1999-10-26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
ROBERT PALING
ALAN ABBOTT
MEMBERS ABSENT
LARRY RINGER
TIMOTHY BREWER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 71-96 GLENN BATEASE MODIFICATION OWNER: SAME ZONE:
LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR ALTERATION TO THTE SITE. THE ALTERATION
INCLUDES PLACEMENT OF FILL MATERIAL ON THE SITE FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT. THE BOARD HAS REQUESTED INFORMATION REGARDING
LANDSCAPING TO STABILIZE THE FILLED AREA, AND A STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. TAX
MAP NO. 135-2-2.2
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us some quick Staff Notes on this, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 71-96, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: October 26, 1999 “Staff
Notes: Staff would request the Board reaffirm the denial of the application with the
following conditions: 1. The applicant comply with the conditions of AV 52-1998. 2. No
additional fill be brought on site and the existing fill regarded to the requirements of AV 52-
1998. 3. The applicant complies with the conditions set forth in the August 12, 1999
NYSDEC letter. 4. The conditions are to be complied with within sixty (60) days of receipt
of the resolution of denial, such denial will be sent by certified mail receipt.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you want us to rescind the motion that was made last week, or modify
this one?
MRS. MOORE-You can re-affirm the denial with the conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we do that. Bob, do you want to put it up?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM RESOLUTION 71-96 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
Big Boom Road. The motion is added to as follows: The applicant shall comply with the conditions
of AV 52-1998. No additional fill would be brought on site, and existing fill re-graded to the
requirements of AV 51-1998. The applicant complies with the conditions set forth in the August 12,
1999 NYS DEC letter. The conditions are to be complied with within 60 days of receipt of the
resolution of denial, and such denial will be sent by certified mail receipt. There’s an exception to the
60 days. With the exception that the placement of fill must cease immediately.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
SITE PLAN NO. 35-95 MODIFICATION DAVE & CHRIS STEWART OWNER: SAME
ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: CONE MOUNTAIN DRIVE THE APPLICANT IS
PROPOSING A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE ORIGINAL
APPROVAL WAS FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR BREEDING/BOARDING. THE
MODIFICATION IS THE ADDITION OF A 12’ X 24’ BARN AND A 24’ X 38’ AREA
DENOTED AS EXERCISE YARD AS AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-127 TAX MAP NO.
123-1-37.23 LOT SIZE: 8.5 ACRES SECTION 179-15
DAVE & CHRIS STEWART, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-95, Dave & Chris Stewart, Meeting Date: October 26, 1999
“Description of Project: The application was tabled pending the Planning Board’s review of the
history of complaints from the Animal Control Officer’s file. Staff Notes: The files included
complaints from Mr. Inglee in regards to the neighbor’s dogs barking. The Animal Control Officer
files indicates that she had spoken with Town Counsel and the Planning Department about the
kennel issue. The files also show correspondence as response to the complaints and inquiries that
Mr. Inglee made. This information is attached for the Board’s review. Recommendation: Staff
would recommend approval of the site plan with the condition that any proposed “sound
proofing” techniques, (if required by the Board) are approved by a licensed architect or
engineer.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Good evening. Could you
identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. STEWART-Dave Stewart. This is my wife, Chris.
MR. MAC EWAN-And basically, I must apologize to you for not being here last week, but this was
tabled because of the issue regarding the expansion of the business and the additional dogs that were
being kenneled, and I think members of the Board, stop me if I’m wrong, wanted to investigate the
noise issue of the dogs a little bit further. Is that not correct?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the outcome of that? I’m asking anybody.
