1999-11-03 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
ROBERT PALING
ALAN ABBOTT
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT- MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we start, I just want to make a couple of comments regarding things that
have been transpiring in the last week or so. Two things that are important. The first thing, I am
somewhat disappointed, as Chairman of this Board, the amount of lobbying that seems to have gone
on behind the scenes. That means phone calls placed to members of this Planning Board,
individually, lobbying for them to either come and visit the site or talking about the projects as a
whole. It’s important to remember that it kind of undermines the credibility of this Board when
applicants are pushing, and through enthusiasm and zest to get their project approved, it takes away
from the credibility of this Board for us to function as a unit in a public forum. I would ask that, in
the future, that you please address any concerns, questions, comments, additional information
through the proper channels, which is through Staff which gets to us. I hope that people understand
our position, because being a public Board, it’s important, to me as Chairman, to make sure that we
run our Board under the open meeting laws, and that we adhere to the forms that are set forth, that
we try to perceive, when we get in front of the public here and deliberate any project that comes in
front of us. That being said, the second thing, in the interest of time, so we don’t have another two
o’clock in the morning deal like we did about a week ago, we feel that if we offer each applicant that’s
going to be here tonight an hour to go through their presentation, I think that’ll be ample. Okay.
With that, we’ll move on with the agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a statement before the meeting starts, to
everybody in the audience and to my fellow Board members. If any of you got a phone call saying
that I had a part in or actually made phone calls to anybody in this community encouraging them to
come to this hearing tonight, that’s false. I talked to nobody. I encouraged nobody to make phone
calls, and if any of you have gotten them, and I know that somebody on the Board did get a call and
was kind enough to call me and ask me directly whether I did or didn’t, and I told that person that I
did not, nor did I encourage anybody else to make phone calls to have people come to this meeting.
So I just want my fellow Board members to know that. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that, the first item on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 54-99 EIS/FINDINGS ACCEPTED THE GLEN AT HILAND
MEADOW, INC. OWNER: EDDY PROPERTY SERVICE, INC. AND GLENS FALLS
HOME APPLICANT/AGENT: DAVID WENDTH ZONE: HILAND PARK PUD
LOCATION: HAVILAND & MEADOWBROOK ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A
RETIREMENT CENTER CONSISTING OF A TWO STORY APPROXIMATELY 126,000
SQ. FT. FACILITY CONSISTING OF 62 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS AND 44
ENRICHED HOUSING UNITS AND 18 COTTAGE UNITS IN 9 DETACHED
BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING
ROADS, UTILITIES, PARKING AREAS, OUTDOOR COURTYARDS AND
LANDSCAPING. APPLICANT IS SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: HILAND PARK PUD BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10/12/99
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 45 +/-
ACRES SECTION 179-58
JOE SPORKO, KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing, which was opened on October 26, has been
th
continued.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, updates, anything?
MR. ROUND-The notes were read in at the previous meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the fact that it was almost two o’clock in the morning, maybe it
would be good just to kind of refresh a little bit.
MR. ROUND-For the sake of brevity, in the last week we tried to summarize some of the issues that
were identified in our notes. In the review of a PUD, there’s specific items set out under Section
179-58, on the site plan approval process, since that’s what we’re entertaining here tonight. We
mentioned there were Items A through N. I’ll touch briefly on each of those, just to refresh your
memories. A was the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. We
noted that the plans all indicated that roads would be constructed to Town standards. They have
been forwarded to the Highway Department and Rist-Frost for their review and comment to the
applicant. Additionally, the applicant also included a traffic report from a consultant identifying
some key intersections, and that information you have in front of you as well. Item B was adequacy
and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. We did note that the plans identify a
concrete walkway with two story, but no other pedestrian paths on the plan. I believe most of the
items that we’ve identified, the applicant has given a letter and response to each of these items.
Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. We identified
that. There was no particular standard for this type of use. Again, their traffic consultant and their
experience with a project of this type, they feel they have adequate parking on that, and Staff has no
reservations on that. Location, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting and signs. This
project is consistent with the PUD in that an institutional size congregational care facility was
contemplated as part of the original plan. Relationship and various uses, excuse me, back to that
location, arrangement, size and design of buildings, the point that came up last week was the use of
wood siding versus vinyl siding. The applicant’s prepared to address that tonight. I don’t know how
that’s going to land with the Board members. Relationship of various uses to one another and their
scale. We had no comments on that. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, landscaping,
constituting a visual or noise deterring buffer between adjacent uses. The Beautification Committee
reviewed that and approved that plan. They did recommend sprinkler systems be installed to
maintain the landscaping. G. In case of apartment houses or multiple dwellings, the adequacy of
usable open space for playgrounds, informal recreation and land reserved for recreation use. There
are common areas and courtyards identified on the plan. There are some limited recreational areas.
Given the proposed use of the facility, recreational needs are minimal, and there are ample off site
recreation needs in the area. Adequacy of stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities. They
propose connection to the municipal water and wastewater facilities that are on site or adjacent to the
site. The wastewater, there are some engineering comments on the specific details of the
connections, etc., that they will address. The Water Department has indicated that both the water
lines and wastewater lines, although may be in a public right-of-way, the Water Department feels that
they’re private improvements and that they would seek for the applicant to maintain those facilities,
which is somewhat unusual to projects that you typically see. Adequacy of structures, roadways and
landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding. There are details, in those areas
susceptible to flooding, there are plans and details for the detention, retention areas on site.
Protection of adjacent properties against noise, glare, unsightliness and other objectionable features.
This project is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD, and doesn’t appear to have any objectionable
features, and we’ll let the public comment on that point. Conformance with other specific charges of
the Town Board which may have been stated in the zoning resolution. All requirements have been
met, to the best of our knowledge. Architectural compatibility with other elements of the project
with the neighborhood. That was a point that was discussed last week, and we’ll leave that point
open for discussion. Protection of historical sites or buildings. There are none on the site. Other
factors. Adequacy of fire lanes, emergency zones and provisions for fire hydrants. Bay Ridge has
reviewed it. The Fire Marshal is currently reviewing the plans. The one comment was, alternate
access in the event that Meadowbrook Road was closed, and then how emergency vehicles would
access the facility, because there’s only a single access point. That was the extent of our comments,
and I think that may refresh some of the issues that were out there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you back up if you could for a second, maybe kind of give a little bit more
detail on the Town’s position of them maintaining the water connections in the Town right-of-way?
MR. ROUND-I don’t have documentation in front of me. I don’t know, Laura, if there’s a letter in
the file, and the applicant has been contacted by Mike Shaw of the Wastewater Department. It’s the
Water Department’s position that the water lines, once they leave the Town road, the current Town
road, are the responsibility of the private land owner, and this applies to both projects. Just let me
say that, and in both cases, these roadways that are to be conveyed to the Town, should the Town
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
decide to accept them, and should the Highway Superintendent decide to accept them, typically when
you dedicate a road, and it’s accepted by the Town, that the infrastructure in the public right-of-way
is also public infrastructure, part of the public infrastructure. Correct me anytime, Mark, and in this
case, there are water lines. Not having the plans in front of me, the water lines and sewer lines don’t
always fall in the roadway, and in that case, that the water and sewer infrastructure, the maintenance
would be the responsibility of the private landowner, and this is somewhat unusual, and there was
some internal discussion between Planning Staff, Highway Superintendent, and Water and
Wastewater representatives that these roadways are all on private lands, and they service single
landowners, although in the case of the Eddy Group, it’s a single project developer, single project
owner, and it’s servicing, and it’s owned by a single entity. The same is the case with the other
project that you’re going to be confronted with tonight. There’s differences in opinions across
Departments and the final decision lies with the Highway Department and the Town Board, whether
they will choose to receive those roads as part of the dedication process. Someone might make the
analogy that these are no more than driveways to private facilities. That’s not your decision tonight,
but just because of that, there’s some differences of opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the basis that, basically, the Water and Sewer Departments have kind
of come up with that conclusion that they’re going to take care of it. Okay.
MR. ROUND-That’s my understanding of their position, and there may be some additional details
that each of the applicants can lend some light to, but just to comment on the process. The
preliminary approval process doesn’t require that you resolve all those issues. I would suggest that if
you’re comfortable with the design features, with densities, that if you don’t anticipate significant
design changes to any of the projects that are in front of you tonight, that you could move forward
with preliminary approval, and then the laundry list or the punch list of items that have to be
completed would be completed prior to final approval. However, if you believe you’re going to
entertain significant design changes to a project, I would caution you to give preliminary approval for
a project that might be altered significantly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that, anyone here representing the applicant for The Glen?
Gentlemen, good evening.
MR. SPORKO-Good evening. Joe Sporko with the LA Group, representing the applicant. I guess,
first of all, we do have a letter that we sent a copy to Chris Round, by which we addressed each of
the comments. So perhaps maybe what we should do first is hand out a copy of this letter, with
some attachments that we refer to in the letter.
MRS. MOORE-They should actually have a copy of that, dated November 2. All the members
nd
have a copy of it.
MR. SPORKO-All right. Well, I guess what we’d like to do is go over each of the letters, and run
down the comments that we have and explain them. So what we’ll do is start with the Town Water
Department’s comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which letter are you referring to, the November 1 letter? November 2’s letter.
stnd
MR. SPORKO-Yes, this is our November 2 letter.
nd
MR. RINGER-What’s the differences between your November 1 and your November 2 letter?
stnd
MR. SPORKO-There should only be one letter. We’ll go over each of the items, so we can explain
each one. They’re all in reference to each of the letters, each of the comment letters.
MR. BREWER-Can we do them via our list that we have, in other words, go Staff Notes, A, B, C, D,
E, F, G?
MR. MAC EWAN-Which one are you looking at?
MR. BREWER-The one of our Staff notes. I mean, I’ve got their November 2 letter, but it
nd
doesn’t, I’m sure it jibes, but they’ve got it written down different, I guess.
MR. ABBOTT-Sections do, they respond to each one. So if you go to like the third page, or, I’m
sorry, the fourth page of their letter, it’s the Community Development Staff notes, which will follow
the Staff notes we have. The first few pages are.
MR. ROUND-Comments of other Departments.
MR. ABBOTT-Other Department’s responses.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a little thicker than yesterday’s letter, really.
MR. ROUND-Yes, there were two letters. You did issue a letter November 1. I think the body of
st
the letter didn’t change. Then you issued a letter of November 2. There are two letters from the
nd
LA Group to the Chairman, and I believe that they’re identical. The November 2 letter, you do
nd
have in front of you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a little thicker. Okay.
MR. SPORKO-All right. We’ll start with the Town Water Department’s letter, which is to Kevin
Hastings. Kevin Hastings is here with me. He’s the Project Engineer. So he’s going to run through
each of these comments.
MR. HASTINGS-For the record, Kevin Hastings with the LA Group. The first item, Sheet U-1, the
water main extension into the site is designed to utilize an existing water service valve located within
the Meadowbrook right-of-way. Basically we wanted to tie into an existing service stub that was
installed as part of the Hiland PUD infrastructure work back in the late 80’s. We would then pick it
up and follow along the road right-of-way until it reached the proposed Town dedicated right-of-way
that would enter the Eddy site. The water main would then follow the proposed road as originally
configured. Item Number Two.
MR. SPORKO-Does the Board follow what Kevin just explained, as far as the water line
configuration?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SPORKO-Okay.
MR. HASTINGS-If there’s a question, just ask, please. The next item, the fire hydrant within the cul
de sac, near Station 7 + 00 will be moved to the outside, as requested. The third item, the water
supply will include a service valve and stub beneath the roadway at Station 6 + 60, for future
connection as requested.
MR. VOLLARO-How do we pick up those Station numbers?
MR. HASTINGS-They’re on the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, I’m looking at L-1.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re farther down. It would be the road layout, infrastructure one.
MR. HASTINGS-You have to go to U-1.
MR. VOLLARO-U-1 is in the car because there were so many sheets here that I modified your
drawings by taking some of the stuff out.
MR. ROUND-Could I interject? How useful is this going to be, this exercise going to be, to go
through some technical issues that are going to be resolved between the Town’s design engineer and
the applicant’s engineer?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not at all. We’re just giving them the opportunity to quickly go over.
MR. ROUND-Right. I’d suggest that if there’s something that effects design or if there’s a particular
issue, that maybe you would speak to those issues, under the three Departments, with the exception,
unless there was an issue that you think is going to modify your design or that might be of particular
interest to the Board. I know also we’re operating with, this information only came within the last
two days. So the Board members may not have formed an opinion or read in detail that’s going to
provide a good feedback mechanism here. It’s just a suggestion.
MR. HASTINGS-That’s fine. That’s basically a response to the projected flow and grease
interceptor sizing. Going back to the Town Water Department comments. On Sheet U-3, we had
an inappropriate detail, but in general, in response to Mr. Van Dusen’s comments, we located the
utilities within the road right-of-way, for the purpose of future maintenance access, and that wants to
be emphasized, because when they’re located within a common corridor, such as this proposed
Town dedicated road, they’ll be best accessible, and it’ll eliminate the number of easements across
the Eddy property.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s an issue that you’ll need to take up, obviously, prior to final, to square that
away, not only with the Highway Superintendent as to whether the Town wants to take over those
roads, or treat them as a private drive going into a business for all practical purposes.
MR. HASTINGS-Right. Again, the project plans and specs will conform to Town standards,
whether it’s a private road or within the Town right-of-way.
MR. BREWER-They’re saying it can’t do it. Are we asking them to do it?
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that, Tim?
MR. BREWER-Well, I’m kind of confused on their comment, Sheet U-2, and I’m sure it’ll be
worked out, but it says the water main crosses the proposed road near Station 16, in summary, in this
area, the two utility lines cannot maintain the required 10 feet horizontal separation.
MR. HASTINGS-Yes. Mr. Van Dusen stated that he preferred to have the water main opposite the
gas main, and to one side of the road, and not cross back and forth, but in that case, the sanitary
sewer, as we have it proposed, is difficult in aligning along the center line of the road. So as we come
along a curve, the water line can’t come in closer than 10 feet horizontal separation.
MR. BREWER-So that means you have to work this out with Ralph or our engineer?
MR. HASTINGS-Well, we’re looking at our configurations right now, to avoid that.
MR. BREWER-I guess what I’m saying, in support of you, Chris, is if our engineer, or Ralph gets
these, come back to us with the answers to them, not the questions, because we don’t have the
answers to them, right?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. HASTINGS-The Rist-Frost letter, again, they’re just response to detail comments, a technical
question on the drywells that are proposed on the north end of the site.
MR. MAC EWAN-So just kind of back up. We’re okay with Sheet U-2, Sheet U-3, and the general
comments under Town Water Department that those issues are going to be addressed by water and
sanitary, as to the design details, and that’s something that you have to work out with them. The
Town Wastewater heading comments one, two, three, and four, we all seem to be in agreement with
them, that it’s going to need their rubber stamp of approval before you proceed on any farther with
that. Right?
MR. HASTINGS-Yes, and again, Mr. Chairman, as we respond in comment number one for the
Town Wastewater Department, since the collector line that runs along the hedgerow virtually north
south, with a future easement for the commercial strip fronting Haviland Road, we view that as being
a common utility, and therefore should be subject to the public accepting that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s up to the Town Wastewater Department.
MR. HASTINGS-Mike has already indicated that to me, Mike Shaw.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the biggest hurdle that you have to overcome so far that I see on here is
whether your road gets dedicated to the Town or not, and that’s a big unanswered question. Rist-
Frost comments, comments one, two, and three, any Board members have any problem with any of
those? They seem to be okay.
