1999-06-03 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 3, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
GEORGE STARK
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW
OF THE PROPOSED C & D LANDFILL PROJECT.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO AGREE TO THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW
OF THE PROPOSED C & D LANDFILL, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its
adoption, seconded by George Stark:
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 15-99 TYPE II JOHN STAALESEN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A,
GF-18 CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3626 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION AND
PLACEMENT OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM TO AN EXISTING YEAR ROUND CAMP
TO CREATE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 18-1999 – APPROVED 5/26/99 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on, there was one on April 27 and May 24,
thth
and it’s been left open.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-99, John Staalesen, Meeting Date: June 3, 1999 “Description of
Project: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing dwelling. The project is
located on Glen Lake in a critical environmental area. The project is subject to review and approval
by the Planning Board. The application received an area variance for setback relief. Staff Notes:
The proposed addition is substantial considering the size of the existing dwelling. The applicant has
expressed the need for a single story home. The applicant would like to include the existing structure
with the proposed structure by a connecting hallway. The size of the lot would accommodate a
single story home with septic, access, and drinking water source. Recommendation: Staff would
recommend approval of the site plan with the condition the existing home dwelling be removed.”
MRS. MOORE-In addition, I've also received an updated site development data that corresponds
with the map that’s dated 5/24/99.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read through the Rist-Frost comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s dated May 21, 1999, addressed to Mr. Round, “We have reviewed the
documents forwarded to us along with the above referenced site plan and have the following
comments: 1. Erosion and sediment control plan and details are not included. Due to the sensitive
location the erosion and sediment control plan should be site specific. 2. The capacity of the
effluent pump should be provided and dosing volume should be evaluated as it relates to the size of
the distribution box. 3. Absorption trench laterals should be pitched according to New York State
Department of Health Design Handbook standards for gravity absorption trenches. 4. Site plan
does not show a distribution box for the absorption field. 5. Calculations for sizing dry well and
trench drains should be provided. 6. Site plan does not show trench drain location and dimensions
or direction of roof pitch. 7. Dry well symbol should be clarified in legend. 8. Does the existing
well have the capacity to supply the new addition?” That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Is anyone here from the applicant?
MR. RUCINSKI-Good evening. I’m Ron Rucinski. I’m the architect for John Staalesen. With me
tonight is John Staalesen and Ethan Hall, an associate from my office. The existing site is on Glen
Lake Road, right at St. Mary’s Cove. It’s roughly three-quarters of an acre. On the site now is a year
round camp, roughly 600 square feet, a bunkhouse and a deck area. We have been before the
Zoning Board of Appeals and have received setback variances. There was a lot of discussion with
the Zoning Board, and there’ll probably be discussion here. Mrs. Staalesen has an arthritis condition
that at times disables her, and we’re designing a house that will accommodate her, should she ever be
in a wheelchair. So that it’s a program requirement that we have a one-story house, no steps. They
presently live in a large house in Wilton that is three stories, and are building this home to replace
that home, to accommodate her needs. They also have a large extended family, many children, many
grandchildren, brothers with children, and their social life revolves around their families, and
primarily on weekends. So that it is expected that this will be a gathering place for the family on
weekends, needing a fair amount of space for people to sleep over, or places for children to play
while adults do other things at the same time. So it necessarily requires a large floor plan. The site
also has a very high water table, and we can’t possibly put in a basement. So it requires all storage
space for all the kinds of things that you or I might store in a basement, to be stored on grade space.
I don’t have the original plan that we showed the Zoning Board, but I will, if I may get to the right
drawing, the original proposal put the addition, or the residence, however you want to look at it,
physically attached to the existing camp. The Zoning Board would not grant us the shoreline
variance that was necessary to make that possible. So we went to a scheme that connected the two
buildings with an enclosed hallway, and that was driven strictly by the Zoning Board, not by choice.
The building as it’s designed will have a three stall garage, a large storage room, standard kitchen,
dining, living room, a solarium sunroom, greenhouse space. Mrs. Staalesen is an indoor gardener,
and three bedrooms in this addition, an existing bedroom and a family room/play room for children,
screened porch in the existing camp. We have, we just got this zoning variance last week, and we just
started the engineering and stormwater management design just this week. So we have not
responded to Rist-Frost’s letter. We will respond completely. Conceptually, in stormwater
management we’ll take drainage, site drainage, into a series of dry wells, and the roof water will be
handled with French drains. There is an existing well on the site that was recently, just before Mr.
Staalesen purchased it, had the new pumps and tanks, etc. installed. We’ve run perc tests, and
designed a tile field in this area of the site, which has the proper distances from the well and from the
lake. We’d have a septic tank at this point, and an effluent pump that will pump effluent up into the
tile field, and I’ll stop there.
MR. MAC EWAN-The first question for you, actually, let me direct this to Staff first. Their
recommendation of the existing (lost word) dwelling be removed, that’s the one that you’re referring
to down closest to the lake, correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-The ZBA didn’t make that part of their variance approval. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you aware that’s Planning Staff’s recommendation that that portion of your
project be eliminated?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. RUCINSKI-That was discussed also at the Zoning Board meetings. There’s roughly 600 square
feet there, six hundred square feet of very usable space, which the owner plans to use, and if he has
to tear it down, he will have to replace it, at, what $50 a square foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s Staff’s reasoning for wanting it removed?
MRS. MOORE-My reasoning is because of the Section of the Ordinance that lets the Board review
nonconforming structures, enlargement or extensions. This would make it a more conforming home
on the waterfront.
MR. MAC EWAN-What Section of the Ordinance?
MRS. MOORE-179-79, and you’re looking at Letter F.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going from the aspect of just it’s the enlargement within a nonconforming
use, right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, a nonconforming structure.
MR. MAC EWAN-And your reasoning, I think, is that you think that Staff wants that portion of the
project removed because maybe it just doesn’t fit up to building standards or Codes or something?
Did you understand the reasoning why they want that as not part of this project?
MR. RUCINSKI-No, I guess I don’t. I went through this with the Zoning Board, and it’s valuable.
It’s usable space. It’s in good condition. It’s not deteriorated. We do plan on replacing siding and
replacing windows, and probably the roof, roofing to match the addition, so to speak, but it’s a
usable building. It’s in excellent condition. Has a heating system, hot water heating system,
plumbing, etc., the whole nine yards. There’s absolutely no reason to demolish it, and it becomes a
financial burden to do so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, according to this Section of the Zoning Code, 179-79F, it entails in there
the reasoning behind this recommendation. Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. BREWER-I don’t understand why they want them to take it down. I don’t quite understanding
the reasoning, Laura. Maybe you could explain to me, from this Section you’re reading.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. My reasoning is that we have an opportunity, on the waterfront, where
existing dwellings occur, most likely they’re closer to the lake. This is an opportunity for this person
to have a dwelling unit that fits almost within the setbacks and remove this existing dwelling that is
closer to the lake.
MR. BREWER-That is closer to, all right. I understand that. My only comment is I would be
hesitant to approve this without Rist-Frost’s comments being answered. I mean, there’s eight
comments. Maybe some of them aren’t so technical as others, but I would at least like to have
answers from the applicant to Rist-Frost.
MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. I didn’t realize we were even going to be on the agenda tonight until Tuesday
afternoon. We certainly will address all of those issues. Tom Nace is doing engineering for us.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUCINSKI-We have agreed to remove the bunkhouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Rucinski, can I interrupt you just for a second? Are you prepared, maybe, to
answer those tonight?
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-I just saw the project yesterday. I've looked at it conceptually. Conceptually, it works,
but I have not run the numbers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead. I’m sorry.
MR. RUCINSKI-That’s fine. We have agreed to remove the bunkhouse. So we are opening up the
waterfront, so to speak. I do have photographs of the site, if you’d like me to pass them around.
MR. BREWER-I understand Laura’s reasoning. Why would you have to, you’re building a, how big
is it, 3700, essentially you’re building a 3700 square foot home. It’s not an addition. I don’t see the
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
significance of the 600 feet, if we can make it more conforming. I would agree with Staff. That’s my
position.
MR. RUCINSKI-The space program, as developed with the owner, calls for this amount of space. If
we were to demolish that camp, we’re going to add that 600 square feet on this house some place,
which is going to create a problem with shoreline setbacks again. I mean, we’re not saying that, the
600 square feet is space that the client feels they need. I mean, they’ve got a living room, a dining
room, and a kitchen, a family room, four bedrooms, etc., etc.
MR. BREWER-So you need 4200 square feet.
MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. You’re coming out of, what, John, 6,000? He’s coming out of 6,000 square
feet, 6,000 not including the garage space, just living space.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s generous of him, but maybe it’s just too much building for too little of a
lot.
MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I don’t know how to address this. You’re raising the questions that the
Zoning Board addressed and said, yes, we finally agree. You’ve got the variances.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the Planning Board.
MR. RUCINSKI-I understand the difference.
MR. VOLLARO-I have the same concerns as Tim does, but I have another concern as well, that the
ZBA approved this variance, and I understand that. I've read their, but this is 334% expansion of a
nonconforming structure, and then there’s 50% is in the Code, 179-79. To me, that sets a precedent,
you know, and the last thing I want to see our Board do is to set precedents like this for that amount
of additional expansion. Somebody else will hang their hat on this one and want to do the same
thing. That’s my concern.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think Bob’s got a point, but we have to look at each plan as it comes to us,
and it’s not as if this original camp is going to be in use 365 days a year.
MR. BREWER-Yes, it is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. He said this is where the, unless I misunderstood him, this is where the
guests are going to come and you’re going to put them up when they come on weekends.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what do you do, put a sign on the door saying you can’t use it, only on
weekends?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but what I’m saying is, the original, the intended use is not for every day
living and.
MR. STARK-For him it is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but he’s not going to be living in the camp part.
