MR. BREWER-We’ll tell you right now.
MR. NOBLE-Yes, that would be good.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-There’s something else I want to mention about the building, too, just so
that everything’s up front about the building. I mean, everything on it, on those drawings says that
it’s only storage space, our bathrooms are not handicapped accessible. We’d like to prove that. I
don’t know how much that you need to know about what we want to do with this. It says that it’s
storage space only, but we do want to make a few changes that are going to improve the facility,
and I want to tell you that we’re doing that. I don’t want that to come up at some point in time,
and someone says we didn’t let you know. I don’t really know when to bring that up.
MR. BREWER-Now. I mean, if you’re making changes, you should, on your plan, show us what
you’re changing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We’re dealing with an addition here. If you’re going to do
interior alterations, which will probably go through the inspection process anyway, which would
fall under the Building Inspector when they come out to your site, then it wouldn’t be anything
we’re going to be dealing with right tonight.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay.
MR. NOBLE-That’s what we wanted to know. All we’re talking about is taking one and making
one part maybe from retail to storage or storage to retail. It’s alterations inside, that’s what we’re
talking about.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-And they’re not large scale.
MR. NOBLE-No.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you need to get a list, if you need to get a list, get a hold of Staff
tomorrow, and they can fax you a list, whatever, what we’re looking for to be, that will be put on
the plat.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That would be available tomorrow?
MR. BREWER-Why don’t we tell them what we want now?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes. If Tim has a list, go through it.
MR. BREWER-Just what we did on the engineer.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, a couple of things you’d crossed off.
MR. BREWER-The description of the contour map, the drainage patterns, elevations of the
building, the fence on the drawing, and is there going to be any, I didn’t mark the details of the
proposed changes. That we scratched off, Number Four.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Number Four we scratched, right.
MR. BREWER-And Number Five. So One, Three and Five. Is that all I had?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Is Five going to be taken care of by the ones above it, or?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. BREWER-Except the drywells should have the traffic loading specification noted on here.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay, but when we show the contour of the water flow, that’s going to
show the paving. I mean, that’s going to be the same.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one other thing. When you’re looking at your drywells, in terms of
capacity, their capacity to handle the load, your perc test is going to be important. It’s an
important number that will figure in, as to whether or not it will handle the load, and I think that
Rist-Frost talked about perc tests in Number Two.
MR. BREWER-Number Two. So, One, Two, Three and Five you think are important. Anybody
else?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in order to determine that these drywells, as they are designed, will handle
the flow, I think you’ve got to do the data on them, otherwise you don’t know. The drawing is fine.
MR. STARK-Maybe they’ll decide they don’t even need a drywell.
MR. VOLLARO-They may. That might be true.
MR. STARK-Why don’t you get an engineer and let them tell you if you need a drywell or not.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s fine. Okay.
MR. NOBLE-When we come back at the next meeting we’ll just be addressing those issues solely?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and the left open items.
MR. PALING-There are two comments in Staff’s letter, too. You’ve got to clarify where the
dumpsters are going to be, and just confirm that there is no new lighting that is going to affect
traffic or neighbors or things like that, and those are the comments in the Staff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have your permission to table?
MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes.
MR. NOBLE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Have we got to formally table it?
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to.
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 PRELIMINARY STG. TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAELS
GROUP (CONTRACT VENDEE) LEHLAND ESTATES, PHASE 2 & 3 OWNER:
SAME ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: EAST SIDE WEST MT. ROAD TO LEHLAND
ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUATION OF EXISTING
SUBDIVISION TO COMPLETE PHASE 2 - 31 LOTS & PHASE 3 - 23 LOTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 10-1992 TAX MAP NO. 74-2-999, 74-1-32, 33 LOT SIZE: 37.57
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-86 Preliminary Stage for Phases II & III, Michaels Group
Lehland Estates, Meeting Date: March 24, 1998 “The applicant seeks preliminary approval for
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Phase II and III of Lehland Estates. Subdivision review is required for all phases of subdivision.
The application is in compliance with the subdivision regulations. The application has been
submitted to Rist Frost Engineers for review and comment. Staff has no additional concerns.”
MS. NOWICKI-I have one extra comment, that you don’t need to a SEQRA form because it was
already filled out previously.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not going to do a SEQRA tonight. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. ROUND-It was completed at the concept, in Preliminary for the whole project.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we don’t want to segment the project.
MS. NOWICKI-Rist-Frost comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost.
MS. NOWICKI-“We have received and reviewed Nace Engineer’s letter of March 22, 1998 and
revised Drawings SP-1 through SP-7 and SP-12 submitted in response to our comment letter of
March 18, 1998. The responses are satisfactory. We have no further comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-What letter did you just read?
MR. PALING-What letter are you reading, Laura? That’s not the one I’ve got.
MR. BREWER-I don’t have it, either.
MR. STARK-What’s the date on it?
rdth
MR. ROUND-Today, it’s March 23. Basically, they’ve addressed all the comments of the 18
letter.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to read in, just for the record, March 18’s letter, please.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “Rist-Frost has reviewed the documents forwarded to us for the above
referenced subdivision application and have the following comments: 1. Is any clearing to be
permitted in the 500 ft. setback from Rush Pond C.E.A.? 2. Drawing SP-2 & SP-3: a) The rear
lot setback should be revised as necessary where the 500 ft. setback from Rush Pond C.E.A. or
other no clear zone controls. b) It is not clear if a 10 foot or 30 foot wide no clear zone is
proposed along the rear of certain lots. c) The utility easements should be shown. 3. Drawing
SP-4 & SP-5: a) The Town’s individual lot grading requirements should be referenced on these
drawings. b) We recommend adding specific grading for Lot 64. c) The notes on the finished
grades for certain lots such as Lots 78, 79, 100, 58 and 59 are not clear. We recommend grading
plans or additional notes. d) A note should be added that additional sediment control fences or
erosion control devices will be necessary as each lot is developed and graded. 4. Drawing SP-6 &
SP-7: We suggest perc tests be performed at the proposed leach field location for each lot instead
of just Lots 55 through 59 and 94 through 100. 5. Drawing SP-12 - The “Sewage Disposal
Layout”: The 100 ft. minimum distance separation from the tile field to what we presume is the
symbol for a well is probably not required for this project. 6. The approval of the Town Highway
and Water Departments and New York State DOH is required.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the letter that you just read into the record prior to that, with today’s date,
said that all those issues have been addressed accordingly?
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Can we find out the answers to them all?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I mean, if they’re done, we don’t have anything to show that they’re done.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MS. NOWICKI-Have a new set of drawings. I don’t have all 10 copies, but I do have drawings.
MR. BREWER-No, that’s fine. There’s a lot of things there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, and for the new member whom I haven’t met, my name is Jon
Lapper, and I’m pleased to be here on behalf of the Michaels Group.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob Vollaro.
MR. LAPPER-With me is Dave Michaels, the principal of the Michaels Group, and a resident of
the Town, Tom Nace, from Nace Engineering, the project engineer, and Jim Miller, the Landscape
Architect. What we’re doing tonight, much like other Michaels Group projects in the Town, we’ve
entered into a contract with Guido Passarelli, who is the owner of the existing Lehland Estates
Subdivision, to finish the development of the rest of his subdivision. The subdivision was
originally approved in 1987, for a total of 103 lots. The first Phase, which is 46 lots, which is
what’s existing right now, if you drive in there, was given final approval, final subdivision
approval, and at that time, a SEQRA review was conducted for the entire project. In 1992, the
Town changed the zoning law, which would make the minimum lot size in this zone larger than
what was approved for the subdivision, and what had already been constructed, and at that time,
Leon Steves went in, on behalf of the owner, to get variances to continue the lots at the same size
as they’d already been proposed for the conceptual plan. So that’s the history of the project up to
now. What we’re doing, somewhat analogous to the Cedar Court subdivision, and I know you’re
all familiar with Hudson Pointe, is coming in and finishing a subdivision that’s already been started
by somebody else, and to our mind, and hopefully you will agree, we’re improving upon the plan
that was already submitted as the concept plan for Phases II and III. We’re eliminating three lots
from what was approved, just because it lays out better and creates nicer lots, and we’re changing
the road configuration slightly to comply with the new road profile, both with the drainage within
the road, which was not required in 1987, and also the one intersection in the back in the Phase II
and III, actually Phase II, to make that a 90 degree angle, which was not part of the original, which
is a much safer design for an intersection. This is going to be the same quality that the other
Michaels Group subdivisions are, similar to Hudson Pointe, in some respects. Dave has already
gone in and built a model home on Lot 30, I think, on Lot 30, which we’ll show you on the
subdivision, which has been up for maybe three months, about two months it’s already been open.
Many of the existing neighbors, there are 17 homes were built either by the prior, by Mr.
Passarelli, or by other people who bought lots and had their own builder construct homes. So out
of the 103 in the original subdivision, 17 are existing. With the model there, Dave has received
nine contracts so far for new homes, which are in various stages of planning or construction.
We’re, you know, very pleased with the way people have viewed the subdivision. It seems to be
taking off. We’re here tonight to request Preliminary approval on Phases II and Phase III. We’re
hoping to come back next month, after we’ve incorporated any of your comments, and comments
from the members of the public, and ask for Final approval on Phase II. It may be some time in
the future before we’re back for Final approval on Phase III. With that said, Jim Miller will walk
you through the subdivision and show you the design improvements that we’ve made.
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-Thank you. Good evening. This plan before you, the area in brown is Phase I.
You have West Mountain Road, and Phase I was constructed as a loop road with two entrances off
of West Mountain Road. That was 46 lots. As Jon mentioned, 17 homes have been built in there,
and nine are under contract or under construction. The second phases, Phase II would be the loop
road to the north, this red line designates the separation of the Phase, and then the Final phase
would be the continuation of the loop, and the build out would be, there’s 46 approved lots in
Phase I. We’re looking at 31 lots in Phase II, and 23 in Phase III. We’ve actually decreased the
number of lots from the approved 103 down to 100. We basically kept the configuration that was
approved. Just making some modifications based on some more recent topography and complying
with the more recent Highway Department codes. Two of the lots, in addition, two of the existing
lots, Lots 1 and Lots Number 29 are being increased. They had somewhat limited building area,
and because of some of the houses that the Michaels Group is building, these lots are being
expanded. Even though the SEQRA environmental review was completed with conceptual and
environmental assessment, a Level One Environmental Assessment was completed on this
property, and there was no hazardous problems found on the site. The Michaels Group do those
as a matter of course, and then (lost words) into a project. The only modifications that were really
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
made in the layout really had to do with the geometry of some of the turns. This road would be
wing swaled, meeting the standard. All drainage would be contained on the roads. The first phase
was the older style, where there were swalesoff into the right-of-way. So we would transition, as
we met the existing roads, we would transition to the wing swale. The lots have been adjusted
slightly to provide what we feel better buildable size areas than was in the conceptual plan, which
resulted in some slight adjustment in the roads, and reviewed that with The Michaels Group
relatively carefully, based on the models that they’re proposing in here. What this plan also shows
is the extent of the tree cover. The site is relatively wooded, fairly mature woods to the east side of
the property, to the back of the property, more young growth, young pines and trees to the north.
There was some clearing on the site. You can see in this lighter area, where it comes through here,
where there was some clearing done for the right-of-way, which actually wasn’t really in the right-
of-way. So there was some clearing in there which shows up on this plan. Actually, the road is
further out than that clearing was done. So the only clearing, we’re showing the limits of clearing
that would be done to construct the roads, obviously not for constructing the homes. There’s a
high area, a ridge that runs through this portion of the site. You can see where some clearing has
occurred in here, and that is to make those lots, you know, buildable, and so some clearing was
necessary there, and some earth removed. Where we either proposed clearing or where it’s already
been cleared, additional street trees would be planted in those areas so that, even those there’s no
trees along the front of the lots, in those sections, trees would be provided. One of the things that
we’re looking into, and at this point, we’re not sure, there’s not a homeowners association set up
for this project. One of the things we’ve proposed, we would like to have a playground area, a
picnic area. As a common area, we’re looking into the ownership of that, as to how that could be
established. So between now and Final, if we can work that out, it’s too small for the Town to take
it over as a park, and at this point, since half the project’s been developed, we’re not sure, if at this
point a homeowners association would be established. So Jon Lapper could probably answer any
questions you have on that better than I can, but that’s one thing we’d like to try to incorporate into
the project. In addition, there were areas, no clear, no development areas identified in this SEQRA
negative declaration, which we have indicated as a dark area, that’s a no clear, no developed area.
In addition, we propose an additional 30 foot area along the rear of the lots that would be a no
clear area along the entire eastern side of the property, and we have lots backing onto each other
against the rear of these lots in Phase I, we’re proposing a 10 foot wide strip in here. A fence
could still be constructed, but there’d be no clearing in that area, and that’s to guarantee that, as
people clear for rear yards, at least some of the trees will be maintained along that rear property
line. With that, I think I’ll turn it over to Tom Nace, from Nace Engineering, and let him talk a
little bit about the engineering and the utilities on the project.
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-I’ll make it brief. What we’re trying to do, as Jim mentioned, with the roads, we’re
going to the new Town standard with the wing swale, so that most of the changes with any utilities
or engineering issues, come with the drainage. We’re going to change the concept from the original
drainage, which was just shoulders, open shoulders, to let the drainage run off into natural swales,
and occasionally collect into catch basins. The original plan had a couple of large retention basins
located throughout Phase II and III, where the excess runoff would be piped to the basin. We’ve
eliminated those, and we’ve gone to, with the wing swale, we’ve gone to a closed drainage system
using drywells and infiltration trench to take care of the drainage as near to where the rain falls as
we can. The soils are good. The infiltration capacity of the soils is more than sufficient for that
type of a system. So this will be much like Hudson Pointe, as far as drainage goes, and I’ll address
all of the Rist-Frost comments in detail for you.
MR. LAPPER-Dave would like to make a few comments before you open up the public hearing, or
ask us questions.
DAVE MICHAELS
MR. MICHAELS-The intentions of The Michaels Group for the project, we did enter into a
contract with Guido Passarelli, the original owner/developer of the piece. In Phase I we had an
arrangement where we were able to purchase from him the existing lots that he vacant. There was
approximately 17 homes existing in Phase I, prior to (lost word) coming into the community.
Since that time, we’ve invested in a model home, and we have sold nine homes. We already have
five under construction. We went into Lehland Estates with the idea that we felt that it was an
excellent location, had a lot to offer, and wanted to more or less test the market and see if the
market confirmed that. We feel comfortable in going ahead with the next Phase. In terms of the
housing, we fully landscaped all the homes. We’ve put in the driveways, put in the lanterns.
We’re very concerned that there’s instant streetscape created. That would be our intentions to
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
continue on, the aesthetics of the houses would be very similar to what is already being built in the
community, and that’s pretty much a summary of where we’re at, as the builder in the community.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-I just want to point out, again, that because it’s The Michaels Group and you’ve
seen, we’ve been here before for many approvals, and you’ve seen their track record in terms of
cleaning up and finishing Cedar Court and Hudson Pointe, and then the Surrey Field project which
we’ve had approved and we’re just going to start the, I guess we’re starting the infrastructure now,
and that’ll go in in the spring, that you know who you’re dealing with, and when Dave says he’s
going to do a quality project, you know that he means it because we’ve got the track record.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone up here have any questions?
MR. STARK-None.
MR. PALING-Not right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not right now?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’d like somebody to sort of lead me through a little bit of, when we went,
Preliminary and Final approval were really granted for Phase I, and I’m just trying to get how we
get into having all of these variances apply to all three phases, because there is a year of
requirement for a variance. If you haven’t done anything in a year, the variance is expired, and I
see that this just carries on, and I see where John Goralski sort of says you have a vested interest in
those variances. I read his letter. I still would like to get just a little bit of, you know, thread me
through how that takes place, how you get all of these approvals, based on having gotten them for
Phase I.