MR. BREWER-I’d just like to see Rist-Frost sign off on them. That’s all, if there’s any technical.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a letter in the file from Rist-Frost addressing any of these?
MR. ROUND-Only the original comment, not the response to the response.
MR. MAC EWAN-Will this be forwarded, their responses to Rist-Frost, so we can get them to sign
off on it?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Comments four, five and six, do any Board members have any problems
with those? Anything that you gentlemen wanted to comment with four, five and six? Seven, eight
and nine?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. BREWER-Yes, eight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eight.
MR. BREWER-Parking, Staff comments about the parking.
MR. PALING-I think that’s been adequately answered, now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we talked about that at great length last week, Tim. Because, stop me
whenever I make a goof here, but there is nothing in the transportation manuals that specifically say
that nursing homes are required to have X number of spaces of parking, or independent living
centers. So this is based on their expertise in how many of these facilities they’ve got out there
figuring what works, and they went on to say that, was it Guilderland that you said had one,
Slingerlands, has like two-thirds too many, something along that line.
DAVID WENDTH
MR. WENDTH-David Wendth, Project Manager with Northeast Health and the Eddy. The project
is actually the Beverwick in Slingerlands, NY. I also spoke to the Beechwood project in Troy, NY,
and in both cases, on the independent living side, we see where towns have required us to have
parking spaces per the Town code, and in some spaces it’s two spaces per dwelling unit, or
something thereabouts. We typically see about half the residents having cars. So in the case of
Beverwick, which is a good example, because it’s very similar to the Glen at Hiland Meadows that’s
being proposed, we have right now about 235 spaces. There’s an additional green space that’s been
identified for future parking should we need it, and we have about 86 resident cars. So I think the
comment that I said flippantly in the early morning last week is, and we do kid about it. You could
land airplanes on our parking spaces, or in the parking lots. There’s just vacant spaces.
MR. BREWER-Is that the case, Chris, up at Solomon Heights, the same thing?
MR. ROUND-I’m not sure.
MR. BREWER-I guess what I’m saying, if they have 20 units, they have 20 parking.
MR. ROUND-Solomon Heights is a little bit different facility than this facility. I’m not sure what the
parking utilization rates are for Solomon Heights. I guess that’s the short answer.
MR. WENDTH-Yes. Solomon Heights is, as we’re aware, just regular apartments. It’s not an
independent living, senior community.
MR. BREWER-It’s just a senior community.
MR. WENDTH-Okay. The other piece, too, is a good portion of this project is the assistive living.
Again, at the Beverwick in Slingerlands, we were required by the Town to put in 62 spaces per their
code, because again, there is no code for senior housing projects of this type anywhere in the
Country, and our traffic engineers have provided a letter that I know was provided to the Staff,
saying that our experience certainly would be a good solid basis to utilize in planning parking spaces,
but the Beverwick, as an example there, we have one car for every twenty-six residents. So 62
additional spaces, because the Town did not have a code for senior housing, it was just, again,
overkill. So based on our experience, we really feel that we have adequate parking for this
population, and there is, you know, areas identified on the site plan, should there be a demand for
additional parking, be it in a garage type structure. We could go forward at a later date, come back to
the Board and get the approval to proceed with construction of such garages.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on working with the Glens Falls Transit Authority to offer, as part
of the loop of the bus service to go up through there?
MR. WENDTH-Personally, I don’t know where we stand regarding that at this point in time. A big
piece of our development comes later on, in that we bring in Staff who actually develops the policies
and procedures that we put in place in the community. A lot of that would fall under that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you do that with other facilities, the bus service?
MR. WENDTH-Yes, we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it natural to think that you could have it here?
MR. WENDTH-Yes. We also do provide transportation by our campus bus, as well as the vehicle.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Okay. Any other questions from Board members regarding seven,
eight and nine comments?
MR. ABBOTT-I want to go to eight for just a second. Just to re-cap, how many parking places are
provided in the plan?
MR. HASTINGS-In total there’s 124.
MR. ABBOTT-One hundred and twenty-four, and you estimate how many would be residents and
how many would be Staff?
MR. HASTINGS-Resident parking would be approximately 42 in number, Staff would be 64 in
number.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-On Number Nine, when you say the demand for, this has to do with garage, is
there anything on this drawing where you have typical expansions. Are those typical expansions
going to be living units or are they set aside for something like garages? Because you’re not going to
know until a resident asks for a garage or not a garage, as to what you’re going to do. So what
happens to the density figure when this thing rolls around?
LEONARD ANGERAME
MR. ANGERAME-My name’s Leonard Angerame from Angerame Associates. We’re the architects
for the project. What we did here is shaded in the areas where future expansion will occur.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got them on my drawing as well, I think.
MR. ANGERAME-Okay. We’re looking at 20 independent living units on this end, another 10
independent living units on this end, and then a total of 24 assistive living units.
MR. VOLLARO-On each one of those?
MR. ANGERAME-No, at total.
MR. VOLLARO-Twelve and twelve?
MR. ANGERAME-Twelve and twelve.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. ANGERAME-So that’s basically the density.
MR. PALING-I don’t think that answers the question, though.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no it doesn’t, but it’s good information.
MR. ANGERAME-But when we do do this addition, we will be adding parking in this area here,
where it says future parking.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I’m just trying to, there seems to be an area here where demand would dictate
whether or not a garage is provided or not, and in my view, that might change your density numbers
a little bit, and I don’t know how you’re going to account for that. That’s my only question. Because
that’s something that goes up and down with demand, it seems to me. It’s not a fixed design.
MR. BREWER-In other words, if somebody doesn’t want a garage, they could put a unit there?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s what I’m asking.
MR. BREWER-Right. That’s the theory in what you’re saying, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s correct.
MR. WENDTH-The answer is yes. If someone demands covered garage type parking, and we find,
with the resident population that is present in the community, or future resident population, because
the building may not be built, and they are seeking that, yes, this is something that we would desire,
we would come back to the Board and request approval to go forward and build those garages.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that answers my question, because right now the garages are not part
of this, because they’re not under demand. So you wouldn’t be putting any in until you get.
MR. WENDTH-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would that fit in in the future? Would that be considered a site plan
modification they’d have to come back here for?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-Let me just go back on that a minute, because the way I was going to phrase that
question was I thought we needed a commitment from you regarding the total maximum units you’d
have on this site.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 124 now.
MR. BREWER-No, we’re looking at 124.
MR. PALING-That’s what the number is now, but with modifications, if I understand that right, that
could be increased. Is that right?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. PALING-I’d really like to know what we’re talking about here is the maximum possible units,
and to see if that’s permissible or at least it’s there for future consideration.
MR. BREWER-Right, if that fits into the overall density of land.
MR. PALING-Well, there is a limit on the grand total, too.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. ROUND-I think you just outlined that, the 124 plus the expansion units. Do you know what
the total units proposed?
MR. SPORKO-There would be 58 units, what Mr. Angerame just outlined, in the expansion areas, in
the wings of the main facility, a total of 58. In addition to that, there would be two clusters of
cottages shown where those two future cul de sacs will be located. Each of those would be, well, I
guess I don’t have the total number, but they’d be less than the cul de sac we’re showing now,
because they’re short of cul de sacs, and we’re showing 18 units. Comparing that with the original
PUD, which was 670 units, you can see that our total maximum is still far, far less than what was
originally conceived.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that number you just related to is for across the entire Planned Unit
Development, where we’re dealing with one small section of the Development.
MR. SPORKO-No, that was for the small section of the Development to be the retirement center is
to be 670 units.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the firm number that you’re talking here?
MR. VOLLARO-One seventy-eight. If you add the 124 to what you gave me a minute ago, 20 in
that upper corner, 12 and 12, that’s another 24, and 10, added on to 124 is 178 maximum buildout, in
that 45 acres. Is that correct?
MR. ABBOTT-No, that’s just the building. That’s just the complex. We’ve got to add the cottages
in there, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I just got laid out on this chart where they have typical expansion, and
they have four typical expansion areas, and they just said what would be in that, in terms of units.
The one up here would be 20, 12 and.
MR. WENDTH-If I may, again, this is the plan that we are proposing for the Board to review. The
future expansion may never happen. It’s going to be dictated by the market and demand of the
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
market, at which time we would have to come back to the Board for approval of those modifications
to the existing facility that we’re looking to build today.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a maximum build out number in mind?
MR. WENDTH-Not at this point in time. I mean, obviously, you folks or the Town Planning Board
have the ultimate say on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable.
MR. WENDTH-And the other point, too, is the type of facility on one of the future build outs (lost
word). The market may dictate an ideal location for a small nursing home. It’s something that we
may come back if we feel it’s feasible and that it would fit well with the campus, we would come back
and propose that to the Planning Board, again, having to go through site plan approval.
MR. PALING-Okay, but you’ve got to realize that we’re looking at some maximum numbers that
this whole PUD is going to be built under, and you’re committing to anything beyond the number of
units you’re talking tonight, you’re going to come back for site plan review. You can’t build them
without it.
MR. WENDTH-That’s correct.
MR. BREWER-Right, but don’t we have to consider, what is the maximum development for this
whole piece of property that can be allowed in this PUD? We should have that number and they
should work, that number should be on this map, in my mind, and as they use those units, they
should be subtracted, so that when they come in and say, we want to build 25 units, and you’ve only
got 15 lots of density left, fellas, you can’t do it. Shouldn’t it be done that way, Chris?
MR. ROUND-It’s a flexible zone, number one. The original, if we’re talking about the original
retirement center, which this facility is a portion of, the congregate care facility was originally
proposed at 240 units. They’re proposing 124 units plus a potential expansion of 54.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give me those numbers. The original was 224?
MR. ROUND-Two hundred and forty.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two forty on the original.
MR. ROUND-Right, but again, that was just a sketch plan, when the original PUD was approved
and the LA Group was involved in the original proposal as well. So they have a pretty good handle
on those numbers.
MR. PALING-Isn’t there also 160 critical care units in addition to the 240 called congregate care?
MR. ROUND-There wasn’t a density number for the critical care facility I don’t believe, but maybe
you have it in front of you. I don’t have it in front of me, but the critical care, and I think that’s what
they’re talking about, what we call a nursing home, is a critical care facility.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. ROUND-So the 160, Laura’s going to confirm that number. I think you have that from this
afternoon.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, at issue here is how far away do we drift from the original intent of the
PUD?
MR. ROUND-Well, I don’t think we’re at any critical threshold. I think Tim’s point is correct,
though, that within the plan, if that’s monumented somewhere on the plan, as we proceed along, that
you’ll be able to track that and future Boards would be able to track that. So that when you approach
a threshold, that you make sure that if it’s a modification to the original PUD, is necessary, that that
gets accomplished.
MR. VOLLARO-Who does the tracking in this case?
MR. BREWER-The Town should do it.
MR. ROUND-Well, the Town should, and Tim’s point’s a good point, that if we have the original
density numbers or original proposal numbers, on the plan, that it’s an easier way to track it for us.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. BREWER-Right. Because we’re going to be talking about this, and then the next project
coming in is another part of it. Those numbers should balance, in the end, they should balance out.
MR. PALING-Okay. I guess what I’d look for, then, is for Staff to confirm that these numbers I’m
looking at are the right numbers, that we can stick to, and the applicant’s also know it, because
they’re working within total number.
MR. ROUND-Yes, the critical care facility, you’re correct, Bob, and I think that was originally
proposed as 160, and it’s difficult. It’s not a dwelling unit. It’s for 160 beds, and that was, again, just
as this applicant’s indicated, that was a concept. The time that they proposed this facility, they
envisioned a need for a critical care facility. They plugged the number in at 160, but they didn’t really
have a good handle on what that was going to be, and that was going to be based on our change in
demographic here in Queensbury.
MR. MAC EWAN-Critical care under the original PUD proposal related to being a nursing home
facility.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we all set on that issue?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. This was supposed to be a retirement village of 670,
according to a memorandum that we got, and the 160 critical care units are not part of that 670?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re not included in that summation?
MR. ROUND-No. It was. I think you add the 240, 344 and 86, you come up with.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the 86, the 344, and the 240 give you the 670.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we all set on that issue? Can we move on?
MR. PALING-Okay. As long as we’re agreed that these numbers are what we’re working with, and
if you add the 299 to it, we’re working with a total of 1129 beds or units grand total.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the 299 units are on the north side of Haviland Road, and I don’t think they
impact this retirement community at all. On the total PUD they do.
MR. PALING-That’s why I’m asking about the numbers we should go by.
MR. ROUND-Those are correct, and we’ll see what we can do working with this project and the
next to devise a system for tracking that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in agreement with that. Okay. Comments 10, 11 and 12, any issues with
anybody on the Board? Staff hasn’t received comments from the Highway Department yet? Have
you met with anyone from the Highway Department yet regarding dedication of the roads?
MR. SPORKO-No, we haven’t.
MR. ABBOTT-That has to be resolved before final.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before final, yes. Do you realize that? That issue has to be resolved before final,
for the Highway, for dedication of the road?
MR. SPORKO-Yes, we’ve actually called the Town Highway Superintendent, but he has not
returned our calls yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Time’s running out. You need to get a hold of him. Okay. Community
Development Department Staff notes, we’ve already basically addressed all of those?
MRS. MOORE-They’ve provided comment on all of those, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Comment B?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. SPORKO-Yes. I’ll just comment on the ones that I think warrant some comments. The
question regarding the walkway, we are providing a walkway from the cottage units to the main
facility, along the main road. So the people who live in the cottages could dine in the main dining
facility. In addition to that, there are walkways connecting the parking areas to the main facility, and
there’s also walkways within the courtyards. In addition to that, what we pointed out in this letter
was that we have a large amount of open space surrounding the project, and I think I mentioned last
time we were here, that using the Beverwick in Slingerlands as an example, what was done there is
they constructed a trail system, after the facility was open, and they actually involved the residents
and had some community participation in creating that trail. I understand it’s a very well used trail, at
this point. So something like that could occur here, in the future. Regarding traffic and pedestrian
control devices, we will incorporate those into the final plans. We’ll have stop signs at the
intersections. We’ll have a crosswalk where the walkway is intended to cross the road to get to the
main entry, and also directional signage as well, and those will all be included in the final plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On Comment B for just a second. This one’s more directed toward Staff,
do I recall reading somewhere in all the reading material we had where the theme of the Planned
Unit Development was to encourage interconnection between parcels, I guess for a better word to
use? So that you would have the ability to walk from one section of the PUD to the other? Did I
recall reading something like that?
MR. ROUND-There is was a proposal for interconnecting trails between the different land uses on
the site. The Town does own a sizeable piece of land along the Halfway Brook corridor that
transects the site. The interconnect to this use with the other uses may not be appropriate, given the
recreational needs of the senior center versus the recreational needs of some of the other uses. So
we leave that to your discretion, I guess, or to the applicant’s discretion. I mean, it may not be
appropriate to connect this facility to a walking trail that goes down to Halfway Brook in a remote
area, given the residents of this facility.
MR. SPORKO-Considering the age of the residents that will be living here, it is the view of the
applicant that that would not be a safe condition, and they prefer to have the residents walk on
controlled walkways, and likewise that also is addressed in a comment later on regarding
interconnecting, the possibility of interconnecting roads. It’s also viewed as a safety issue for the
residents to not connect to other roads, where a situation would be created where a resident could
walk out into an otherwise somewhat busy road. So it’s really the preference of the applicant to have
more of a self-contained community here.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of passive recreation facilities are you offering?
MR. SPORKO-Primarily very passive. Courtyards, sitting areas. I understand there may be gardens
created that the residents will actually go out and tend the gardens themselves. So really it’s very
passive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Something like shuffleboard or like a bocche ball grounds or something like that?