MR. VOLLARO-You can’t say that, Cathy. That’s not like a Saturday/Sunday occupancy only.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know that, except that’s his intended use for, well, he’s building the
big house for the every day use, where they’re going to live, and then when people come, they’re
going to stay here. Now I have one question. That 3700 square feet, is that the entire footprint of
the new part, including the garage, or is that just the living space?
MR. RUCINSKI-No, that’s the gross area. That includes the garage.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And the garage is probably, what, if it’s a three car garage, we’re talking 1200
square feet.
MR. RUCINSKI-Three cars is 800 and some square feet, and there’s a storage room, a large storage
room that is in the neighborhood of, I’m not sure I've got it on here. Yes, the storage room is about
450 square feet, and it includes a large enclosed or screened in porch.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what is the total acreage of the property again, refresh my memory.
MR. RUCINSKI-The site is 35,000 square feet.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s about an acre.
MR. RUCINSKI-.8.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-.8, not even quite an acre. Boy, it looks bigger.
MR. RUCINSKI-Let me point out that we easily meet your Floor Area Ratios.
MR. MAC EWAN-And then some.
MR. RUCINSKI-And that if we were coming to you with an eight tenths of an acre site, and saying,
we want to build a 4500 square foot house, two stories on it, you probably wouldn’t bat an eye.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but the thing of it is, you’re not.
MR. RUCINSKI-But we’re doing it on one story, because of Mrs. Staalesen’s health.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I like the whole concept of what you’ve done with, you know, you’ve
put in a new septic system. I mean, that right there, there’s a plus, but just tell me, is that all
macadam? Is that black top?
MR. RUCINSKI-No, it’s expected to be crushed stone.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay. That’s good.
MR. STARK-I think we can’t do anything tonight. We’ve got to have Tommy or somebody answer
Rist-Frost’s eight concerns. It doesn’t bother me so much about the 600, you know, the house that’s
already there and so on, but the concerns have to be answered before anything, and they’re not
answered.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you.
MR. STARK-And I’m in favor of tabling it until the first meeting, the first one, fine, but two weeks
is, it’s not even two weeks.
MR. PALING-Does the new building, or did it require any setback variations from the Zoning
Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RUCINSKI-Yes.
MR. PALING-The new building does?
MR. RUCINSKI-The new building has a setback variance of 12 feet from this portion of the Bay,
and that really was so that we could physically connect them.
MR. PALING-If the new structure didn’t need any setback variations, I don’t think I’d have trouble,
but when you’re getting variations for that and the other already, and it’s in violation of setback.
MR. RUCINSKI-There is, this much of it is the variance, and that was clearly to make the physical
connection.
MR. PALING-I’m thinking in terms of setback only of the new building. You had to have a
variance for that.
MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We met this setback requirement from the lake itself, but from the cove, we
do have a variance. All of the new construction is substantially further from the lake than the
existing construction.
MR. BREWER-How many boats does the family have, or may be there, any idea of that?
MR. RUCINSKI-At the moment you’ve got, what, one boat and a paddle boat, one powerboat and a
paddle boat at the moment.
MR. BREWER-So there’s only going to be one boat there, pretty much?
MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, I would assume so. The dock exists.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. BREWER-Right, and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m just, big house, a lot of family. I’m
wondering if maybe there might be three or four boats at some time, no?
MR. RUCINSKI-No, I don’t see that happening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have any other questions?
MR. STARK-Craig, maybe you’d like to point out to Mr. Rucinski the reason why we’d like to table
it.
MR. RUCINSKI-I understand why. I mean, I didn’t expect an approval tonight, because we hadn’t
done the engineering. We're here because we were scheduled to be here.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have left the public hearing open. If anyone would like to come up and
comment to this application, you’re more than welcome to do so. However, we definitely will be
tabling this application tonight, so that engineering comments, concerns by our advisor, Rist-Frost,
can be responded to by the applicant. Does anyone want to come up and comment to this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave that public hearing open. Mr. Rucinski, I think what we’re going to
do at this point is we’re going to table it. We’ll give you some time to work with Mr. Nace and make
the responses to Rist-Frost’s application. Okay.
MR. RUCINSKI-Fine, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. STARK-Table it until?
MR. MAC EWAN-Until whenever they get their responses.
MR. BREWER-Do we have to make a motion to table, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t.
MR. PALING-Should the Board consider whether the small structure staying there would kill this or
not, before we table it? If it would be that much of a factor, then I think the applicant should know
about it.
MR. STARK-It doesn’t kill it for me.
MR. BREWER-Does the applicant have a drawing of what this is going to look like, attached to the
conceptual drawing? Roof lines and stuff?
MRS. MOORE-Elevation?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. RUCINSKI-No, we don’t. Normally, at this stage, we wouldn’t have gone past the site plan.
We did develop a floor plan because it was kind of integral with the site, because of the views and the
sun, sun control and morning sun getting in the bedrooms and all that kind of thing, but we have not
done anything with the elevations. I can tell you that it’s going to have a gable roof, that there’ll be
some cathedral ceilings in the main spaces. There’ll be a fair amount of glass facing the lake,
obviously. Other than that, it’ll be wood framed, wood siding. We know those things, but exactly
what it’s going to look like, no, we don’t know.
MR. RINGER-The hardship with demolishing the existing camp is just the financial concern on your
part, or the applicant’s part?
MR. RUCINSKI-I’d be kidding you if I didn’t tell you that of course you can sit on that screened
porch and you’re right next to the lake, and the view is magnificent, but the major reason is, yes, it’s
financial. It’s 600 square feet, $50 a square foot, that comes out to $30,000, no matter how you slice
it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to pole the Board?
MR. STARK-It doesn’t kill it for me.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I don’t want to sound cold and callous here, but financial consideration is
not a part of the review process of this Board. It’s the Zoning Ordinances, and the impacts that this
is going to have, not only on the lakefront and the lake itself, but neighboring properties. I guess, at
this point, I’m not teetering either direction.
MR. PALING-Okay. If the Board were totally against it, we should tell him. I’m not the same as
you are, though, I’m not sure.
MR. RINGER-I’m not ready to say on it, either, but I don’t know if I want to say yes on that. I’d
like to see an alternate plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because we haven’t, you know, there’s still some missing information that we
need to have, and that’s the responses to Rist-Frost’s questions and concerns. So I think the best
thing to do, lets just go ahead, and we’ll table this, and we’ll pick it up again as soon as you get the
responses back.
MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you. If I may just add one comment, there is only one neighbor, and that’s
Mrs. Spadero, who’s in this house, and we’re setting back further than her house is. She came to the
Zoning Board meeting, the first Zoning Board hearing, spoke in favor of the project, when it was
much closer to the water than it is now, and the cottage is barely visible from the lake because of the
existing trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table it.
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEHLAND ESTATES,
PHASE III/MICHAELS GROUP OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: SR-20
LOCATION: OFF WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL STAGE
APPROVAL FOR PHASE III OF THE LEHLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, WHICH
CONSISTS OF 23 LOTS. (PHASE I, 46 LOTS/PHASE II, 31 LOTS) TAX MAP NO. 74-2-
999, 74-1-32, 33 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, A183-36
JON LAPPER, DAVE MICHAELS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing that’s required for the Final Stage approval.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-86, Final Stage, Phase III, Lehland Estates, Phase III, Meeting
Date: June 3, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a 23 lot subdivision known a
Phase III of Lehland Estates. The applicant has received preliminary approval for all phases. Review
and approval is required for the final stage of subdivision. Staff Notes: The proposed subdivision is
consistent with the original concept plan for Lehland Estates. Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.”
MRS. MOORE-I have a letter from David Michaels, dated May 10, 1999 “Planning Board
Representatives: Please be advised that as of May 4, 1999, a total of 15 homes have been closed or
th
are under sales contract. This represents 50% of the 30 lots in Phase II. Lots Closed (9): #’s 50,
51, 54, 55, 63, 65, 74, 75, 76 Lots Sold/Under Contract (6): #’s 52, 53, 57, 58, 71, 73 Please also be
advised that 87% of the total available homes in Phase I are either closed or sold/under contract (40
of the 46 homes). Please call if you have any questions.” And I have a letter from Nace
Engineering, dated May 13, 1999, addressed to Chris Round “Dear Chris: We are requesting that
the Planning Board consider granting a waiver from the Town Subdivision Regulations, Section 183-
36 which requires that 60% of the dwelling units in the previous phase receive CO’s prior to final
approval of a subsequent phase. We are requesting this waiver so that The Michaels Group can
construct the Phase 3 infrastructure this summer. Based on their track record at Hudson Pointe,
Surrey Fields, and the first two phases of Lehland Estates, The Michaels Group is confident that they
will have over 60% of Phase 2 occupied by the end of this summer. As stated in Mr. Michaels’ letter
of May 10, they already have 50% of the homes in Phase 2 closed or under sales contract.”
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MICHAELS-Good evening. Dave Michaels of The Michaels Group.
MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and Tom Nace from Nace
Engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. NACE-Unless you have questions, I don’t think there’s anything there that really needs
response.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing new, added changed or otherwise?
MR. NACE-No. The only thing I would call your attention to is what I consider a minor
engineering detail. We’ve been working with the contractor, over the past two weeks, and we may
lower the road profile in the back, in Phase III, by somewhere between nine and twelve inches,
simply to get the houses up and give enough dirt for grading on the individual lots. I’ll review it with
the Highway Staff at pre-construction. If we do decide to make the change, on the final to be signed
plans, but I've checked the drainage. It does not effect any part of the engineering, other than the
road profile.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? Anything added by Staff? Does someone want to put a motion
up?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86, LEHLAND
ESTATES, PHASE III, 23 LOTS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
For 23 lots, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage, Phase III for Subdivision No. 15-86,
Lehland Estates; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application with maps SP-1 through SP-8 dated 4/27/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/3/99 - Staff Notes
2.
5/6/99 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Moore & Dave Michaels
3.
5/7/99 - Meeting Date information
4.