MR. LAPPER-To begin with, I don’t know what your experience is with subdivision approvals,
but it’s very common that a developer wouldn’t want to receive approvals for all of the lots. You’d
want to do it in phases. The Town requires phases over a certain number, 35 I think now, but the
developer doesn’t want to have to pay property taxes on the lots that aren’t going to be developed
for some period of time, and once they’re subdivided and given individual tax lot numbers, they’re
assessed as building lots rather than a big piece of property, and that changes the economics
substantially, in terms of the developer’s carrying costs while they’re building out the project. So
it’s very common that a developer comes in and proposes all of the lots. Because for a SEQRA
review, in order to not segment, I think Craig used the word “segment”. In order to do an
environmental review, it’s required, under State regulations, that you don’t segment the review, so
you don’t come in and say, okay, we’re only looking at 46 lots now, and then you come in and say,
okay, we’re looking at 31 lots in the future, and then 26 later. So when the Town did the SEQRA
review in 1987, the Town, the Planning Board contemplated what the whole development would
be, what the traffic count would be, with all of the lots which included additional, you know, minor
number three, that we’re now removing, and that’s why the environmental review was done on the
whole thing, and that’s why we didn’t ask, they didn’t ask for approval on all of the lots, to not
have to pay the cost of the taxes. So there’s two issues on vested rights. When you receive an
approval and then you move dirt, in accordance with that approval, that you actually start building,
New York law gives you vested rights, that if the Town changes the zoning, for example, when the
circular road, you can see what’s in the dark color, that was Phase I. The stubs were already there,
and this was already laid out to connect to the future Phase II and Phase III, which was part of the
scheme of development. So what John Goralski was talking about in his letter was that because we
had vested rights on Phase II and Phase III, because we got conceptual review of the whole thing
for SEQRA purposes, and we actually went and built Phase I in accordance with that approval.
The development wouldn’t work, if you went to double the size of the lots, in wouldn’t work in
terms of both the cost of putting in the roadway along the back, because you’d be building half as
many houses, and you can’t get from Point A to Point B without putting that road in. It requires a
loop road in the back in order to finish this scheme of development as it had been approved in
1987, and that’s the vested rights argument, because Phase I was already started, in terms of
construction. So that if the Town changed the zoning, that the developer, the owner of this lot, and
it would run with the land, that those rights would continue, that you would have vested right to
continue to build the subdivision as you already started, and laid those stub roads. In terms of the
prior, I would have thought that that would have been enough, but the owner, in 1992, when the
law was changed, went in, asked his surveyor to come back to the Planning Board, and to ask the
Planning Board to grant variances to establish, once and for all, to make sure, that this was
grandfathered, that instead of grandfathered, that variances were granted for those, for the lot size
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
as it had been approved in 1987. In addition to, in terms of the issue of whether or not those got
renewed every year, that they didn’t, but what happened was the developer then went in and cut the
road, which is where Jim explained where the limit of clearing is, what was already there, and that
was cleared, which was moving dirt, which also establishes the vested rights in accordance with
those variances and in accordance with the prior approval. So we have the layout, with the trees
clear and the road rough graded in, and that’s how we get to where we are now, where we’re
seeking to just complete it as it had been proposed, with the lot size which is no longer what’s in
the zoning code, but what variances were granted, and what the development had been started on.
MR. VOLLARO-Could I just ask Counsel, we’re in agreement there, at Staff level, with that
whole explanation. Is that right?
MR. SCHACHNER-In a word, yes. There is, and you should be aware of the determination of the
previous Zoning Administrator, Mr. Goralski.
MR. VOLLARO-I read Mr. Goralski’s letter, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and that’s determinative, and generally speaking, yes, I would agree
with that position.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you’d like to give up the table, we’ll open up the public hearing. I’m
guessing there’s a couple of people who would like to talk about this project. So if you’d like to
come up and address the Board with any concerns, questions or comments, come right on up and
please identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVID KING
MR. KING-My name is David King. I reside at 12 Jacqueline Drive. I was the second person to
build and move into a house in Lehland Estates in 1992. On that map, it used to be Lot 23. I think
it’s still numbered the same on this map. It’s basically on the interior road. There’s two large web
shapes on the right hand side bordering the Phase II and III area. I’m the one, actually, that would
border on the rear side to Phase III. This is the first I’ve seen a change in the preliminary plans for
Phase II and III since I purchased my lot in ’92. The preliminary plans for the second and third
phase, as I had seen them laid out, and I have copies of those plans, a photocopy of part of a plan
here tonight, is significantly different than what is presented here tonight. The value I saw in Lot
23, when I purchased the property, was a clear zone, a forever wild zone was dedicated behind my
lot, behind Lots 22 and 23. So just like that green zone in the center of the circle, so was there to
be a triangular clear zone behind those two lots. The reason for those clear zones was two fold.
My understanding was, with the original drainage plans for the roadway that would go into the
Phase II and III, that new road that goes behind the brown area to the right, would require, at that
time, under Town regulations, would require wells, drainage, more than drywells, but actually
retention system that would actually be placed in this triangular clear zone behind my house. I
found considerable value in the fact that there would be no bordering property owner to the rear of
my lot. That also made the lot much more valuable. It was priced more, higher on the market than
any of the other lots in the neighborhood, and one of the reasons for that was the intention of
having this clear zone on the rear of the property. To meet the new specifications and the change
in the Town law with the drainage requirements, in moving this road closer to my property line, is
putting four, well two, property owners on the rear of my lot where there was to be none. To me,
that’s a significant change in concept with the development. The clear zone, that white area you
see where they said they took down trees, those trees were taken down before my house was built,
and when I looked at the property in 1991, those trees were already down. Mr. Passarelli and Mr.
Cerrone had indicated they had fallen those trees to do some exploratory testing of the soils back
there, with the idea that that triangular area behind our Lots 22 and 23 would be used for this
retention basin area, and that was the reason for the removal of those trees back in ’91. The road
cut, the stubs, so to speak, that were put in, and the road that was, the fill that they pulled out and
created a temporary dirt road back there actually arches out further than is pictured there, much
more consistently with the original plan for a road in the second and third phase. Obviously, the
effects me more than probably any other property owner in Lehland Estates at this time. I am
considerably opposed to this preliminary plan for Phase II and III, primarily because of the re-
location of the road and the adding of two lots that would border the rear of my lot, where there
was to be none, and I have a copy of this, if it helps you to visualize. I could show that to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of the original approval?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-We could put it up on the board. We have it with us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you? Good. That would be great. That would give us a good idea of what
was and what’s to be.
MR. KING-My final comment related to this is not just the layout of the next two phases.
Obviously, we were the second largest risk takers in the development here. Mr. Meyers was the
first one to buy a lot and build a house. We were the second. There was all kinds of promises,
really, about this being the neighborhood in Queensbury. We’ve built a very large house, the
largest square footage house in the neighborhood, I dare to say, on one of the larger lots. We have
a real vested interest in the fact that we’ve been taxpayers on the piece of property for seven years,
nearly seven years. We had every intention of being in a neighborhood where there would be large
homes on large lots. I’m also very interested in knowing the exact, average lot size in this second
and third phase, and the square footage requirements in the deeded restrictions which were issued
at the time I bought the house, required 2,000 square foot minimums, two story dwellings and 1800
square foot requirements on ranches. In my opinion, I moved into a neighborhood where there
would be houses no smaller than that, on lots no smaller than the ones that were in Phase I. So, I
guess that’s all I have to say at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
DONALD BURNHAM
MR. BURNHAM-Good evening. My name is Donald Burnham, and I’m a new resident to
Lehland Estates. I live in the corner lot, as you come off from the first entrance from West
Mountain Road, and I bought the model home, the first home, I believe, that was built in there. I
do agree with Mr. King on a number of issues. Number One, I moved to Lehland Estates because
I was given the impression it was going to be the neighborhood in Queensbury, and there are deed
covenants in the deeds from there. I have a concern if they’re going to be carried on to the new
phase, and from what I see in the new phase, I really don’t see how a house of a larger size can be
built on those small lots, unless they’re right next to each other like a trailer park. I do agree that
Hudson Pointe is a nice development, but if I wanted to live in Hudson Pointe, I would have moved
there. I do have another concern about drainage. At the current time, the drainage from the roads
are currently running through my parking lot, I mean, into my driveway. So where they have in the
upper corner of the drawing, the new phase up there, and if the roads are going to be swaled to
carry the drainage down, it’s going to be running through my actual driveway and probably into
my garage. I do have another concern about the noise value from 87, whether cutting all those
trees in the zone to the right of the drawing would make any noise problem for the development,
and again, one of the reasons I bought up there is because it is a quiet neighborhood, and I wanted
to see it remain so, and I just moved in, in the last month. Again, I’m also concerned on the lot
sizes. That bothers me a lot, and I guess that would be all of my comments. I haven’t been there
long enough, but I have enough comments to tell you about, just hearing the preliminary stages
here. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
NEIGHBOR-I’d just appreciate a clarification of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself, please.
CHRIS NENINGER
MR. NENINGER-I’m Chris Neninger. I live in Phase I. The 10 foot, I think he said no clear
zone, where the back yards connect, there’s a restrictive covenant in place now that I understand to
be against all three Phases, the prevents any cutting within 15 feet of a rear property line, for any
tree three inches in diameter, and I’m not sure if what they’re suggesting is that, for 10 feet, there
will be no cutting at all, or if they’re trying to dilute the 15 foot requirement that’s already in place.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. I had a long list of questions, some of which
have been answered. The preliminary approval with, I assume there was a Type I evaluation done
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
for this initially? That was question Number One, to make sure the Type I Environmental
Assessment Form was completed.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you.
DR. HOFFMAN-Number Two, a question I don’t know the answer, but at that time, were any
time restrictions placed on how soon this project would have to be completed in order for the
approvals to be still in effect? And, you know, it just seems to me that 11 years having passed
since the original environmental assessment, whether, maybe it’s time to take another look. Have
circumstances changed in the interim? I mean, what is the time frame that environmental
assessment should pertain to? I guess this is actually then, we’re doing another preliminary site
plan here. This is the second time a site plan’s been brought forward. So the environmental
assessment was done on the original site plan, and now that I assume because they’re making some
modifications, they’re bringing it up for preliminary site plan approval again.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. There was an original SEQRA review done for the development as a
whole, all three phases originally.
DR. HOFFMAN-Well, but if it’s restricted to Phase II and Phase III, then wouldn’t you just have
to do a final site plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is what restricted?
DR. HOFFMAN-If our discussion is restricted to Phase II and Phase III, if whatever approvals
you’re giving, wouldn’t that just, if the original preliminary approval was for the entire project,
wouldn’t you just need to do a final site plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Conceptual approval was given to all three phases of the development. Only
final approval was given to Phase I. They’re here tonight for Preliminary for Phase II and III.
DR. HOFFMAN-Okay. Now my understanding from Mr. Lapper was that the variances were
given in 1992, but they weren’t really necessary? Is that the gist of your argument?
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you direct the questions this way, please. We’ll get them answered for
you. We’ll get them all in.
DR. HOFFMAN-So, I mean, again, it just strikes me that doing a project of this magnitude based
on a blanket set of variances for 53 houses, that seems like a lot of variances to give, especially for
something that was done six years ago. I just wanted some clarification as to where the
development is in relation to the C.E.A. and whether any of the properties that would be developed
are within the C.E.A. I have some concerns about traffic. There is a school bus stop at the corner
of Bonner Drive, because the three roads come together, West Mountain Road, Bonner Drive, and
Mt. View Lane. There have been multiple accidents at that intersection. I would think that this
would increase the risk for that at that intersection. I don’t know whether Bonner Drive is within
the threshold for notification of property owners. I would just like that clarified. If it was, I’m not
sure that the Bonner Drive residents were notified about this hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s 500 feet.
DR. HOFFMAN-I don’t know whether it’s within 500 or not. The Preliminary Site Plan Review
requires conformity with Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Preliminary Subdivision.
DR. HOFFMAN-I’m sorry, Preliminary Subdivision, but it is in there. It’s in the Subdivision
Regulations that it should be in accord with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I haven’t read this
specifically, what it says about this property, but I would like that to be addressed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I could probably answer that for you. It would probably conform with it,
considering this was approved in 1987, and that was the last time the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan was addressed.
DR. HOFFMAN-I don’t know. I think it’s something to look at. I wouldn’t just assume that
that’s the case. The statement was that made, you know, this is the common statement’s made that
if the zoning was less dense that it wouldn’t be viable, it wouldn’t be a viable project. I have
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
difficulty accepting that. Certainly it’s more viable. The more houses you build, the more money
you make. I mean, that’s quite clear. I see no reason why a development that had less homes
couldn’t be viable, particularly if the housing was clustered in such a way that the road
development would not have to be any greater than it is currently, but might just have less homes
with more open space and potentially, you talked about a park. I don’t know where it is or how
many acres, and what percentage of total property would be devoted to open space. It certainly
doesn’t look like there’s a hell of a lot of open space on that, in that area there. Again, we’re
bringing up things that, I’m bringing up things that I think would potentially make this a more
desirable place to live and a better project for the Town of Queensbury, and I think, you know,
leaving aside the zoning and the regulations and everything else, I think it’s something to look at. I
just have a question in terms of, you know, what’s the great rush to proceed with these last two
phases? We have Phase I, which was approved for 42, and right now there’s 17 houses with nine
additional. That’s 26 houses total that are or will be built in the near future. So there’s still room
for another 20 houses in Phase I. What’s the great rush to go ahead and approve Phase II and
Phase III? I think those are my main concerns, thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. We’ll get them answered for you. Anyone else?
DAN DE NIRO
MR. DE NIRO-My name is Dan DiNero. I’m in Phase I at Lot 17 which adjoins the spot on part
of the map at the very bottom. Seventeen is the, right there at the three way intersection there. I’d
like to see, if this goes through, I’d like to see a three way stop sign at the corner of Jacqueline
Drive and Sara-Jen Drive. Because there’s a lot of kids in the neighborhood on that side of the
street and basically throughout the neighborhood, and I’m just concerned with the safety, with the
traffic flowing through that area. If that roadway is straightened out, without a stop sign at that
intersection, I’m afraid that the speed of the traffic might be a little bit high in that area. Also, as
you come in to the entrance on Sara-Jen Drive to the south, as you come down the street, the road
signs are kind of confusing for the streets. There’s a sign there that says Lauren Drive, and it
doesn’t really tell you that Sara-Jen Drive continues, and it’s kind of confusing for some people
that come into the neighborhood. I’d like to see the road sign be clarified in that first intersection
as you come in, to show that Sara-Jen Drive does actually straighten out around that turn, and
there’s no confusion with Lauren Drive. Because if emergency vehicles coming into the area, if
they’re told to go down Sara-Jen or whatever, they might be confused as to exactly which way
they’re going to go, and the last thing is I am also concerned with the lot sizes that you’re putting
in for the new development, and I’d be interested in knowing what the average size of the lots are,
and maybe the smallest size lot through to the largest size lot, just to get a comparison. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DR. HOFFMAN-I’m sorry, Mark Hoffman again. I forgot to mention one other issue. Rush
Pond, I did mention the C.E.A., but do we know what the drainage patterns are, where would the
septic effluent be going? One would have to assume, if the same people who did the Indian Ridge
project are doing this, that the plan for the other project was that Rush Pond was flowing toward
Indian Ridge and not vice versa. So therefore the water has to be coming from some place, and
this the other direction where the water would be coming from. So I think it’s reasonable, certainly
likely that the, whatever the flow under that, if the original contention was correct, that the water
was flowing toward Indian Ridge, it would seem likely that it’s coming from this area which is
currently being proposed for development.