MR. PALING-Well, I think one of the things you ought to do tonight is to read in the letter from
Edward Robbins, SPCA, sort of like Staff notes I’m looking at this as. You’re summary is correct,
Craig. Now we’ve just got to go back over the whole thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-But I think we should read this letter in first.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to read it in, go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated October 26 of 1999, from the SPCA. It says “Upon inspection
of the kennel facilities, I found 12 inside runs that were very clean, 4 runs outside, one six by twelve,
three, 6 x 8. At the time of inspection, there were seven boarded dogs. Two dogs were being
housed in a separate room from the main kennel with fenced indoor X pens. The kennel holding
facility would accommodate 1 large dog i.e.: Great Dane, Saint Bernard, or 2 medium size dogs i.e.:
Labs, Collies, Rotties, etc. The shed structure wooden with wooden floor had 10 large Vari-Kennels
and 2 small Vari-Kennels. Building had insulation on walls with no coverings. A/C in window and
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
ceiling. (7 crates were also viewable in this shed). Two kerosene heaters near front door. Two open
outside kennel areas. Dirt base. If all kennel and crates were occupied 19 animals would fill cages.
Edward Robbins Animal Control Officer”
MR. PALING-The reason I asked for that to be read is that we talked last time I think it was a total
of 31 animals. I think 14 plus 17, if I remember correctly, and going back to 1995, there was no
mention of anymore dogs than 13, and it wasn’t part of the resolution, but that was just the number
that was in the minutes of the meeting, and I wondered, also, where it says that if all kennels and
crates were occupied, 19 animals would fill the cages, and I wanted you to comment on the
difference between 19 and 31, in regard to where you’d put them.
MR. STEWART-The 19 is referring to that barn that is in question. In other words, we asked for
them to come up and inspect the kennels after we were accused of having a filthy facility. We had
them inspect the kennel and the building, and what he saw in the building was the crates, that’s what
he’s describing as the 19. The other description, he talked about the 12 inside runs, that’s in the main
kennel.
MR. PALING-And that’s not a part of this.
MR. STEWART-That’s not part of the additional building there, no.
MR. PALING-All right. So you do have facility for another 12?
MR. STEWART-In the main kennel, there’s 12 main runs inside.
MR. PALING-Do you have facilities for more than that?
MR. STEWART-Well, we do have people that bring in two dogs, that want them together on a run,
as was discussed last week. More often than not there’s one dog on a run, because people have
individual dogs, but if they bring two and they want them together, they would go on one run.
MR. PALING-Are you willing to commit to the hours you talked about last week, nine a.m. to
twelve noon, and five p.m. to seven p.m.?
MR. STEWART-Those are the hours we have.
MR. PALING-All right. I’m asking you, are you willing to commit to those as the hours that you
will operate, no more than that?
MR. STEWART-Those are the hours of the dogs that are out, yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then the only other thing is the Staff question about an approval for the
sound insulation. Can you show us that that’s what it should be, and it has been approved?
MR. STEWART-What’s that now, in the new barn, you mean?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. STEWART-Well, that has been fully insulated. I insulated it, and the only thing that the SPCA
recommended that I do is to cover the insulation on the lower half of the building. The dogs are
crated when they’re in there, but should one get out, they were concerned that they would chew the
insulation.
MR. PALING-I’m referring to Staff comments now, and they said that soundproof techniques, if
approved by the Board, are approved by a licensed architect or engineer. I guess you weren’t familiar
with that.
MR. VOLLARO-It says if we require that, not if we approve it, but if we require it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-If we require it. We haven’t gotten that far yet.
MR. PALING-Well, if we require sound proofing techniques, then they’d have to be approved by a
licensed architect or engineer. That’s where I read that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. PALING-All right. That’s all I have for now.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that, in light of the fact that the kennel is an efficient, clean place
to board your animals, that I would like to just expedite this. I would like to poll the Board right
now and find out whether or not we do feel there is a need for any sound proofing measures to be
taken. So we don’t spend an hour beating around the bush on this issue, and I just would like to
kind of come right out now and decide what, you know, if everything is fine the way it is, or whether
or not we have to cross the next hurdle, which is the sound proofing stuff, which I know a couple of
the neighbors had quite a few concerns about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, the soundproofing is just one option that’s available to us here. I’d
like to let it go down the Board a little bit farther, because I’ve got some questions to ask them
before we get to that point, and I’m sure Bob does, too. Have you got anything else you wanted to
ask them?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, because I felt that the building, because it was not on a foundation, it
was basically an Amish type of storage type of shed that I believe that Mr. Stewart really, in good
faith, put it there, that he didn’t try to circumvent any of the rules and regulations, and the fact that
he’s not really boarding any dogs in that building. Right now, the way things exist, except for the
sound issue, I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like to clear up the sound issue. There’s two things you’ve got to look at.