5/3/99 - D. Michaels to Planning Bd. regarding Phase I & II info.
5.
5/10/99 – D. Michaels to Planning Bd. regarding breakdown of lots information for Phase I &
II
6.
5/13/99 – T. Nace to C. Round – Waiver Request
Whereas, a public hearing was not held 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
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final Stage,
Phase III Lehland Estates, 23 lots.
2.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Thank you.
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Do we have to make a motion to grant the waiver?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the prepared.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE MARIANNE
GRANGER OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-5A & LC-10A LOCATION: LOCKHART
MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 56.33 +/- ACRE
PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 23-1-35, 37
LOT SIZE: 56.33 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1999, Preliminary & Final, Marianne Granger, Meeting Date:
June 3, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a seven lot subdivision on Lockhart
Mountain Road zoned LC-10A and RR-5A. Staff Notes: The proposed subdivision complies with
the subdivision requirements for preliminary and final review. The subdivision appears to utilize the
scenic view of the Putnam Mountain Range. The drawing has included a provision on clearing and
removal of vegetation. Staff has no additional comments. Recommendation: Staff would
recommend preliminary and final subdivision approval.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? No other comments?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. I am Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent Mrs.
Granger, as well as does Jon Lapper.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As Laura stated, this is a seven-lot subdivision, and it’s on Lockhart Mountain
Road, two lots of which are on the west side of Lockhart Mountain Road, and five which would be
on the east side. They range in lot size from about four acres to about seventeen acres. As far as the
zoning, as far as the five acre in the 10 acre zone, the density that is there would allow a total of, I
believe it is nine lots. We're proposing seven.
MR. BREWER-Well, how do we get the acreage for the lots that are under, because of the total
amount of acreage?
MR. LAPPER-Because we’re proposing to take advantage of the cluster provision in the Ordinance.
MR. BREWER-How do you figure that’s clustering, if you don’t mind me asking.
MR. LAPPER-By looking at the, in Section 179-44, authorization of the Planning Board to use
clustering. If I could just read excerpts of that.
MR. RINGER-Where are you, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Section 179-44. “The Town Board hereby authorizes the Planning Board,
simultaneously with the approval of a plat or plats pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land,
to modify applicable provisions of this chapter, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth and
such other reasonable conditions as the Town Board may, in its discretion, add thereto. Such
authorization shall specify the lands outside the limits of any incorporated village to which this
procedure may be applicable. The purposes of such authorization shall be to enable and encourage
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
flexibility of design and development of land in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate
use of land, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities and to preserve
the natural and scenic qualities of open lands.” And it is our position that for those purposes, that’s
why Matt has designed the subdivision. We could comply with the minimum lot size, and have more
lots than what we’ve proposed. We could have nine lots, which would be one on the west side of the
road, and all of the rest on the other side, but that would create narrower lots, and that would mean
that the curb cuts would be closer together. The houses would seem closer together. So it would
seem like a tighter subdivision. This is a way to keep more open space than to just spread it out. By
using the cluster provision, to have the same average density, but that some lots are much larger than
the minimum lot size, and two lots are slightly smaller, from five acres to just around four. So we
think this is appropriate.
MR. BREWER-I understand exactly what you’re saying, Jon. I disagree with it, because, to me, I
explained at the last meeting with Matt, what I felt clustering was, and this, by no means, in my mind,
is clustering. That’s just my position. Regardless of what anybody else says.
MR. STEVES-Well, within the provision you’re allowed to go down to one acre in size in the RR-5
Acre zone. I tried to keep it as close to the five acres as possible, 3.97 and 4.07. So basically four
acres a piece. I do have a sketch here, in red, what would be the lots on the east side, if we were to
reduce it, keeping it in line with the current (lost word), what they’d look like on the east side of the
road, if we complied with, and this plan here would still only maintain seven lots. It wouldn’t
incorporate nine lots, and you can see what would happen. Here’s the lots we have now, which are
basically parallel to, running perpendicular off the road, and these new ones are going to have to be
askew from the road to incorporate the zoning, but would meet all the zoning criteria, and I could
actually fit in two other lots on this side to incorporate nine lots in total, and I just don’t think that it
meets with the plan of the Town of Queensbury, especially in the RR-5 zone, to keep it into a rural
atmosphere. I believe that the layout we have is the best suited, as far as keeping the curb cuts
separated from each other, as far as keeping the area of clearing on each lot incorporated into the
lots, so that the clearing doesn’t start getting too close to the property line and start looking like these
lots blend together. It’s a rural area. We’d like to keep it in that manner. So in my opinion, the way
I've laid it out is the best suited. Like I say, for a one acre, basically, less than the required lot, I think
this more than meets the cluster provision.
MR. RINGER-Which of the lots are in the five acre and which of the lots are in the ten acres?
MR. STEVES-This line here represents the zone line between the RR-5 and the LC-10. So lots three
through seven are all split by that zone. The two lots on the west side are all within the five-acre
zone. All development is proposed only to be in the five-acre zone, and no development is proposed
in the ten-acre zone whatsoever.
MR. RINGER-The two lots on the west side are in the five-acre zone.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, which, like I say, the RR-5 Acre zone, under the Cluster Provision,
allows you to cluster down to one acre in size, and I’ll have the density within the entire property, as
I've outlined on the bottom. I’ll have 32.41 acres in the five-acre zone, and I have 23.9 in the ten-
acre zone.
MR. RINGER-When I read in the subdivision of lands the cluster development, none of the reasons
you’re using is a reason to go to cluster development. That’s what, I’m struggling with that.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. RINGER-It seems like we’re taking advantage of a clustering in the zoning portion. It just
doesn’t, I’m just having some problems.
MR. STEVES-My scenario I’m trying to help the Board out with this decision is if I came back and
made this lot on the west side one lot, this is the scenario I’d come back on the east side. It crunches
them together. It does not keep the rural atmosphere as much. These are still extremely wide lots.
The house separation is quite a ways a way, as it is on the east side. If I was to move this into one
lot, and incorporate six lots on the other side, the houses would become much closer together. I
think that, in my opinion, it meets the criteria. The Town Board has given the Planning Board the
right to take each subdivision on its own merit, and see if you can accommodate keeping the rural
atmosphere of the five-acre zone. I believe this does that.
MR. BREWER-Can I ask one question? Why does, I understand, financially, I guess, that if you
have the density, you’re trying to get the best benefit for your applicant, and I understand that.
MR. STEVES-We're creating, also, the best lots.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. BREWER-In theory, I agree with what you’re saying about the look of a subdivision and
everything, but because you have, for the sake of a number, 10 acres, you don’t have to build 10
houses. Maybe you make six lots, and make them, you know.
MR. STEVES-I have the ability for nine, as it is there right now.
MR. BREWER-Well, I just use that for the sake of a number, not in this particular application.
MR. LAPPER-We're only proposing seven out of nine. So we are conceding that, in order to justify
the cluster, that this is not maxing it out under the Code.
MR. BREWER-You see, that’s what confuses my simple mind, is clustering, to me, is like I explained
to Matt. You take a large piece of land, you develop a small portion of it, and leave the balance of it.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not wrong, and that is one of the ways that you cluster, and in fact the
Ordinance provides that there are open space areas, in the event that the application, this procedure
results in lands available for parks, blah, blah, blah. So that can be, that’s optional, and, I mean, and
the last one that Matt and I did here, Surrey Field, we did it that way, where there was this open
space which was left, but in this case, it’s just taking the density calculation and spreading it out
differently to make a better development. So there is no open space, but you have 15-acre lots. So
you’re still using the density, complying with the density in total, and just cutting it up differently.
MR. STEVES-Plus the fact that we are not utilizing the 10-acre zone for development. So, yes, we
do not have a, per se, set aside area that’s a homeowners association, but you do have a set aside area
because of the fact, you know, being within the APA, we are bound by restrictions, as far as cutting.
We are showing the areas of development, and we’re leaving the lots basically untouched in the back.
So, in effect, we are creating a large area of open space in the back that just happens to be
incorporated into the lots, and I understand the dilemma of the Board, but I also, you know, four
acres here, you know, I’m not asking for a two half acre lots on the other side of the road. I’m only
looking for an acre of swap with the density, and your Code does allow that. I’m not asking you to
do anything that your Code does not allow you to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the problem I have. I like the way you’ve laid it out.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So do I.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no problem with it at all, but just trying to square in my mind the fact that
we’d be calling this a cluster, to get away from the five acre zone requirement. How does that, you
know, and I have to agree with Larry. In looking at that, this doesn’t look like a cluster development.
It doesn’t seem to meet the general requirements of clustering to me. I've got the same problem I
think Tim and Larry have here.
MR. LAPPER-We're looking at two sentences here, or two phrases, flexibility of design, promote the
most appropriate use of land to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities,
and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open land. So this provides more open lands than
what you could do.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re pulling that out of context, in a sense. So, to me, I have to read the whole
clustering section in 179 to get a feel for what does clustering really mean, and what are they trying to
accomplish when they talk about clustering? To me, they’re trying to accomplish exactly what Larry
just said. You get a large plot. You put your homes in a little more dense area. You’ve got a little
more green space, much like you did at Surrey Fields.
MR. STEVES-Much like we’re doing here. I’m having five lots on one side of the road, and if you’re
telling me that this doesn’t meet it, then I go with seven lots on the other side of the road. I think,
therefore, you’re creating more, you know, you’re using more land.
MR. VOLLARO-I told you, up front, I like what you’ve done. I’m trying to square these two things
in my mind. What I’m trying to do is say that, yes, indeed, this fits the clustering description, and
therefore, the clustering wipes out the five acre zone, and everybody’s square.