MR. ROUND-Aren’t there, they’re proposing organized activities as well, to satisfy the recreational
needs of the residents.
MR. WENDTH-Yes, as part of the program, we have resident activity coordinators within the
facilities. They conduct Tae Chi classes, as an example, in a multi purpose room. They have dance
things such as that that go on regularly. As far as the outdoor amenities go, we have built them in
the past. I think our general sense is they just do not get used, and it can be substantial. So you’d
rather provide things such as gardens, walking trails that the residents can participate in planning. In
fact, the one at Beverwick, we utilize the Boy Scouts. It was someone’s Eagle project, I should say,
to come in and assist the residents in designing that walkway system, and it’s just been a huge success
with the residents there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Comment C?
MR. SPORKO-Comment C is regarding parking. I think we’ve covered that already. Comment D,
there will be entry walls and entry signs located off of Meadowbrook Road, which we’ll incorporate
the details for that in the final plans. We’ll be coordinating with their architecture. It will probably
be a stone or brick material. Comment F regarding the landscape plans. They were approved by the
Beautification Committee. A comment was made regarding irrigation. Obviously, the applicant is
making a large investment in landscape material. They will be maintaining the landscape to a very
high quality, and they will be considering irrigation. We have not decided yet on whether to irrigate
at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-What did Beautification say about irrigation?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. BREWER-I think Staff said they should put an irrigation system in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Beautification usually doesn’t get involved with that. They’re just looking at what
the planting/screenings are and annuals and such like that.
MR. VOLLARO-So what is the position on irrigation from Staff? What’s the story with that?
MR. ROUND-It’s difficult. We haven’t dealt with facilities like this in the Town, but typically with
commercial facilities we feel that maintenance is, it is typically a failure on the part of commercial
entities. This is a different kind of complex, in that we’d recommend it.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s still iffy?
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess in my mind it’s not something we’ve ever required any other commercial
site plan to do. I mean I would think if they’re going to be spending that kind of money on it, it
would be in their own best interest to do it. Comment H speaks for itself. Comment I, any
problems there from anybody? Comment N? Any comments from Board members?
MR. BREWER-I have a comment that I want to make, and keep in mind that I talked to Rich
Schermerhorn about this, and I don’t know if it’s feasible, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but I think we
have a chance here, where we’re going to have living units with parking lots that are going to be
somewhat large. There’s different type materials, and this is just a thought I’ve had, to make the
parking lots something other than just black. As we drive around this Town, we see nothing but
black top, and I think Rich has done some research. I’m not positive that he has, but I think he has.
If it’s something that’s feasible, I think it would be a good idea if we could maybe soften the look of
some of the black top in this Town. I don’t know what the alternatives are. I’m sure there are
alternatives. It’s something to think about.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean soften it in color?
MR. BREWER-Exactly. Tone. Yes. I saw on television one day, on the Discovery Channel, that
this company has aggregate, black top, they put it down, and it actually looks like it’s blended right
into the ground so that it doesn’t, when you drive down the road, you don’t just see a big spot of
black. I guess is what my.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, it’s similar to the surfacing they do on running tracks. Copeland
Company in Nassau, NY.
MR. SPORKO-Could I just make a comment on the parking? I understand your comment, but the
parking lots here, if you look on the plans, I think the biggest parking lot we have is only 25 spaces.
So it’s not like we’re really going to have a large parking lot in one location. The parking is split up,
and that’s because of the access to the various points in the building, and the parking at the cottage
units are simply driveways, as you would with normal residences. So we really don’t have a large
expanse of parking here.
MR. BREWER-I’m thinking down the road. Like if Rich comes in, and he wants to build 140 units,
he’s going to have big parking lots, and my thought would be that if it starts at one point and maybe
makes some sort of a theme that other places are going to do the same. Just a thought. I’m not
insisting upon it. It’s just something I’m throwing out. If you have a small parking lot, it shouldn’t
be much of a.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we ask you to research alternatives between now and final?
MR. SPORKO-You could ask us anything you want. I guess I don’t know what was discussed with
the other applicant. So we can talk.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I mean, you can talk to him. I’m just asking the question, only because every
time a big project comes in, they just put black top down, and I think it’s ugly. That’s my opinion.
You like granite curbs.
MR. PALING-Well, I think if something like this was part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or
as part of a special program, I think it’s good, but to pop one applicant with this all of a sudden,
when they’re so far down the road.
MR. BREWER-Not on the road. I’m saying in the parking lot.
MR. PALING-I’m saying gone so far with their application.
MR. BREWER-We’re at preliminary.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s my opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. WENDTH-If I may, we will evaluate it. I do, though, want to note just some experience in the
past with staining asphalt material, if you will, to have a color scheme along with it. The down side
to it is that the colors do fade. It becomes, once again, a project that we have to incur on an ongoing
basis to maintain, to make it look presentable, and the result is it falls right back on our resident’s
shoulders. They’re the ones that have to foot the bill for it, and again, we’re two nonprofit
organizations who are trying to provide a service here in this community, not a for profit who’s going
to come in, develop a project, take the money up front and leave. We have board representation in
the area, and we’re looking to serve the community. So, again, it falls right back on the residents’
shoulders, but we will evaluate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a comment on N, still, and I’m looking at the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire
Company, their letter to Laura Moore of October 14, where they said I have reviewed the proposed
th
plans and layout and make the following suggestion. It would be advantageous to have an access
road for emergency vehicles from Haviland Road. In an emergency, this would provide quick access
to the scene, as well as a second entrance, in the event that the main entrance is blocked. Now I
noticed that you say in yours that the property north is not controlled by the applicant. So access to
Haviland Road is not possible, but do we have any comments on that at all, or can they be?
MRS. MOORE-Well, I can tell you that Chris Jones, the Fire Marshall, is also looking at it again.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MRS. MOORE-So he can provide additional comment.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s with the Fire Marshall now. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they want to have this become a dedicated Town road, are design standards for
Town roads that a road of this length can’t be a cul de sac, for all practical purposes?
MR. ROUND-A thousand feet is the typical limit. It’s phased to be a ring road, if you look at the
plan a little closer, that they’re proposing a semi-circle portion of that circular road, and once the
circular portion was completed, that it would meet the standard. Temporarily, it will not meet the
standard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t a ring road, though, just an elaborate cul de sac?
MR. ROUND-Well, to a certain extent it is, but it does provide dual access points. So that the
purpose of a cul de sac is to avoid the excessive lengths of cul de sacs is maintenance problems with
cul de sacs because of not being able to turn around on a road. Emergency access, have a single
access point to an extended length of road, and some other design related issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where would the dual access points be? I mean, if we’re looking at coming in off
Meadowbrook.
MR. ROUND-Well, if you’re blocked in a semi-circle, anywhere past the terminus of the single neck
of that cul de sac, then you have an access point in the reverse direction. Do you follow me? So if
you have a point blocked, without pointing at a map, if you have a point blocked on the southeast
side of the site, you’d be able to go around the circle the other direction.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. ROUND-The one point that hasn’t been clarified tonight was wood siding.
MR. MAC EWAN-I was getting to that. The comment you made, I believe it was you, before we left
here in the wee hours of last week was that nursing homes cannot have wood siding, or words to that
effect. How far off base am I?
MR. ANGERAME-Based on a New York State Building Code, you can build a nursing home, one
story, three thousand square foot fire areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stop. Is this a nursing home?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ANGERAME-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then we don’t need to be addressing that part, do we?
MR. ANGERAME-It was part of the PUD, though.
MR. BREWER-What do you mean?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, what do you mean it was part of the PUD?
MR. ANGERAME-You’re basically saying that everything should be wood siding in this project, as
part of the PUD, and if you had a nursing home.
MR. MAC EWAN-But we don’t.
MR. ANGERAME-But it was part of the PUD, theoretically.
MR. BREWER-I don’t understand what he was saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-We were addressing the issue of preferring wood siding, architecturally, versus
vinyl siding, which both they and the Schermerhorn project are proposing, and his argument to that
was that nursing homes can’t have wood siding because of the State building code.
MR. BREWER-But your point was it’s not a nursing home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct.
MR. BREWER-So what’s the problem?
MR. VOLLARO-He’s saying a nursing home was part of the PUD. I think that’s what they’re trying
to hang their hat on.
MR. ANGERAME-Right. That’s what we’re saying.
MR. BREWER-But if it’s not a nursing home, how can you call it a nursing home?
MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s confusing the issue. I guess the question is, is this facility prohibited from
having wood siding because of a New York State building code, and I hear the answer is no.
MR. ANGERAME-No.
MR. ROUND-Okay. So that’s the answer that the Board was seeking.
MR. ABBOTT-And what he’s saying is if a nursing home came before us, down the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. At one time you said possibly in the
future you would have a critical, you might expand to have a critical care facility as part of your
project, which would require a modification to the site plan, which we’ll cross that bridge when we
come to it. Okay.
MR. PALING-But the request is still out for vinyl siding, am I understanding correctly?
MR. ANGERAME-Yes, we would still like to see vinyl siding being used.
MR. PALING-As will the next applicant also, I believe.
MR. ANGERAME-And I think what we talked about last week is that vinyl siding, over the years,
has really improved itself, in just even this photograph, and we have actually selected a color scheme
already. It’s very earth tone.
MR. BREWER-I don’t remember ever telling any applicant what material they had to use to build a
building.
MR. MAC EWAN-We only got on that topic because trying to keep in the theme of the Planned
Unit Development, which is something quite different than just a normal site plan.
MR. ROUND-I just could note, the PUD did contemplate a facility of this size, this magnitude,
building mass, etc., and it contemplated wood, or excuse me, I think the language in the PUD said
masonry or other type of material. So it may have been a building material different than the other
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
facilities, or other land uses on the site. So there was a, they did contemplate some other building
material, and I think stone masonry was the language they used. I don’t have the particular language
in front of me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to use brick veneer., stone veneer, anywhere on the building at all?
MR. ANGERAME-We are not planning on it. Basically, this is the front elevation of the building,
which does incorporate the vinyl siding. We are looking at using metal roofs to highlight certain
areas, but basically stay with the vinyl, and the front main entrance of the building will have wood
trim on it, but again, the building sets so far back from the road, it still will have a very attractive, it
will look like a wood sided building. It’ll look better than a wood sided building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, when you went out and took some photographs, you went to the new
facility over off Glenwood, is that vinyl over there, or is that wood?
MR. ROUND-It’s vinyl sided.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is?
MR. ROUND-Yes. You’re referring to the Wegman facility.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Angerame, are you saying that the front, the fascia and the trim is all
going to be wood?
MR. ANGERAME-Just in this one portion of the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there.
MR. ANGERAME-Then we’re going back, this portion of the building is vinyl.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why?
MR. ANGERAME-This was a Board request, at the front of the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but do you think it’s more attractive with the wood there?
MR. ANGERAME-I personally do not think so. This element, the columns will be all wood, and
that’s typical on all the entrances into the independent living. Wherever the columns are, that’s all
treated with wood.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will the round vents, the circular vents, be vinyl or wood?
MR. ANGERAME-These will be aluminum.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Aluminum, and the windows are vinyl.
MR. ANGERAME-Yes. No, they’re actually all vinyl. Anderson are wood clad vinyl.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. Right. Now, right there, you don’t see any chimneys in that
front rendering, front elevation, and when I saw the little village laid out up at the model home, I
noticed where the chimneys were, and the chimneys were only partially exposed because there was
like a little out building that might be built on. So I thought if the chimney is only partially exposed
with just the second story, then there wouldn’t be any problem bricking that, but then I was told that
that would just, that little extra part of the unit is what it is, extra, in other words.
MR. ANGERAME-You’re referring to the cottages.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The cottages, yes. So maybe some people that decide to buy them don’t want
to put that little extra.
MR. ANGERAME-That’s right. Basically, this is an option, adding the den onto the cottages.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So if they add the den on, then you only see the top part of the
chimney. So that would be no problem to brick it, because it’s not very much area, but if they don’t
add on that little extra room, then you would have to brick the whole side of the building, which
would run into more expense.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ANGERAME-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I can live with the vinyl siding, for all kinds of reasons, but I am really
adamant about vinyl sided chimneys, and for what the original intent was at Hiland Park, that whole
main building is brick, and the homes up there have brick chimneys, and I don’t think anything will
cheapen a project than those vinyl sided freestanding chimneys, and I’m going to hold out on that
until the cows come home. I’m sorry, but that’s the way I feel, and that’s the only negative thing I
can come up with.
MR. ANGERAME-I’ve got to totally disagree with you, because go take a look at Rose and Michaels
Development on Grooms Road where they just built townhouses that are very high end townhouses,
and they have vinyl chimneys. It’s a standard.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t care if it’s Rose and Michaels. I don’t want to get started on that. My
sister used to live in one of their homes.
MR. ANGERAME-I’m just comparing the quality. It’s a very high end townhouse.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s fine, but just because it’s a high end townhouse doesn’t mean that
you have to skimp on brick chimneys. Believe me, I don’t even care about the density. To me, the
density is fine. The architecture is fine. Everything is fine. I just don’t like vinyl sided chimneys, and
I think you’re short-changing your nice design again.
MR. ANGERAME-We will evaluate that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wish you would, please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Staff, anything to add? Gentlemen,
anything to add? We’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, and we left the public
hearing open. If anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, you’re certainly
welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BOB JOHNSTON
MR. JOHNSTON-My name is Bob Johnston, and I am a resident here in Hiland Park, living on 18
Masters Common North. A couple of things that I would just like to mention is I couldn’t really see
the layout of the roads and what not, but I think we all know that in the North Country, with cul de
sacs, snow removal is a real issue. There really doesn’t end up being much of a place to put it.
Straight roads, snow removals are easy. You could just push it off to the sides. So I hope that you
have thought about the snow removal in this development, and because if these folks aren’t from the
North Country, they may be in for a big surprise when it comes falling down on them. Two, Mr.
Brewer, your comment regarding the black top, what is more of a concern to me is light pollution,
and I don’t know what, it wasn’t discussed tonight, but what my concern would be, what are the
lights that are going to be lighting this facility going to look like?
MR. MAC EWAN-Good question. We’ll get it answered.
MR. JOHNSTON-I don’t want to see lights that are lighting the fields. I want to see lights that shine
down, and there are specifically designed lights that are just meant to do that. So I think lighting is a
real issue that you guys ought to really take a real close look at, because I don’t want to be seeing this
place from my house when I sit up on my porch, all lit up and orange sitting down there on the
corner. The other thing that I would like to suggest, and it’s something that I have seen in some of
the towns that I’ve lived in out in the Michigan area., and that is the use of ponds in the design, nice
looking small ponds that really add to the décor and make the place look really nice. Water’s a
softening touch. They’re not real expensive. You could put little fountains in them, but they really
do something for this kind of a project, and it might be something to consider. In regards to
chimneys, I live in Hiland Park, and half of the houses there probably have vinyl clad chimneys.
They’re not all brick. So the regulation wasn’t for all brick in that development, but I lean to agree
with you, but obviously the rules have changed, and they’ve allowed homes to be built there that
have the vinyl clad chimneys. So that’s all I really would like to just leave with you. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. Just some general comments on what was said. The
Hudson Pointe Development does have irrigation in its entranceway boulevard underneath that
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
planting. That’s why it always looks great. The FAME bus, if you qualify by a doctor’s appointment,
would service that area. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve only got one decent parking lot in the Town
of Queensbury. That happens to be the one that Gary Bowen did at Hiland, and why is it good?