You’ve got acoustic insulation and you’ve got thermal insulation, and unless you buy one that does
both, one does one, and one does the other, and I just want to ask a question. Do you open the
windows, occasionally, in there for the dogs, to get them fresh air?
MRS. STEWART-We have a fan, a whole house fan, that circulates the air.
MR. VOLLARO-Inside.
MR. STEWART-Large, built-in to the ceiling.
MR. VOLLARO-So, basically, the insulation you’re putting in the building is thermal insulation,
primarily thermal?
MR. STEWART-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m trying to separate two issues here, one, dogs making noise from barking,
versus the issue that we were directed to look at, and I guess I’m repeating myself from last week, but
what I’m looking at is the existence of a building before site plan review, and without a building
permit. That’s been my position all along, and I see these two things as clearly separate issues.
That’s all I have for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to pick up where he just left off, and I don’t mean to re-hash stuff that I
may have missed out on last week, but when you were here in 1995 and we had given you the
approval for the kennel, it was very clear, in accordance with the minutes from that meeting, and I
specifically addressed it to you, Mrs. Stewart about, you know, if you, two years down the road,
wanted to expand your business, it was made very clear to you you need to come back to this Board
for a modification to your site plan. How did we end up getting a shed on the property without
going through that process?
MRS. STEWART-Well, we didn’t realize that that was considered expanding. Because we just
wanted to put our own dogs in there.
MR. STEWART-In other words, basically, I’ll take the blame for not understanding that I had to get
a permit for the Amish barn, and we went through that last week, and I acknowledged I’m wrong
that I didn’t get a permit for it. I didn’t think. I just had it in the truck and I dropped it there, that
we weren’t putting it there to expand how many dogs we could house. We were putting it there to
get our own dogs housed, so that they weren’t causing a problem, because back before we built the
kennel, our dogs were a problem. Our dogs were outside constantly, out behind our house in a
fenced in area, but they were out, at times, all night. We didn’t have a place to house a lot of them,
and that’s one reason we got this barn.
MR. MAC EWAN-So all the dogs that were, a week ago Saturday, when we took a ride up there to
look at the site, all the dogs that are housed in that new Amish style shed are all your personal
animals?
MR. STEWART-They are our animals, yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-The Great Dane?
MRS. STEWART-No, they were in the boarding kennel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess I’m kind of hung up on where we left off back in ’95, because I
keep looking at the minutes of this meeting, and it was very clear to you that, you know, that this was
what, the process would have to take this route if you decided to expand, and expand means, you
know, adding another building, adding another shed, increasing the operations of your business to
include more animals that you’re going to board, any of the above, and, I don’t know, I’m just kind
of hung up on that part. Is there anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. STEWART-Other than the fact that the letters that I handed out had nothing to do with the
noise issue, but when were here last week, we were accused of having an unclean facility and possible
abuse of animals, and I wanted to dispel that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, obviously, the letter from the SPCA does dispel that, and I think that’s a
positive going for you, and anyone who had concerns about that, certainly that was addressed right
there. Has anybody else on the Board got anymore questions? No? Okay. What I think I would
like to do is ask you two if you would give up the table for a few minutes, and we’ll open up this
public hearing. I’d like to get some comment before I think I would like to venture the Board off
into a new direction here. So I’d ask you to just give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the
public hearing. If anyone wants to comment to this application, you’re more than welcome to do so.