MR. MAC EWAN-Under 179-44, the Clustering Provision in the Subdivision Regulations, on their
reading, or 179-44 in the Zoning Ordinances under Clustering Provisions, and if you read 183-31,
which is the Clustering Authorization, in the Subdivision Regulations, they almost read word for
word. So I think, based on what Mr. Lapper’s saying, it does give us that flexibility to be able to do
that, especially when you read the two, the Zoning Ordinance versus the Subdivision Regs, they
almost are word for word and identical. I understand where Tim’s coming from, and Larry.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. RINGER-If you read the next paragraph from there, though, the purpose of clustering, in 183-
32, it defines what the purpose is, and it doesn’t agree with what Matt is saying.
MR. LAPPER-Larry, can you read what you’re referring to?
MR. RINGER-In the Subdivision of Land, 183-32, the purpose, under Cluster Development, and it
says, “The purpose of the cluster provisions is to encourage flexibility in the design and development
of land in order to promote its most environmentally sensitive use, to facilitate the adequate and
economical provisions of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open
space and to encourage compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.” And we’re not doing this to preserve the streets or electrical or sewer.
MR. LAPPER-With all due respect, we think we are, because we’re reducing, we’re spreading out the
curb cuts. So that effects the road, by having wider lots rather than narrower lots, that that spreads
out the curb cuts, and that makes it a better roadway in terms of cars entering on the public roadway,
but in terms of preserving natural and scenic qualities of open lands, this is all on the side of a
mountain. So all of the land that’s in the back, that is really the open space that Tim was talking
about, although it’s not in the homeowners association, it’s forever wild because the approval would
say that that can’t be built on like we’d proposed it. So there are natural and scenic qualities of open
lands because we’re only putting five houses on that side of the road and leaving the back, in a 10-
acre zone, completely unbuilt.
MR. STEVES-Does the Board feel, as Jon pointed out, more comfortable in the fact that you do
have the ability for two more lots in density, that we are saying we don’t want the other two lots.
We’d be more than happy to take the seven lots, and you put the stipulation that no further
subdivision, and you’re saying, well, the lots aren’t large enough. That’s not true. If somebody
bought two lots, they could reconfigure it into three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again?
MR. STEVES-Before, Tim had brought up, last meeting, that possibly, I said, well, no further
subdivision, we would accept that by the Board to put that as a condition of approval, and he’s
saying, well, there’s not enough for subdivision on these lots since there are only nine acre lots, and
it’s a five acre zone. That’s not true. If somebody had come in and bought two lots, they could
reconfigure two lots and have enough density for three. So, by putting the stipulation that no further
subdivision, no more lots can be created, you have effectively gained two lots of open space, so that I
believe you’ve fallen within the cluster provision wholeheartedly. I just think it makes sense. I’m not
here, like I say, trying to create two half-acre lots and I do agree with the concerns of the Board, but I
do believe that this falls within the guides of your zoning, and you’re allowed to do this.
MR. BREWER-I understand exactly what you’re saying, and maybe, in my mind stronger, the
description of clustering is in my mind and what you’re saying. I understand exactly what you’re
saying. You’re moving things around. I just have a hard time with it. That’s just my own.
MR. STEVES-Understood. Just because it’s not the classic cluster where you take 100 acres, you
develop 50 acres with one-acre lots and you take 50 and you put it into green space. This is
effectively doing the same thing with creating an open space that is a joint ownership.
MR. BREWER-It doesn’t have to be that small.
MR. STEVES-There’s nothing in the Regs that says that it has to be of a homeowners association or
anything of the sort.
MR. BREWER-And I didn’t say that it did.
MR. STEVES-And I do agree that this isn’t what typically the Board has seen as a cluster, but in our
opinion, it does meet the cluster provision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What if you made one lot into the triangle and put six on the other side of the
road?
MR. STEVES-Well, that’s what I’m showing, and I’m saying that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. What am I missing here? You’ve got two in the triangle.
MR. STEVES-The red line is represented by, if I turned the west side into one lot, what the six lots
on the east side would look like.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I missed that. That’s how it would have to look in order to comply.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How much would that one at the far left be? How many acres.
MR. STEVES-That would be approximately nine acres, eight and a half acres. That lot now exists as
about 17 acres.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I like the layout of this better than grouping all the houses on one road,
and then having all that. I think this makes better use of the land, personally.
MR. STEVES-And I think that’s what, the provision allows you to make that determination.
MR. STARK-I think it’s a fine layout the way it is, as opposed to what they wanted to go ahead with
the nine lots. This utilizes the land much better. I think Matt did a nice job.
MR. PALING-Yes. Basically, I think it’s a good approach. I've got a couple of questions. You’re
going to make a stipulation there will be no further subdividing of any of this land.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll make that as a condition of the approval.
MR. PALING-But you’re going to end up with a 34 acre lot, Lot Number 7 is going to be 18 plus.
MR. STEVES-No, lot number seven is eighteen in total, fifteen and a half of which is in the ten acre
zone. I’m sorry, there’s 15.7 acres as Tax Map No. 23-1-35, which will be attached to that, which
would make it a total of 18.55 acres.
MR. PALING-Okay. It’s still a pretty big lot, but you will accept a stipulation?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. PALING-All right. What are the lines coming from the barn?
MR. STEVES-That’s just an old horse corral fence, if I’m not mistaken.
MR. PALING-Okay. No, basically I think it’s a better use this way than it would be the other way.
So I don’t.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from the Board?
MR. PALING-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application, either for or against? You’re
welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GARY ZIBRO
MR. ZIBRO-Hi. I’m Gary Zibro. I’m a neighbor that borders this property, and I think Mrs.
Granger and Matt have done an excellent job in the way they’ve cut this property up. Because I am
aware of the regulations and what they possibly could have done, and I’m very happy with what
they’ve done with it. I do border this property, and it looks like they have thought of a lot of things
and have created a lot of green space.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Zibro, where does your property border them, just out of curiosity?
MR. ZIBRO-I am at the bottom of Lot Seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-The bottom of Lot Seven. Okay.
MR. ZIBRO-It’s not designated on this map.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No one else? We’ll close the public
hearing.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MARIANNE GRANGER, 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.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up for Preliminary?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999
MARIANNE GRANGER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Paling:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage, for Subdivision No. 4-1999
Marianne Granger; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application with maps S-1 dated 3/17/99 and D-1 dated 4/27/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/3/99 - Staff Notes
2.
5/7/99 – Meeting Notice letter
3.
5/10/99 – Fax from C. Brown to J. Hotaling
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/3/99 concerning the above project; and
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
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
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage, Marianne Granger.
2.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need a motion put up for Final.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999 MARIANNE
GRANGER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
With the following stipulation: That no further subdivision of these seven lots will take place. In
accordance with the objectives of Paragraph 183-33 in the Subdivision Regulations entitled
“Objectives”.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage, for Subdivision No. 4-1999 Marianne
Granger; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following:
1. Application with maps S-1 dated 3/17/99 and D-1 dated 4/27/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/3/99 - Staff Notes
2. 5/7/99 – Meeting Notice letter
3. 5/10/99 – Fax from C. Brown to J. Hotaling
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/3/99 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
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final Stage,
Marianne Granger.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED ROBERTA CONVERSE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A, MOBILE
HOME OVERLAY ZONE LOCATION: WARREN LANE APPLICANT IS
PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY SEGREGATING THE CONVERSE
MOBILE HOME PARK FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CROSS REFERENCE:
TOWN BOARD VAR. – 5/3/99 TAX MAP NO. 121-6-59 LOT SIZE: 16.32 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1999, Preliminary Stage Final Stage Subdivision No. 5-1999,
Roberta Converse Meeting Date: June 3, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes
to subdivide property segregating the single family home property from the Mobile Home Park. The
proposed project has received a Town Board variance creating a new boundary line for the mobile
home park. Subdivisions require review and approval from the Planning Board. Staff Notes: The
subdivision will separate the Mobile Home Park. The existing access to the park and dwelling units
will not be altered. There are no anticipated environmental or other utility impacts.
Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the subdivision.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Bruce Carr from Fitzgerald/Morris/Baker & Firth. I
represent Roberta Converse. About a month ago, we were before the Town Board because we
needed a variance from the side line setback, which was granted unanimously by the Board. So now
we’re here before you for Preliminary and Final Stage approval. What we’re seeking to do is to take
the existing mobile home park and separate it, basically, from the single-family homes that exist on
the property. The Converse Mobile Home Park was approved years ago. We are not contemplating
or asking for any changes to the Mobile Home Park. It simply is just making two lots out of the one.
I don’t know if you have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? I guess we’ll open up the public hearing, then. Does anyone
want to come up and comment on this application? Please do so. Identify yourself for the record if
you would, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAN WOOD
MR. WOOD-Good evening. Dan Wood. I’m a neighbor of this trailer park. It was approved with a
stipulation, years back, that they have a private access road that goes into the trailer park, for fire
protection and emergency protection, but the people that live in the trailer park are required to use
the alternate end for traffic, for traffic control, and if they separate it, I don’t know if they’re going to
sell the trailer park or are they going to leave access through this road for the emergency services to
come in? There’s a lot of questions in the neighborhood of exactly what’s going to happen.
MR. MAC EWAN-At one time there was a gate there, a locked gate.
MR. WOOD-There’s a gate. It’s just to discourage the people from trying to drive out that way. It’s
not locked. It is unlocked for fire protection, but if they separate it, it’s going to, and then they sell
the trailer park afterwards, they’re going to lose this protection here. So what’s going to happen is I
have three pieces of property that border that right there. So it creates a risk of us not having the
proper protection there, too. So that needs to be addressed. You need to find out what they’re
going to do and why they want to subdivide this, because I asked them, I went out and asked them
when I was, and they didn’t want to tell me anything but rumor in the neighbor has it that they’re
going to try to sell it, which they haven’t even got it finished. Do you know what I mean? They
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
haven’t finished it. They haven’t put up the proper boundaries. They haven’t done anything, and
where does the access road come in? So I don’t see any, you know, I think there’s more questions
that need to be answered about where it’s going to go and how it’s going to effect the rest of the
neighborhood, especially on the fire protection and the traffic control.