When you go by Hiland and the restaurant, you’re not even aware of those cars parked there. It’s a
planting. It’s a berming you can use. Those are the kind of things. I have photographs I took in
England, because when I was over there, it dawned on me how much better they do in parking lots
than we do, just the tops of cars maybe are visible from the berming and the planting, and I came
home, and of course I live near Hiland, and driving down Haviland, and I said, here we have it right
in our own back yard. There was only one good parking lot in the Town of Queensbury. Probably
the worst parking lot in the Town of Queensbury is Queensbury School. I’m a little concerned about
the recreation. I am of an age where I could qualify for the independent living or the cottages, I do
like to walk. I think you’re all aware that the Town has access to the 88 acres that’s been donated to
the Town in two areas. One off of Haviland and one at the end of Bowen’s property that was on
Meadowbrook. There is an access area in there, deeded to the Town. So there are those two
accesses. Now I also gave a talk to the ladies that are the clients of the Home for Aged Women.
Now I would say most of those women would not be able to do very high level of walking, okay. I
happen to belong to the senior group that we walk two and three miles at a clip up hills, whatever.
So I think you have to realize that you’re talking about two groups of people here, those that are
going to be very active in this project, which I think is a marvelous project for the Town of
Queensbury, but also those that are not going to be very active. So you’re really going to be serving
two groups of people, and you need to think of that when you look at this project. Okay. I think
that’s about it for my comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, would you come back up please. That 88 acres Mrs. Monahan
referred to, is that contiguous to this parcel?
MR. ROUND-No, it’s not. The Town is currently examining improvements to that property, and
we have been in discussions with Family Golf Centers, the owners of the property that is contiguous
to it, to gain additional parking and access areas to the property, that very limited access was
provided as a part of the original land dedication, but we anticipate that there will be a trail with
potential for cross country skiing trails, fishing, picnicking, etc., those types of uses.
MR. MAC EWAN-About how far away is this parcel from the closest access point?
MR. ROUND-Well, along the perimeter of the golf course, there’s not a defined trail, number one.
The shortest path would be down Meadowbrook Road to an access point that would allow you
access to the land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-How far down would that go?
MR. ROUND-I don’t have a scale in front of me. If you have a copy of the complete PUD plan,
it’s, I’d say, 1,000 feet, at a minimum.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A couple of points that were raised, lighting, facility lighting.
MR. ANGERAME-As we submitted last week, we are proposing to use cut off fixtures on the
roadway lighting, standard shoebox fixtures, so you’re not going to get the glare shooting out,
dispersing outward of the fixture. They will be focused down in a pattern. At the building, we’re
looking at using a decorative lantern type fixture, 10 foot high fixture. Again, it will be barely
noticeable because of the setback, and we also will have some cut offs on that fixture so it doesn’t
even shine back into the building. So lighting is very sensitive to us also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any plans to light the grounds whatsoever, so if people want to be out
after dark walking the grounds, it’s lit?
MR. ANGERAME-Only courtyards would be lit.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how will they be lit?
MR. ANGERAME-They would be lower type lighting, more like bollards, four foot high bollards.
MR. MAC EWAN-And one comment regarding landscaping and incorporating a small pond or
ponds within the landscaping?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. SPORKO-Ponds, I have to say that ponds were considered during our conceptual design phase.
We looked at a lot of different alternatives. They were subsequently eliminated by the Board, for a
number of reasons, one being maintenance of the ponds, and secondly I believe would be safety of
the residents.
MR. MAC EWAN-The famous word, liability. Okay. To go back to Mrs. Monahan’s comments
regarding recreation, again, we touched on that a little bit. Maybe I would encourage you, between
now and final, is to come up with some alternative plan for at least some a little bit more passive
recreation outside, that keeps within the theme of what the PUD was trying to achieve.
MR. WENDTH-Right. If I may, if you’ll recall, you may not recall just because of the time of the
evening last week.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s hard to recall anything last week.
MR. WENDTH-What we did discuss is that we have been in discussions with Family Golf, the
Hiland Golf center, the possibility of a connector, some joint relationship there. I know that they
have tennis courts there. They have got the golf course itself, and again, if that went through, and we
were able to come to terms with them, that certainly would open up that entire corridor to increase
the whole fitness.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something you could have an answer for us by the time we get to final?
MR. WENDTH-Again, probably not, and the reason I say that is it’s something that is certainly in
both of our bests interests to work forward on. We recognize that. We’ve met with them earlier, or
late summer, and they were very receptive, at that point in time. That would be something that I
would think, again, once the operations folks get hired, it’s planning and policy type stuff that is
developed, programming that’s developed specific to the community, but again, as I emphasized, it’s
in our interest to evaluate that, and we certainly would welcome that type of arrangement.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have been hearing it’s been rather difficult getting a hold of representatives
from Family Golf. Have you been having difficulties?
MR. WENDTH-Of late, I have not had to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff been having problems I’ve been hearing as well?
MR. ROUND-We haven’t attempted to contact them, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just along those lines, could you foresee maybe in the future where people
could have, older people could own their own golf cart, and then they could have like a little access
road go over to the first fairway and the second fairway there?
MR. WENDTH-One of the thing that we’ve talked to Family Golf about, and you see a lot of gated
communities, let’s say down South, where people do actually have their own golf cart. It’s
maintained by or they lease it from the golf club, again, can drive the cart to their house, through the
path and through the connector, if you will, you know, and be able to come and go as they please.
So, yes, that’s something that we would have to evaluate, but it certainly would just lend itself in this
environment.
MR. VOLLARO-My first question is for Staff. These gentlemen have provided a site lighting plan.
Now can this be reviewed by Rist-Frost to determine the extent of off site lighting?
MR. ROUND-I know where you’re going with that, Bob. The Town doesn’t have a design standard
or guideline for lighting, in order to minimize light spill. That’s something we’re working on
developing in our new Ordinance. We will ask them to be sensitive to that, in the review of this.
They do have an architect on Staff that would be familiar with lighting design, and we’ll ask him to
look specifically to that, but I know what you mean. We’re especially sensitive to that with
commercial development, and I notice height, wattage, bulb type, there’s a number of variables
involved. I would just take a look at a project in the City, which is the Hannaford parking area on
Broad Street. The color and quality of lighting, as compared to any other commercial development
regionally, and the lighting is minimal on that site, and it’s amber in tone, versus the bright white
mercury vapor lights that they’re using on a lot of facilities today. So we’ll ask them to look at that,
and provide comment to the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’d like to just address something that Betty Monahan said. I’m looking at the
drawing here. Is there anything going to be put on the final to talk about a circular walkway around
this property, so people can walk it? Are you planning to do anything like that at all?
MR. ANGERAME-Right now, at this phase, we are not.
MR. VOLLARO-You are not?
MR. ANGERAME-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That loop road is only going to be completed when you move on to the Phase II
portion of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, even in Phase II, would that be a walkable road? I mean, it’s a vehicular road
right now.
MR. ANGERAME-In Phase II, the parking area for the independent living, basically in Phase II,
when we add on the independent living, we will have a parking area in this area. Our walkway, we
will have a walkway system coming out. This will be developed as a future courtyard. This will be
tied in with walks also. So at that point, there maybe a continuation of walks around. It’s not our
intention right now to carry walkways, to loop the roadway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we going to do this site plan in a phasing scheme? In other words, if we
approve final for site plan of Phase I, you’ll come back in here for Phase II, or a modification?
MR. ROUND-I guess what you would be approving is what’s in front of you tonight. Can you give
preliminary approval to the entire project? I think you can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but if we get to the point where we’re going to do a final, do we do a final
for Phase I?
MR. ROUND-You’d do a final on Phase I, and what’s actually proposed for construction during this
construction cycle.
MR. MAC EWAN-So Phase II would come back in front of us?
MR. ROUND-It would come back, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-To make sure that sidewalks or whatever other amenities that we felt at that point
would need to be added. Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I think from what I’ve heard here tonight, I just want to get an affirmation in my
mind that this is really fundamentally and almost 100% if not 100% a retirement community that
would be dealing with senior citizens, like myself? I, like Betty, could easily get into one of these
units.
MR. WENDTH-Again, if I just may recall or bring you back a week ago, the Parent Sponsors of this,
The Glen at Hiland Meadows, are the Glens Falls Home, located down on Warren Street in Glens
Falls, that is an adult home licensed by the New York State Department of Health. The Eddy is a
member of Northeast Health, located in Troy, NY. The Eddy is long term care, specializes in
providing services to the elder population, be it nursing home, adult homes, retirement communities,
assistive living, adult day care programs and the like. So, yes, our missions, as nonprofit, has a real
focus on elder care.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can you just briefly touch on the acquisition mechanism, for somebody like
myself. I’ve been to your facility. I’ve talked to some of your people. I get the impression it’s X
amount of dollars down, let’s say it’s $100,000 down, and it costs about $1500 a month to stay there.
Is that about right?
MR. WENDTH-Yes. I’ll pass it to Tammy Lewbe, who is our Director of Marketing for the
Housing Division.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
TAMMY LEWBE
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MS. LEWBE-Tammy Lewbe, Director of Marketing for the Eddy. The community has three
options. We can do a straight rental, or there are two type of entrance fees that are payable up front,
that are 100% refundable or 75% refundable with a monthly service fee. Those entrance fees range
anywhere from $95,000 to $195,000, and the monthly service fees that would accompany that range
begins at approximately $1300 a month for a one bedroom apartment, all the way up to $1800 for a
cottage. You have a second person fee of anywhere in the neighborhood of $400 for apartments and
$300 for cottages. The reason that cottages are different is because cottage people will pay their own
utilities for the electric and the heat, and gas heat. The apartment utilities are all inclusive of that
monthly service fee. The rental, without an entrance fee, is probably double what the monthly
service fee normally is, because there is no entrance fee.
MR. VOLLARO-So the rental could be, what, up to in the area of $3,000, is that what you’re saying?
MS. LEWBE-It could be, yes, and that’s a choice typically people that choose a rental in the
communities that I’ve been associated with, you have less than 5% of the population who choose to
do that, because they are selling a home and paying the entrance fee from their home.
MR. VOLLARO-So you could say 95% of your facility would be owned in some way?
MS. LEWBE-It’s leased. It’s leased with the entrance fee to come back to you, because the idea is
two fold. One, the entrance fees pay down the debt much quicker in a community, so that we have
the integrity to maintain a lesser increase on those monthly service fees overall in time. The second
piece is that the entrance fee refund, that 75% or 100%, is then usable for continuing care in the
assistive living units or nursing home or passing back to an estate.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that refund continual? Does it have a cap on it? Like, say I’m there for 10 years,
do I still get a refund? There’s no cap on it?
MS. LEWBE-Correct. Your 100% is 100%. Seventy-five percent, however, is after 25 months of
living in the community. If you live there only six months, on the 75% program, and don’t like living
there. You’d get 94% back.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. I understand. That’s all the questions, Mr. Chairman, that I
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was a good one. Bob?
MR. PALING-I’d just like to make a comment about the walking, because I’m in the same age class
as some other people here. If you don’t have a good walking path in this area, I think you’re missing
a big opportunity and a good comfort kind of vent for the people that live there. I live in sort of a
community like this now, as far as age is concerned, and walk, walk, walk is all we do, and that’s
great, and I think you should do something to accommodate that.
MR. WENDTH-Again, we will evaluate that. I think certainly with the future phase, if the market
dictated the need for additional apartments, which we are very hopeful that that will be the case, and
we think that will be the case down the road, that is something that certainly at that time we could
add additional walking to the site, but I do want to, if I can, just get back quickly to the Beverwick
project. Again, that population, very similar to what we anticipate here, they went ahead, they
designed their own walking trail system, and they love it. Instead of being out on black top, they’re
on very well constructed walking trails that get them away from the asphalt and allow them to go out
and see the birds and see the wild animals, what have you, and really enjoy nature. So I think that’s
something, again, that we would like to see where we could possibly work that into the programming,
and it also depends on the population that’s there. They may not be walkers, but two years later, we
may have a substantial group that would like to walk. So it varies.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Would one of you gentlemen clarify this? I have heard
this word come out of three people tonight, but I have seen it written as “a-s-s-i-s-t-e-d”, but then
I’ve heard people say, unless I’m not hearing them correctly “assistive”, a-s-s-i-t-i-v-e, and I’ve also
heard there’s what we have now, adaptive physical education. Is this a new word, or am I hearing
correctly? What is the word?
MR. WENDTH-Great question. It’s a great question. There’s a lot of confusion in our industry.
Assisted living, “ed”, there is an actual program out through the Department of Health called ALP,
Assisted Living Program. Anyway, that program is licensed by New York State. The unfortunate
thing, I think the regulations are so heavy on those programs that they have not been successful.
Okay. Assistive, “ive”, as we describe it, that’s kind of just jargon that we have developed. It’s
actually an enriched housing program. So I don’t want to confuse you even further. Enriched
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
housing is licensed by the Department of Health, different set of regulations than an ALP, but again,
allowing that intermediate step between independent living and skilled nursing, within the State. So
it’s kind of a homegrown word or term. Outside of New York State, assistive carries similar meaning
to assisted. So it just gets, again, that’s the industry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I was hearing correctly. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Okay. Well, I’ll ask someone to put a motion up, then.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to approve site plan no. 54-99, The Glen at Hiland Meadows,
Inc. For preliminary approval, and the motion is made in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff, but I also want to ask the Board for additional comments for that. I don’t have any myself,
and I’m looking to see, for example, we have the letter that came in November 2, and I don’t see
nd
that November 2 letter on this at all. So this happens to be from our last meeting, so it might be
nd
late.
MR. MAC EWAN-Add the LA Group’s letter of November the 2, addressed to this Board. I
nd
would ask that this letter be sent to Rist-Frost and have them sign off on it. It is addressing Rist-
Frost’s concerns. Additionally, Rist-Frost is going to review the lighting plan that they’ve submitted
with this site plan today, and Rist-Frost will sign off on that, that it’s acceptable to the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d also like to add, just in this preliminary approval, that the applicant will at least
take a look at the ability to put some walkways in here for residents who would like to walk, at least
coming in on the final, give us your position on that, and that’s part of the preliminary approval, that
you at least examine that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got three more for you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not done yet. The other thing is that I would like to get just an outline of what
the maximum build out on this 45 acres will look like, and how many actual units do you think you
could build out to, as an estimate, just an estimate.
MR. MAC EWAN-That maximum build out be delineated on final.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, at least being able to give us a feeling of what that would be, because I see on
this site plan, future development, future development, and also typical expansion areas. So I’d just
like to get a feel for what that is on the final.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good point.
MR. BREWER-I thought Staff was going to come up with those numbers as a guide to?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure they’ll be working with Staff on it. It’s a good point to have it delineated
on the final, though.
MR. RINGER-They couldn’t exceed 240.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, if you wanted to add some more to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, actually, the three I was thinking of, the Highway Superintendent, and
dedication of road, but that’s an issue all by itself. I don’t think that’s, you know.
MR. BREWER-Doesn’t the Highway have to sign off on it first?
MR. ABBOTT-There’s issues to even resolve before final.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. If they don’t choose to accept this as a dedicated Town road, they’re dealing
with the driveway issue. So I don’t think that’s something that needs to be made part of a
preliminary condition. I was thinking of just Wastewater, but that’s no big issue either, I guess.
That’s something they have to work out between final anyways.