Please come on up and address your questions or concerns directly to the Board, and identify
yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RUI GOMES
MR. GOMES-Members of the Board, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rui Gomes. I reside on 91
Tuthill Road. Good evening, after purchasing the land, the house from Mrs. Marilyn Smith, most of
the present Board members here tonight were here in ’95. What I’m about to describe may be
repetitive from that time, but please bear with me, and let me describe what appears to be a situation
created then, and now this thing has escalated to a different level. I believe most of you that have
common sense agree with me that this situation is extremely delicate, one not in the sense of
comparison of the likes of The Great Escape, or a future mall, etc., but nevertheless, every week this
Board sets a precedent if it does not follow rules, law and some common sense. In 1995, the
Stewarts asked the Board for permission of the dog kennel, which raised numerous questions and
later on was approved. Now, in the minutes of that meeting, Mrs. Stewart goes on to say, I quote,
“Basically, I’m looking to get housing for them,” being her dogs, “in the winter and to make it
soundproof so that they,” the dogs, “don’t bother the neighbors.” Once I read the total minutes
from 1995, I realized the Stewarts may mean well, but their actions tend to be different. Those
actions are why we’re here today, the so-called housing for 13 or 14 dogs has escalated to 31 dogs. I
can only imagine from ’95 to ’97 what occurred. Let me assure you, from March 4, 1997, I have
personally been a victim of the so-called dog kennel. A victim you say? I can attest, since ’97 to
present, the noise level has increased drastically, which means that there is no noise ordinance up
where we live, but there are articles to protect us, the surrounding neighbors. You don’t have to go
far to know this. This was adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in 6/10/80.
I’m not going to bore you with a lengthy description of the document, but there’s an Article, which is
Article I, because of dogs, which is 73-5B, which says, “engagement in habitual loud howling,
barking, crying or whining or conduct itself in such a manner so as to unreasonably and habitually
disturb the comfort or repose or any person”. You will notice that it’s stated “of any person”, than
the owner of such dog”. Is it the Town Planning Board’s job to enforce that law? I personally don’t
think so, but this is crucial to the Town Planning Board when asked to vote on anything that might
cause future potential problems, to have some sense. This is why, if you read last week’s minutes,
most of you will find the following, Mr. Vollaro shows a legitimate concern that the structure already
exists without the Stewarts ever coming to ask permission to do so, and then goes on, after lengthy
description, enlightening the Stewarts, saying that he does not buy their ignorance because of this
matter. Then Mr. Brewer goes on and asks Mr. Stewart if he soundproofed this whole thing, this
whole Amish thing. My question to this Board is why are we so concerned about soundproofing this
kennel? Later on, after Mr. Inglee described the situation, the Town Board asked numerous
questions, and said (lost words). Mrs. LaBombard asked what good is soundproofing if the dogs
make all the noise when they’re outside? Then the Board looked at the ’95 minutes, and then Mr.
Brown reads, well, it said back then that they’re only going to have two or three to rent out. This is
all forwarded from the minutes of ’95 and ’96. Mrs. LaBombard says, and I quote you, yes, I
remember there was just a limited number, we talked about that. After a brief discussion, Mrs.
Beames goes up and speaks her mind. Next, my wife goes on and also describes the situation. After
that Mr. Dennis Brower explains to the Board that he lived there until about five years ago and never
typically heard 15 to 18 dogs, and those dogs never bothered him. He also goes on and makes the
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
statement, I quote, “They never bothered me at all, and I’m not hard of hearing.” He later also
quoted, “I haven’t lived there in five years, since 1994.” So he can’t really say what is really
happening since ’95. But goes on to say and mention his experience in this matter. The word that
comes to mind is unbelievable. Mr. Brewer then goes on to say, I’m going to check on you, that’s
obviously the Stewarts, and also reminds them that he will be there without their knowledge. I have
to make another statement here. It’s been the quietest two weeks since my arrival in ’97. Is it a
coincidence? You tell me. Later Mrs. LaBombard asked a few more questions and Mr. Stewart, at
one point, states that there is no limit on the amount of dogs you’re allowed to have. This is when