STEVE MEYER
MR. MEYER-I’m Steve Meyer. I’m at 16 Jacqueline Drive, and I was the first one in there, and I
want to make sure that all the covenants that we were subject to are going to be continued into the
remaining sections, and I’d like an explanation that I may be confused with Mr. Lapper who said
that, I believe he said that the variances were still in effect, because after ’92, they cut the road in,
when, in fact, the road for Phase III was actually in there in 1990, and I may be confused. Maybe
I need some explanation on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that clarified.
MR. MEYER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
E D ANAGNOS
MR. ANAGNOS-My name’s Ed Anagnos. I live at 9 Jacqueline Drive. Everything was kind of
answered for me, but questions were brought up that you have already. My concern is on the
covenants it says, you’re talking about the back lots, the 10 or 15 foot trees you’d leave up
between the Phase?
MR. MAC EWAN-The no cut zone?
MR. ANAGNOS-Right. That also goes for the side lots, too. In our covenants it said they will
leave, I believe it’s 15 feet on either side, except where their driveway would interfere with it or a
septic system would interfere with, the trees would have to come down.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that was on your side property boundary as well?
MR. ANAGNOS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ANAGNOS-So I’d like that to be looked out for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANAGNOS-You’re welcome. I have a copy of that if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not at this time, thank you. Anyone else? Definitely going once, going twice.
We’re going to leave the public hearing open, I think, for a little bit. If you guys want to come
back up, I think there’s a lot of questions.
MR. LAPPER-Could we ask for a quick five minute recess? We just need to compare notes so we
can have thorough answers to all these things. Some of them are engineering, and we just need to
talk to Tom and Jim.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take a five minute break.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A couple of questions or two, I think. Questions up here on the Board,
too. So why don’t we, I think maybe what we ought to do is start right at the other end with Bob,
here, and we can start asking some questions. Hopefully we’ll try to iron out some of the questions
that came out of the audience tonight, and see if we can’t get all those issues answered, or at least
get us going in the right direction.
MR. LAPPER-Before we get started, if I could just make a quick preliminary statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-We recognize, coming in here tonight, that there’s a subdivision with 103 lots that,
there are 17 people, 17 families who already live there, and we understand that they have
absolutely legitimate concerns and issues that we knew that they would be here. We’re glad that
they’re here, and we expected that they’d be here, and we know that many people have gone
through the model homes to see what’s up, to see what’s going on. They have an interest and an
investment in that area, and, you know, we’re here to work with them and to try and show you and
to show them that The Michaels Group is coming in to do a quality development and to finish this.
The down side of what they have now is a development that’s, you know, 17% finished, and no
guarantee that anybody is going to come in and clean it up to finish the back, to finish Phase I, and
because you’ve got The Michaels Group track record, you know that they’re going to come in and
do what’s right, and do this, a quality job. Personally, I live up at Hiland Park, which is another
subdivision which has many, many vacant lots, and I also wonder what’s going to come in, who’s
going to come in, whether the houses are going to be as nice as the houses that are up now. These
are all legitimate concerns, but when you have The Michaels Group come in, you know that they’re
going to do a good job, and that’s what’s different about here, and that’s what, just like at Cedar
Court when people were concerned what’s coming in and came and asked all these questions that,
at the end of the day, when the development’s done, they can see that it’s done right, and that’s
what, you know, we’d like to prove to them. We’ve thought through the engineering issues. The
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
changes that we’ve made on the plan were made because they were required, because the Town, the
new highway, the only few changes which we’ll go into because the new Town road requirements
both dictated some small design changes on a few lots, and also was a major improvement, because
the drainage won’t be a surface drainage. It’ll be subsurface, so that those are the major reasons
for changing the lots. With that said, we’re here to address all the issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob?
MR. PALING-I just have a general question. Who own’s the property in the middle of Phase I,
with that access going out to Lauren Drive?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the developer owns, that’s Guido Passarelli owns that.
MR. PALING-Okay. You would intend that be turned over to a homeowners association also, like
the playground?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t have a contract to purchase that, because we have a contract to
purchase the lots. I don’t know why it was approved that way. I mean, if we were doing it, we
would have addressed. This Board would have addressed it if it was coming up now, as to whether
that would be what form of common ownership, whether they would request that the Town take it
over, which the Town, you know, may not want to take over, whether that should be recreation
land, but it wasn’t addressed at the time, and that’s there. That’s something that, you know, can be
seen as either a benefit or a burden to the existing neighbors, that they have this buffer, but it’s
just, it’s owned by Mr. Passarelli, and we are not planning on purchasing it.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I had for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. STARK-I’ve got a whole list here. Do you want me to go through them?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Ask your questions.
MR. STARK-Mr. King came up and asked about the re-location of the road behind his road.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Tom’s going to start out showing you the map of what you’ll see, and we
want the neighbors to see, too. We have the map of what was presented as per conceptual
approval last time. The important issue there is that there was a detention basin, which you might
not want to have right behind your house, although that’s subjective, but that’s, Tom will address
this.
MR. NACE-Okay. As you can see, the original layout had a road with a fairly tight radius here,
and an intersection coming in right on the bend. In order to make that conform, you can see how
we’ve straightened it out. Here’s, they’ve been talking about the clearing that’s already done,
okay. This clearing here has not already been done, okay. This is clearing, right now there is a
hump in here, a mound, just in the existing grade, where this is several feet higher than the
surrounding area, and in order to grade this off, to make the grades blend in with the road and with
the surrounding land, we’ve shown that as being graded off in our plans, and in response to some
of Rist-Frost’s comments, we clarified that on the grading plan. So that clearing is proposed
clearing in order to do that grading. The old, the clearing that’s there now is shown out here where
the original, or approximately where the original road layout was out here. The area behind Lots
23 and 24, this little triangular shaped piece in here, was originally designed as a retention basin,
where you can see the storm drainage is on here. All of the road side ditches flowed into catch
basins, and eventually were piped into this retention area, okay. You can see that also over here.
This was piped. This, if I can read the contours right, from 492 to 500, this was an eight foot deep
pit, with fairly steep sides on it, and a flat bottom that probably would have remained wet, you
know, for a while after each rainstorm. We have decided to, you know, conforming with the road
standards that, you know, with the wing swale, we end up collecting the water, but rather than
piping all of it to something like this, which, incidentally, would have been very difficult because
this is actually a mound. It’s higher than the surrounding land. It’s not a place you would pipe
stormwater to, you know, we’ve replaced that with drywells periodically spaced along the road.
There was another issue of drainage that came up regarding, I believe, the original model home in
here, the gentleman who owns it, evidently now he has some drainage that flows across his
driveway, probably coming down from the entrance road, and he was worried about this road of
ours adding to that drainage. We have designed this road so the high point of that road is right at
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
the intersection with the existing, and everything flows away. So there will be no drainage from
any of our proposed roads that could possibly get onto his lot.
MR. PALING-Mr. King asked about lot size also. What was the minimum lot size in the original
layout?
MR. MILLER-The original subdivision was 20,000 square feet. That was the minimum, and so
kept that same standard, 20,000 square feet’s minimum. Obviously, we eliminated the stormwater
detention areas, and we eliminated three lots. So our average lot size is higher. If you look at the
grading plan, we didn’t calculate the average, but I can show you what the range is. If you look at
the grading plan here, you can see, these are, the lighter lines these are the existing lots. That was
Mr. King’s lot there, and you can see, because he’s in the outside of the curve, he obviously has a
bigger lot. This lot here, the standard lot was 100 foot wide by 200 foot deep for the 20,000
square feet, and you can see, our, this is our minimum lot size. It matches that. That’s exactly
how it was originally designed. When this road came through here, it was designed so that these
would be 200 foot depth consistently, but you see what we did here, we eliminated a lot on the
back, toward where the land starts to drop off, and where we had the C.E.A. setback restrictions on
SEQRA, and what we did, we widened these lots out. For example, this lot right in here is over an
acre. It’s 1.08 acres, and the reason for that was to provide a wider area because we had to get the
septic system in the front. We can’t have the septic in the back because of that area. One of the
things Tom talked about also, with the rear of Mr. King’s lot, and the fact that that was a proposed
stormwater, Tom read off of the existing plan it showed the top elevation, 500, going down to 492.
Well, the existing grade there is 510. So they would have had to take 10 feet of grade off, to get to
the level before they dug the drainage basin. So that’s why what we had proposed was to do that
as a lot, and grade it down to Elevation 507, rather than create that huge hole in the ground. One
of the other things we talked about, we talked about correcting the roadway out to give us a 90
degree turn in here. Another reason we did that, one of the concerns, obviously, is the rush pond
area, and if you see where the old lot, or the old road came around, it was very close to this area.
So by us coming back here and moving this road, we not only created a conforming intersection,
but we’ve now pulled those houses back from the steeper areas in here. So we’ve really made these
lots more buildable. So, I mean, the reasons we proposed these changes were not just to create
more buildable area.
MR. STARK-Okay. Mr. King also had a question about the house square footage in Phase II and
III, roughly?
MR. LAPPER-There are existing covenants and restrictions which run to the majority of the lots in
both subdivisions. Everything but 14 house sites are covered by the existing covenants and
restrictions. Jim, could you just show where that line is? It is all of the houses that are near any of
the existing, of the Phase I lots. Can you just show where that?
MR. MILLER-That line runs right through here.
MR. LAPPER-And everything south of that line are covered by the existing covenants and
restrictions. Everything that we do must, as a matter of law, because this is recorded. It’s in the
deed. We have to conform with that. That’s there to protect the neighbors, and that’s something
that already exists. So when one of the neighbors was talking about a 15 foot area where you can’t
cut a tree less than three inches in caliper, or more than three inches, that’s there. That’s going to
be there forever. We can’t touch that. We’re not touching that, but beyond that, what we were
talking about, with respect to the 10 foot buffer, was in that 10 foot area, we’re coming in, because
we know that we have neighbors that are concerned. You can’t cut anything unless you’re going to
put a fence right there. You can’t cut anything at all. So that’s a 10 foot, you’re not allowed to do
any cutting. I mean, we probably, usually you can clear out stuff that’s actually dead, like on Lake
George, but beyond that, nothing would be touched, but when Dave heard Mr. King’s comments,
again, we think that having a mound with trees is better than having a hole with water behind his
property, but what we can do, because he’s concerned, just behind that Lot 23, we can increase
that area to 20 feet. So that nothing would be removed within 20 feet of his property line, except if
somebody could put a fence up, because we want the neighbors to feel protected.
MR. STARK-Okay. What about the house square footages that you’re going to be building in
there?
MR. LAPPER-Well, everything that was covered by the existing covenants and restrictions has to
comply with that.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. STARK-Which is what?
MR. MICHAELS-1800 for a one story and 2000 for a two story, living area.
MR. STARK-Okay. So you’d have to abide by them. Okay. What about the noise? Do you
anticipate any increased noise from cutting down some more trees, from 87? Mr. Burnham had
this question.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the issue there is that if the neighbors feel, justifiably so, that they like the
protected setting of having the woods behind them, this was always proposed to be a subdivision,
and there will, in order to build houses, there will be trees removed, but it’s not a clear cut
situation. There would be trees cut to build the house, and like another Michaels Group
subdivision, I mean, we’re going to certainly leave trees, but there’s, the area that’s in the dark
there, it’s not the C.E.A. It’s the 500 foot buffer line to the C.E.A., nothing’s going to be touched
at all. So those will be there as a permanent buffer. Then you have the whole 500 feet, and then
Dave’s reminding me that we’re adding 30 feet which wasn’t in the original conditions to the
SEQRA approval, on the north and south. So that that is always going to be there as a buffer, but,
yes, I mean, to make building lots out of the woods, trees will be removed.
MR. STARK-Okay. What about the, Tom, the three way stop sign the gentleman asked about?
Which would be a good idea, I think.
MR. NACE-Sure. Both the three way stop sign and the clarity of the existing road signs is really a
Town Highway Department. Those are existing Town roads. That’s a Town Highway
Department issue. However, we would certainly be glad to ask the Highway Department, as the
developer coming in to this project, if they could put a three way stop there, and if they could
clarify road signs. Okay. We would support that.
MR. LAPPER-As a condition of Final approval, you have another project, ask us that we would
put a letter in to the Town that we support it and request that that be done, we’ll certainly do that.
MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. I’m all done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to get something out on the table, for myself, and I know it’s not
something that’s been discussed before, but has anyone done the cumulative effect of the 100 septic
fields, on what the effect of that would be on Rush Pond? In other words, I’ve looked at your perc
rates. They’re great, and I’m just trying to get the feeling of what, being that there is such good
percolation rates in there, and the fact that I think what you’re going to try and do is slow down
those rates, from what I can read, but what’s the story with all those septic fields on Rush Pond?
Like five or ten years from now, that’s what I, you know, you’re in one of my areas that I have a
problem with, with a lot of public water and septic tanks, septic fields. I’ve always thought that
was a bad mix, in my book.
MR. NACE-Okay. One of the things you have to consider, any time you’re looking at septic
systems is, again, as you said, how dense are they? How many? It’s not how many in a big area,
but how compact and how small the lots are. These are fairly good sized lots. They’re half acre
lots. The other thing that you really have to take into account is how much soil, how good is the
soil, how far do they have to go, how far does that effluent have to travel and be treated before it
reaches groundwater, okay. Now, typically, we’re dealing with regulations from DEC and from
the Health Department, which say that you need a two foot separation to groundwater, okay.
That’s not very much. Those regulations are the ones that also say that the perc rate needs to be
over a minute. If it’s not over a minute, you’ve got to modify the soils to grade something that
does a better job of treatment, but, that is taken into consideration with the fact that they are only
requiring a two foot separation. Here, we’re over 100 feet above the water level in Rush Pond, and
most of that is unsaturated. Most of that is free and free draining unsaturated ground. So there’s a
potential for much, much more treatment than envisioned by DEC or Health Department in their
regulations. There’s also to consider the fact that even around Lake George, okay, with some of
the other regulations that the Lake George Park Commission had proposed, and other communities
now are using pieces of, they require more separation to groundwater, if you’re within so many feet
of Lake George, or in the Adirondack Park, the APA does the same sort of thing. In those cases,
the separation is normally somewhere between five and six, or four and six feet, okay. Again, we
have much, much more soil than that in this case, and we’re not on, you know, 10,000 square foot
lots. So, you know, to give you a qualitative answer that says so many parts per million,
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
obviously, that data’s not there. I don’t think anybody could give you that answer, but between our
vertical separation of over 100 feet, and the fact that we are more than 500 feet even from that
C.E.A. line and further than that from the actual waters of Rush Pond, I don’t think there’s a real
issue here.
MR. VOLLARO-Just one more question in that area. Have you done any set asides there for
replacement septic fields?
MR. NACE-Yes. The Health Department requires 50% set aside, in their review of projects.
There is area available.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got that on your plan? I didn’t see it on there.
MR. NACE-It’s not shown, you know, each system isn’t shown, where the actual area is.
Typically, the Health Department doesn’t require that unless we’re in some very restrictive sites,
but there is adequate set aside area, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tim?
MR. BREWER-I guess the first thing I would like to know is, can we proceed to Preliminary on
this before 60% of the first phase is done, and then move on?
MR. ROUND-You can’t issue Final until you have 60% build out, unless they’re looking for a
waiver from that.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re not looking for a waiver. I think we need one more contract before we
get to 60%, and we’ll be there in a month, before we’re back.
MR. BREWER-I’m thinking 17 houses, is what I’m thinking.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MILLER-It’s nine contracts.