MR. ROUND-Right. So between now and final, they’ll have resolved any engineering details or
comments from both the consulting engineer, Town Water, Wastewater, and then Highway
Department, and I would suggest that, prior to final, the road would not be dedicated yet, but that
you would have a letter of commitment from the Highway Superintendent to receive the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or deny it.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ROUND-Or deny it. You didn’t mention wood siding versus vinyl siding. I didn’t hear any
feedback on that. These guys don’t want me to bring that up again, but I didn’t hear how you had
resolved that issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-I let it go, because I’m kind of getting the consensus from our Board here that it
isn’t a big issue with them.
MR. ROUND-I just wanted to make sure that you have addressed that as part of your review, and it
didn’t get glossed over.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think we sort of resolved it up here. I’m not sure that the Board was polled.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t poll the Board because I didn’t see it as a big issue for Board members.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought for preliminary, we could still address it in the next, as far as the
brick chimneys go.
MR. ROUND-You could. I just wanted to make sure these guys know what, some direction.
MR. MAC EWAN-The jury’s still out on that one. How’s that?
MR. BREWER-Well, we ought to give them some kind of an idea of what we’re going to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody feel about it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob, I think there’s two issues here. I think there’s the chimneys, and I think
there’s the siding.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do one at a time. Lets do the siding.
MR. PALING-I would have to know the color. I would go along with vinyl siding, depending upon
the color that it is.
MR. WENDTH-We are proposing this color right here.
MR. PALING-I’d go along with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of that, that rendering, part of your approval tonight, a
full color copy of that rendering be given to Staff for the records?
MR. ROUND-Excuse me. You’re just attempting to confirm that the materials utilized are going to
be consistent with what has been proposed?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. ROUND-Material samples, is that in lieu of a rendering?
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you rather have that? Can you supply that, material samplings of the
rendering?
MR. ANGERAME-We can. It may not be the exact product, though. Because again, it has to be
bid out. So there may be different products, but we can.
MR. ABBOTT-That color.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that color is fine, and my only thing, we’re just doing the siding now.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have any problem with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problems. Vinyl is it.
MR. PALING-Craig, can I just interrupt one second. I’d like that color, but I’d also like to specify
what color that is. There’s a name spec or something on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they’re going to supply, at final, they’re going to supply a material sample,
which will specify it.
MR. PALING-The siding and the trim.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ANGERAME-Again, specifying the exact color, if it gets bid out at Wall Green Benchmark,
yes, we can. If it’s Alcola, it’s something else. We could say similar to.
MR. ABBOTT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or equal.
MR. ABBOTT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The other issue is the chimneys on the cottages.
MR. PALING-I have seen lousy looking vinyl chimneys and I’ve seen very good looking vinyl
chimneys, and if they’re going to put up a good looking one, I’m all for it. If they’re going to put up
a lousy looking one, I don’t want to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ANGERAME-It’ll be good looking.
MR. ABBOTT-I’m looking at the pictures provided by Staff of the new unit down the way here off
of Country Club, and the houses in Masters Commons, I’m seeing a lot of brick chimneys. I’m
leaning toward brick.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? I didn’t pass you. I knew where you were standing on this.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m with Bob. Taking a look at these vinyl chimneys, these may be wood. This is
the one down on, this is Westwood, and I think this might be wood and not vinyl, because they were
built some time ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-They are wood.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They are wood.
MR. VOLLARO-They are wood. I guess I would have to go along and say that a brick chimney
would look much better. I mean, it would set things off, even the front of that, right above the
portico there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Lets stick with the chimneys.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, the answer is I would go with a brick chimney.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’d prefer brick, but I wouldn’t object to vinyl.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tim?
MR. BREWER-It doesn’t matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus seems to be brick. Okay. I hear sighs and moans and groans
over there. One, two, three, four, five.
MR. RINGER-Well, I said, for me, you know, I could go with vinyl.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take a stand, one way or the other.
MR. RINGER-It doesn’t make any different.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a stand.
MR. RINGER-That’s a stand. That is a stand.
MR. WENDTH-Again, as we discussed before, we’ll evaluate the brick.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Lets leave it at that. That’s fine. That’s acceptable to me. Do we
have this convoluted motion all set up now?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll second it.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ROUND-Could you just reiterate the items? Your motion was for preliminary approval. Can I
try it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, summarize.
MOTION TO APPROVE (Preliminary approval) SITE PLAN NO. 54-99, THE GLEN AT
HILAND MEADOW, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Catherine LaBombard:
For preliminary approval, and the motion is made in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff. Also, prior to Final we need resolution of the items as identified in the November 2, 1999 LA
Group comment letter, including addressing previous Rist-Frost comments, Town Highway
Superintendent’s conceptual acceptance of the road, Water and Wastewater Department comments,
Rist-Frost evaluation of the lighting plan, and its impacts on off site light spill. Vinyl siding is
acceptable. The color scheme should be submitted prior to Final, further examination or evaluation
of the feasibility of additional walkways on the property will be presented prior to Final, and
identification of the maximum build out for this potential project, and how that relates to the original
approvals.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 54-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 9/29/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application w/letter from D. Wendth which includes
a. Traffic analysis – CME dated 9/23/99
b. Engineering Report – LA Group dated 9/22/99
c. Site Lighting report – Angerame Assoc. dated 9/15/99
d. Maps L1 thru L 10 dated 9/22/99, U-1 thru U-3 dated 9/12/99, A-201 thru A-208 dated
9/15/99, CA-201 dated 9/15/99, GA-101 dated 9/15/99, SA-101 dated 9/15/99, E-101
undated
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
10/26/99 - Staff Notes
2.
10/13/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
3.
10/11/99 – Beautification Committee resolution
4.
10/14/99 – Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co. comments
5.
10/18/99 – Water Dept. comments
6.
10/14/99 – Wastewater Dept. comments
7.
10/20/99 – Rist Frost comments
8.
10/12/99 – LA Group – Planting Plan
9.
8/2/99 - Town Bd. resolution
10.
10/7/99 - Meeting Notice sent
11.
10/19/99 – Notice of Public Hearing sent
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/26/99 and 11/3/99 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 give Preliminary
Approval to Site Plan No. 54-99.
Duly adopted this 3 day of November, 1999, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. WENDTH-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 EIS/FINDINGS ACCEPTED (7/2/87) SCHERMERHORN
PROPERTIES, INC. AS CONTRACT VENDEE OWNER: FAMILY GOLF CENTERS
AGENT: JON LAPPER ZONE: P.U.D. LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD –
HILAND PK. PUD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 140 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT.
APPLICANT IS SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN,
APPROVAL FOR PHASING OF THE PROJECT TO FIVE (5) PHASES REQUIRING
“SUBDIVISION” OF THE SITE, AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PHASE (28)
UNITS OF THE PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE: HILAND PARK PUD
BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 10/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/99 TAX
MAP NO. 46-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 75.34 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-58
JON LAPPER., RICH SCHERMERHORN, & TOM NACE, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff updates?
MRS. MOORE-No Staff updates. Mr. Schermerhorn has provided information in regards to
comments from Staff comments. If you want to go through that again, like you did earlier.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to just summarize them, is that what we’re going to do, like we did?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to go through the Staff notes?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just summarize them like Chris did for the Glen.
MRS. MOORE-Under A, it has the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections, road widths, channelizations and traffic controls. As Staff
identified, in Lots Four and Five of this, that there were no turnarounds representative for those
housing units. He has provided comments back on that, in addition that the Highway Department
has received this and we’re still waiting for their comment back. Under B, it says adequacy and
arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, etc. He does, in this plan, he has identified
sidewalks for this area, and we’ve, again discussed some type of connection or pathway open space
land, and the applicant has asked us where locations should be. He’s asked for suggestions in that
regard, and C, the location, arrangement, appearance, sufficiency of off street parking and loading.
There’s adequate parking for the site. You may want to evaluate if we evaluate alternative designs
about if we need handicapped spaces or not, and he’s also provided a comment in regards to the
handicapped spaces. On Letter D, the location, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting
and signs, again, I think you’re going to review that a little more in depth. E., the relationship of
various uses to one another and their scale. The PUD did call for multi family dwellings. So it is
considered consistent with the PUD plan. Under F, the adequacy and type of arrangement of trees,
shrubs and other landscaping, etc. The Beautification Committee has reviewed it, and recommended
approval. Staff, again, encourages a lawn sprinkler system for continued maintenance, and again, the
applicant has provided comment in that regard. Under G, in the case of apartment houses or
multiple dwellings, open space land access, again, he’s identified that there’s a playground area. He
indicated at the last meeting that he would possibly include some type of tennis court or other
recreational function. Under H, under Stormwater, sewer or sanitary wastewater disposal facilities,
this has been reviewed by the Queensbury Water and Wastewater Department. Under I, the
adequacy of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to
flooding and ponding. Again, there’s detention areas, and the plan has been forwarded to Rist-Frost
for review and comment, and under protection of adjacent properties against noise, glare,
unsightliness or other objectionable features. It’s consistent with the residential setting, and the
surrounding area. K, conformance with other specific charges of the Town Board, and here I
indicated there wasn’t an updated traffic study. However, the project is considerably less than what
the original PU D proposed. So, again, we may be looking for some type of comment that indicates
that this impact may be less than what was considered originally. Under “L”, the architectural
compatibility of other elements of the project with the neighborhood, again, I think the Board wants
to review that a little more in depth this evening. Under M., the protection of historical sites or
buildings. There wasn’t anything identified on this area, and other factors, I have N, the adequacy of
fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provisions for fire hydrants. Again, the Bay Ridge Fire
Department had the opportunity to review and comment. They haven’t provided comment, but
again, I would add that Chris Jones has, we’re going to have him review the plans again, to see if
there’s something else, and that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Tom Nace.
Because of the hour, we’re going to dispense with a full formal presentation, but because two of the
members were fortunate enough not to be here at two in the morning last week, we just want to
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
make some general comments to sort of acclimate them with this project. In general, Rich and I are
residents of Hiland Park. We built our homes there. I’ve been there since 1989. So we spend a lot
of time thinking about Hiland Park, what it’s supposed to be. We think it’s a lovely place to live, but
with only 30 something houses out of the 1200 that were proposed, certainly I’d like to have some
more neighbors and less fields of weeds. So we all think about how this project should develop, and
the fact that this and the Eddy is happening at the same time is a good sign that there’s finally
something happening after all this time. I think, if I’d just turn it over to Rich to make some general
design comments, and then we can answer questions.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hi. Rich Schermerhorn for the record. I brought along with me tonight
the full PUD plan, and I don’t know if anybody’s seen it in this full scale, but if Staff wouldn’t mind,
I’d like to open it up at least so my neighbors could see where this project is going to be located.
Does anybody have any objections to that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my only comment to that is we have it. I mean, where your parcel that
you’re piecing out there, I think adequately shows us.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s just for the neighbors that are here. I notice a few of my neighbors,
and I believe that they may be seeing this for the first time.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. It’ll only take a second. I don’t know if everybody can see it, but
this location, Masters Common South and North, is up in this location right here, and Haviland
Road and the Meadowbrook intersection is right here. This big pink block right here is the 45 acres,
which the Eddy has proposed their project. If everybody can recall the green sewer pump house,
where most people park their cars and walk their dogs and that sort of thing, right here, and I go, I
believe it’s 1100 feet north from the pump house, and there’s a big ridge right up through here, and
my property kind of slopes down toward a stream and a wet area, which you can see from the road
by the pump house. I think it’s important, and I pointed this out, in case neighbors had visual
concerns when my 140 units are built out. The last lot in Heritage Point is Lot Number Nine, which
is down by Hole Number Three. So basically the visual effect of my, I don’t believe, and from
walking the properties and stuff, in Masters Common South, I cannot see this entire piece from the
neighborhood. So I think it was important to point that out, and as far as Staff goes, I think it was
important, when we dealt with the Town Board, we were trying to establish the density and how we
came up with. There’s the 24 multi-family, 40 multi-family, and then it says single family the 86 right
here, and what we agreed upon was taking the density that was here, which equaled 150, and they
asked if I could scale it back, and we went to 140, kind of agreed on 140 units. I want to point out,
too, this particular parcel here that’s known as, I believe, Knoll Wood, it’s 36 units. Most of this, I
don’t want to say all, but most of this has been flagged and declared Army Corps wetlands, which
means there’ll be little to no development to the south of me, and last week I had a neighbor by the
name of Mr. Kilburn, I think it was, had a concern of the location. He maybe thought that it was
next to him, which is an area that says expansion, which again, is below the pump house, and there’s
quite a bit of cat tails and it’s just an open field. I’m not in that area at all. So there is quite a
separation from me into the closest neighbor. So I just wanted to point that out because I think that
was important.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Unless I’m really wrong here, just to clarify, when you went to the Town
Board, it was nothing more than them passing a resolution affirming that the multi family housing
that you’re proposing as rental property was consistent with the overall plan of the PU D. I don’t
think that the resolution that they passed said that 140 units was a doable thing.
MR. LAPPER-We should probably read that resolution into the record, but what happened, that was
a process that involved four workshop meetings with the Town Board, and over the course of that,
they had asked to see designs. So Rich went out and had the buildings designed, and as he said,
reduced it from 150 to 140 units.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but am I mistaken on that? I mean, did the Town Board pass a resolution
saying that he could have 140 units there?
MR. LAPPER-What the Town Board said was that his proposal is compatible with the original PUD
approval.
MR. ROUND-Right. That doesn’t supercede your authority to reduce the density or alter the site
design or the layout. What we’re trying to accomplish through that process, and it’s difficult. The
PUD Ordinance set forth some process how subsequent approvals, once the original PUD is
approved, how the review process is to proceed, and we’re confused about it, about how that process
is to proceed, because of the language in the Ordinance, and we’ve noted that with the revision of
our new Ordinance. It allows, it’s our position, the Town’s position, that any sale of property, out of
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
a PU D requires Town Board’s consent, and it’s an opportunity for an original project developer, in
this case, it’s not the original, but in this case, the Family Golf Centers notified the Town Board,
we’re proposing to sell off a particular area of land for designated use. We have a proposed
developer in hand. Here’s the time for you to communicate your concerns to them. The Board did,
the Town Board resolution we have here, and I can read it. Maybe that would be helpful.
“Resolution Affirming Consistency of Hiland Springs Town Homes Project with Hiland Park
Planned Unit Development Resolution No.: 258.99 Introduced by: Mr. Pliney Tucker Who
moved for its adoption Seconded by: Mr. Theodore Turner Whereas, Richard Schermerhorn is
seeking approval from the Town of Queensbury to construct 140 Town Home Rental Units
(“Hiland Springs”) on Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mr.
Schermerhorn has requested that the Town Board affirm that this proposed project is consistent with
the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development as approved by the previous Town Board on January 14,
1987 by Resolution No. 212.87, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community
Development has reviewed the proposed project to be sure it is in compliance with the PUD
Ordinance and Hiland Park PUD and has recommended that the Town Board adopt a Resolution
affirming that the proposed project is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD so that the proposal will
be able to move forward through the site plan review process as administered by the Queensbury
Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board anticipates that this project may undergo
modifications as part of the Queensbury Planning Board’s Site Plan Review process NOW,
THEREEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby
affirms that the proposal by Richard Schermerhorn to construct 140 Town Home Units on
Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD as
approved by Town Board Resolution 212.87, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town
Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to present
a copy of this Resolution to Richard Schermerhorn and the Town Planning Board and take such
other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 2
nd
day of August, 1999” And that was by a five, zero vote, a unanimous vote. The references to 140
units throughout this project did not authorize 140 units to be constructed. It was merely a
description of the project that the Town Board was looking at it, and I think that’s consistent with
the applicant’s understanding of the process.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, and we’re here to talk about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MR. LAPPER-I think what happened late at night, you raised a series of questions regarding site
layout and design of the buildings, and so I presume that those are the issues that you’d like us to
focus on.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the two issues I think this Board is rather hung up on, we might as just as
well focus on it, in the interest of time, is both density and architectural styling.