MR. STARK-Would you show me exactly where you’re talking about. Where’s your property?
MR. WOOD-This is one here, and this is two here. Wood, right now, everybody is required to use
this lower entrance, okay, but for fire protection and everything, they were granted the approval to
put the trailer park in. This is a private road that they don’t let anybody drive on. If you get caught
in there, they’re going to call the cops on you for trespassing, but anyway, it’s open right here. It
comes in to here, and it’s a private access where the gate is, for fire protection, for this whole end.
Instead of the fire company having to go all the way down and around and back up, if they subdivide
it, you’re subdividing right through here, and if they sell it, then you’ve got a problem with people
going to be able to get across that property. So it was originally granted to them, against the
neighborhood’s wishes, the Town Board gave them the trailer park, with the stipulation so that
nobody else can, I mean, you know, if there’s a fire and something in here, there’s no way that you
can, you know, this is the quickest way for the fire company in. So by doing that, they’re going to
take that away, and so right now they have two entrances where if they subdivide, they’re only going
to end up with one. So I don’t know, they should make some kind of a provision for that. This is
just what us in the neighborhood, we feel, for our protection. There’s also, like right here, there’s a
pile of dirt that’s bigger than anybody’s house around. That’s all the topsoil that’s been taken off of
this land, and basically, nobody knows what’s going to happen. Do you know what I mean? It’s
hard for us to find out where these things are going to proceed. So I think we should be notified of
how things are going to go. I mean, I just feel that that’s our right. Okay. The fire access is the
main concern for anybody, because you can zip right in here, and you can take care of any fire or
anything, instead of going way down here and back around. How are you going to get out in here?
This is the quickest way, you know, instead of driving all the way down around through here. That’s
quite a ways around.
MR. PALING-What’s the use of that third drive beyond the gate area where you’re going further
north I guess that is?
MR. WOOD-Well, see, they have rental properties here.
MR. PALING-I mean, is the dirt road used up where your finger is?
MR. WOOD-Yes, for these people to get to their houses, but it’s a private road and nobody’s
allowed in there.
MR. PALING-That’s the only access they have to their houses?
MR. WOOD-That’s the only access they have to their houses, and this access right here, it’s not
shown on this map, but there’s actually, this road extends right on to here. There is a road right
there.
MR. BREWER-When that was originally approved, that was.
MR. WOOD-That road was required that they keep that open for fire protection.
MR. BREWER-Did we have that in a previous motion?
MR. WOOD-So, I mean, that was one of the stipulations when they gave them the permit in the first
place, against the neighborhood’s wishes. Because we just didn’t want the growth.
MR. RINGER-You said this is a private road that’s owned by Converse?
MR. WOOD-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Yet these people, like Barbara Cherry and Palmer, they use that road, too? That’s the
only access?
MR. WOOD-No, no one is allowed on that road.
MR. RINGER-Where is the access to get into their?
MR. WOOD-Theirs comes in, there’s another road that comes in up here. It’s not shown on the.
MR. RINGER-So these are the backs of these houses?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. WOOD-This is the back of everybody’s property right here.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. PALING-Except for the two on the north end, the one you, up top, to your right, right there.
You said they need the dirt road for access.
MR. WOOD-Yes, well, they need this road here.
MR. PALING-Yes. They don’t have any other road.
MR. WOOD-No.
MR. RINGER-But those houses are owned by Converse?
MR. WOOD-Correct.
MR. RINGER-So they’re rental houses right now.
MR. WOOD-Well, this is the son, and this is the daughter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. WOOD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those concerns answered.
MR. WOOD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? I think for the time being I’ll leave the public
hearing open. Mr. Carr?
MR. CARR-I’d like to address those issues. At the Town Board meeting, we are selling the property.
Mr. Converse died in the fall. Mrs. Converse doesn’t want to run the mobile home park. We are
under contract. In the contract, there is a provision that there will be an emergency access right-of-
way granted on that road, because that is a concern of Mrs. Converse as well, being in the
neighborhood with her children, with her son and daughter live in two of those homes. So, I mean
that is going to be deeded along with the subdivided mobile home park. There will be emergency
access. Right now, which isn’t by grant, by deed or grant this will be a deeded right-of-way.
MR. PALING-Be a little more specific, in that will it include what we’re calling the gate?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. PALING-That will include that?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So how wide of a right-of-way is it, Bruce? As wide as the road is where the gate is?
MR. CARR-Yes. I think it’s, is it 50 feet or 30 feet?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s listed as a 50 foot road here across the front of it.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but he’s talking about where the gate is.
MR. BREWER-It looks like 30 feet, from where the gate is.
MR. VOLLARO-The gate is 30 wide, but the road going in looks like somebody (lost words).
MR. CARR-Right. It’ll be a 30-foot coming right behind the home of Nicholas Liapes. Right there
it’ll be 30 feet right over to the private road, and then it will be the length of the private road and the
width of the private road, as shown on the map, right down to Warren Lane.
MR. BREWER-So it will be shown on the final map? Could it be shown on the final map?
MR. CARR-If you want it to, we certainly could put it on it, sure.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, do we typically show something like an easement on there that would be
part of the approval, that we can have that put on the final plat before it’s signed?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think it would be appropriate.
MR. CARR-We have no problem with doing that because that was the intention right from the
beginning is to have an access easement there.
MR. PALING-And is the 30 feet sufficient access?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, all it is is going to be a continuation of the internal road in the trailer park.
MR. PALING-Okay. I guess I’m hung up on the one that goes east, to the gate. The other one I
think is 50 foot, but this they’ve got a 30-foot width on that 125-foot length.
MR. CARR-Right. It will remain 30 foot, just in continuation of the interior drive around the.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then the 30 feet is okay?
MR. BREWER-A fire truck is how wide?
MR. RINGER-That’s it. If you can make the turn, you can get it in.
MR. PALING-You should be okay.
MR. BREWER-How about in the wintertime? Will that be maintained in the wintertime? Heaven
forbid there’s a fire. Is that going to be plowed?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they’re going to sell it off, they have no control over that lot. They’re going
to give you a right-of-way, but if they sell this piece off, they have no control over whether it’s
maintained or not.
MR. BREWER-So what good is it?
MR. RINGER-Who maintains it now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Wood, could I ask you a question? Is that road maintained, that access
maintained now during the wintertime?
MR. WOOD-It is now during the winter.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is plowed?
MR. WOOD-Yes, it is plowed.
MR. RINGER-Who plows it?
MR. WOOD-The son, Tyler Converse, he plows it with the equipment that they have there, but the
stipulation when they were granted was everybody exits out the other end of the trailer park, out the
lower end, for traffic control. So if they sell it off, we don’t want to see a lot of cars coming out this
end here, because they get a little fast.
MR. CARR-Yes. In fact, I think Mrs. Converse said they put up the thing because that’s what was
happening, they’d come in (lost words), and so they’re not going to put up a locked gate or any kind
of permanent structure. It’s basically just to keep it from becoming a speedway.
MR. WOOD-But what happens when somebody buys a road, they go, it’s my road. I’m going to use
it, and they start going out that way anyway, then they start stepping on the other people, is what they
do. This is where my concern is, because I border that road, and my bedroom window’s about 15
feet from it.
MR. CARR-Which road, the access road?
MR. WOOD-This Converse road right here. I live right here, and my window is about 15 feet over.
So I’m just concerned with all these guys driving up and down the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-It will be an easement. It will not be a thoroughfare, per se.
MR. CARR-Right, correct, and it’s only going to be for emergency access.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-A continuation of the use that it is now. How’s that?
MR. WOOD-Yes, that was our concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CARR-Well, you also had a question on the dirt pile? That is to be moved, part of the contract.
We’ve got a couple of months after closing to do it, but Tyler’s going to use it in his business, I think.
So that pile is designated to be moved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Bob, did you get all your questions answered?
MR. PALING-Yes, I’m okay.
MR. BREWER-The only thing I have to worry about is that road being maintained in the winter, in
case of a fire.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your point of bringing it up and having it delineated on the final subdivision map
before it’s signed off, that it’s an easement through there, will satisfy our advisor and everyone else.
Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-And we need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
ROBERTA CONVERSE, 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.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1999
ROBERTA CONVERSE, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Stark:
As written in the prepared motion.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage, for Subdivision No. 5-1999,
Roberta Converse; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99 consists of the following:
1.
Application with maps S-1 dated 4/22/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/3/99 - Staff Notes
2.
5/3/99 - Town Bd. resolution 148.99
3.
5/7/99 - Meeting Notice letter
4.
4/27/99 – Staff Notes
5.
4/19/99 - Town Bd. resolution 135, 1999
6.
4/8/99 - Meeting Notice letter
7.
4/2/99 - B. Carr to D. Dougher
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/3/99 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
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage, Roberta Converse.
2.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1999 ROBERTA
CONVERSE, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Stark:
With the condition to delineate the emergency easement on the plat prior to its filing, and to be
maintained in the winter as past practice. That the dirt pile will be removed by November 30, 1999.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage, for Subdivision No. 5-1999, Roberta
Converse; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99 consists of the following:
1. Application with maps S-1 dated 4/22/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/3/99 - Staff Notes
2. 5/3/99 - Town Bd. resolution 148.99
3. 5/7/99 - Meeting Notice letter
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
4. 4/27/99 – Staff Notes
5. 4/19/99 - Town Bd. resolution 135, 1999
6. 4/8/99 - Meeting Notice letter
7. 4/2/99 - B. Carr to D. Dougher
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/3/99 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
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final
Stage, Roberta Converse.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. CARR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1999 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED FOREST
ENTERPRISES, INC. OWNER: RICHARD SANDERSPREE LOCATION: EAST
SIDE, RIDGE ROAD, OPPOSITE MEADOW DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 25.82 ACRES INTO 31 LOTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: EARLTOWN P.U.D. TAX MAP NO. 57-1-2.1, 109-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 14.47
ACRES, 11.35 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
FRANK DE SANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled for a Sketch Plan review.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1999 – Sketch Plan, Forest Enterprises, Inc., Meeting Date:
June 3, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a 31 lot subdivision for Sketch Plan
Stage review. Staff Notes: The proposed project area is within a Town approved PUD, Earltown.