MR. LAPPER-Plus nine, and we’ll have another one within a month. I would just like to respond,
someone, I think it might have been Dr. Hoffman, asked the question about why we’re going for,
what’s the rush to approve Phase II and Phase III, which sort of addresses the same issue. Because
The Michaels Group has the marketing and construction, because I mean, they’re very good at
what they do, we can anticipate based upon their other subdivisions, both in Queensbury and
elsewhere, what the speed is going to be. You never know what the market’s going to be, but in
terms of the nine contracts that they’ve gotten since they started this thing, a few months ago, it’s
always nice for a developer to come in and build the whole thing out, get the trucks out of the way
so that it’s all done and the residents, you know, the grass and trees grow and you don’t have to
worry about tractors and dump trucks and things. They expect that they’re going to be able to
build at a pretty steady pace, although we don’t know, but in terms of Phase II, we need to get that
on line now, just because of constructing the road, getting the approvals with the Town, dealing
with the dedication, utilities, that by the time that that’s in, we expect that we’ll be selling homes in
Phase II, and we’re not here to talk about a Final, we won’t be for Phase III, because, you know,
we’re not ready for that yet.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. ROUND-Just so you know, 60%, you have to be issued CO’s, not just contracts for
purchase. So you know that’s a requirement of the Ordinance.
MR. BREWER-CO’s have to be issued.
MR. NACE-A waiver can be requested for that. Is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think last time we did a waiver was in Hudson Pointe.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-But they can be requested.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, I didn’t check that, and I thought it was contracts. So that’s a waiver that
you can grant. That’s not, it’s not a ZBA, it’s not a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s a waiver this Board can grant.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess, based upon the fact that we have contracts, and the houses are at
various stages, we probably will then, when we come for Final next month, then, based upon that,
which I will request that. That would only be a matter of a couple of months, in terms of the time
to finish the houses and issue the CO’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tim, anything else?
MR. BREWER-No, not yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I had, I guess, two questions, seeing as how everything else, they beat me to
the punch on. On the no cut, on the rear property line, you originally indicated 10 foot. One of the
neighbors said that their covenants read that it’s 15 feet?
MR. LAPPER-That’s not no cut. That’s the three inch trees.
MR. MICHAELS-Three inch caliper trees are greater than 15 feet, and what we’re proposing on
the 10 feet would be no cutting whatsoever, you know, to make it a true buffer, except for any
dead.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that would be above and beyond the 15 foot? Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-It would be a further restriction on the existing covenants and restrictions
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Also one neighbor had mentioned that there was also side yard
restrictions for?
MR. MICHAELS-Which we would still be bound by.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Another question was regarding notification. Somebody had mentioned
something about Bonner Drive area residents. They thought they were within 500 feet. I don’t
think they are.
MR. LAPPER-We checked our list. There were one or two that were. We checked the list that we
had submitted, that Matt Steves prepared, I guess, from the tax map, and one or two of the
residents from Bonner Drive were on there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So everyone, as far as Staff knows, was notified? And there was a
question regarding time restrictions on SEQRA. The answer’s very simply, there is no time
restriction on SEQRA. SEQRA doesn’t have a, very simply doesn’t have a time restriction on it. I
mean, once you do a SEQRA finding, it goes for the life of the property. Is that a fair statement to
make?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes and no. Yes, that there’s no specific time restriction. No, that it’s
not necessarily valid forever. It’s incumbent upon the Board to look, especially with the
significance passage of time, which we do have here, the Board should certainly just look at this
and make sure that in the Board’s opinion, or let me re-phrase that, should examine whether, in the
Board’s opinion, any environmental factors have changed during the intervening time that warrant
new and further environmental review, but if there aren’t, then the original SEQRA approval can
certainly stand.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the question was posed in such a fashion because there was no activity
on this site. Does SEQRA become null and void because there was no activity?
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and the answer is, no, not necessarily.
MR. LAPPER-We would point out that the major modification is to just put the drainage
underground for the road and remove three homes, which increases the lot size, and that’s really all
we’re changing.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else up here have any questions? Okay. Now, I think
we’ve pretty much answered everyone’s question. I did leave the public hearing open, but during
our break, a couple of people did come up and ask me if they could come up and ask another
question. So, if you don’t mind, one more time, I’d like to give everyone a fair opportunity to
speak.
KEN HINE
MR. HINE-My name is Ken Hine. I live at 22 Jacqueline Drive. When I purchased this home in
1994, I was under the pretense that this was going to be a residential, one family type homes, and
there was no talk of a playground or a homeowners association, which can entail a lot of
responsibility to each of the homeowners, and is that going to be forced on us, or is that?
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as a homeowners association?
MR. HINE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. HINE-Well, they did say that they wanted to start a homeowners association. Like who’s
going to take care of the playground there? Who would be liable for that? Would that be common
ground to each of the homeowners in Phase I, II, and III, or just II and III?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. We’ll get it answered for you.
MR. HINE-And as far as, I was under the pretense that that middle ground there, that part that
Guido still owns, that was going to be forever wild. That’s what I was under the pretense of. I
didn’t know he owned either. I thought it was just given to the Town of Queensbury. That’s also a
drainage area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, we could look that up. Is that it?
MR. HINE-Yes, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get your question answered for you.
MR. HINE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Would anyone else like to come up and ask a question or
have a comment?
CAROL ANAGNOS
MRS. ANAGNOS-Carol Anagnos. I live at 9 Jacqueline Drive. I’m concerned about this forever
wild area. If Guido has no interest in this property any longer, he’s not there.
MR. STARK-You’re talking about the center part right there, ma’am?
MRS. ANAGNOS-Yes, the open area.
MR. PALING-In Phase I, yes.
MRS. ANAGNOS-And if Guido doesn’t have any interest in it, and Michaels doesn’t want to take
it over, who’s going to maintain it? It’ll become a dumping ground.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has anyone been maintaining it now?
MRS. ANAGNOS-No.
MR MAC EWAN-No one has?
MRS. ANAGNOS-There’s a lot of dead brush back there and trees. There used to be some
construction material. It hasn’t been cleaned up, and I’m afraid that people will use it as a
dumping ground.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s certainly avenues for enforcement action if there’s becoming a
dump site, that the Town can take measures to ensure that it’s cleaned up, and we can look into
that.
MRS. ANAGNOS-If The Michaels Group is going to buy all the other properties, shouldn’t they
have to buy that also?
MR. BREWER-We can’t force them to buy it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t force them to do that, and that’s a contract that they have with the
current property owner. It’s not under the jurisdiction of this Board.
MRS. ANAGNOS-Also, I wasn’t quite clear on what he said about the covenants for 1800 square
feet and 2,000 square feet. He mentioned something about a certain portion of the property. Those
covenants would apply to a certain portion of it? Don’t they apply to all of Phase II and all of
Phase III? Or did I misunderstand?
MR. MAC EWAN-I understood it that whatever the existing covenants are now in Phase I, that
they are going to adhere to them for Phase II and III.
MR. PALING-I think she’s referring to that line that was drawn across.
MRS. ANAGNOS-Phase II and III. He mentioned something about something south of the one
line.
MR. PALING-The red line across there.
MRS. ANAGNOS-And I wasn’t sure whether they were just going to apply to that property or the
whole development.
MR. MAC EWAN-The whole development, I’m understanding. We can get that clarified, though.
MRS. ANAGNOS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
MR. DI NERO-This is Dan DiNero again. I was up here earlier. I just want to clarify the issue.
Right next to my property, the side clearance. They’re saying they’re not going to be cutting the
side clearances for a 10 foot width as well, or is that? I just wanted to get clarified on that, that
one issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
DR. HOFFMAN-A couple of things for clarification. The statement was made that the depth to
groundwater, unless I misunderstood, is 100 feet, based on the fact that that’s the depth to Rush
Pond. It appears to me that that’s purely an assumption. The groundwater could be anywhere
from much higher to much lower than that. I don’t know whether any pits were dug, any test wells,
to see, in fact, where the groundwater is. Another thing, I apologize, I had trouble following, but I
thought a statement was made to the effect that the original road cut is not actually where the road
will be, and if in fact that’s the case, I mean, does it make sense to say that whatever this legal
terminology of vesting is, really applies when they cut through a road that doesn’t even correspond
to where the road is going to be in this, in Phase II and Phase III? Finally, just a parting comment.
Regardless of what the length of time is with SEQRA, obviously, I certainly agree that if new
conditions, you’re aware of any new conditions, that has to be re-visited, but regardless of what the
SEQRA issue is, you do have a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the Town of
Queensbury under the Subdivision Regulations, which does permit you a fairly broad look at this
project. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Could you back up to the thing about the road? I don’t
understand what you were asking.
DR. HOFFMAN-I’m not sure I understand it, either. If, in fact, and I may have misunderstood, if
this road cut that was made years ago does not, in fact, correspond to where the road is actually
planned to be, then the argument was made that the reason why the original approval still applies is
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
because they’re vested because they put a road cut through. Now, it’s not clear to me that that
road cut really corresponded to anything in the subdivision as currently approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but I think what they originally had done was grubbed in a road to lay
utilities, and when they took over this subdivision, that Phase II and Phase III did not meet current
Town standards for highway. So they re-aligned that intersection to meet current Town standards.
DR. HOFFMAN-So that’s already been done?
MR. MAC EWAN-On the plan it’s been done. It has not been physically done because they don’t
have an approval to do it.
DR. HOFFMAN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. MEYER-Steve Meyer. Just maybe the answer is just yes or no. Above that red line, they’re
going to conform to the existing covenants?
MR. MAC EWAN-We will get that clarified.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough, 7 Woodcrest. I just have a few concerns here. One is that
this area tends to be like the entire area around Rush Pond, a very sandy soil, and the soils tend to
have high perc rates, and you can have perc rates that are too high to soundly accommodate a
septic system in some situations, and that should be looked into. I have a concern, too, with this
being in accord with surrounding zoning. Just to the north it’s zoned, SFR-1 Acre, and to the east
and south it’s zoned SFR-3 Acre. So I’m a little bit concerned about that being in accord and
conforming with neighboring zoning. Small lots, and I’m concerned, too, about that hindering of
the values of homes in Phase I, and I think it’s the Planning Board’s responsibility to make sure
that the values of the homes in Phase I are protected, and I’m also concerned, too, it’s already been
addressed, but I’ll repeat it, just to show that it’s a concern of mine, too, is that the maintenance of
the covenants in Phase I be the covenants for Phase II and Phase III, and has there ever been any
test holes dug to see what, to determine the depth of the water table in this project?
MR. MAC EWAN-Depth of the water table?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Was there ever an EIS done for this project?
MR. MAC EWAN-An Environmental Impact Statement? No.
MR. STROUGH-No? You don’t think it needs one?
MR. MAC EWAN-In the original subdivision approval? No, I don’t think it needs one.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those are my concerns. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to come up, I think we’ve got a few more questions we need to get
answered here. I think there needs to be some clarification. There’s some nervousness about the
covenants, and I guess you threw me, too, going back and looking at it again, to what your
comments were, everything south of that line was going to be adhered to. So what happens in
some of those properties? You’ve got about nine or ten properties that are bisected by that line.
So how does that fit into the scheme of things?
MR. BREWER-And what is the line?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. What’s the significance of the line?
MR. BREWER-Yes, what is the line?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-To start with, let me just show you. The covenants and restrictions that were put in
place by Mr. Passarelli, when he bought the land, the land that he bought, and the land that is
subject to the covenants is everything south of the line that Jim just drew, which is all of the lots in
the subdivision except for 14 lots on the northern border.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was his original plan?
MR. LAPPER-That was his land that was purchased from one deed. The land north of that was
purchased in a tax sale, many years ago, and it was not subject to the covenants, because the
covenants said that they covered all of the land that he bought in a deed that was recorded in
Book/Page, blah, blah, blah. So those are not covered by the covenants. The covenants that are on
these lots are not the same as Michaels Group covenants. In some respects, in many respects, we
think that they’re not as thorough as The Michaels Group. I mean, we do a subdivision, we’re
pretty careful and pretty restrictive. Our goal is to protect property owners. The lots that are
covered by the covenants that’s done, period, end. It’s always going to be that way. The lots on
the north, we get to write our own covenants, which will be duly restrictive, because we have to put
covenants. There are no covenants right now that bind the lots to the north. They may not be
exactly the same. In a lot of respects they may be more restrictive, but we have to look at that. I
mean, that’s something that we will, of course, put covenants, deed covenants on those lots, as we
do on every Michaels Group subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why wouldn’t you just, you know, if you’re talking the sake of, I don’t know,
what, 10, 11 lots up there?
MR. LAPPER-Fourteen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fourteen lots. Why wouldn’t you just want to add those 14 lots to the current
conditions that apply to the whole subdivision, and make it the same across the board?
MR. LAPPER-We just have to look at it. They may work, they may not work. I mean, to some of
the stuff. In any case, none of them are on the same street as the people who are there now. I
mean, the houses that border them, the houses that are next to them, are all covered by the same
covenant. So if they want, whatever they are, that’s what they get, and the stuff on the north, we
will of course put covenants against, and we’ll look at it and determine what’s most appropriate
when we get to that.
MR. BREWER-Who are the covenants enforced by?
MR. LAPPER-The owners, the land owners. Each of the owners can enforce them against each
other.
MR. BREWER-So, in other words, if you build a house on Lot 73, just to pick a number, and the
guy on 46 says you’re not abiding by the covenants, what does he do?
MR. LAPPER-He goes to court.
MR. BREWER-So he has to take you to court?
MR. LAPPER-Well, you send a letter first.
MR. BREWER-Now, if there were deed restrictions, then what happens? He still has to go to
court, or are you forced to do it?
MR. LAPPER-Well, deed restrictions, it’s like a contract, so that people, you expect the people are
going to abide by them. If they don’t, you enforce it in the usual way that you enforce a legal
contract, and that means going to court.
MR. BREWER-So, I mean, basically, they really don’t mean anything, unless somebody takes you
to court.
MR. LAPPER-But people do take neighbors to court on deed restrictions.
MR. BREWER-I guess I just don’t understand them. I don’t know.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. LAPPER-Well, you expect the people are going to follow them. I mean, they’re part of the
deed. You know that that’s the rules. Everyone gets a copy of them.
MR. BREWER-I guess what they’re concerned is the size of the house, and those types of things
which you have control over.
MR. LAPPER-And what we’re telling you is.
MR. BREWER-Is you’re going to do it.
MR. LAPPER-Is we’re going to do quality houses. The model is already there that they can see.
We’re going to do a nice subdivision.
MR. MICHAELS-With the covenants and restrictions as filed, you know, there’s a description that
covers the area of land, and that we have to abide by legally, and we plan on honoring those as they
are. In addition, we’re going to do our own deed restriction. We transferred title to make it more
restrictive on that 10 foot area that we talked about, to make that absolutely no cut.
MR. LAPPER-And 20 foot on Lot 23.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and 20 foot on Lot 23.
MR. BREWER-See, that’s another thing that confuses me. These people are saying 15 feet, and
you keep saying 10 feet. To me that means there’s five foot less.
MR. MICHAELS-The covenants and restrictions have, the 15 feet is more footage which we’re
still bound by. We’re bound by the 15, okay. What we’re saying on top of it is the 15 foot says,
you can clear things as long as they’re not exceeding three inch caliper trees. What we’re going to
say on top of it is, you’re bound by that rule, and you’re bound by the second rule is the first 10
feet on the rear you can’t clear anything, even less than three inches it would stay, I mean, if it’s
alive. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s more restrictive.
MR. MICHAELS-So that’s where it’s more restrictive. Okay.
MR. BREWER-So why don’t we make that 15 feet, and just keep it uniform, the whole 15 feet,
instead of the 10. Well, I mean, it’s not splitting hairs. It’s just confusing because you’re saying
10, they’re saying 15.
MR. LAPPER-Offering that 10 feet is not something that the Town requires or that any developer
that I’m aware of has ever proposed. That’s something that we came up with because we’re trying
to be sensitive to these existing homeowners. I mean, that 10 feet of a real thick buffer with a lot
of foliage, I mean, that’s something that we’re throwing in because we think it’s right. It’s not a
Town requirement. It’s just something that we’ve come up with.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s reasonable that they’re willing to extend that when their concern is
keeping that clearing so that there’s not going to be an exorbitant amount of trees taken out of
there, and if they’re willing to go to the extra step of putting 10 foot, you don’t touch anything,
that’s definitely to the advantage of the neighboring homeowners.