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace. In looking at the density, I don’t know if Chris, did
you provide a copy of this letter to the Board yet?
MR. ROUND-Did that get to the Board members?
MRS. MOORE-They just got it this evening.
MR. ROUND-This evening. They did receive a copy of it.
MR. NACE-Okay. I took a look at the density that we’re proposing in a couple of lights. One is
how many units per acre, and the other is the open permeable space within the project, and so I went
through, and calculated and checked myself on the areas of the site which are not permeable, being
the roads, the building roofs, the decks, walkways, tennis courts, porches, driveways, parking areas,
total impermeable area on the site, and this includes the subdivision road, which normally would not
be included in the calculations of permeable area, and in fact, the inclusion of the road, if you take
the road right of way, about 65% of the road right of way is impermeable surface. So it skews them
even against us, but the total impermeable area is 7.13 acres out of a 21.96 acre site, which gives us an
impermeable area of, or percentage of 32 and a half percent of the site. That leaves us 67 and a half
percent which is green permeable area. Comparing that with some of the requirements of the Code,
if you look at the Queensbury Zoning Code, some of the more dense zones in residential zoning, the
MR-5, UR-10, SR-15, SR-20, even, SFR-10, SFR-20, they all require 30% permeable. We have 67
and a half, over twice as much as required. If you even go to the single family residential one acre
zone, the required permeability is 65%. We still meet that even. As far as density and the dwellings
per acre, we’re proposing 140 units on 21.96 acres as the density of 6.37 dwelling units per acre. If
you look at your zones, there’s several zones that permit multi family housing. Probably the most
familiar, and the most used, certainly recently, of those zones is the MR-5. MR-5 permits a density of
8.71 dwelling units per acre. UR-10, I don’t know, I haven’t looked at a zoning map to be able to tell
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
you where there is any UR-10 available anymore, but that permits a density of 4.36. So we fall right
about in the middle of those. Normally, you’ve seen some of Rich’s other projects in here before
you, and on some of those sites, you know, the MR-5 density is really not attainable, mainly because
of the requirement for on site sewage, but here we’re in a place where we do have sewers available,
and, you know, in the intent of your zoning code, it’s not unreasonable to expect that you should be
able to come close to the MR-5 density, provided that you still have adequate open green space, and
have a good looking project. We have more than twice the amount of green space that’s required in
the MR-5 zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-But isn’t that one of the objectives of a Planned Unit Development, though?
MR. NACE-Exactly, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve, but we’re still well under the 8.71
dwelling units per acre permitted in the MR-5.
MR. MAC EWAN-But this isn’t an MR-5 zone.
MR. NACE-I’m comparing, it’s a PUD.
MR. ABBOTT-But if you look at the original of the Table No. 1-2, Hiland Park Townhouse Area
Statistics, coming out of the original PUD. It specifies 299 units, I think everybody’s agreed to that
number, on 74.5 acres, or .25 acres per unit. You’re proposing 140 units on 21 acres, which is .15
per acre. If you look at numeric or percentage wise 47% of the allowable town homes in the PUD
are going to be on 28% of the acreage. So you’re putting half of the town homes on a quarter of the
land defined for town homes.
MR. LAPPER-The only thing I don’t agree with that is that, in the calculation for what would have
gone on this land, it’s not just the townhouses but the congregate care which also is multi family.
This land encompasses a portion of the congregate care, which was more dense than the two and a
half dwelling units per acre.
MR. MAC EWAN-But this section also had single family residential on there, too.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which it doesn’t anymore, or not proposed to have on there.
MR. NACE-I think one of the important things that I think Rich tried to point out when we were
looking at the overall previous PUD plan, was that there are several portions of this land in the
overall PUD that really, because of wetlands, and the Corps of Engineers’ regulations of those
wetlands, are not now accessible for development, or not reasonable for development. Those are
going to remain as open areas where the previous PUD had included those in your 75 acres.
MR. MAC EWAN-But how is that germane to what you guys want to do on the piece that you want
to develop? We’re talking about this one specific parcel here.
MR. LAPPER-It relates to what the overall Hiland Park was proposed for. The infra structure is
there for sewer, water, roadways, in terms of the intensity of development of the whole project
compared to what was proposed and what’s going to happen now realistically, because of Corp
wetlands, reducing the developability of other sections that would have been homes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s still an awful lot of density on one small piece, small section of the whole
development.
MR. LAPPER-Do you have something in mind, in terms of density?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. What I did is, in taking a look at the townhouse projects of Overlook,
Whispering Pines, Black Forest and Middlen Acres, I happened to take, that largest is Whispering
Pines, on their 29 acres, and what I did is, you know, 126 units is to 29 acres as X is to 21. What that
did is 21 acres, under that circumstance, 21 acres ought to yield 91 units. Now, taking a piece out of
Alan, and this was done independently of what Alan did, but I took a look at the total 75 acres
against 299 units, and the yield on that should be 86 acres. That’s what I got, so that both of those
things come out very, very close to each other.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eighty-six units.
MR. VOLLARO-Eighty-six units. So in one case, picking up just Whispering Pines at 126 units, and
doing a comparison of 126 to 29 as X is to 21. The yield on that should be about 91 units. Doing
exactly the same thing with the whole 299 units, the yield is approximately 86 units, out of the 75
acres. So you get a lot of compatibility there.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. LAPPER-Rich came here tonight prepared to discuss density, and prepared to reduce density if
that’s what the Board wanted to see, but just in terms of the discussion, I used to live at Overlook,
and my parents live there now, and it’s somewhat apples and oranges because of the type of unit.
They require more land. The two bigger units there are 3500 square foot townhouses. So that even
though they are townhouse units, they’re just of a much different variety, and that’s why there’s less
density, because they’re bigger units.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that may be true when you look at Overlook at a specific area, but what Alan
and I have both done independently is looked at the whole 299 units versus the 75 acres, and that
yields about 86 units totally on 75 acres.
MR. LAPPER-Those areas, however, were not going to be sewered.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, you know, to maybe touch back on what you just were talking about, the
Overlook area, which has townhouse units that are up to, what, 3500 square foot you said?
MR. LAPPER-Two of them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you propose apartment units that were 3500 square foot, too, you
wouldn’t have the density you’ve got now.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Maybe I’m wrong, but is it my understanding that if I did the PUD, the
plan exactly as I drafted it, and I did the 80 single families, and the 40 multiple families, and the 20
(lost words) would that?
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re talking 32 and 64, Rich. Those are the kind of numbers you’d be
looking at. If you take a look at the outline of your.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Am I missing something?
MR. VOLLARO-No, you just have to count the single family units on that drawing, and within your
22 acres, or 21.96 acres. If you count up the amount of units that are in there, it’s only 32. That’s all
you can fit in there, and then on the other one, you’ve got 64. Are you following me, Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think you’re saying you counted each little block and it totaled.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I counted them all, and it totaled 86. That’s how they got to 86.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Counting the 40 and the 24?
MR. VOLLARO-No, going all the way around, because you’ve only got a small portion of really the
single family homes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-The blocks that sit within your 21.96 acres averages out approximately 32, if you
count, you’ve got to count them. I’ll give you my 32. You can give me your 40.
MR. NACE-Are we looking at the same drawing?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. I got my microscope out. Okay. You’ve got a bigger one than I
had. I had a small one. I got 32, and I just counted that. That’s how I got mine.
MR. NACE-Okay, but that’s a lot line right there. So there’s one, two, three, four.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. I don’t think you can do that. I mean, his proposal, you’re cutting right
down the middle of those lots.
MR. NACE-No, these aren’t. There are two lots. We have the front lot, we don’t have the back lot.
You’re looking at a very small scale. You see the property line here?
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re looking at 40 singles, is what you’re saying. That’s where you’re at?
MR. NACE-Yes.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-I stand corrected.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, Rich, what you were saying is what?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I guess just that when I had workshop meetings with the Town
Board to establish, I guess what they were comfortable with and what I was proposing, not that
that’s what we need to agree upon, obviously, but I think what we discussed with the Town Board
was the future of the PUD, and that, I’m at a loss for words here. We don’t believe that it will reach
its maximum build out or even come close, just because, since Army Corps wetlands has come in,
just for example, the 36 units to the south of my property, that’s a section of land that we all agreed
upon that probably will not be developed, just because of the wetlands involved. Another piece that
was discussed was the piece that I think was called Whispering Pines, that the Monahans bought, that
were neighbors on Rockwell Road, and they bought it just to have for open space for their horses,
and Sue happens to be a friend of mine, and it was more or less indicated that she bought it for the
protection of having the additional acreage, and has no plans of developing it, as far as multi-families
and single families. So we more or less discussed that at the Town Board, just to let them know
where we’re coming from. Basically what I’m saying is, we don’t think we’ll ever even come close to
the maximum build out, and the Town Board did review, and some of the notes that I have in the
PUD, it says that alternative layouts are possible, you know, to interchange things.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s exactly what they say in their resolution. It says that Town Board
anticipates that this project may undergo modifications. So they laid that out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m willing to work with the Board. I’m not saying I have to have 140
units, but I figure I have to start somewhere, and I figure, you know, so many previous projects that
I’ve done throughout the years, it’s always been public comment and people say, you know, you need
to have sewers that, I just remember a year ago, Walker Lane, I had someone from the audience
stood up and said we should propose a moratorium on Bay Road until sewers are there. So I’ve tried
to go to the areas that have the sewer, that can handle the sewage. I mean, the Eddy’s done their
studies, and they certainly have all kinds of people that are interested. I have people from as far away
as Florida that I’ve got their numbers, their addresses. I know that doesn’t apply.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s germane to this discussion, Rich.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. I’m just saying that there’s a great interest in this project already,
just from local people.
MR. ABBOTT-I just want to interject something here. I agree 100% with what you’re saying.
There’s less property, less acreage now that’s going to be developed than in the original PUD, the
wetlands, the 17 acres for horses, what have you, but lets not try and put the same number of units
into smaller acreage. Lets keep the spirit of the PUD and the space that the PUD put forth in effect,
and keep the acreage, I’ll just use these numbers that I’ve roughly calculated, of .25 acres per unit,
instead of the .15 acres per unit. I guess that’s where I’m coming from, is I agree there’s less
development that’s going to happen in the PUD, but lets keep the number of units down as well as
the number of acres developed, and not try and squeeze the 299 units into less acreage.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I agree, and like I said, I’m not opposed to reducing the units
tonight, if we can come to an understanding.
MR. LAPPER-There’s a big difference between 140 and 90. So it’s a question of where the Board is
comfortable.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in addition to density, there’s one other thing ,and what I tried to do with all
of this stuff we had to read, I tried to condense this down to a few words, which isn’t easy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Reason Number 15 for re-vamping that Zoning Ordinance.
MR. VOLLARO-But what I looked at, the area originally was to be a mix of single family, multi
family, and congregate care units, in a typical retirement community setting. I think that if Mr.
Schermerhorn is going to put those in, all of the proposed mix in the PUD would be eliminated. All
of those single family units would go, essentially, and retirement community, to my way, tends to
follow a form function. It’s an old engineering form, form, fit and function, which is adaptable to
the needs of older people. Primarily the need to establish a degree of privacy and serenity, and
apartment complexes, I don’t think, particularly rental apartment complexes, don’t do that. What I
heard today, I happened to ask the Eddy people, was were they primarily a retirement community,
and were they primarily owned. I asked that question for a reason, and the young lady came up and
said they were about 95% owned, and yes, it was almost a 100% retirement community. Apartments
are not going to be rented by people like myself, frankly.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have to disagree with you. I do this as a profession. I have 148 units. I
currently have 132 in Queensbury. I have a lot of people, a lot of seniors, a lot of people your age. I
don’t consider you a senior.
MR. VOLLARO-I am.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, I have a lot of people that are seniors and I would say in
their mid 50’s and 60’s that rent these places. I’ve already had numerous people that are elderly
people, not ready for the Eddy type of setting, but I have a lot of people that feel that there’s a.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just, gentlemen, let me just interject a thought here. We’re getting into a
philosophical aspect of whether apartments fit into the congregate care aspect of the retirement
section of the PUD. The Town Board’s already equated, in their resolution, that it fits within the
overall theme of the PUD. I’d rather stick with the density issue and the architectural issue, if we
can. So lets get back to density.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Alan said it pretty well. His figures, I have .25 acres per unit, as well.
It’s not hard to get. You divide 75 by 299, and that’s what comes out of that little mathematical
exercise. Is that what you did on yours, Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think he has a point there.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re talking about the 86 units, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets go right down the Board. Tim, we’ll start with you.
MR. BREWER-I still say that I would like that magic number of what the density could be, what it’s
going to be, going back to the Eddy thing, the number, and then take away what those lands are
entitled to. It was an approved PU D with a certain amount of density. I’m not saying that because
140 figures into the calculation you should have 140. I’m saying if 120 or 118 fit, whatever the
number is that we agree on, I don’t think that we should be hard fast and say because you say, Bob,
86, he’s saying 140. We have to meet somewhere in the middle.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. Bob didn’t say 86. The PUD says 86.
MR. BREWER-Whatever. All right. The PUD says 86?
MR. VOLLARO-The PUD. 299 units spread over 75 acres. It comes out to be 86 units. Those are
the figures in the PU D. They’re not my figures. They’re the PUD’s figures.
MR. LAPPER-With all due respect, that’s a calculation that takes into account areas that are sewered
and areas that are not sewered.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re doing a straight line extrapolation here, and now if you get down into sewers
and other things, we’ve got to take another look at that. I’m just doing a straight line here.
MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable at less than 140. We don’t want to end up at 86.
MR. MAC EWAN-Throw out a number. What are you looking for? I mean, if we’re going to sit
here and play deal maker, I want to hear where you guys are coming from.
MR. ROUND-Well, could I interject?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. ROUND-You have, Mr. Lapper indicates you’re talking about 299 units. Those were properties
on the north side.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. ROUND-Properties on the south side, there’s a comparable density that we could calculate,
from the PUD, and I have a number in front of me. I’m not going to throw it into the mix, but if
you flip back, I don’t know if you have both of these in front of you. You probably don’t. Page 43,
you were looking at the multi family land use, and you had the Black Forest, Middlen Acres,
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
Whispering Pines, Overlook. The next page is the retirement village, and if you use the multi family
gross acres and number of units, there were 344 units proposed on a gross acreage of 62 acres. I
come out with 116 units, as comparable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which chart are you looking at?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know if they have it all, but I think you’re using the right mechanism to
calculate a density. I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make, and I don’t know that throwing out
120 or negotiating the density, I don’t think that’s the proper approach, and I think the form follows
function design. I think, just visually, I think the Board is having trouble with the number of units
on that property, and that a careful design might allow 130, might allow 85. It depends on, I know
you need some direction on what density to look for.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just so I may. I could purchase, if I came in and said, gee, I’ve got 35
acres, which I could have purchased more. It was more or less what I wanted to offer to the Family
Golf. I could have purchased more land to the south, but ultimately I knew, after having my
delineation of wetlands done, because I had everything delineated before I made my offer on how
many acres. I could have come in and said, gee, I’ve got 40 acres and put it all into usable space
where I did. I suppose if I did come in and I showed 40 acres, it may look like better, but after doing
calculations and looking and seeing that we’re showing 67% permeability, I’m jumping up and down
thinking, this is great, because normally in MR-5, I’m kind of at that threshold.