Mrs. LaBombard states, I quote “I feel that”, obviously the Board, “we have an obligation to hear
and listen carefully to the people who say their rights are being infringed upon.” My hat is off to you,
Mrs. LaBombard. I agree with the concern, but toward the end of the meeting it becomes
meaningless, and I’ll show you why. Mrs. Stewart says the dogs are out between nine and twelve,
that’s three hours, and then five and seven, which is two more hours, which is a total of five. If this
is true, about the length of time of the hours, it shows Article I, control of dogs, habitual, which I
quote “to engage in chronic, frequent, recurring, regular or repetitious conduct” to a tee. We don’t
have to go far to see what’s happening there. It’s habitual. I described earlier the Board should have
common sense here and not make statements of the like, I quote Mr. Vollaro, “I note that there is no
noise ordinance up there. It is a very rural setting, and frankly, in my own opinion, I don’t have a
problem with the dog kennel in that setting.” Then Mr. Vollaro goes on stating, I quote again,
“There’s a lot of country up there, and I don’t have a problem with that.” Well, Mr. Vollaro, I
disagree with you entirely. For instance, in a nutshell, because I own more land than some housing
projects, I should be bombarded by noise every day of the week, including weekends? Sir, I chose to
live there because of need of serenity, calmness, fresh air, quiet and most of all peace. When looking
for a house, my wife and I decided not to purchase our home in a setting of the like of a Bedford
Close and such for obvious reasons. We also took into account that we are extremely close to any
major store, road, etc., without being surrounded by tons of people. To us, this is the best of both
worlds. Now this setting, as described earlier, is being threatened. I ask the Board members,
wherever you live, if you would like to go through this dilemma every day of the week? This brings
Mrs. LaBombard’s statement, and I quote again, “How come my neighbors dogs are out at six in the
morning waking me up all the time in the summer?” I believe Mrs. LaBombard and the Board will
agree that the barking and yipping and so on is a cause of concern, but now imagine, 30, 20, even 10
dogs out of control doing the same thing. I can assure this Board, without any complicated math or
physics, that I can’t prove that sound travels, and thus carries further than 50 acres. Of course, at
that distance, it’s not so disturbing, but at the distance I live from the source, it is, and I can assure
you, extremely loud. My wife stated last week, see minutes if you want to, one of the dogs was
screaming his or her head off, we don’t know which it is, and thinking that it was getting hurt,
decided to go and, etc., etc., check it out. You see Mrs. Stewart’s response to that, see minutes again,
which he states, I quote, “I know what dog she’s referring to. It’s a Siberian Husky, and it sounds
like it’s getting killed”, and then goes on saying and describing that it is an awful noise. Mrs. Stewart
says that. Again, members of the Board, I really don’t have any comment on that answer, except that
Mrs. Stewart’s description is extremely accurate, in that particular case, but I still don’t like to hear
something of that nature and be worried about if a dog is either getting hurt or that’s just a normal
every day occurrence at the Stewarts. The point here is that my wife and I and my five year old
daughter heard it plain as day. Any reason for doubt here? I have no need to expand on any theory
here. Members of the Board, let’s not forget that, in the future, we will have another four houses
extremely close to that kennel, which the lots are for sale at this moment, and the house that’s already
been built and is being lived in by retired individuals. Both individuals will write a letter to this Board
concerning the noise. They are a lot closer than I am anyway. When looking for a home, we looked
at a house which is next to the kennel, same driveway, and once dogs came out, it was like a free for
all then. The houses have been for sale for a long time. Do the people that own that house, which
was, and (lost words) related to the Stewart’s, lose a sale? Again, you tell me. On a final note, I hope
this Board, when it comes to vote on this particular situation, will make the right decision. If not,
well, I guess I have to find another means to remedy the situation. I thank you. I thank the Board
for the time and attention you gave me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MAGGIE FAHLMAN
MRS. FAHLMAN-Good evening. My name is Maggie Fahlman. I’ve never been here before, so I
hope I address you in the proper way. I’ve known Chris Stewart and her husband for four years
now. We purchased two collies from them, and I have twin girls who both go up there very
frequently because they’re in dog shows and whatever. They go up very frequently to help Chris.