MR. MICHAELS-In terms of the portion, the 14 lots to the north, okay, where that line is, where
the current covenants and restrictions don’t apply to, we want covenants and restrictions also for
those lots. So we’re going to have to put that into effect and get it formally filed. The exact make
out of those covenants and restrictions may, in some ways, be more restrictive than what’s already
there, okay. In terms of specific issues like dictating square footage of houses, like it is now, we’re
not so sure we might go with that. The market’s going to dictate to us what we feel we can do and
can’t do. Of the 54 lots in Phase II and III, as we said, 40 of the lots are already subject to the
existing covenants and restrictions, legally, okay. The other point is, is those lots are not
contiguous to any of the existing Phase I owners, okay. They’re separate to the north, where you
can see that line going through, but right now, you know, we’re going to have covenants and
restrictions. How those are going to unfold, I can’t exactly say right now. The market’s going to
dictate it.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. VOLLARO-At the risk of repeating what Craig said, I think he had a good point. Why
wouldn’t you just fold in the covenants and restrictions that you have on the rest of the lots? It
seems that if it’s not going to be that much of a departure.
MR. LAPPER-Just because Mr. Passarelli did his covenants and restrictions that are there, they’re
not the highest and best covenants and restrictions that you can find, and we think that what The
Michaels Group does are much more thorough.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m saying is, fold The Michaels Group covenants and restrictions
that are south of the line into those 17 lots north of the line.
MR. LAPPER-They’ll probably be very similar, but we just can’t tell you, sitting here, without an
exhaustive study of them, you know, that they’ll be exactly the same, but we’re going to build a
beautiful subdivision.
MR. MICHAELS-Those covenants and restrictions, when Mr. Passarelli went in and had the
project approved, the projects were approved with the Town and then he made a marketing
determination at the time to put those into effect, what he felt would be the market and how he
wanted to restrict the lots. We’re bound by that, legally. Okay. What I’m saying to the north is,
we feel, we definitely want covenants and restrictions, but how they unfold, we want to let the
market dictate it. If you want to just look at square footage as one example, okay. It says that
minimum ranch size has to be 1800 square feet. Well, you could build an 1800 square foot ranch
that might have a market value of $110,000. You could build an 1800 square foot ranch, or lets go
smaller. You could build a 1650 square foot ranch that has a market value in this area of
$175,000. It depends on how that structure is done. So, that’s where I’m saying the market
dictates it. It dictates the quality, it’s a standard, the way the home is built. You can build homes
for $150 a foot. Depending on how they’re finished, you can build homes for $90 a foot. So that’s
where the builder/developer, in terms of the market, where we have to make decisions based on
market, and we have to be flexible to the market. All we can assure everybody here is they’re
going to be done in a very quality manner. We’re going to make sure all the homes are fully
landscaped, and how the covenants and restrictions fine tune to that, I can’t exactly say, in terms of
square footage, right now.
MR. VOLLARO-But you don’t see radical departures from the existing covenants south of the
line?
MR. MICHAELS-No.
MR. LAPPER-I want to remind the Board also, just something interesting. When we were in here
for Cedar Court, there were, I think four, or three buildings that had already been constructed
before we took over the subdivision, and some of the existing neighbors were here at public
hearings saying, we don’t like this because you’re houses are going to be nicer than what we have,
and that’s going to make it harder to sell ours because you’re spending more money on yours than
what our houses were, so, just to throw that out. I mean, what The Michaels Group does, and you
can see it in all their subdivisions, it’s nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Got that, 10 foot sides. A gentleman asked about the common
property, the establishment of a homeowners association and how that would affect those who live
in Phase I who have no homeowners association.
MR. LAPPER-Dave thought it would be a nice idea, because we had this extra lot, to put together
a playground. There’s a playground at Hudson Pointe. That doesn’t have to be there. That’s sort
of an optional thing. It doesn’t make sense, really, to create a homeowners association for one little
lot. It would be nice if the Town decided that they wanted to own that as a little park, and, you
know, put a playground in there. It’s probably unlikely that the Town wants to do that. We can
withdraw that. It doesn’t have to be there. It can be a building lot. If people are concerned about
that, we can just withdraw that. We were just trying to throw that in as an amenity.
MR. MICHAELS-We looked at it as good planning, but the issues of a homeowners association,
first of all, if there was one created, it wouldn’t affect the Phase I homeowners. It would have to
affect the new homeowners in Phase II and III, and what we did is we laid it out. We tried to
design it in because we thought it would be a nice amenity to add to the area, okay, because we’ve
had a lot of people bring that up. It could be sort of a community amenity, and the problem is, is
that the legal requirements, and what would be involved to have to have the homeowners
association just to maintain a small playground area, you know, it would just be totally cost
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
effective, and the administration of it would be not feasible. So, we wanted to look into that and
make sure that that was indeed the case, and it does appear that’s the case. So our intentions will
be to not have that area, not have a homeowners association, but the total number of lots will not
be increased. I’m not going to raise it one more lot if we remove that. We’ll just reconfigure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Questions were also asked about the common area, in Phase I.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You do not own that?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you have no contract to purchase that?
MR. LAPPER-Right. Mr. Passarelli owns that.
MR. MILLER-He owns the land that borders West Mountain, that’s got the Niagara Mohawk
right-of-way that runs through it, this green space here. There’s a 100 foot Niagara Mohawk
right-of-way that goes through there, but the ownership of that underlying land is still Guido
Passarelli.
MR. PALING-Could Passarelli put a house on that land.
MR. LAPPER-He’d need a variance.
MR. MILLER-Probably not, because the power right-of-way.
MR. BREWER-Doesn’t he have, what’s that white line going to it there, is that access to it?
MR. PALING-That’s access, isn’t it?
MR. LAPPER-But it doesn’t conform. It doesn’t have proper road frontage.
MR. BREWER-How wide is that? In other words, did he cut a path there so he would have 40
feet?
MR. MILLER-That’s probably only like 20 or 25 feet.
MR. BREWER-Is it?
MR. PALING-Twenty-five feet, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get the Town to look into, pay a visit up there to see what?
MR. ROUND-We could take a look at the property. We could also look at the previous approvals,
if there were some restrictions placed on the previous approvals that’s going to further restrict
development of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think the concerns with the neighbors is that it’s turning into a dump site,
and maybe we need to look into that. Okay. Anybody else up here have questions?
MR. PALING-I’m just quoting people. There were two other questions, depth to groundwater, and
side clearance, which I don’t think we’ve covered yet.
MR. NACE-First of all, to clarify, my comment was not that it is definitely 100 feet to
groundwater. My comment was that we know that Rush Pond is over 100 feet below. It’s not that
far away. There is probably some groundwater gradient coming off of West Mountain area. So
we’re somewhat higher than that, but it’s unlikely that we would be a great deal higher than that,
because we’re just too close, you know, geologically too close to an open water surface. So, you
know, we know, definitively, we have done, between the original approvals and original test pits we
did with the Health Department a couple of months ago, we do know that groundwater on this site,
anywhere on this site, is deeper than 10 feet. That’s the deepest we’ve gone with the test pits.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. PALING-Okay. Then the other one was side clearance. I think that had to do with lot to lot,
if I remember the, is that Mr. DiNero?
MR. DI NERO-Yes. There’s the two lots at the bottom there, where they come together, I was just
curious about the side clearance.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing to change the side clearance, whatever the covenants say now.
We’re adding 10 feet on the back.
MR. PALING-That’s the same. Okay. That was all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. STARK-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? Tim? Okay. Next step. We need to make a statement saying that the
modifications, Mark, this is directed toward you, the modifications that they are proposing is not a
significant impact on the original SEQRA determination.
MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s how you feel, that would be very appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to put a motion up on the table for that?
MOTION THAT SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR PHASES II
AND III, LEHLAND ESTATES
, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Paling:
Has not changed significantly to adversely affect the SEQR that was done in 1987.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. STARK-What else, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-A motion.
MR. STARK-Well, they’re coming in for Final, when, next month?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know when they’re coming in for Final. We’re just doing Preliminary
tonight.
MR. NACE-Could the Board consider a waiver on the percentage completion between Phases at
this point?
MR. STARK-You want it at this point?
MR. MAC EWAN-Protocol says you put it in writing. Sorry.
MR. PALING-Yes, we don’t want to take that up now.
MR. NACE-No problem.
MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want a motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 FOR THE MICHAELS GROUP,
PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR PHASE II AND III
, Introduced by George Stark who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
With the condition: Change that buffer to 20 feet on the back of Lot 23
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. SP-1 - 13, Sheets 1-13
2. Rist Frost letter dated 3/18/98
3. Rist Frost Letter dated 3/23/98
4. John Goralski’s letter dated 1/15/98
5. Stormwater Management Plan, File No. 46121
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
MR. NACE-Craig, there’s a clarification. There just was one set of plans. Okay. One set of
plans, one through thirteen, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. It sounded like you had three sets of plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at Site Plan One, Site Plan Six, Site Plan Three, those were all
part of our packets, Site Plan 12, SP-12. That’s how they’re labeled.
MR. NACE-Yes, okay, but it was a complete set, SP-1 through SP-13.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Yes, reflect that, 13 drawings. That’s all I wanted to add to it.
Does anybody else want to add anything to it?
MR. PALING-Well, should we add what the intentions of the builder is to do with the possible
playground? I think that they said that they would not have a playground, or would not increase lot
size. What would happen? What would you do with the land, just divide it?
MR. LAPPER-We’ll address that in Final. I mean, we’ll have the move the lots around a little bit.
We’re not going to add another lot.
MR. PALING-Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you ought to make part of the condition, too, that they are going to, how
you want to word it, that the covenants will be met, the existing covenants for Phase II.
MR. PALING-You can’t go north of the red line, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-The covenants, that usually isn’t a Planning Board issue. I mean, we’re legally
bound by what’s there, for the south of that line.
MR. MAC EWAN-There was one other thing, too.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll also change that buffer to 20 feet on the back of Lot 23.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it was. Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. PALING-No, not from me.
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
SITE PLAN NO. 9-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C. OWNER:
SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER DIX AVE. & QUEENSBURY AVE.
PROPOSAL IS TO UTILIZE PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT,
SALES, RENTALS AND SERVICE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 46-1996, AV 61-1996,
SP 43-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: MARCH 11, 1998 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT
SIZE: 1.728 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
MIKE O’CONNOR & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STARK-The next order of business was tabled from last week.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-1998, NuTech Reality, L.L.C., Meeting Date: March 24, 1998
th
“This application was tabled on March 17 because the Planning Board requested additional
information. The Board requested a portion of the landscape plan from Site Plan 43-96 approved
on 5/23/96 be incorporated with Site Plan 9-98. This refers to the North Property line planting
schedule with fencing. The eight foot high board on board fence runs approximately 300 feet on
the north property line attached to a chain link fence on both ends. The fence is to be eight feet
high board on board. The planting schedule will include twenty two plantings along the eight foot
high board on board fence (approximately 300 feet as shown on 5/23/96 plan), nine plantings on
top of a six foot berm (approximately nine feet), and eighteen plantings that will encompass the
front of the building (plantings will be on the west, south, and east as depicted on the site plan,
3/19/98). The type, diameter, and height will be determined in cooperation between the board and
applicant. Additionally, the Board requested the location and size of sign for traffic safety (the
sign is subject to a separate permit), the location and access points of the holding tank, and a fifty
foot buffer line on the North side of the property. These were to be shown on a plot plan submitted
by noon on March 19, 1998. Staff received a plot plan and a spill data sheet on the date requested.
The plot plan was missing some additional plantings on the north property line. Staff
communicated with the applicant by fax indicating the discrepancies and the request for the soil
remediation report. The applicant has complied with the request of the Board with the noted
exceptions. The Board may consider additional landscaping south of the property and the buffer
area regraded with appropriate vegetation.”
MR. STARK-The County approved it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We picked up the County the last time.
MR. STARK-Chris, did you ever resolve the Beautification Committee, or what’s?
MR. ROUND-We haven’t, and we’re hoping to do that Monday night coming up, or the following
Monday.
MR. STARK-So nothing can go?
MR. ROUND-They haven’t met, and hopefully for April they will meet in April.
MR. STARK-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily that we have to read it into the record, but could we just reflect
that we want to make part of the record a fax transmittal dated 3/20/98. It’s to Tim Barber from
the Planning Staff, from Laura Nowicki, also another one on 3/17 to Mike O’Connor from Laura
Nowicki, and a Record of Telephone Conversation on 3/17 from Laura Nowicki to Tim Barber.
Okay. So I guess that’s everything that we were looking for at this point. Could you identify
yourself for the record.
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Mike O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor,
representing the applicant. With me is Tim Barber, who is the principle of the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have some things that need to be addressed. I think we’re on our
way to getting them all done, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-I have a question, I guess.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-As I understand it, there were a couple of different submittals that were made
within the last week, and part of the time I was not here. As I left the last meeting, and Staff gave
us a memo shortly after the last meeting with a checklist of what was to be provided and where the
Board had some concerns. The first submittal had that. This submittal goes a little bit beyond
that, and I’d like to address particularly how this submittal goes beyond that. As I understood
what we talked about before is that the Board wanted us to show exactly the same planting scheme
that was shown on the prior approval, the prior site plan for the north boundary, and I have a copy
of that. I have it signed off by the Beautification Committee, and at that time, the plantings were
restricted to this side of where I’m holding my finger. I think there was a question by the Board
that, apparently, in the first submittal this time around, there weren’t the same number of plantings
here that there were in the prior one of last year. It was my thought that the Board was telling us
that, show the exact plantings as they adjoin this particular neighbor’s residence. I don’t think
there’s anything behind here that actually we’re talking about buffering or has a practical effect.
We also are now, did show, the eight foot high board fence. So I think this is a very ineffective use
of any plantings here, on this side, our side of the eight foot high buffer fence. It’s an expense that,
you know, somebody trying to turn the property around, get into a new business, really shouldn’t
have to undergo if it has no practical impact or no particular purpose. As I understood the Board’s
comments, they understood that what was proposed in the front was what we had shown in the
earlier application, and that’s what we wish to stay with. Now, this, and we admitted at our last
presentation, that the planting in the front was different than what was the 1996 application. So, I
would like to ask the Board to approve this, but without this planting right here, and there has been
a code. I don’t know if this was on the prior one or not. There is a key as to what the plantings
are. I don’t think these trees on the inside of our fence really add much to it.
MR. PALING-I tend to agree with what you’re saying. I didn’t understand the plantings were
going to be the way that print shows. I’m not against taking the plantings along the fence out, as
shown up to the point where you put the 18 trees in, I think is the next part to the right. That
should stay as you show it, and the part that’s in front of the building should be as shown on this
print.
MR. O’CONNOR-That we intended.
MR. PALING-But the other, I don’t see any purpose to it, either, and I left the meeting last week
not really realizing that you were going to do that.
MR. STARK-You said 18. You don’t have 18 there, do you?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, I’m sorry, 13.
MR. STARK-You’re proposing them?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STARK-But not.
MR. BREWER-Not the ones along the fence.
MR. O’CONNOR-Not this group right here. This is, there’s a key on here some place, 18J.
MR. PALING-Eighteen is around the building. I’m sorry.
MR. O’CONNOR-The 18J were three foot high evergreens, which I would propose not doing.
MR. STARK-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-Everything else as shown we would do.
MR. PALING-And you’ve got 18 around the front of the building. That’s what I was talking
about.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-What I recall, when Tim came up to the table and he and I were talking, it may
not have been picked up on the tape, is that we were talking about the site plan in general for the
plantings, trying to get it to the site plan, what was approved by this Board back in 1996, and he
had made a comment to me that it did, and when we got off on the top he and I were talking about
specifically that corner which the drawing that you had here last week was not the same amount of
plantings in that corner as what was originally approved.