MR. VOLLARO-How does MR-5 get in here? I’m befuddled on MR-5.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m just trying to compare to another multi family zone, that’s all, as far
as.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s the problem. That’s where everybody’s getting confused. We can’t
make that kind of comparison, because this is a very complicated zone all of its own.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right, if I backed that out totally. Lets say I was to come back in here
next month, and I purchased 20 more acres, I knew it would ultimately be open space and wetlands.
Would the Board look at it differently, is what I’m saying?
MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t, no.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So the formula for the acreage per unit, then, you’re saying, you’re
disregarding that.
MR. BREWER-It has to change.
MR. NACE-I think they were going back to where Chris is coming from. Instead of, you know,
instead of trying to compromise on a density, units per acre, lets look at form fits function and see
what.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s actually where I think I’ve been coming from, since you brought this
up, because what I’m seeing happening here with Hiland Park, and this probably isn’t going to be the
last incidence of this happening, is that small chunks of this are going to be sold off, and that’s where
we need to be concerned that we keep within the theme of the PUD, that we don’t overdevelop little
chunks of land, because now we know that the Army Corps’ delineated some wetlands down at the
end of the road that says that you can’t build in, that was originally part of the original plan. So we
have to take all that into consideration, and like Alan was saying, it’s that old adage, you’re putting 10
pounds of you know what into a five pound bag, and you don’t want to do that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, leaving 67%, I thought that was a fair amount of green space, but
here again, the way I was phasing the project, I was looking for site plan approval on Phase I. Now I
may go through Phase II, III and IV, and we may find that I don’t have the proper drainage there. I
may not be able to do that many units. So I may have to back them down, but I didn’t think it was
an unreasonable request, and like I said, I did, before I got to this point, we had several four, well,
three workshop meetings and then a public hearing with the Town Board to try and establish this.
So I thought I was taking the right steps and the right procedures.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, that’s where you’re getting confused, and I think it’s confusing to the Board.
You didn’t establish with the Town Board 140 units. What you established with the Town Board
was that your plan was consistent with the PUD, and anything as far as density is concerned.
MR. BREWER-Part of his plan was the 140 units, wasn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. BREWER-The concept of 140 units.
MR. ABBOTT-The concept of rental, multi family units.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, what he was proposing, and Mr. Merrill, jump up anytime that I goof up
here. What he was proposing to the Town Board was the fact that he wants to put apartment rental
units within the PUD was determined by the Town Board whether that was consistent with the
original theme of the PUD, because they never mentioned apartment rental units. They talked
townhouses.
MR. BREWER-No number ever came up?
DICK MERRILL
MR. MERRILL-What you said is correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-The number never came up?
MR. ROUND-The 140 unit project was in front of them, but again, and I don’t know if we’ve
communicated differently to Rich, that I think the applicant, excuse, Mr. Schermerhorn, has always
contemplated that the project was going to change during this process, and density was one of the
major concerns that the Town Board had during their review of the project, architecture was one of
the other factors, and again, I can’t speak for the Town Board, but I know struggling through that
process, they thought that was better left with the Planning Board, what the overall density, what the
site would allow for development, and what the architecture, what kind of changes to architecture
would occur through the process, but I think Mr. Schermerhorn was trying to build a comfort level
with the Town Board through that process, what density could he achieve, because economics
involved, you have to.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’d just as soon, I had the plans done for the Town Board, because they
asked if I could show the density and the color renderings, and I had that done. So the whole time
they’ve had it with the 140. Originally, when I asked for 150, they said we think it’s a bit too much,
and I did reduce it, and I actually had that design for them, but like I said, we can agree on a number.
I’m willing to cut it back.
MR. ABBOTT-Part of the density issue that I’m struggling with is, well, there’s a third picture over
here on the chair, the bigger houses. I like the four unit with the garages. I like the way, Cedar Court
over here, those types of houses. So if we could incorporate, get away from, you know, the eight unit
and put something less dense and some variety of buildings, I think we can come to a good
compromise.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I agree, but I did have mixed reviews, that if I do the smaller
buildings in the plots of four, I just have to keep in mind that I have an overwhelming building, a
very large building that’s going to be next to me, and someone made the comment that if you put
blocks of four everywhere, it just looks like they’re scattered out more. I did have one person that
commented that said, if you do cluster them closer together, it does have more of an effect of open
space. So I mean, I’m not opposed to going either way.
MR. VOLLARO-Could I make a suggestion, Rich? Supposing we got an architect to take a look at
the compatibility of your design with the Eddy design? In my mind, I’m having a difficult time
separating the two, because from a bird’s eye view, I see a final build out. I would like to see that
there’s a degree of compatibility, so when you drive in there, you don’t see a tremendous difference
between that eight-plex that sits there and what’s going on in the development next door. I don’t
want to make it look like it’s been let down with a helicopter or something and just put in there.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, with all due respect to the Eddy, and I’m glad that they’re investing $20 million
in our community, it’s four Wegman buildings together. It’s a 150,000 square foot building, and I
mean, the magnitude of that is unbelievable, and I think Rich’s is going to look a lot softer, because
there’s going to be a lot more landscaping in between the units than just one 150,000 square foot,
two story building. That’s going to be serious. So I’m not sure how compatible we want to be with
them, and that’s why Rich designed this, and he has photos of all the single family houses in Hiland
now, in terms of the architectural treatments that he did. We’re not crazy about their design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a guesstimate, what do you guys think is maybe the size of the Hiland
main restaurant banquet facility, that building?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
AUDIENCE MEMBER-30,000 square feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-30,000.
MR. LAPPER-So we’re talking about five of those.
MR. NACE-If you’ve ever been down to Saratoga, Presswick Chase, out towards Stewart’s plant, out
Route 9N, to the north of 9N a ways, toward Daniels Road, it’s about the size of what the Eddy’s
doing, and if you look at it from a close perspective, it is huge. It’s a large central building with the
wings going out, and it is, he’s right, it’s several Wegman buildings put together, with a core to it.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not to say it’s not a good project. It’s a great project, and it’s great for Hiland,
but it doesn’t mean that Rich should mirror that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that Rich mirror that. What we’re suggesting
is that these buildings keep in harmony with what Hiland’s PUD theme was all about.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not opposed to that, but the Eddy maybe, just because they’re trying
to, I think, have a theme for the elderly people in their community, and I’m not sure they’re going to
want me to.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the whole idea here is to preserve the theme of the PUD in this retirement
community. That’s, in my mind, that’s what I’m trying to do, and I feel that I’m sort of parroting
what Alan had to say about it, the same thing. If we could soften this a little into smaller units, so
that it’s compatible. I want to see compatibility between these two developments, so that they look
like somebody thought about how they were going to look together.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not opposed to that, but on the original PUD, I don’t think they have
single family homes right next to the, if you look at the original PUD, they have single family lots
right next to the retirement center. I don’t know if that was the original intentions to have them all
be uniform as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think uniform is the key word. I think compatibility is. So you’re not
opposed to coming up with some new plans with new renderings, then, is what I’m hearing you say?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I guess the thing we’ve got to keep in mind, I was only looking for, I
came in with Phase I of the project, and I was looking for preliminary to subdivide and make five
phases, which means I’d basically be back four times or five times, depending on how the outcome is
with this first Phase. I may decide, the other thing is I may decide, build Phase I and Phase II and
find out that the absorption rate for these are not very good.
MR. MAC EWAN-But I don’t think we’re prepared to pass a preliminary approval on what we’re
seeing here tonight. I don’t know, am I all by myself on this or not?
MR. VOLLARO-No, you’re not by yourself, at least not for me.
MR. BREWER-Preliminary approval on what, Craig, the whole thing or part of it?
MR. RINGER-We can’t seem to get by the number of units. I think we ought to take this one step
at a time here.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m trying to foster here is a degree of compatibility between what I’ve already
see the other people come up with. It’s a total retirement community, what you’ve got, and what
Rich is proposing are rental units. To me, there’s a degree of incompatibility between those two.
MR. BREWER-Forget about them being rental units. Just look at them as buildings. Forget about
the rental part of it. That doesn’t have any bearing on it, I don’t think.
MR. VOLLARO-It does.
MR. BREWER-How does it?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you how it does. The way the retirement village is being set up, it’s going to
be for elderly people, people like me.
MR. BREWER-Who’s to say that they can’t rent?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, because you go down to where the rental units are, across the way from
where I live now, there’s very, very few people my age in those units. I know because I live there,
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
and I watch it. What’s going to gravitate to the rental units are people that are much, maybe not
much younger, but considerably younger than what’s going to go in this retirement community, and
that’s where I see the compatibility is missing.
MR. BREWER-Suppose, hypothetically, the rate of the rent was at a higher level, then does a
younger couple, are they able to afford that higher rate?
MR. VOLLARO-This is not for younger couples to come in. In my opinion, and it’s just my knot
hole here, that what we’re trying to develop is a compatible retirement unit. That’s what we’re trying
to develop here.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re not.
MR. BREWER-That’s what you’re trying to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I guess maybe it is, because that’s how I view the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hold that thought for a second. Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess I wanted to try to make two comments here. One is that I think
the Board should be careful of getting too wrapped up in the nature or form of ownership, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s already been determined.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for two reasons. One is that there’s been a determination made by the
Town Board that in concept the plan for these types of units is compatible with the PUD as it was
approved approximately 12 years ago. The other reason is that because your authority, even within
the context of a Planned Unit Development, really relates to the use of the land more than the form
of ownership of the land, and all things being equal, it’s very difficult, legally, to distinguish site plan
characteristics based on form of ownership, in other words, whether something is an owner occupied
unit or a rental unit, and I guess I have three comments, actually. My second comment is talking
about compatibility, I think the Board is appropriately focusing on architectural compatibility within
the Planned Unit Development, that’s one of the specific criteria of the PUD Ordinance, as well as
the PUD findings made for the Hiland Park approval, but again, I think you should focus on the use
of the buildings and their appearance more than who is using them, in that, we’re not really talking
about the compatibility of the owners, renters or users. We’re talking about the compatibility of the
use and the structures themselves, and I guess my third comment is, to the extent that we’re focusing
not on architectural compatibility, but on density issues, I would discourage the Board and the
applicant from getting involved in what I call the auction mode, where we hear, do we hear 80, do we
hear 100, do we hear 95, do we hear 97? It seems to me that the Board has expressed its concerns
about the density compatibility with the previously approved Planned Unit Development, and one
avenue that might be pursued is the applicant might want to, I mean, the applicant has indicated in a
quantitative, but not qualitative way, it’s willingness to work with the Board and develop some
different number for density calculation purposes. I think the applicant has also agreed to look at
some architectural compatibility issues, although I’m not as clear on that, but one passable avenue
here is not resolving this tonight, but to have the applicant do some more homework, go back to the
drawing board and come back to us with a revised application that proposes a specific number of
units less than the number currently proposed. That’s up to the Board, but I do want to discourage,
I think it’s not that productive to have what I call the auction mode going back and forth, throwing
numbers out of, drawing them out of thin air.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it goes without saying we all agree with you on that.
MR. RINGER-But if we don’t give him some kind of an idea, some area.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think if you want to give some guidance in that regard, that’s fine, and if the
Board had a specific number, you know, in mind, I think that’s fine, too, but I don’t hear that. I hear
very amorphous, sort of ambiguous numbers being thrown around without much basis for them.
Some of them have some basis, in terms of the extrapolations, but some of the numbers that came
out that weren’t based on extrapolations didn’t seem to have much basis to me, and I thought I heard
the applicant say, in several different ways on several different occasions, that they’re willing to work
with a different number, but I don’t really hear much coming out by way of what a number is, and
that’s not a criticism of the applicant. The applicant hasn’t had an opportunity to revise that.
MR. VOLLARO-Can I explore just one thing, Mark, with you, the word “use”. What do you mean
by that? I wrote it down.
MR. SCHACHNER-The word “use”? Well, I guess it would be easier to say, Bob, what I don’t
mean by it, and what I don’t mean by it is form of ownership.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. Would use be, not necessarily form of ownership, but
would use be for retirement purposes, would that be a use? Would that fit your definition of “use”?
MR. SCHACHNER-If there are limitations on availability of units, and I don’t know that much
about this, but for example in the Eddy or Glens Falls Home project, my understanding is there are
formal limitations of eligibility for those units. Is that generally correct? I look to an audience, and I
see nods. If somebody, correct me if I’m wrong, there are definitely types of projects, and I believe
that’s one of them, where there are formal limitations in offering statements, in eligibility criteria and
in things like that, and in that context, it’s certainly appropriate to label them as such and call them
retirement, call them senior citizen housing, whatever you want to call them, understanding that only
people that meet certain eligibility criteria can participate in occupancy of those units. Unless I’m,
again, misunderstanding the current application, that doesn’t fit within any of those categories. The
current application, at least in theory, is open at arms length to anybody who wishes to rent. Is that
correct?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-And what I think, you know, the Board has certain feelings, or some members
of the Board have certain feelings, based on certain demographic principles, as to who might be most
likely to rent these units. I think the applicant has certain opinions, based on demographic principles,
as to who might be most likely to rent these, and I don’t think those match perfectly, but I don’t
think those have to match perfectly, and I’m not even sure it’s appropriate to try to make them
match perfectly. That’s a lot of crystal balling, in my opinion, to say, well, if they’re this price and
they’re this size then they’re going to be used 95% by this type of demographic profile. I think you
have to be careful there because you don’t have a lot of objective facts to base that on.
MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I’m coming up with what I do is in reading the PUD, I definitely
get the feeling that the intent of the PUD for that area was a retirement community. I really get that
feeling when I read that PUD in 1987. I may be wrong.
MR. ROUND-I’ll touch on that. This particular area was designated retirement center, comprised of
the congregate care facility that we’ve seen proposed earlier tonight, but it was also comprised of
multi family, 344 multi family units, and 55 single family units, and potentially a critical care center.
We talked about that earlier tonight. It was contemplated that Hiland Park, Gary Bowen, would
retain, or the corporation would retain ownership of this entire area and rent or lease or operate all
these facilities. So rental was contemplated as your term of use in this area, and it is, I know Mr.
Vollaro’s struggling with, well, was free rentalship with no restrictions versus limiting it to a certain
demographic unit, is that a conflict? Does that present a conflict and is that consistent with what the
original intent was? The Town Board’s struggled with that and said rental ownership was consistent,
or rental was consistent, and I think the conflicts between use, that you’re talking about, and that
you’re struggling with, is density. Density, high intensity use does present a conflict with other uses,
and we’ve seen that with commercial use versus residential use, high density residential use with
agricultural use. So that is a potential conflict, and so I think that’s the proper way to address the
conflict, is to seek a reduction in density, so that it would be more compatible with the use that’s
been (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-We have a proposal that we’d like the Board to consider on density. After listening to
what you’ve all said, if Rich takes the eight unit buildings and changes them all to six unit buildings,
there are eight, eight unit buildings proposed. So that would be a reduction of two units in eight
buildings or 16 units, which would drop it down from 140 to 124, and thereby create more open
space. How does the Board feel about that?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s kind of bordering on Mark’s auction, I think? I don’t know.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, if I were a Board member, I’d want to see it, that’s all, but that’s not a
legal judgement. You can exercise your discretion on that.
MR. ABBOTT-I was thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of, and obviously it would have to be
drawn out, but 25 to 30 of the four unit homes, or I like the four unit buildings. We’d have to see it.
MR. NACE-I think one of the things you want to be careful of, in trying to make the site have some
interest to it, is not have buildings that are all the same size, okay.
MR. ABBOTT-Right, absolutely.