The PUD has not been acted upon or reviewed by the Planning Board. Staff is reviewing the project
to determine the correct zoning for the area. Recommendation: Staff would request the PUD
zoning issue be resolved prior to any proposed projects initiated.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Where do we stand on that determination, at this point?
MR. SCHACHNER-I believe the determination will be that the PUD approvals were never fulfilled,
if you want to use that word, that the conditions of final PUD approval were never obtained or never
met, and that, therefore, the current zoning of the land is whatever it was before the PUD was
approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-It reverts back to what it was before the PUD.
MR. SCHACHNER-I believe so. Technically it wouldn’t be reverting back, as much as it never
actually became finalized as a PUD, but same result.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Good evening.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-Good evening. I’m Frank DeSantis, as agent for Richard Sanderspree, who’s here
to my left, on behalf of the property owner, which is Forest Enterprises, Inc. The issue that you’ve
just brought up, I agree with Mr. Schachner, it’s not an unusual occurrence. I always agree with Mark
when he’s right. We don’t believe that the PUD which was proposed and reviewed at great length by
the Town and all of its assorted agencies and extensions thereof is in effect at this time. We're
looking at the current zoning as it exists per your Zoning Ordinance. As the agenda shows, we’re
here on Sketch Plan. What we seek to do is look for the Planning Board’s input on the concept of
developing lots that we believe to be consistent with the existing neighborhood along this portion of
Ridge Road and to take advantage of the fact that we have municipal water and municipal sewer. We
are conscious of the fact that, and we show on this sketch plan map, the DEC wetland lines, that is
the buffer, the edge of the buffer zone. That is not the edge of the wetland. That is the edge of the
100-foot buffer away from the delineated wetland. What we are attempting to do is move the lots to
take advantage, as I said, of the services that, quite honestly, are there, and come up with a
development that is consistent with the development that exists on both sides of the road.
Particularly, I draw your attention to, I believe the street is called Meadow Lane, which is just on the
other side of Ridge Road. That shows on the first page of the map, which shows the area that we’re
in. Again, this is just conceptual at this point. We're conscious of the length of a road you can have
with one entrance, which is 1,000 feet to a dead end, and the turnaround. We’ve shown another
access way to the property that’s owned by the applicant. However, we would not intend to use that
as a primary access, only if the Board thought that we needed to use it as an emergency access
because unfortunately you can see the property line runs through somebody’s family room, and we
do not intend to use that. I mean, that’s something that occurred a long time ago, and it’s just a fact
that exists today and the surveys show that. The primary access would be the one that’s most
southerly on Ridge Road, to the left as you look at the map.
MR. MAC EWAN-The average size of the lots are?
MR. DE SANTIS-About a quarter of an acre. A little bit larger, actually. An acre’s 42,500. They
average about 12,000, I believe, 12 to 13,000.
MR. BREWER-How come so small?
MR. DE SANTIS-To get enough lots in there to justify dragging the sewer down the road. Plain and
simple.
MR. PALING-Will these homes have basements?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t mean to cut you off. I just want to answer his question. Obviously, we
can get bigger lots, and yes, to take the sewer down, you’re going to charge more for the lots, and
there’s a point to which you’re trying to balance it, and this is a conceptual plan, and we’re showing
you what we think can fit in here with the wetland back there, and where the limitations of the
property, but we are talking about municipal services here. These lots don’t need to be an acre per
the zone, in our opinion, to handle what you have in the rest of this zone. This zone doesn’t take
into account what actually exists on Ridge Road in terms of facilities. An acre, to have a 3,000 square
foot house with a septic system, you don’t need it if you have sewer available.
MR. BREWER-How does the 31 lots fit into the 25 acres, though, I guess as far as density goes?
MR. DE SANTIS-Other than doing the math, I mean, there’s no magic to it. I mean, how does it fit
in? It doesn’t. Twenty-five lots would be, you know, we realize we’re probably going to be looking
for some area variances here, but we’re talking about the concept of putting this type of development
in this area. That’s why we’re here at Sketch Plan. We're not looking for Preliminary.
MR. BREWER-Do you think you are going to ask for variances?
MR. DE SANTIS-I think we’re going to need to.
MR BREWER-If you want 31 lots you’re going to have to.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. We're cognizant of that.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. DE SANTIS-We're talking, here, about the concept, though.
MR. BREWER-I understand that.
MR. PALING-Will these homes have basements?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, sir. There isn’t a water table problem here that we’re aware of, at this point
in time. I haven’t been advised by C.T. Male that there is a water table problem.
MR. PALING-The sewer is in or will be in?
MR. DE SANTIS-The sewer is on Ridge Road. On the first sheet that you have, I’ll call the top
sheet of this conceptual plan, it shows, I’m going to have to highlight it here. We're going to have to
pull the sewer. On the edge of the property, it shows just across from the southern most lot on the
east side of the highway, eight-inch sanitary line.
MR. PALING-It doesn’t show on this one, no.
MR. DE SANTIS-On the top sheet.
MR. BREWER-I’m showing a 12-inch sanitary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I see it.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s directly across from our property. So we’d pull it into our property and
then bring it down through.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does that require an extension to the sewer district?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t have an answer, a direct answer, to your question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, on his plat here, he’s showing an eight inch, it appears to be the end of the
sewer line, your top drawing, and if you look at the house, see the dashed line to the north of Ridge
Road, right along Ridge Road, going to that first property? Right by where your hand is, right about
in that area. Do you see that? And the little notation right there, it says eight inch sanitary, right on
the end of it.
MR. BREWER-On the other side it says 12 inch sanitary, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the end of the sewer district, as you know it? Do you know?
MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea. Mr. DeSantis thinks the district line is up closer to Meadow
Drive. I haven’t the faintest idea.
MR. DE SANTIS-Meadow Drive, I believe, I don’t want to say, speak for C.T. Male, who are the
surveyor’s here, but it’s my understanding that the actual district line is somewhat north of what
shows on that first sheet as Meadow Drive. The district itself. Part of this property is clearly within
the district. All of it is clearly not within the district, in my opinion. So, to answer your question, to
encompass all of the property, I think we would have to bring, extend the line at the developer’s
expense, and seek to have an addition to the district, to encompass all of the property that we’re
talking about, and I’ll leave that up to the engineers, though, for specific answers.
MR. VOLLARO-So this project would be predicated on these having sewers?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-And not septic systems?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, sir. The concept, as I've said, that we’re presenting to the Planning Board
involves residential lots that have municipal water and municipal sewer. If for some reason you
could not have municipal sewer, we would not be presenting a layout that you’re seeing here,
proposed layout.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you entered into any discussions with the Town Board regarding sewering
this project?
MR. DE SANTIS-You mean, with regard to this project, no discussions at all with the Town Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Craig, where we talked about the 12 inch sanitary, or the 8 inch on, where did we call
it, the west side of the road, on the east side of the road, down a little bit further, it says 12 inch
sanitary.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. There is a manhole, at least I physically walked up there, and I know that
there’s a, what looks like a sewered manhole, right where it says 12 inch. I don’t pretend to know
what that means, in terms of actual capacity. Obviously, any extension would require the Town
Board’s approval, and all costs would be borne by the developer.
MR. BREWER-The benefit of that, though, is if it’s on this side, 12 inch, you don’t have to bore
across the road.
MR. DE SANTIS-We don’t have to bore under the road. Believe me, we will explore that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. BREWER-If you’re going to come back, I’d like to see an alternative plan, if you do not get the
variances.
MR. DE SANTIS-You mean if there is no sewer?
MR. BREWER-No, Area Variances.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Less lots. Maybe eliminate the lot and think about the road.
MR. DE SANTIS-Pardon me, I didn’t understand what you just said.
MR. BREWER-If you come back with less lots, think about the other access, possibly. I don’t know,
it’s kind of close to the main access, though.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. As I said, we’re showing that as property that we own, and C.T. Male shows
it as potential access. I would like not to build a road there, because it’s the guy’s side yard. The
applicant owns the property. I don’t want to build a road in the guy’s side yard. I don’t want to do
it. We understand there’s 1,000 feet you can go into a dead end. We know the limit is 35 lots.
You’ve got less than 35 lots here. You’ve got about 1,000 feet. I don’t have it measured out. That’s
20 inches on this map for the turnaround. We're talking about, it’s kind of like the chicken and the
egg, and that’s what we’re here to get your input, and I understand we’ll come back with a plan and
go to the Town Board, but the Town Board’s going to look at us and say, well, you want to extend
the sewer district for what? I mean, and so we need to start somewhere, and I understand, you just
happen to be the fortunate individuals that get to see it first, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-The lucky ones.
MR. RINGER-If they can reduce the lot sizes there from the variances, then it probably could be a
project that could go, or start.
MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt? What variances are you talking about?
MR. BREWER-He’s talking about Area Variances. Twenty-five acres, 31 lots doesn’t work, does it?
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Unless you’re going to cluster.
MRS. MOORE-Clustering is not allowed in that zone.
MR. DE SANTIS-Unless you get a variance.
MRS. MOORE-Right. My concern is on your drawing, you have SFR-10, and I’m just curious as to
where you obtained that, because my understanding of that.
MR. DE SANTIS-No, my understanding is it’s SR-1.
MRS. MOORE-SFR-1, okay.
MR. RINGER-That’s what I've got on the application.
MRS. MOORE-All right.