MR. O’CONNOR-What corner, Mr. MacEwan?
MR. MAC EWAN-That corner which would be your northeast corner.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the corner that he and I were referring to, and I said to him at that time,
I want to see that that is going to be, this back area is going to be just like what was approved in
1996. I was still referring to encompassing the entire site, not alleviating the plantings that were to
be done along Dix Avenue. Okay. I would be willing to take those plantings that you don’t feel
are necessary along the fence and put them down along the road side where they originally were on
the ’96 approval.
MR. STARK-Inside the fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Inside your property line.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think, in ’96, they were put along there because it was intended to have heavy
duty construction equipment in this area. We’re now talking about this being a display area for
sales, and you’re talking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Display area of what?
MR. O’CONNOR-Of the equipment that we will be selling.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what we were told this morning when we were down there. The
display area was supposed to be right in front of the building.
MR. O’CONNOR-Immediately. If this thing takes off, we will put some of it over here. We’ve
marked the map. I talked about it last time, that this is marked in here as a reserve area for future
display.
MR. BREWER-Reserved area for future display on the map.
MR. O’CONNOR-We said that the last time, and these, I don’t know what type plantings you’re
talking about along here. There were plantings along there in 1996, outside the fence, outside the
chain link fence. I think that part was to hide the heavy duty construction equipment, which was
not there for purposes of sale or rental.
MR. MAC EWAN-How is the three foot high evergreen going to obstruct the view of the display
area?
MR. O’CONNOR-A lot of that equipment is low equipment.
MR. BARBER-The majority of the new equipment that we’re purchasing and renting is lower than
that. There are some pieces that are higher than that, but as the three members were up there
today, and I pointed out the little mini backhoe. That stands this high. Okay. The excavator
stands four foot three inches high. You can’t shield a sales lot like that with little equipment. It’s
like selling automobiles and putting a fence up in front. It just won’t work.
MR. BREWER-Why don’t you move the equipment parking here, well, you’re going to have
display there also? Here?
MR. BARBER-Yes, along the front of the building we’re going to park the little equipment, but
also it can be roll out generators, little heat plants, that type of equipment out there also.
MR. BREWER-In here you mean?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. BARBER-No. Right in the front.
MR. BREWER-No, I know that. What are you going to have here?
MR. O’CONNOR-Parking for customers. That’s a travel lane for the parking, for customers.
That’s not a display.
MR. BREWER-It says employee parking, of this whole row here.
MR. O’CONNOR-Some is employee, some is customer parking. There’s a key on there as to how
we arrived at the 14 spots. Some will be employees. Some will be customers. This is an
improvement over what’s down there now. You are going to have a grassed area put in there. It is
going to break up a little bit of what’s there. Before, you used to have the Rent All trucks and
whatever that was in there before.
MR. PALING-Well, maybe we misunderstood you this morning, because I did get that impression
that, Bob was talking about it, too, but I was wondering if the better thing to do would be to get a
commitment from you that all of the storage equipment and what not back there would be
completely removed by a certain date, whatever date would seem reasonable, and I’d be happy with
that as compared to putting trees or any kind of vegetation along the road.
MR. O’CONNOR-Is that your existing construction equipment?
MR. BARBER-Yes. As I spoke this morning, as Mike is saying, that’s for our future growth.
Hopefully business will do well, and we’ll expand into those areas. As I said this morning, all the
construction supplies you see up on the hill are being moved presently to Hudson Falls. We have
scrape dumpsters there. We’re sorting out steel and so on and so forth. We’re in a big clean up
mode right now. That will all be removed.
MR. PALING-How do you feel about that?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’d like to see a time certain on that.
st
MR. O’CONNOR-July 31?
MR. PALING-Yes, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about prior to a CO?
MR. O’CONNOR-I think he would like to be up and operating. I’m not sure, are we going to be
able to actually be in selling of equipment and what not without a CO?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. O’CONNOR-In the sense that we could have, well, the improvements that we’re talking
about are the external improvements, for the most part, shelving and what not. I don’t know, we’re
st
talking, we will complete everything by July 31.
MR. PALING-But that would include the semi carriers, whatever you call them back there?
MR. BARBER-That’s correct.
MR. PALING-About four or five of them. I’m talking about everything, whether it’s parts or
equipment or storage.
MR. BARBER-Anything to do with our construction division, Mr. Paling, will be moved before
st
July 31.
MR. O’CONNOR-But all, I can envision what you’re talking about without going there. You’re
talking about all equipment, all construction equipment there, all excess construction supplies and
materials.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-You want them off the site.
MR. PALING-In my mind, that leaves a vacant lot.
MR. BARBER-You’re pretty much correct. There’s only a couple of small pieces up there. I
think there was a couple of man baskets that were up toward the road, and a pick up and another
truck that’s going to be used in the rental division, but, yes, all those supplies that we all looked at
on the northern border, those are all going.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You just said the man baskets are going to be kept on and used as part of the
rental for this new business?
MR. BREWER-No, he said the pick up truck.
MR. BARBER-The pick up’s, yes, but there are two man baskets we’re keeping on, too.
MR. PALING-There’s two man baskets and two pick up trucks?
MR. BARBER-Yes. A man basket’s a four by four by six foot high cubicle that you hook to a
crane, or you put on a fork truck. They’re right up tight to the fence right now, lined up with
equipment.
MR. PALING-That’s only four items left. So that’s.
MR. BARBER-That’s about right.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The last time we met, we talked about a 50 foot buffer. Am I reading this
correct? I don’t have my scale with me, unfortunately, but are we reading that this is still a 40 foot
buffer, and that we’re down to, because I see a line that says “5-0” buffer.
MR. O’CONNOR-I was told it was 50 foot. That’s 50 foot.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 50 foot? That’s just a label?
MR. PALING-Yes. It scales to 50 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-It does? Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-This is the 50 foot buffer.
MR. STARK-And nothing will be there ever?
MR. O’CONNOR-We will not utilize it. We will not utilize it unless we go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals and get a variance, which is I think, basically, what we were told we would have to do if
we were going to utilize it.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a way to put anything at all at the 50 foot line to sort of remind you and
keep you honest about maintaining that buffer? A small fence arrangement or, one that can come
down? You’ve got a fence out front now, that’s a plastic type fence. If you put something along
that 50 foot line, it would kind of remind you not to sort of absentmindedly, if you will, overflow
into the buffer zone. I don’t know, it could easily happen. With a large space like this, before you
know it, you’ll be pushing the limits of that buffer zone.
MR. O’CONNOR-You’ve got parking dividers out in the front. Can you space some parking
dividers down through there? On these front parking spots, there are dividers shown at the front
there, or parking stops, whatever you call them.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve seen those, yes.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-You could put a few of those along there, line it up. Yes. I don’t think that’s a
problem. I don’t think that’s a problem. It may very well be, if this thing does take off, that we
will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask them to re-instate the variance that they have done
before.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine. If they grant that, you take the little fence down. That’s fine.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The driveway cuts, in talking with Staff today, you’re in agreement that
that’s going to be concrete curbing?
MR. BARBER-I wasn’t in agreeance.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think we could agree to do the ends of them, but not the whole lengths of
them, do the curbed part.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean the ends of them?
MR. O’CONNOR-I had a question, I don’t know if Laura asked either, can we do curbing in the
County right-of-way? Because what we were going to show, let me just finish what we were going
to show. We were going to cut the pavement, and we’ve been told we can cut the pavement and
install planting or grass in that area, in these areas that are shown as not being access. They were
going to be grassed, seeded, and maintained as a grassed area, and the demarcation was going to
be, this is pavement, that’s grass. Part of this nice, round apron here that’s shown is out into the
County highway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me ask you a question. When you went to the County Planning
Board, the County Highway Superintendent made indications that he wanted to see the driveway
cut moved farther west on Dix Avenue, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-And he was satisfied, based upon this detail.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does that mean that you have to get another driveway permit because you’re
relocating the driveway?
MR. O’CONNOR-He didn’t indicate that. Well, we’re not relocating it. We’re cutting it down.
This driveway is along the whole front of the property right now.
MR. BREWER-It’s wide open.
MR. O’CONNO-And what we’re doing is giving up part of it. Probably, maybe technically we
would, we should ask for a driveway permit, but you usually ask for a driveway permit when
there’s some construction involved. So that they make sure that you put the right culvert in or
something of that nature.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think Staff and the Board’s concern is that you don’t want to see people
cutting across the grass area or whatever, just as a convenience of getting in and out of there,
trying to fight traffic.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Again, there are going to be stops in front of each of these parking
spaces, the bumper type thing that you drive your car up against, little concrete bumper across the
front of these five, and across these three here.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not delineated on the map, on the drawing.
MR. O’CONNOR-I thought they were.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they show something, but that doesn’t really say what they are. They
could be a painted line.
MR. BREWER-They’re curbs, those removal curbs or whatever.
MR. O’CONNOR-You can mark them as curbs if you want.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. BREWER-You can just note that on the plan.
MR. O’CONNOR-And the fence starts here. You end up with maybe two gaps where somebody
could shoot in here if they were going to cut across the lawn, or if they were going to shoot in right
here. That’s pretty close. I don’t know if they’re going to do that. If we have an enforcement
problem there, we probably will put some curbing in there. He put the fencing up right now to
keep people from cutting across there at the light.
MR. PALING-Clarify curbing material for me.
MR. O’CONNOR-As we propose it, it’s pre-cast concrete parking lot stops.
MR. PALING-Okay. No wood? No asphalt?
MR. O’CONNOR-On?
MR. PALING-On curbings.
MR. O’CONNOR-On the front of these things here. We did not propose curbings. All we
proposed was to cut the concrete out or the pavement out.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking about tire curbs, Bob, tire curbs in individual parking stalls.
That’s what he’s talking about.
MR. O’CONNOR-And we said we did not want to go through that expense.
MR. VOLLARO-On the 1200 gallon tank out back, we looked at that today, and the drawing here
shows an oil separator, and we were told today you took the oil separator out. There is no oil
separator there.
MR. BARBER-No. That tank is called an oil separator. The little funnel that came into the inside,
that I was pointing to, that was a filter oil separator. That was an above ground, for an automotive
shop. It was a little basin that had a screen where they put all the.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that where you’ve got the rag plugged into it?
MR. BARBER-Yes. That’s plugged. Yes. There used to be a container there that had screening
in it, and they put their filters upside down, for above ground use. We don’t utilize that. So we
took that out.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that when you’re doing your cleaning in the building out back,
that that water is going to flow into this 1200 gallon tank, and the oil’s going to be separated out.
There’s an oil separator in there?
MR. BARBER-Yes. An oil separator is simply a baffle in a tank, which when the water comes in,
the oil rises to the top, and this is not a tank that goes to a leach field or anything. It’s a holding
tank. So basically the oil’s on top anyway. It just gets pumped out.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to just pump it all together, in other words?
MR. BARBER-Yes, that’s what they’ve always done, just pump it right out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. PALING-Yes, I do. I hope I don’t repeat anything. I was looking at my list and trying to pay
attention. I’ve got three questions. Are there any pending approvals from the Town for anything
you’ve got here? Because we’ve, the last time we were, the pending was the Beautification
Committee, and so on. I understand that one, but are there any pending approvals?
MR. O’CONNOR-There are no pending approvals now. I thought we had that discussion,
because I was arguing some grandfathering, or vesting with the variance, which is given up by
giving you the 50 foot buffer.
MR. PALING-Okay.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-And the Beautification.
MR. PALING-No, that’s settled.
MR. O’CONNOR-I thought it was agreed that it was not our area. You were not going to hold us
to that.
MR. PALING-That’s right. Okay. Now soil remediation. Have we gotten into that yet.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think Staff wanted a full copy of the Phase I, and we gave that to them.
MS. NOWICKI-They also received one.
MR. PALING-And that’s satisfactory?
MS. NOWICKI-He submitted what I requested.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. STARK-No, only that I’d want to make it a condition of approval that no CO unless certain
things, you know, all these things are met with beforehand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. STARK-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? Tim?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff?
MR. ROUND-I just want to get clear that the motion that you make includes any revisions that
you discuss. Just to clarify that.
MR. PALING-Well, we’d want to make it part of the motion.
MR. ROUND-Right, just that you incorporate those revisions, because it’s kind of gone back and
forth.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. My understanding of the revisions is that the 18 small plantings along
the top of the plan are not necessary.
MR. BREWER-That are along the fence.
MR. O’CONNOR-That are along the fence on the northerly boundary.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that we will show, at the end of each parking spot, that faces onto Dix
Avenue, a pre-cast parking.
MR. STARK-Concrete stop in front of south parking lots.
MR. O’CONNOR-Concrete stop.
MR. STARK-Or spots. Eight foot fence in the back, also.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s shown on there.
MR. PALING-To delineate your buffer zone, yes.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-The buffer zone, and we will put concrete blocks in the back to show the buffer
zone.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-The entire width of the property?
MR. O’CONNOR-So that it’s readily, you know, if you put them every 50 feet, I think you could
probably eye ball it and see where you are or you aren’t.
MR. STARK-And four pieces of equipment will stay.
MR. PALING-Yes. I’ve got two man baskets and.
MR. ROUND-That’s the only problem I have a problem with is how do we document what you
have in your head that’s going to be removed and what you do as far as an enforcement or
compliance?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll try to tie it down.
MR. O’CONNOR-The only thing, the items that will be left will be items that will be there for
rental or sale of the nature delineated in that letter, and to our knowledge, what’s on site now, that
includes only the two man baskets, and a pick up which will be used in the business.
MS. NOWICKI-I have one more thing. Can you address your access definition again? Because I
didn’t quite understand whether he is going to do concrete curbs, or he is doing asphalt and grass.
MR. O’CONNOR-Our request is to have approval and grass. We will cut the concrete and grass.
We will cut the concrete and install grass and plant it, grassed areas and plant it, as shown on the
map.
MR. PALING-And you’ll make the curbs concrete.
MR. O’CONNOR-There are no curbs shown.
MR. BREWER-You’re going back to those curbs in front of the cars.
MR. PALING-I’ve got curbs on the brain. How are you going to delineate the entrance, the
access?
MR. O’CONNOR-Just by pavement, as opposed to grass.
MR. PALING-All right. There’ll be no curbs.
MR. O’CONNOR-There’ll be no curbs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, you’re recommendation is you wanted curbs, or some sort of curbs.
MR. ROUND-We’re looking for a clear definition of the driveways, just it always becomes a
problem down the road and there are concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does it satisfy you that he clearly delineates on this plot plan asphalt to the
grass area?
MR. BREWER-What happens with that, though, is if you get a corner like this, asphalt and grass,
they’re going to start driving over it, and it becomes dirt, and then it becomes stone, and.
MR. PALING-And then it becomes one big entrance.
MR. BREWER-Exactly. So why couldn’t you put some of those pre-cast curbs or whatever you
will?
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. ROUND-You could specify, I mean, if the concern is that you don’t want him to go the entire
length of the site, within a certain radius distance of each of those entrance points, you could define
those.
MR. O’CONNOR-How about if we do at least 10 feet radius on each entrance on Dix Avenue,
with a concrete type curbing within our property, and within our property and the County right-of-
way, if the County says it’s okay to stick it out in the County right-of-way?
MR. STARK-Concrete curbing or concrete stops?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re doing the radius, right?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, concrete curbing.
MR. MAC EWAN-And say just, you’re talking specifically, you’re doing the radius, then, like
going up Dix Avenue 10 feet?
MR. BARBER-No.
MR. O’CONNOR-Going into our property 10 feet. Let me show you on the map.
MR. PALING-You’d draw an arch 10 feet?