MR. NACE-Having a variation in the size of the buildings adds some creativity and some balance to
the site, that I think you’re going to lose if you go to all four unit structures.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. ABBOTT-And I think the middle, is it two units, the middle?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s a four unit. What I do is I put common foyer so it doesn’t look
like motel style. It’s one door for two units.
MR. NACE-These are the four with the garages up here.
MR. ABBOTT-Right.
MR. NACE-This is the four (lost word) and of course the eight.
MR. ABBOTT-All right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, when you mention that you’re going to vary the building size, right now
what we’re looking at is basically all the same size.
MR. LAPPER-What we have now are eights and fours, and what Rich is saying is if we go to fours
and sixes, it would still be a variety.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When I think of varying building size, I think of varying heights and
elevations. That’s what I thought you meant.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they’re all going to be two story buildings, but they would be different widths,
because they would be four unit buildings and six unit buildings, versus four unit buildings and eight
unit buildings.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, and I think the message kind of came across from the Board, and I
don’t think that the sense has changed here a lot, that the architectural styling you’ve got right there,
right now, is not what we feel is compatible with the theme of Hiland Park. I got a hold of this
memo that was given us, which showed some original renderings of where they were going with
townhouses, and I realize they’re townhouses. They’re not apartment houses. If you could re-do
your architectural renderings and your drawings to reflect more of that kind of theme.
MR. LAPPER-We believe that these buildings are compatible with Hiland, because of the
architectural design elements that Rich added. This is a much fancier level than what he’s done
anywhere else.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t share it. I don’t share that view.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did bring photos, but I did see that some photos were passed out. I
believe if you look at the pictures of some of the homes that are up there, they’re very similar. I did
bring them. I don’t know if anyone wants to see them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to sit here and beat this thing to death until 11 o’clock tonight. Bob,
we’ll start with you. How do you feel about the architecture that’s been proposed for this?
MR. PALING-The architecture that I see that’s been proposed on the front side of the building
looks acceptable to me. What I am concerned about is what they call the barracks look at the rear of
the building. If you go to Hunterbrook, the front of your buildings I think are okay, but the part of
the building, the rear, when it faces back out onto the main road, I don’t think it gives a very good
look, and if you could do something to the rear, to give it a more decorative.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I agree, and I’ll bring in elevations with me at the next meeting.
MR. LAPPER-Hunterbrook was something that Rich did not design. It was done by somebody else
as really an office subdivision to start with, and then he took it over. So it wasn’t, that’s not the
highest and best example of Rich and Beth’s projects.
MR. PALING-Okay, but it is an example of what we don’t want to see in the rear of the building.
MR. LAPPER-We understand. We’ll have rear elevations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Density.
MR. PALING-Density, I’m thrown for a loop on this thing, because the thing I don’t like it we’re
kicking around different acreages now, and we’re going to therefore kick around, we should be
lowering the total number of units that are going to be allowed on this parcel, and I was basing a lot
of my thinking on the total units. Now they’re something less, and I don’t know what that number
is. I’d like to know, and I don’t know if you can tell me what the reduced acreage is.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. NACE-Over the whole PUD?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. NACE-I don’t think anybody’s mapped enough wetlands to be able to tell you that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I don’t think we should be looking at the overall PUD. We’re only looking
to develop this one piece of the pie.
MR. PALING-Well, I don’t think 124 is a bad number to shoot for
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-Architecturally, like I said before, I like the four units with the garages, a nice look.
The eight unit building I don’t like, for some of the same reasons that Bob said. Hunterbrook, the
backs are, I do want to see a mixture of architecture in there. I’d like to see some single story. I
mean, these aren’t great pictures, but this was, I guess, were these as part of the original PUD?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Those pictures were part of the PUD, and there’s currently some that do
exist on Overlook right now, but just from a builder’s standpoint, I would, the first thing that comes
to my eye, when I look at those, are the big, large garages. So I don’t find those to be overly
attractive, in my opinion, and we could certainly change that, right, but one thing to keep in mind.
It’s been 12 years, and there’s still only six units up there, and they can’t even sell them because
they’re too expensive. It’s just unfortunate, but just nothing has moved. So I, from a design
standard, I’m trying to make things that are somewhat affordable. These are going to be higher rents
than what I have in Queensbury now. They’re going to start at $700. The highest ones are going to
be $1100, the ones closer to the golf course. So to propose to try and do single levels, I’d love to,
because I’d keep them full, but you could never get the return for those.
MR. LAPPER-But fours and sixes together, we’re listening to you about eliminating eights, and
hopefully when you see what the fours and the sixes look like, that’s something you’ll like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I like the four unit with the garages. I think that’s decent. I express my
concerns, like Bob has, for the back side, where it really does look like a barracks, where you have the
little separations. One thing that, except for the chimneys at Westwood, I like that their back yards
are, and the way that there’s different, like a shed roof coming down on one, or maybe a little couple
of peaks here and whatever, but the back end, it doesn’t look like, there’s a wall and then we’ve got
the pens. Do you know what I’m saying? Like at Westwood, they have maybe a unit come down
with a shed roof, and then there’s like a little wall that separates the patio with the next room, but the
next, the unit adjacent has maybe a mirror image. So it’s not the same right down, like you’re cutting
all the lots right with a knife and saying, okay, this is how much you get. You get your little 14 by 16.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You get a 3-D look, if you look down the back.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it. You get a 3-D look, yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You know what that is, they stagger the buildings. Like each individual
unit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the density, I think I’d like to see a little, between 115, 116, down around
there, a little bit less than 120, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to see a mix, I think, in there of four sixes and some singles, one floor units.
Some of those mixed in so you’ve got a nice mix of buildings of four plexes, six plexes, one floor
units, and as far as the density is concerned, I’m looking at my numbers, the numbers that I
calculated out, which are straight line extrapolations, at roughly between 90 and 100 units, living units
in there.
MR. LAPPER-You weren’t swayed by Chris’ 160 calculation?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I was not.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re a very independently thinking Board.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. LAPPER-As we see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I like what he’s got there. I want to get rid of the eight, and the four and the six
would be fine. The back is a concern, as I mentioned to you before. I’m not sure I’d like to see a
one story in there, because I don’t think it would fit well in the character of the whole development.
So I would prefer to see two stories all the way across, versus the one story. I think when you put a
one story in, it really kind of doesn’t fit that well with everything else being two story. From a
density standpoint, I would somewhat less than 140, but I would think in the neighborhood of 120,
125 would be something I could certainly go along with.
MR. MAC EWAN-Timothy?
MR. BREWER-I would agree. The architecture, I don’t think, is a bad style. I think, like Larry, I
think the one story units would be out of place, if all the rest of them are two story units, if you had
them mixed in between the rest of them. Density, I don’t, show me. I’m not going to say a number.
If you show me a plan, and it’s 150, and it works well, then I’ll think about it. I won’t say that I’ll
agree to it or not. If you show me a plan with 110 and it works well, then I’d consider that also.
MR. RINGER-That’s probably a better answer right there. That’s a good answer there, Tim.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, why don’t I take an average of kind of what everybody has said, and
I’ll come back to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about you come back and take your chances. How’s that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I don’t want you walking out of here tonight, coming back with 122
units, and saying, well, that’s the direction you guys gave me, because we’re not trying to give you
direction. You just kind of heard some opinions up here, where people would think they would like
to see something. What you come back with, after looking at a revised site plan, they may not like it,
and I think Mr. Brewer hit the nail right on the head. You come back with something that you think
is going to fit in to what we’re looking to have accomplished here. I’ll throw in my two cents
regarding the architecture. On density, I’m with Mr. Brewer. On architecture, I’m with these three
here. I think that if you can incorporate something along the line of the Westwood way, where
you’re giving it a three dimensional effect, so you’re kind of off-setting things, and getting away from
what you’ve got over here across the street, I think you’d be starting in the right direction.
MR. LAPPER-We do think you’re giving us direction.
MR. MAC EWAN-I hope it’s in the right direction.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we understand.
MR. ROUND-Is there a logical process for the applicant to follow? Would you like to see
architecture first? I mean, that will then relate to density, or?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think they go hand in hand.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think he has to come back with framed drawings. I mean, if you just give us
a, all we’re doing is if we make you come back with framed drawings, and I’ve got nothing against
Jim Miller. You’re just making him rich, because, I mean, the process could go over, and over and
over, and I don’t think that’s necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by framed drawings? I don’t understand.
MR. BREWER-I don’t want them to go to that extent with the drawings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think if he comes back with his revised site plan that kind of shows some
staggering, you can see that from the footprint of the buildings. If you come back with at least an
elevation, and I think the overwhelming concern I’m hearing from people up here is what the back
side of the building is going to be looking like. I think you get over that hurdle, you’ll be heading in
the right direction.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. I’ll certainly address the elevations of the buildings, the density,
and one thing I just want to address while I’m here, because Betty Monahan brought up an
interesting thing about parking lots. I did take careful, careful consideration, after doing as many
multi family buildings as I’ve done. I don’t really care to see these big parking lots, but by Code, you
have to have so many spaces, but I did, one of the things I did here, and this is the first time I’ve ever
been to Warren County Beautification, and they did make a recommendation for more trees and
plantings. We did berm the whole front of Meadowbrook Road. There’s a berm there. So that
when you actually drive down the road, your vision is not directly at the parking lot. You’re going to
see a berm with bushes and trees, because I really felt that the first phase is the most important
phase, because beyond this, the property starts to slope downwards, and if you walk to the furthest
south corner, you’re almost looking up at a hill, and I don’t even know if I’ll see the Eddy’s rooftop
because it’s got such a slope. Now, that configuration, is that something that would be of something,
if the elevations came back differently, I mean, as far as like the landscape layout? I just need just a
little guidance.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean leave the buildings as they are?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Maybe change the designs, stagger the buildings maybe a little more,
maybe the density won’t change on this first lot, but it may throughout the whole project, just
depending how it lays out. I’m not sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess you’re asking us to render an opinion on something we can’t see.
MR. PALING-Are you asking if the berm and the trees are a good idea?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, do you think this set up?
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the landscaping? Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problem with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Back to Bob Vollaro, where he said the one story thing. You could still
create the effect of one story, and still have two stories inside the unit, like, well, like I know that
Baybridge kind of has that, but where you could do something like with a roof in the front that looks
almost like a cape, but yet the back is still living space, because you’ve got the dormer effect in the
back, even though you don’t have to put the dormer windows in the front. You still have that
sloping roofing where you can still get an upstairs in there, too. I’m just saying, it just makes the roof
lines a little bit different without having a second story window there, but yet you still have the
second story.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s how Westwood is actually, some of Westwood is designed that way.
They looked very much like a one story, but I think they do have some two story capabilities.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’m just saying as far as the variation. Even though, like I said, I like the
one with the garage very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind, those are going to be only on the out.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, exactly.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I purposely put them up there, because I figured those are going to
be my most attractive, the most expensive ones, and the most visible, where the rest of them are kind
of down in a lower area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m just saying, what is with those shutters that kind of look like angel wings?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That seems to be in, and I guess it’s Victorian style. It seems to be in in
Saratoga. My draftsman put it on there. It was just for a, I personally don’t care for them, but.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, because the turnings are more like Federalist, and then I’m just
thinking, maybe you don’t have to go with those angel wings.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I plan on taking them off. I actually brought, and I guess we don’t even
need to get into it, but I did bring siding stuff that was requested. I actually brought wider corners
that I can put on, and I think the concern with vinyl, and I wanted to address Craig, vinyl siding
seems to be giving away, when you drive down the road and you see that the siding and the corner
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
boards are all the same color, but I have pictures where if you actually make the corner boards wider
and an accent color, it makes a huge difference.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come back with that. Come back with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right about that. That is true.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On that note, we have a public hearing that’s open. We’re going to leave
it open, and we’ll table this application. Did you want to come up and make some comments?
Come right on up to the microphone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
BOB JOHNSTON
MR. JOHNSTON-Again, Bob Johnston, 18 Masters Common North, and I would just like to draw
your attention to the fact that, as we bring in more people to that particular area, and especially
senior citizens, the intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland is an accident waiting to happen, and
I think that really needs to be addressed. Older folks do not pull up to that section and then gas it
and get across that intersection, either way, quickly, and if you’re coming, and you’re coming west,
excuse me, if you’re heading east, coming from Bay, as you come around that corner, there’s a sign
that says there’s a driveway there, but as you come around there, if somebody’s pulling out on you
right in the middle, you’re going to have them all locked up, and I’ve had them locked up twice, now,
and I’ve just moved into the community. So I think that intersection, with all these extra people
coming in, that intersection has to be addressed, or somebody’s going to get killed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we, to Staff, before we reach final for both The Glen and the Schermerhorn
project, did you say, was there a Creighton/Manning did a traffic analysis of that intersection?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we maybe have you pull excerpts from that for the Board, so that we can
review that?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know if they looked at site distance for that particular intersection, but we’ll
look at the historical one, and the previous one. I know comments on the traffic impact analysis that
was performed 12 years ago indicated a couple of things that have occurred, and that was the paving
of that, of Meadowbrook Road. That’s occurred.
MR. JOHNSTON-You just buzz down there, and most people are not driving on the low side of the
speed limit. They’re driving on the high. You come around that corner, and I’ve ended up going
down Meadowbrook to avoid hitting somebody already, and, you know, with the type of people that
are coming in there, somebody’s going to get killed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Point well taken.
MR. ROUND-The posting of the speed limit was brought up last week, on Meadowbrook. That’s
55 miles an hour on Meadowbrook, because it’s unposted, and 35 miles an hour is a more
appropriate posting. So we’ll pass that comment on to the Highway Department.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. I want to agree with the comments of the
intersection of Haviland and Meadowbrook Road. We people who have lived here all our lives know
we’ve got to slow up and be careful no matter which way we’re going, but you’ve got a lot of people
coming in now that have no concept of what’s really there and the time limit. I think posting speed
limits is whistling Dixie, if you want the God’s honest truth. Who in this Town drives at the speed
limit? That’s a fantasy. I’ve heard it on the Town Board, and I’m sure you guys have, but in
practicality, that doesn’t solve a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DOROTHY BURNHAM
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/3/99)
MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. I won’t repeat what most of you have
said tonight. I agree with most of it. My one comment would be, I would like to make sure that
there is a larger setback from the road than appears on their drawing, because I have reviewed the
PUD and the Subdivision Regulations, and one of the things that stood out was under aesthetics, and
that is avoid visibility of buildings from vistas by employment of vegetation, screening and careful
siting methods, and I think that’s important.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Dorothy, that building looks to be about 160 feet from the road.
MRS. BURNHAM-You can still see it.
MR. BREWER-You could see it 100 feet from the road.
MRS. BURNHAM-Well, I don’t know. I mean, just looking at the picture, it looked to be very close,
and I am basing my comment on the two other existing projects which presumably meet the setback
requirements, but visually, they’re much too close to the road. It’s the one on.
MR. BREWER-I see. Yes, you’re talking further down the street.
MRS. BURNHAM-I’m talking about the Baybridge area, Walker Lane, and the one across from the
Town office building, right over here. They’re much too close, visually.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MRS. BURNHAM-I’m sure they meet the setback measurement, but the Board does have the option
of insisting upon a greater setback, if that is necessary.
MR. BREWER-If Walker is 30, then this is five times as far back.
MR. RINGER-And you’re going to see a lot more berm in there, too, trees.
MRS. BURNHAM-That’s true, but I just wanted to make sure that comment was there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very, very much. Anyone else? We’ll leave the public hearing open.
The 13, nine o’clock, site visits. Two meetings.
th
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
42