I’m up there all the time driving them. I have never seen, at any one time that I’ve been up there,
and I’m up there all summer long. My daughter helps out there a lot. I’ve never seen that many dogs
out at any one time, and the only time that I’ve noticed them barking is when I pull in to the
driveway. Siberian Huskies, yes, they have a terrible howl. To my knowledge, she’s only ever had
one Siberian Husky there. My daughter is there three to four hours a day, and when they’re inside
and no traffic is coming in and out of there, which is just a drop off traffic type of thing, the dogs are
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
very quiet. I have a neighbor that lives right up nearby her, that she said she hardly ever notices the
noise, and I feel she’s got it very much under control. She has a sounder goes off when the dogs
bark, and quiet them. She has it in the kennel and outside. I mean, we have four dogs where I live.
Probably my dogs make as much noise as all her dogs combined. I live in the Town of Queensbury.
She has mostly collies, and collies are a quiet dog. I can agree that once and a while they’re going to
be noisy, but I don’t find the extreme of it, not any one time that I’ve been there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
CARA BEAMES
MRS. BEAMES-Hi. I’m Cara Beames, and I live on Tuthill Road. My property adjacent to the
Inglees, and to the Stewarts. So I’m very close. I’m hear to speak my mind again. Basically, to say
that, we do not have any problems with the noise. I do have a couple of comments, though, from
last week. I know a lot of people were here. It was quite packed, and I think that there were things
that were mislead and things that were said that shouldn’t have been said. One to go with the shed is
that it is not to house any more dogs. It’s to house what they have there, their own dogs. It’s like
you go, you plan on buying just one shed, and it’s the sale price, and next to it is the deluxe one, and
you think, wow, all the stuff I can put in and store there. They bought it. They brought it back. It is
strictly for a utility shed. I really believe when they say that they’re not going to house anymore dogs.
There’s not going to be anymore dogs. The second issue has to do with the noise. I’ve lived up
there a long time. I’ve lived there before any of my neighbors who are complaining, I guess. In fact,
they bought all the land from us, but the problem is, if there’s such a problem and it’s such an
annoyance, why did Mr. Inglee just recently buy more land adjacent to his, or across the road, and
make it a rental place? I mean, if it’s so awful, I mean, what kind of business is he going to have
running a place that you can hear dogs all day long? To build a road to go up farther and place his
trailer where he can, you know, he cleared out a lot so he can sit up there and enjoy the peacefulness.
I mean, you wouldn’t do that. You wouldn’t put that much money and time and work into a place
that’s so horrible. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. Why would he complain? Some people, that’s
just the way they are. I don’t understand. Nobody’s going to put that much time and money into a
horrible place to live, and for the allegations that were said here, I was shocked that it was allowed to
continue without any proof. There were a lot of people here, and if one person left thinking that this
place, this place of business, was unclean and inappropriate, and not to bring their business there or
recommend it to somebody else, that’s wrong, and that’s wrong for this Board, legally, I think, to
allow. I mean, I don’t know. I’m not as up on date with legal allegations, but I think that, you know,
to sit up here and make false allegations, without any proof whatsoever, is wrong, and I’m glad that
they got that covered with the letter from the SPCA. And that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
DR STEPHEN MONN
DR. MONN-Good evening. My name is Dr. Stephen Monn. I own a home on 46 Tuthill, across
the woods from the Stewart’s kennel. I’m afraid I don’t have the minutes, not having been here last
week, nor the ’95 minutes. So I can’t comment directly on some of the facts that came out, but just
from this evening so far, it sounds as though, to me, the original kennel, and please whoever wants to
correct me if I’m wrong, was put up to house their own animals and protect them from the cold, and
keep the neighbors from noise level, with a few kennel spots, and I subsequently picked up that an
additional shed was brought in to take care of their own animals, which now opens up all the other
kennel spots to boarded animals. To, in effect, they have expanded, from what they were at
previously. The noise level is real. Waking up there and going to sleep there and coming and going
throughout the day, I have experienced it. It is often certainly inconvenient and it’s often quite
annoying, and it does certainly disturb the peace. Though I understand the people do, of course,