MR. O’CONNOR-We would have a minimum of, beginning at this point, back into our property,
following this line, of 10 feet, and the same thing on this line right here. Okay. If the County
allows us to go out into here, we’d start it out there, where it would be flat, and bring it around to
where it would be flat on the back.
MR. STARK-I would think the County wouldn’t want you to do that.
MR. O’CONNOR-They let us do it over at Cool Beans, and that was the City. That wasn’t the
County, I’m sorry. That was the City. They let us.
MR. ROUND-They do a lot. You’ll see, the State allows you to do shared curbings and islands.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. You taper them. That’s part of our problem is putting them in.
Maintenance, plowing and everything else is a pain in the neck. We could put a little driveway,
those little reflector type things out there on sticks and keep people in the right-of-way. We plant
the grass seed. We don’t want to re-plant it.
MR. BREWER-Berm it.
MR. O’CONNOR-Everybody doesn’t have all the money in the world to do everything that would
be nice. I’m not crying poverty, but if you sit here and you listen and you start adding dollars and
cents to every little thing that we add, you change the complexity of, sometimes, the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess my rebuttal to that would be, I would look back at what was
approved in ’96, and it wasn’t done, and now this Board wants to be ensured that we’re going to
have a site plan that’s not only going to be safe for ingress and egress, but that’s going to conform
to what we’re looking for, and that’s reasonable.
MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with the time table and getting it done. I hold no fault
on my client for not having it completed at this point, if the Town enforcement people had been
telling him, we’ll work with you, we’ll work on it and come along. There’s got to be some better
communication between you and that group than what there has been.
MR. BREWER-Mike, if he submits a plan, he knows what he puts on that plan. He should be
responsible enough to do what’s on that plan.
MR. O’CONNOR-You weren’t here last month.
MR. BREWER-You’re right.
MR. O’CONNOR-And there’s a soil contamination problem that everybody is trying to work
around, as opposed to, again, spending a lot of money on something that is not going to
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
accomplish a great deal, and the Building Department has been giving extensions to a temporary
CO on the basis that he may have to go in and do some excavation later on for what he was going
to do in the first instance, and the other idea was, he was trying not to parcel out a little bit of the
landscaping now and a little bit later and pay more money for the total package, but that’s history,
and I think we’re willing to go forward, and I don’t mean to get back into it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re willing to go forward, too. We just want to make sure that the
site’s going to be done the way we’d like it to be done.
MR. O’CONNOR-So there’s no issue, let me ask you this question up front, and you can pass it
on to the Staff for enforcement purposes, if weather does not permit, and we’re still within that, but
we’re ready to open, the internal part of the business, do you have a problem with them offering a
temporary CO, as they have in the past, for the exterior type work, as long as it doesn’t go beyond
the drop dead date that you’re talking about?
st
MR. STARK-You mean July 31?
st
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, July 31.
MR. MAC EWAN-My position is, I want to see everything done, this is my feelings, I want to see
everything done before a CO is issued. If you get to the point where you don’t think you can get
everything done, and you want to move in and start conducting business, I’d ask you to come back
here and ask us for our input on that, and let the Board judge it at the time.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I think we’re going to be ready internally, within a month from today. I
don’t think, externally, you’re going to be out there planting, putting in shrubbery.
MR. BREWER-Could you get the stuff out of the yard and put the curbs down?
MR. BARBER-We’re working on, Tim, we’re working on getting all the material moved out of the
yard at the present time. I don’t really want to open up that front ground until that the snow is
going to be gone.
MR. BREWER-I think you misunderstood me, Tim, I mean the removable curbs.
MR. BARBER-Those stops?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. BARBER-Yes. I have a fence up there now, just to stop that, but I didn’t want to open up
that blacktop until the snow stopped, I’m going to be disturbing the ground, and we do have a little
bit of a slope there, and I don’t want it running off on us. This is all going to get done.
MR. O’CONNOR-My anticipation of not having completed would be the landscaping and the
concrete curbs that we just indicated, that are around the radiuses.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think either one of those things are anything that’s going to hold you up.
The nurseries are going to start accepting their shrubs and stuff in here in the next 10 days, for
spring planting. I don’t think that’s going to be an issue. That’s my personal opinion. There’s
four other people up here.
MR. PALING-Is it possible to issue a CO with a short expiration date?
MR. BREWER-Yes, but then what do you do, shut them down, Bob?
MR. MAC EWAN-Once you’re in, that’s very difficult to get you out.
MR. BARBER-We’re in already though. I mean, it’s not like we’re leaving. We’re there.
MR. VOLLARO-I have another question. It’s on your letter, Mike, the last couple of paragraphs
on your letter dated 3/17 to Laura Nowicki, and this is concerning the front plantings. It seems
that we’ve got a little conflict in terms here. You were proposing, really, to get that landscaping up
front done by June 30, based on some remediation problems with DEC.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-And I waived the remediation. I said not withstanding the remediation we
th
would do it by June 30.
th
MR. VOLLARO-By June 30, but this whole couple of paragraphs conveys to me the fact that
you did want plantings up front, or you were going to at least agree to them across that whole line.
MR. O’CONNOR-No. Those were shown on the plan back there around the front of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says here, it is unclear when DEC will make a final determination, and
not withstanding the opinion of the consultant, I’ll just paraphrase, that it may prove to be an
economic hardship if planting is completed at this time, and will be completed, and if disturbed will
be replaced. So, this paragraph intimates to me that you were, you and your client were thinking
of putting plantings up front.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. There are two plantings we’re talking about, okay. There’s some
shrubbery around the front of the building. That’s what was shown on the plan that that letter was
directed to, and also the lawns that are put in there. Those lawns will have to be dug up. Probably
those lawns more than the buildings, if you looked at the remediation plan that was put in, I think
the contamination was mainly, it would affect the lawns, which I also look at as being plantings.
MR. BREWER-Mike, what about if you get everything done excluding the plantings, you give us
the money like we did with the Olive Garden? Did we do that with Olive Garden?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know, but that’s something that you can do. You can hold money in escrow
or.
MR. BREWER-Whatever, just so that we know that that work will be done. If it’s not done in a
time from that, then we’ll take the money and do it.
st
MR. BARBER-I don’t have any problems getting the plantings done by July 31. It’s just the
weather issue.
MR. BREWER-July?
MR. BARBER-June.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I think we’re back, so that we don’t have any confusion, you’ve corrected
st
me on my date. I was talking July 31 for removal of construction. Lets move everything back to
th
June 30. You’ve got one date for enforcement.
th
MR. PALING-Okay. Lets say we did it June 30.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
th
MR. PALING-It comes June 30, it’s not done. What are you willing to do then?
MR. O’CONNOR-Then it’s an enforcement issue and you revoke his CO.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but then you know what that means. Then you end up going to court and it
takes you six months to get to court.
MR. PALING-Then you, now, that means we shut your business down.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that means we’re spending Town tax dollars pursuing a thing in court
that’s going to be very difficult to throw someone out.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s also very, very inefficient and it’s pretty easy for the alleged violator to
drag the process out. So, from the standpoint, I think the Staff and I, as Counsel, probably are not
crazy about that mechanism. No fault of the applicant’s. That’s just how the system works.
MR. PALING-How about a performance bond, then?
MR. O’CONNOR-You’re talking cash. You’re probably talking a couple of thousand dollars for
the planting that we’re talking about at issue.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. PALING-We’re talking more than that if you don’t move that stuff.
MR. BARBER-This building will be ready to be used. We need to be up and running for sales mid
to late April, okay. It’s my intentions, weather permitting, to do all those plantings. I mean,
there’s a hell of a lot less money in putting those plantings in than dumping that entire construction
yard. I’ll tell you that right now. There’s a lot of money in moving all that equipment and all that
junk that’s out there.
MR. VOLLARO-Now these plantings that you’re talking about are those plantings around the
existing building here? Is that the plantings?
MR. BARBER-Those plantings, the ones out on the berm,
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in the back.
MR. BARBER-And the grass in the front, okay. That’s a very small scope to what I have to do in
the construction yard that’s presently there. Okay. I’m more concerned with getting everything
looking nice to open this new business by the middle of April, but weather permitting, I may not be
able to open this ground. That’s the only thing that’s going to stop me is the weather. If we didn’t
have the snow right now and it was coming spring, then we’d be out there doing that. These trees
here could be almost immediately planted as soon as the frost is out, which I think is probably out
now. I could plant those trees.
MR. BREWER-It’s going to be 60 the end of the week.
MR. BARBER-Right. I could plant these trees out here as soon as possible, and the ones around
the building I could plant as soon as possible. I’m just concerned about opening up the ground in
the front of the property. That’s the only concern I have.
MR. VOLLARO-What Mark is saying is he wants to give us a date certain of June 30 for
enforcement against everything, in clearing up of the lots in the back and also all the plantings. So
now we have a target date to shoot at. That’s what he’s saying, and to me, that makes more sense
than having a couple of other dates floating around.
th
MR. BREWER-June 30, but I guess your point is, if he doesn’t do it, then what do we do?
MR. VOLLARO-I think what I’m leaning on is that it gets done, and a CO is then issued, but you
also have this date of June 30 that says you’ve just got to do it by that date.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s either one or the other.
th
MR. PALING-The thing I don’t understand is, lets say we do it exactly as we’re saying, June 30
is the outside date, and they can open earlier as they wish. If the applicant commits themselves to a
penalty, and I’m talking about the principle, if he commits himself to a condition, to a penalty, why
is that not easily enforceable? You said, Mark, they can jump out of it, but wait a minute, if the
gentleman is sitting here and he says, I will do this, why can’t we hold him to it? He says, I’ll shut
down my business if I don’t have it done. Why can’t we hold him to it simply, without going to
court or anything?
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess we could take a stab at drafting an agreement, a legally enforceable
agreement, to that end.
MR. ROUND-Still, it’s a contract. In compliance with the contract. It’s all compliance.
MR. O’CONNOR-Aside from this application, don’t we have the whole process of temporary
CO’s to handle this?
MR. ROUND-Yes, we do.
MR. O’CONNOR-And that’s what I’m talking about. I’m just saying, Craig, you were kind of
leaning toward, you’re agreeing to this and agreeing to that, but don’t open the business until you
have your CO, permanent CO, is the way I was reading your comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re reading it right.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-And I’m saying, because the weather, if this were June and we were hoping to
be open in a month, I wouldn’t be talking so much about temporary CO, but I know, I think from
what he’s told me, he’s going to be ready to open business probably before it’s reasonable to make
that investment in the landscaping that’s required.
MR. MAC EWAN-But I guess I feel like you’re pressuring this Board and me into giving an
approval for this thing when, if he knew he was going to be doing this, he should have come in here
a month earlier.
MR. O’CONNOR-Let me ask you this. How about doing your approval, you giving me a date of
th
June 30 for completion.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t, I’ll tell you flat out, I don’t feel comfortable doing it.
MR. O’CONNOR-And I’ll leave it to the Building Department.
MR. STARK-Chris, suppose you could issue a temporary CO, and there’s no permanent CO until
ststth
May 31, and all the plantings will be done by May 31? Why June 30?
st
MR. ROUND-If you’re asking me, May 31 would be, in my judgment, is a reasonable date, and
then that would back up any, if it came to enforcement, I mean, this is all predicated on something
not happening.
MR. STARK-And then if it isn’t done, you don’t get a CO?
st
MR. ROUND-May 31, exactly. We give him a temporary CO, contingent that everything is
st
completed at May 31. That’s a reasonable time as far as landscaping issues are addressed, and if
it’s not completed, then it goes the normal route.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. You issue a temporary CO. He violates the conditions of the
site plan approval. Now, you have to step in, and what would you do, and how would it proceed?
MR. ROUND-Well, it would go to a criminal, a civil action.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mark, now you become involved. What happens?
MR. SCHACHNER-Under that scenario, there’s a Town court enforcement proceeding, and the
Town court, I mean, this is a worst case scenario, I assume.
MR. MAC EWAN-Worst case scenario.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the Town court establishes, this is all assuming that we have a very
uncooperative, you know, applicant/alleged violator, none of which I have any reason to believe
would be the case, but you’re playing this out. The Town court establishes a trial date. Typically
that takes, I’m going to say four to six weeks, and then we have a Town court trial, and if the
Town justice agrees with the Town’s position, then the Town justice has the authority to issue an
order that the premises cease to be occupied, cease to be operated, cease to be whatever, and he can
fine him. He can do all kinds of things.
MR. PALING-Well, then lets go the (lost word) route.
MR. MAC EWAN-How likely is that to happen?
MR. SCHACHNER-How likely?
MR. MAC EWAN-Has that ever happened that you are aware of since you’ve been serving as
Town Attorney, that we’ve ever done an enforcement action that you are aware of, or ever been
involved in private practice where you’ve taken a business where the courts have ruled to shut the
doors on the business until they comply?
MR. SCHACHNER-It has happened, in my experience, it has not happened in Queensbury.
MR. O’CONNOR-Most times, even if you get that notice, Craig, the people then start, if they
haven’t done it, they then fix it.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s certainly a true statement.
MR. O’CONNOR-One, they’re getting bad publicity in the newspaper. They’re doing all kinds of
things, community wise. I don’t think people generally take these things, I actually think, and
maybe this is what sets us up in a bad frame of mind here, is I don’t think the applicant, in this
instance, thought that he was doing anything to the dissatisfaction of the Town with this present
operation.
MR. BARBER-Everything that has been done there, everything that’s been going on, has been in
full communication with your Code Enforcement people. They’ve been over to the place. Former
planning people have been over to the place. We do a lot of construction in this Town. If you look
at any of our sites, we’ve never not complied with anything.
MR. PALING-Well, I suggest we go the temporary CO route, proposal with the conditions that
we’ve listed.
st
MR. STARK-By May 31.
st
MR. PALING-Is May 31 a doable date?
MR. BARBER-That’s fine.
MR. PALING-It would seem, you could get plantings in by the end of May.
MR. BREWER-Is that going to give you time enough to get your other stuff out of there, though?
MR. BARBER-Yes, that should be out fairly quick, Tim. In a couple of weeks.
MR. BREWER-For your benefit, not mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to back up for one quick question. Was the Building Department and your
department aware that the site plan that was approved in ’96 was in violation all this time?
MR. ROUND-I can say that there wasn’t an enforcement action for any non-compliance issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I asked.
MR. ROUND-I can only speak for myself. I didn’t know, I, myself, didn’t know that there were
compliance issues associated with this project up until it came before us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you know of anybody from the Building Department, any of the
inspectors? Why would the inspectors be making routine visits out there? I guess I would ask that
question.
MR. ROUND-It’s a highly visible site. I mean, you drive by it to go to areas in Queensbury. I
know that there’s been communication on an informal level that there were issues to be addressed
and that, and in fairness to Mr. Barber, what those were, and when I go to a file and I ask
personnel, there wasn’t a clear documentation that there was or wasn’t an enforcement, or a
compliance issue. Have I confused you enough now?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you lost me on that part.
MR. O’CONNOR-He’s doing a nice dance.
MR. BREWER-He almost sounds like an attorney, doesn’t he.
MR. MAC EWAN-So there were communications going on that there may have been?
MR. ROUND-Tim does a lot of work in Town. There’s other projects, and there wasn’t, I’m not
privy to any information that went to Tim that said, hey, you have to do this or this. I do know that
there was a temporary CO and there had been expirations, and I can assume that the temporary CO
was because he hadn’t completed activities, and that’s when we got into a dialogue about.
MR. O’CONNOR-And even recently, and I thought it was more recent than, but there was a very
recent renewal of that temporary CO.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. MAC EWAN-No. You were talking about the variance, weren’t you?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, the temporary CO.
MR. ROUND-No. The temporary CO was like renewed the Friday before our meeting.