MR. DE SANTIS-I take absolutely no claim to fame or responsibilities for the drawing. My name
appears nowhere on it. I mean, I know what it says, and they gave it to us, and we need to file it,
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
and it’s accurate except for that, and my application, which I've prepared, shows the proper zone, I
believe.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one input. I have in front of me the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
for the Town of Queensbury, 1998, and looking at this property and trying to place it, I've placed it, I
think, accurately, in what this plan calls Neighborhood Number 10, and going through that, the
recommendations for this Neighborhood, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, says, and I’ll read
from it on Page 10 of 5, it’s 10.2, “This is the only area in Queensbury that is near major commercial
travel routes, has large tracts of vacant land, and proximity to the airport—items sought by industrial
developers. Considering the desire to attract such uses and their employment potential to
Queensbury, creating an opportunity for a planned business and industrial park, with zoning for
either office or light industrial and related uses is recommended”, and then they go on to talk about
that little more. I just want to bring up the fact, and I realize that we’re in a zone, a pre-established
zone, but here we have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that’s now talking about taking valuable
industrial land, in order for us to build an industrial base, that’s somewhat in conflict with this
proposal.
MR. DE SANTIS-I have looked at that Plan that you just referred to, and I agree with it, but for the
fact that all of this property is less than 1,000 feet off of Ridge Road, and you have a residential
neighborhood already on Ridge Road. I would submit to you that, with that Plan close to my heart,
if I were to come to this Board and say I wanted to put a warehouse right here, a non polluting, clean
warehouse right behind these folks’ houses, I don’t know if you’d hear me because I had the Land
Use Plan close to my heart. You’d say that’s not consistent with the existing zone. So you need
some transition, and I agree with the Plan in that degree, from what exists, to what you wish exists,
and least these are my feelings about it. We're trying to be consistent, moving back. You do need to
pull services from where they are back into areas that possibly you want to develop for other
purposes later on. This does start to accomplish that, at no cost to the municipality. You’re going to
have to have a road in off of Ridge Road to get to this property. This accomplishes that at no cost to
the municipality.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what it accomplishes. I’m trying to get in my mind how much in
conflict this proposal is with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and try, in my mind, understand.
MR. DE SANTIS-It is in conflict with it, as is the current existing zoning.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, how far is this from the airport?
MR. DE SANTIS-From the airport? It’s quite a ways, to be honest with you. Again, as the crow
flies.
MR. MAC EWAN-Three-eighths, half of a mile from the end of the runway?
MR. DE SANTIS-More than half a mile. I would say, somebody will hold me to this, but I would
guess approaching a mile. I mean, it’s not three miles, but it’s approaching a mile. I don’t have an
overall big map here, but I stood there. You can’t see the runway from where this is. You can walk a
distance, half a mile, and still not see the runway. You know it’s over there but.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but in the business of Aviation, aircraft get off the ground in a hurry. I’m just
wondering about noise abatement procedures that might come into play here.
MR. DE SANTIS-I agree, but I think what you need to look at is, we’re not talking about an area
that is right behind the runway, A, we’re not even talking about an area that’s in any of the aviation
easements. We're talking about the farthest house away on this plan being, this scale is one to fifty.
So we’re 500 feet from the existing houses.
MR. PALING-What are these buildings, or whatever they are, on the south side of this, of the top
sheet?
MR. DE SANTIS-Those are not buildings.
MR. PALING-Well, what are they?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t know. Those are planemetric things that C.T. Male put there, that they
said came off the tax map. I don’t know what you’re referring to. I didn’t post it because it’s not a
public hearing. Yes, those are not buildings. There is a structure, a foundation shown on the
property, a rectangular, to the left. That is merely a foundation. Again, I've walked out there. I’ll
point out what I’m referring to now, if I may. This is not a house. This is just a foundation.
MR. PALING-I’m talking about here.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t know what those are. Those are not buildings. This is all vacant. I would
say the runway is somewhere over here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Quite a ways. We just looked it up on the map. I’m going to guess it’s probably
even more than a mile.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay. I just stood there, and I’m guessing. I didn’t want to be overly optimistic.
Yes, it’s a long ways. It’s relatively level. So if you can’t see it when you’re out looking out there, it’s
a pretty good ways.
MR. MAC EWAN-The crow would be tired.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m thinking back, many, many, many years ago.
MR. DE SANTIS-This is a very large site that exists back there. The runway is there, but believe me,
this is not that near to it.
MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t think so either when (lost word) was a pea patch, but I can remember
how things developed where I came from, as boy, and people bought there without the knowledge,
and then started to complain vehemently about the noise, the aircraft, and so on and so forth. So,
something in your sales prospective here ought to at least state that there is an airport within a mile
of this property. That’s just.
MR. DE SANTIS-I appreciate that.
MR. VOLLARO-And the other thing I’m still trying to square away with, the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan is not law. I understand that, but it sure is a road map for how the Town wants to see itself
develop, and I think that has to be considered. We have to think about it at least.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess I have one little thing that kind of bothers me. On the second page
here, the egress and ingress that’s farther north, the northern one, that house down, the footprint of
that house is over the boundary line.
MR. DE SANTIS-You’re right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are they aware of that?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, they are, and I think they have a legal right to be there. I think the house,
and I have not looked at this in depth, but the house was built a good long time ago.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They probably never surveyed it when they.
MR. DE SANTIS-I think, and this is pure speculation. Everybody who builds on a road thinks their
lot, many times, is perpendicular to the road. People like right angles. So if this lot were
perpendicular to the road, this fellow would be fine, and this house was built quite a while ago. I
know, I’m familiar with the area for some 15 or 16 years, going along Ridge Road, and the house has
been there at least that long. I don’t know how long the owner has been there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s not going to present any problem for anybody.
MR. DE SANTIS-I talked to the folks. Nobody wants to use that as an access way. C.T. Male, they
own the property. The potential for use as an access way exists.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I was wondering. Do we need two roads onto?
MR. DE SANTIS-Your Ordinance says two things that I think impact on this, and obviously, you
can ignore them, or decide what you want to do in light of this specific case. If there are less than 35
lots, we can have one access. The other restriction is, the road cannot be longer than 1,000 feet. A
dead end street cannot be longer than 1,000 feet, and that’s what we’re proposing right now is a dead
end street. I mean, this owner owns all the property behind this that goes on toward the airport and
all the way over to County Line Road. Right now, that’s not here. That’s not what we’re talking
about, but some day, to address your question, who knows how many years from now, you know,
this may be hooked up to other highways for other purposes and other uses, or it may not be. The
other roads may come in the other way and the twain may never meet. There are environmental
considerations that are not, you know, that are certainly going to be taken into account, in between
this and the rest of the property, but the plan right now is to have one road. They’re showing this
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
because we own the property. If we didn’t own the property, they wouldn’t have shown it on a
survey. They’re showing the property we own.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and I don’t know if you had answered this earlier. What size homes
are you putting up? Are they going to be two story?
MR. DE SANTIS-These are going to be small houses.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Little two story homes or one?
MR. DE SANTIS-I haven’t gotten that far along. I don’t know. Dick, one, two stories? I can’t
answer that question. If you use 10,500 as a quarter of an acre, most of them are a little bit bigger
than that, but admittedly, you know, they average about 12,000 probably, in the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Smaller than the lots in Hudson Pointe.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was going to say, those are a third.
MR. DE SANTIS-They’re about the size of the lots, to give you an idea, if you drove into Hidden
Hills.
MR. BREWER-Those are a quarter of an acre?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We're looking at Hudson Pointe is a third acre lots in Phase I, and these
would be smaller than that. Surrey Fields, I think, are third acre lots, aren’t they?
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m not familiar with those, I mean, with the numbers on those.
MR. BREWER-These are awful, awful small lots.
MR. DE SANTIS-I think they’re tinier than that. I've seen them, but I haven’t seen a map. What
you don’t have is land that’s basically dedicated to septic disposal.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, not yet, but if they don’t get it, then this is not going to be viable.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s right. I agree with you 100%. If for some reason we can’t bring the sewer
to this property, you’re not going to see this plan.
MR. BREWER-What would prevent that from happening?
MR. DE SANTIS-I have no idea, but I always know until something’s done anything can prevent it.
MR. VOLLARO-Bedrock, just like it happened on Bay Road.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. I think the district would probably be a lot larger than it was, if it wasn’t for
physical constraints. C.T. Male believes we can move it, but they need to run that by the Town, and
the Town’s engineers, and that whole process.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, do you have anything?
MR. STARK-No, other than the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but I can’t see them putting a
warehouse there. Everybody up and down Ridge Road would have a heart attack. They had a heart
attack with a car lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STARK-I can’t see that as industrial land, ever.
MR. RINGER-Neighborhood 10 is a large area, and it’s going to go further east.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll throw in my two cents. My concern is the density, with or without a sewer. I
guess I would ask Staff, while we’re in between steps of the process here, is that if you could supply
the Board with some lot sizes of those neighboring properties that are on Ridge Road, so we get kind
of a comparison. Also, I remember we did, when we were working with Bay Meadows and their
project they had, they only had one entrance in there, and I don’t remember the length of it, but
there was concerns because of fire safety, emergency access, that as I recall, we pushed for an extra
entrance into there, just for that reason. If you could research that and tell us how far.
MR. BREWER-That wasn’t nearly 1,000 feet, Craig.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m wondering. That’s why I’m asking.
MR. STARK-What are you talking about, Guido’s property?
MR. BREWER-No, Bay Meadows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bay Meadows, when they did the project, the PUD, it wasn’t a real PUD, but it
was a subdivision, off Cronin Road. So if you could research that for us, so we could get an idea of
what kind of length of road we’re talking here, versus one entrance, two entrances for emergency
access. I’ll be honest with you. My reservations are with the density. I don’t know how it plays into
the fact here, though, with you talking with the Town Board about whether an extension to the sewer
district needs to be made or whether you could tie in, or what step of the process that you would
start talking with them for this.
MR. BREWER-Similar to what Stewart’s did. I mean, they just went to the Town Board, asked them
to extend the sewer district, didn’t they?