need to make a living. It sounds as though intent of the Planning Board in approving this project
have since been gone around, perhaps, without malice or without intent to deceive, nonetheless, they
have been circumvented, and it would seem as though to allow this to continue would not make
sense, especially when there are a number of residents living there full time who are, in fact,
complaining of this as a problem. I thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
JEFF INGLEE
MR. INGLEE-Members of the Board, my name is Jeff Inglee. I live on 104 Tuthill Road. Back in
1995 I was here in front of the same people, and I expressed a concern, and I also stipulated, and it’s
in the minutes, that with this kind of investment is going to come more dogs, and there’s more dogs
and more barking. I’m going to keep my statement very, very brief. As a matter of fact, I thought
that I had said everything that I needed to say here, last week, and back in 1995. My lawyers have
advised me to come in this evening to voice opposition to this, because the next time the Stewarts
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
and I discuss this problem, it will be in a courtroom. I am not going to tolerate the noise that I have
been suffering with for the last few years, and as far as my ambitions, as far as my purchasing of
properties and entering my property, as Cara Beames said here, that’s not an issue here, folks. It’s
not. I have purchased 60 acres, and I have two residences on Tuthill Road, and not one nickel of
those properties were a gift to me. I’ve worked very, very hard and very diligently over the last 30
years of my life, to live in serenity. Now, certainly, we are not naïve enough to believe that Dave and
Chris Stewart didn’t know that they needed to go through the proper channels. I am a building
contractor. I own and operate North Country Custom Carpentry, Incorporated, here in the Town of
Queensbury. Everyone knows, that’s got any type of intelligence, that if you are going to put a
building up and construct it, bring it in with a trailer, or drop it in with a helicopter, if it’s over 100
square feet, it needs a building permit. Now, unfortunately for the Stewarts, I do know how to
decipher a site plan, and I do know how to decipher a set of blueprints. Back in 1995, they applied
for a building. They have deviated from that. I don’t know what the penalty is for deviating a
variance, but whatever it may be, I would like to see that imposed. They went behind the Town of
Queensbury’s back, put up this building, and we would not be sitting here this evening if I did not go
to Craig Brown and complain about this. They would have just continued on with their business,
and nobody would have been the wiser. I not only own and operate a construction company, but I
write and produce music as well, and when I have to sit in my living room, on a Sunday morning, and
try to work on my material, and I wish Mr. Dennis Brower were here this evening to testify to this
fact, because two months ago, when we sat in my living room, and he sat in my favorite chair
reviewing some of my music material, we had to, in fact, on Sunday morning at nine o’clock, listen to
Stewart’s dogs habitually barking. Now, back in 1995, I asked you folks to monitor the potential
sound problem that we were undoubtedly going to have, and by God, we do certainly have that
problem. I’m coming to the Board this evening pleading with you, help us rectify this problem,
because if it cannot be rectified through the Town, it is going to go to court. That’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHLEEN GOMES
MRS. GOMES-Kathleen Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. Before I begin my comments, I would like to
read into the record a petition which was signed and submitted to the Queensbury Town Supervisor,
Fred Champagne. “We, the undersigned, hereby attest that we are witnesses to habitual loud barking
and howling emanating from Clendon Brook Pet Care Plus, located on Cone Mountain Drive in
Queensbury. The barking and howling occurs regularly during the day, when proprietors are not
present, and dogs are left outside the kennel building in the attached fenced in area for several hours.
The barking and howling often continues well into the evening. Furthermore, we attest to the fact
that this noise habitually disturbs our comfort and repose. We believe this to be a violation of the
Queensbury Town Code, 73-5B. Individually complaints have had no impact. Therefore, as a group,
we hereby request that the Town of Queensbury formally investigate this complaint and take steps to
rectify the situation. RESPECTFULLY, Jeff Inglee, 104 Tuthill Road; Rui C. Gomes, 91 Tuthill
Road; Kathleen Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road; Josh Inglee, 104 Tuthill Road; Jeff Inglee, Jr., 104 Tuthill
Road and 9 Boss Road; Linda LeBlanc, 46 Tuthill Road; Stephen Monn, 46 Tuthill Road; Carrie J.