MR. O’CONNOR-When this was an issue, we went to them and said, hey, we didn’t think we
were in any problem. Well, technically, your CO’s expired, we’ll renew it. So they renewed it.
MR. STARK-Are you agreeable to delineate all these conditions?
MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Barber’s agreeable.
st
MR. STARK-Okay, and then by May 31, with a temporary CO, and no permanent CO unless
everything is met.
MR. VOLLARO-The problem I have with that is if he doesn’t do it with the temporary CO.
MR. STARK-He doesn’t get a permanent CO and the temporary runs out.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got to go through what Mark said, and that’s a big step.
MR. BREWER-What choice do we have though? I mean, we’ve got to do something. We can’t
just stay here all night.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ve got a temporary CO on at least five other projects.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a matter of choice that you have.
MR. BREWER-Yes, we do have a choice. We either give him that with the conditions or we don’t
give it to him.
MR. ROUND-Typically, with temporary CO’s, we have the discretion to extend them, and you
can include in your resolution that there won’t be an extension of the CO. It will be revoked as of
such and such a date.
MR. STARK-Unless, I have no problem with that.
MR. BREWER-I don’t, either. Lets toss it out, George. We’ll vote on it.
MR. STARK-I just did. I mean, Bob doesn’t have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem with
it. I don’t know. How do you feel, Bobby?
MR. VOLLARO-I do. I would like to see this thing where he gets a CO on completion and goes to
work. Because I see this as a, Mark just laid out all the steps that we’d have to go through, if he
got to a temporary CO and he didn’t comply. Then we’re going down a tough street.
MR. O’CONNOR-You don’t do that with any other applicant.
MR. BARBER-It wasn’t that I didn’t comply. I was talking to your Board the entire time, okay.
It was my fault and their fault they didn’t get anything in writing, all right. If I wasn’t in
compliance, why did they keep giving me a temporary CO? They knew my entire situation. I’m
sorry they didn’t communicate that with you guys.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to clear the record, you weren’t talking to our Board. You were the
Building Department or whatever.
MR. BARBER-The Building Department, the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STARK-Mark, do you have any ideas you want to shoot out?
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, not really, and certainly nothing that I’m saying, I hope, is being
construed as anything relative to this particular applicant. I’ve been asked questions about the
general enforcement process, and that’s how I’m answering it. In my experience, sitting here as
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
Counsel to this Board, and with dealing with the Staff, there have certainly been a number of
temporary CO’s issued over the years. I’m not aware, off the top of my head at least, of very
many problems arising from people. I certainly agree, generally, with Mr. O’Connor’s statements
that, in the vast majority of instances, people have complied. I can’t really comment on Mr.
Vollaro’s concern that, you know, what if the applicant doesn’t comply, because I do think I gave a
fair and reasonable outline of the enforcement scenario that would occur under any circumstances.
I don’t really have any ideas. It’s up to the Board. You’re obviously not obligated to, you know,
authorize temporary Certificates of Occupancy. It sounds like you are aware of that. It’s a
discretionary call. If you that the application has merit and you want to try to fit it into that
scheme of things, you could do that, and you’re not obligated to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has our Board, and I’ve been on it going on almost seven years now, I guess,
have we ever issued a temporary CO for any site plan that we’ve ever done, without? The only
time I ever recall we did one was for the Olive Garden, and that had the Performance Bond
attached to it to make sure the plantings were going to be done.
MR. BREWER-K-Mart’s an example. We’ve given approvals and everything’s not done, and the
Building Department gives temporary CO’s all the time.
MR. O’CONNOR-CO’s are not a function of this Board.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. O’CONNOR-That’s where I picked up on the conversation. You were going into another
area that, CO’s really are not your function. That’s the Building Department.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can do that as far as this Board goes. We have that well within our power
on this Board to grant an approval on something and tie it into a condition that parts of the
conditions of the approval have to be done before a CO is issued. We’ve done it routinely, dozens
of times.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s definitely true. Both points are correct.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay, but that doesn’t prevent the Building Department from giving a
temporary CO.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Building Department, if they look at our site plan approval and they go
down through their checklist and they see that this site plan was approved, all these conditions were
attached, and they see that this, this and this was done, but this one wasn’t done, and part of our
condition says no CO’s to be issued until all of these conditions are met, they won’t issue one.
MR. O’CONNOR-I think the fair interpretation of that is that no permanent CO is to be issued.
They have the discretionary right to issue temporary CO’s.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. O’CONNOR-We’ve never delineated between temporary or permanent.
MR. BREWER-Well, maybe in a legal sense you’re right, but for a long time we never said
anything about a CO, and then one time we got burnt with landscaping or something, and then we
came up with the idea about the no CO until everything is done, and then we ended up with the
money for the plantings or whatever. We’re beating this to death. I think we should just make a
motion and move on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make a motion.
MR. BREWER-I will.
MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. You’ve got to do the public hearing.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Do we have a public hearing to open or close?
MR. SCHACHNER-You haven’t done your SEQRA review either.
MR. BREWER-SEQRA or anything?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think you’ve got some steps you have ahead of you. If I’m not
mistaken.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not mistaken.
MS. NOWICKI-Can I address one other issue? You only defined the curbs access on Dix Avenue
and you didn’t define the access on Queensbury Avenue?
MR. O’CONNOR-Correct.
MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Do you want to go through that.
MR. O’CONNOR-I agreed that we would, I stipulated that we would put curbing, concrete
curbing, in on Dix Avenue.
MS. NOWICKI-Only.
MR. O’CONNOR-Only. We will delineate the other curbings as shown simply by pavement and
grass.
MS. NOWICKI-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we do the SEQRA and get that out of the way. We’ll open up
the public hearing. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do a SEQRA. Do we have to do Short Form?
MR. BREWER-Short.
MS. NOWICKI-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever they submitted, filled out Part I, if it’s an Unlisted action.
Whatever they submitted with the Part I filled out.
MS. NOWICKI-The Short Form.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t mean to throw a curve ball here. I’m not trying to, how does this fit in
with this remediation plan that’s on, in your files for this oil spillage, as far as what we’re doing
with the SEQRA? I don’t recall what we did in ’96, because I don’t recall that being part of our
site plan review.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know anything about what’s going on with this (lost word). Can
somebody tell me about it?
MR. O’CONNOR-The proposed action has nothing to do with subsurface conditions. There was
an oil tank on the premises that had been removed by the prior owner that had a contamination, and
they’re trying to let it self clean itself, as opposed to a major excavation. There was a partial
excavation in the past.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-And we, at most, would be planting, we will be planting over some of the areas.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but is there a DEC involvement?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And what’s the level of DEC involvement? Is there a consent order?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. O’CONNOR-No, no, there is a spill. There’s a spill, and there’s a consultant working with
them on remediation. It’s a back burner spill with DEC. They’re not doing anything specifically,
but I don’t think what we propose in any way effects that material.
MR. SCHACHNER-I take it that’s correct. I have no idea.
MR. ROUND-Right. There’s no conflicts right now. I mean, there may be excavation activities,
but we can’t predict that.
MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing, for what it’s worth, is if there were to come a time when
there was a consent order entered into with DEC, that would be exempt from SEQRA as a DEC
enforcement action.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re on terra firma.
MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-The factual stuff is all news to me, but assuming everything I’ve heard, it
sounds okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-98
, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Tim Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C.
, 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
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.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. STARK-Okay. Now, you said you wanted to get the SEQRA out of the way. Then what did
you want to do?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if someone wants to put a motion up.
MR. BREWER-Lets make a motion.
MR. STARK-Well, what about the conditions? Lets do it before we get in the middle of the
motion.
MR. BREWER-Well, the conditions should be that we want everything done by.
MR. MAC EWAN-Spell them out.
MR. PALING-Do you want to do it or do you want me to do it?
MR. STARK-Well, here’s what I have, parking dividers along the 50 foot buffer in the back, an
eight foot fence in the back, concrete stops in front of south parking lot spots, concrete curbing
around the Dix Avenue entrance.
MR. BREWER-How far?
MR. PALING-Ten feet radius.
MR. STARK-Ten foot radius into their property, and tapered on the County property, if the
st
County allows it. Okay. Everything to be done by May 31.
MR. PALING-You forgot, though, George, remove all storage equipment, all equipment and
construction material, with the exception of two man baskets and two pick up trucks to be removed
by the date, the drop dead date on it, the whole thing, the buffer, okay, and you talked about the
buffer waiver.
MR. BREWER-We’re just going to say that the work will be done by.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the drawing call what kind of fence that you’re putting up?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eight foot fence.
MR. BREWER-Board on board.
MR. VOLLARO-Eight foot high board on board fencing.
MR. PALING-That’s on the print, and, George, you’ve also got to put in there that they will not
use the buffer unless a waiver is obtained.
MR. BREWER-Unless a variance is obtained.
MR. PALING-A variance, I mean, not a waiver, a variance.
MR. STARK-And you will issue a temporary CO.
MR. ROUND-Or a CC. I’m not sure which applies in this, if it’s a Certificate of Compliance,
since you’re already an existing operation. It’s either a Certificate of Compliance or a Certificate
of Occupancy, because they already occupy the facility. They’re not vacating. They’re doing
some interior alterations, as part of the project, and I think what the Building Department will
issue is a CC.
MR. BREWER-But they’re not in compliance.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. ROUND-A temporary Certificate of Compliance.
MR. PALING-CC, okay.
MR. ROUND-Just so we don’t get caught up in, well, we don’t need a CO, Health Department
approval, whatever the case may be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does that still fit in? Well, never mind.
MR. BREWER-We don’t have any control over the CO anyway, after all this haggling. He’s
already there.
MR. STARK-Have you got anything you want to add?
MR. PALING-I don’t want to add anything, I don’t think.
MR. STARK-Do you have any comment?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, I don’t. It is understood that we will not do those plantings along the back
fence, the 18 smaller plantings?
MR. PALING-Well, that’s got to be part of the motion, yes.
MR. BREWER-Those 18 along the fence are omitted.
MR. O’CONNOR-The northerly, northwesterly end of the fencing.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-98 NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C.
Introduced by
George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
With the following conditions: Parking dividers approximately every 50 feet to delineate the buffer
zone, along the 50’ buffer in the back to delineate the buffer zone, the 50’ buffer will not be used
unless a variance is obtained, the 18 plantings along the fence on the north side are unnecessary,
an 8 foot board on board fence for 300 feet in the back on the north side, concrete stops in front of
south parking spots, concrete curbing for the Dix Avenue entrance - the curbing will start on the
County property if the County allows it and continue for a distance of 10 feet radius into the
Nutech property to delineate the entrance. All equipment and construction material with the
exception of two man baskets and two pick up trucks removed by the deadline date of May 31,
1998. All plantings planted are to be maintained by the applicant. Everything to be done by May
31, 1998.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 9-98 NUTECH REALITY,
L.L.C. to utilize property for construction equipment sales, rentals and service; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/25/98, consists of the following:
1. Site Plan Review application
2. Survey dated 5/15/96 prepared by W. J. Rourke
3. Drawing titled Nutech dated 5/23/96
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 3/5/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from T. Barber - Types of Inventory
2. 2/23/96 -Map titled Nutech Industries
3. 3/10/98 - Letter to T. Barber from L. Nowicki
4. 3/11/98 - Warren County Planning Board resolution
5. 3/17/98 - Fax to M. O’Connor from L. Nowicki - Requesting documentation from NYS DEC
6. 3/17/98 - Staff Notes
7. 3/17/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from M. O’Connor
8. 3/20/98 - Fax to T. Barber from L. Nowicki
9. 3/20/98 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Nowicki & T. Barber
10. 3/20/98 - Map titled Nutech Industries (Revised, Destroy Previous Prints)
11. 3/20/98 - rec’d - Estimated Soil Removal Zone (Figure 6)
12. 6/9/97 - To T. Barber from Northeastern Environmental Technologies - Phase 2 Assessment
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
13. 3/24/98 (rec’d) - Map titled Nutech Industries revised 3/24/98
14. 3/24/98 - Staff Notes
15. 3/17/98 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Nowicki & T. Barber
16. 3/24/98 - Map, Soil Remediation Report
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/17/98 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
9-98, NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C.
2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned in compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 1998 by the following vote:
MR. PALING-And a temporary Certificate, no, a Certificate of Compliance will be issued on
completion, I would assume. Is that the way to put it?
MR. ROUND-I think that we’ll issue a temporary in advance of those items being completed, with
final to be issued at.
MR. PALING-Temporary CO.
MR. ROUND-Temporary CO or CC, whatever’s applicable. To be honest with you, I don’t know
what it is right now.
MR. PALING-All right. Then a temporary CO or CC will be issued, whichever’s applicable, and
that any deviation from this and the motion will be brought back before the Planning Board for
consideration. That’s what I thought we agreed to.
MR. SCHACHNER-Run that last one again?
MR. PALING-That if there’s any deviation, any exception, to either the CC or CO, whichever’s
applicable, that that deviation or change request be brought back to the Planning Board for
consideration.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would anyway.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t understand that last one. Are you saying if somebody wants to
change the modification?
MR. PALING-Yes. If they’re going to miss the date or they want to change something, someone
else can’t say, go ahead. It’s got to come back to us.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s got to come back here anyway. Nobody else has the authority to grant
that.
MR. PALING-Well, we just talked about it.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I mean, if somebody seeks modification of your approval, they have to
come to you to get that modification. Is that what you’re saying, Bob?
MR. PALING-Whoa. Didn’t we just say that we don’t have control over the CO. Other
Departments can issue a temporary CO.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not if part of this approval is, don’t issue a temporary CO unless the
following things have happened.
MR. PALING-All right. Part of the approval is that, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the approval is what?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. Isn’t your motion, a part of your motion, or the understanding of your
motion is that if the Building Inspection Department, whatever the definition is, would otherwise
issue a temporary CC or Certificate of Occupancy, they have that discretion, notwithstanding the
st
May 31 date for items? I’m not saying I can walk in tomorrow and get a temporary CO simply
because you approved it that way. I’m thinking that I’ve got to have the interior done so that it’s,
and the plumbing and whatever else, everything in order for my customers. We did this with Wal-
Mart. There were no plantings in Wal-Mart, and we got a temporary CO up there.
MR. BREWER-That’s right, but if we’d have put on that Planning Board motion.
MR. O’CONNOR-But we didn’t get into all this discussion maybe because you were dealing with
Wal-Mart as opposed to a one man business or a two man business, which is unfortunate, and
maybe some place that we shouldn’t be, but I’m not saying I want something, just be able to walk
in tomorrow and get a building permit, but I don’t want the Building Department to have the sense
that until everything is completely done, we’re not to get the CO.
MR. BREWER-No, no.
MR. PALING-No, no.
MR. BREWER-We didn’t say that at all, Mike.
MR. O’CONNOR-Okay.
MR. ROUND-My understanding is that you’re going to allow issuance of a temporary.
st
MR. BREWER-Permanent will be issued upon completion or May 31.
MR. O’CONNOR-I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying, then.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-And I will ask you, do not disappoint me. Be sure everything’s done by the
st
31.
MR. O’CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits next month.
MR. O’CONNOR-Can I get a copy of John Goralski’s interpretation of the variance extensions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy asked that we go back to Thursday nights, Thursdays after work, if we
could. By the time we do site visits, when does Daylight Saving’s time start?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/24/98)
MR. STARK-The fifth.
thth
MR. MAC EWAN-When do we have meetings next month, the 20 and 27?
MR. SCHACHNER-You have meetings next month.
stth
MS. NOWICKI-The 21 and the 28.
stthth
MR. MAC EWAN-The 21 and the 28. Okay. Lets do site visits the 16.
th
MR. STARK-The 16 at four o’clock.
th
MR. PALING-That’s the 16 of April. So Daylight Savings has taken place, right?
MR. STARK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Has anybody got anything else? Okay. I’ll make a
motion we adjourn.
MR. VOLLARO-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
62