MR. SCHACHNER-That request can certainly be made, and there’s a process that it goes through.
MR. STARK-All it does is lower everybody else’s bill.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have plans to go in and see the Town Board for this proposal?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the coming weeks?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. I mean, we were looking for exactly what we’re getting. We anticipated
seeing what the Planning Board’s concerns were, and I would just ask, at this point, as Staff develops
those, the results of that research and so on, if they issue a report, could we get a copy of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. DE SANTIS-As we go forward here, attempt to incorporate those in what we present to you,
so that we don’t come back to you, and you say, well, here’s what Staff said, and we say, well, gee, we
didn’t know about that. That’s kind of silly.
MR. MAC EWAN-As we get the Staff notes and the report, we’ll ask that you get a copy.
MR. DE SANTIS-If you can just send us a copy, we can then put them through our people and they
can modify this, so that we can attempt to address your concerns concretely, rather than see them as
we come to a meeting. That’s what I would like to do. I’d like to see Sketch Plan work that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-And obviously, before we proceed any farther, we’ll just get the written
determination, that’s coming from Chris Round’s office or from your office?
MR. SCHACHNER-Which determination?
MR. MAC EWAN-For the PUD.
MR. BREWER-It’s all done, isn’t it?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not aware of your having asked for a written determination. If you want
one, that would come from the Planning office.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I got the kind of idea here that it’s still being discussed, and nothing
formally has been decided, based on what I’m reading in the Staff notes.
MRS. MOORE-The Senior Planner has prepared a memo that’s being reviewed by Chris Round at
the moment.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all we’re looking for.
MR. DE SANTIS-Can we have a copy of that too?
MRS. MOORE-When it’s finalized, yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, when it’s done, of course.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody else got anything else? No? Staff?
MRS. MOORE-For the SFR, right now it’s currently SFR-1 Acre. Potential avenues is re-zoning to
SFR-10. His other avenue was requesting all those Area Variances. I’m not sure, I don’t know if
that’s the best route.
MR. BREWER-Re-zoning, probably.
MRS. MOORE-But you have to look at, you requested the things I was looking for, the other side of
the road, considering what zone that’s in and what lot sizes those are. That’ll determine if re-zoning
is applicable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if their procedure is to either go with, A, asking for a whole bunch of
variances, or, B, putting an application in front of the Town Board for a re-zoning request, they’re
only going to pass it back down to here for our recommendation.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s one of the reasons why we started with you.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, starting here is certainly the right approach.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is. It definitely is.
MR. SCHACHNER-The re-zoning request would come to this Board for a recommendation. I’m
not aware of the variance request coming to this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. I didn’t say, the variance, he’s going right to the ZBA with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I think in fairness to the applicant, and you’re not the ZBA, but in
fairness to the applicant, I think that if they decided to go the ZBA route, those would appear to me,
at least, to be a very substantial request for an Area Variance. You’re talking about going from
minimum and/or average lot sizes, I’m saying minimum or average depending upon whether they’re
clustered or not, minimum or average lot size of at least one acre to minimum or average lot sizes of
I believe not even a quarter acre, 10,000 square feet. My sense is that that would be considered a
very substantial variance request. That does not mean it would not be granted. I’m just making sure
that the applicant understands that I think the Staff opinion is that would be a very substantial
request for an Area Variance. The re-zone, of course, the Town Board has the right to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they stayed with single family residential, how many lots would you get out of
it?
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say, if they stay with single family residential, you mean?
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, yes, without.
MR. DE SANTIS-If you were to develop the property as zoned, in terms of one acre lots, forget
moving the sewer, just say, hey, I don’t want any sewer. I don’t need any sewer. I've got an acre per
land. If I do the perc test and the perc test shows I can put sewer in the ground, and I meet all the
other setbacks required in the Ordinance, design standards and so on, I don’t know the answer to
that. I know there’s 25 acres here. So it’s somewhat less than 25 lots. It may be 20. I don’t know,
21, 22, something like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say 18 to 20 lots, some place like that, as a guess.
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t know the exact answer, yes. It’s going to be something less than this,
you’re putting septic in the ground, and probably at that point that is another way to go with the
property, and, economically, if you get down below a certain number of dollars, it’s plain and simple,
and I realize this isn’t the Board’s concern, but you know this impacts, that you’re not going to spend
the money to pull the sewer. Why would you? You pass that cost to the homeowner, and so on.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re going to have that trade off of hopefully having good enough perc to
put a septic tank in.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s right. That always is there.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
MR. VOLLARO-And now you’re going to be in the balancing act between the sewer and the perc.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s right, and that’s always there, if you have the alternative of municipal
services. Here you have that alternative. Some places you don’t have it. The sewer either doesn’t
exist or is five miles away. It never comes into play.
MR. VOLLARO-What happened in a particular community in Queensbury is that that community
was approved under the proviso that sewers would be available. Therefore, they went on a semi-
permanent septic system. Sewers never came. So they’re limping along now on a septic system on a
wing and a prayer. I happen to live in that community, so I know.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s not a situation we want to get into. We're not asking for something like
that as a stopgap. We're looking for a yes or a no on the sewer, and that will depend on the density
and the questions that Mark’s raised, and again, I agree with him that the Area Variance probably
would be a tough road to hoe, but given the nature of the neighborhood, and what the Town Plan
has talked about, etc., the re-zoning may be something that’s possible, but we have to start
somewhere, and we started with you folks. I think all of your concerns, we’ve taken note of them,
and as this develops from Staff, we’ll work that into our plans and proceed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good, and as you proceed along in your endeavors, if you want to come
back and sit down again and discuss this a little bit more.
MR. DE SANTIS-We probably would, and I appreciate your offer, and I think we would like to take
you up on that. This is not something that we’re in a big rush, but we want to try and do right, if we
can go forward with it, and it fits everybody’s needs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you. Mr. Caffry?
MR. CAFFRY-I know this isn’t a public meeting, but I wonder if I could say a few words?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. DE SANTIS-I would just ask, before Mr. Caffry speaks, if he submitted something for the file,
could we have a copy of it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thanks.
MR. CAFFRY-For the record, I’m John Caffry. I represent the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition, which
includes, among others, Southern Adirondack Audubon Society, Glens Falls Chapter of the
Adirondack Mountain Club. About 10 years ago, we went to court to stop the Earl Town Planned
Unit Development, as did the State of New York, which is basically why it expired and never got
finalized. We did that in order to protect the Big Cedar Swamp, the wetland which basically lies
between Ridge Road and the airport and Quaker Road and Hicks Road. I sent a letter to Mr.
MacEwan. I don’t know if the rest of the Board members got to see it or not, because I didn’t know
if I’d have the opportunity to speak tonight, but we are concerned about this application, because it
looks like that Forest Enterprises is essentially the successor to Earl Town. It seems to be the same
people, or a lot of the same people. They deeded the property from Earl Town to Forest
Enterprises. I don’t know, it’s 8, 900 acres, whatever, last year. Earl Town was dissolved this spring.
Again, it seems to be the same people. We're concerned that they’re basically trying to take the
property and piecemeal it and develop off all of the uplands around the wetland, and then just leave
the wetland as kind of the hole in the donut, and we don’t think that that’s an appropriate way to
address this. We think that they ought to come in, and not just look at this 25 acres in isolation, but
look at their entire holdings and have a comprehensive plan for the whole thing, a generic impact
statement in order to look at the overall impact on the wetlands. Just because they say they’re
outside the wetland buffer zone, doesn’t mean they’re not going to adversely effect wildlife species
that use both upland and wetlands, that kind of thing. Also, they only did this off of the DEC
wetlands. They should have to get an Army Corp of Engineers wetlands delineation, because those
wetland boundaries are often very different than the DEC wetland boundaries, and for all we know
some of the lots that are showing on this map are within wetlands under the Corps’ jurisdiction, and
having listened to this discussion tonight about the lot sizes and the variances and all that. I see no
reason to go to a smaller lot size. The existing zoning’s one acre on both sides of Ridge Road, and I
don’t see that they have any basis for variances on this property, particularly if soil tests show that the
property will accommodate septic systems. We don’t know that, but that’s something they should
look at before they come in and say, well, they need that just to get the, it’s kind of circular that they
say, well, we need the sewer in order to have more lots, but we need more lots in order to have the
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/3/99)
sewer. If they don’t need the sewer in order to put a few houses back there, then they shouldn’t be
having to put the sewer in in the first place. They could just build however many houses fit and have
septic systems, and lastly I think traffic’s a concern. I don’t know where this access road is exactly in
relationship to the crest of the hill, as you come up from Quaker Road, but that’s kind of a blind spot
there at the crest of that hill, and I think that there’s a real issue there with the traffic and the safety
of that access road point. So what we’d like to see Forest Enterprises do is come back with a
comprehensive study of the entire situation, and not just cherry pick, a piece here and a piece there,
and come before the Board every year. They’ve got For Sale signs all up and down their whole
property. They’re here with this now. Then they’ll be back with another piece over on Quaker
Road. I think it’s just much better planning if they do it all at once in some kind of a generic impact
statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. CAFFRY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, you had some comments for the Board?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. I just want to get a general feeling of who can attend the meetings. Our first
one is on June 15. I mean, and then June 22.
thnd
MR. MAC EWAN-Our regular meetings?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Those are our regular meetings, and then our special ones, the special one is on
June 24.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The regular meetings are the 15 and the 22?
thnd
MRS. MOORE-Correct. I’m assuming that you can attend, but our special one is on the 24, and
th
then you have a Great Escape meeting on June 30. I’m just curious. You can give me a call, or
th
you can answer that now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are going to be on the 10, 4:00 o’clock.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the 30, you’re waiting for our timesheets, right, Laura? The 30 we
thth
have a choice of three times?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So is there a problem with everyone making all meetings this month? Is that it,
Laura?
MRS. MOORE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn, then.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
32