Inglee, 104 Tuthill Road; William Herald, 233 Clendon Brook Road; Diane M. Herald, 253 Clendon
Brook Road; Jack J. Straight, 103 Tuthill Road” Not all of those residents are able to be here tonight,
but I think it’s important that you note the existence of this document, and that those of us here
aren’t the only people being impacted by this kennel. I believe from last week that all of you know
how I feel about the noise issue. It’s an ongoing problem. This has been the quietest two weeks
we’ve had in three years, and I thank you for that, if nothing else. Since they knew these meetings
were taking place, there has been a great deal of improvement. Since last Tuesday, I reviewed the
minutes from the original 1995 meeting, and the October 19, 1999 meeting. I’d like to comment on
two points based upon those minutes. First, regarding the number of dogs being housed, on Page
Four of the 1995 minutes, Mrs. Stewart states that she is looking to house her 13 dogs plus a couple,
that’s a quote, of extra kennels for boarding. Now, in 1999, we’re talking about approving housing
for her 19 dogs in an Amish barn, and being able to rent out all 12 kennels. If can double up dogs in
those kennels, that’s another 24 dogs, or a possible 43 dogs total, not the 31 we discussed last week.
This does not even include the fact that the Stewarts are breeding collies, and therefore, they are also
housing puppies, from birth until at least six weeks of age. The potential exists for a dog population
far in excess of the 31 dogs we discussed last week. Second, regarding the purpose of the kennel. In
1995, the kennel was portrayed as a facility to house the Stewart’s personal pets and a couple of
boarders. Specifically, puppies previously sold by her. In clearness, this is no longer the intended use
of the kennel. The Stewarts now intend to use the Amish barn to house their own pets, and to use
the kennels for boarding, the entire kennel. The kennel has clearly changed from having primarily a
private function to being a public business. In fact, Mrs. Beames has referred to it as a place of
business. That being the case, I believe it should be scrutinized more closely, and should have to
meet the building requirements any business in Queensbury has to meet. For example, the recently
constructed Country Kitty Bed and Breakfast, owned by Kip and Jean Grant, which is a kennel for
cats, had to comply with commercial building codes and OSHA Standards, including using
commercial grade fixtures, plumbing, wiring, nonporous building materials, septic systems, and
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
installing handicapped parking, handicapped access restrooms, and a handicapped accessed ramp to
the building. As to the one woman who testified her daughters are going up and helping the
Stewarts, working there on a regular basis, then they should have to comply, also, with the OSHA
Standards and the workman’s comp standards. If Clendon Brook Kennels is serving the public in
asking to expand, it is only fair to hold them accountable to the same rigorous building standards as
other businesses in Queensbury. The County Kitty Bed and Breakfast, by the way, also had to install
a commercial grade heating, cooling and air filtration system, which costs over $20,000 to install, and
that was required by this Board. I cannot believe the Amish barn structure before this Board meets
these commercial building or OSHA Standards. I do not believe either structure has a handicapped
accessible bathroom or accessed ramp. A couple of windows and an air-conditioner are not a
commercial grade air exchange filtration system. I don’t see how this Board could consider
approving such a substandard commercial addition to the Stewart’s business, when other
Queensbury businesses are being held to the strictest interpretation of business codes. Third, since
this is now clearly a public business, I’d like to express my interest, as a Queensbury taxpayer, in
knowing if the kennel is collecting appropriate sales tax on every animal’s invoice. Fourth, regarding
the limitations of this Board’s power to address the site plan only, and not to enforce a noise
ordinance or noise restriction as was brought up by some Board members last week, I would suggest
that you require plan modification to address lessening the noise, and addressing plan modification is
within your power. For example, you could require that the exercise area be enclosed in a structure,
rather than only in a chain link fence, and that would limit the noise we can hear when the dogs are
outside exercising, because they wouldn’t be outside anymore. The dogs are not let out two or three
at a time, as described in 1995. They are let out in groups. Enclosing the fenced in area and
structure would contain the noise of the group of dogs that is outside at any one time, and would
greatly alleviate the problem which we are stuck with. Requiring such a modification is within your
power. Fifth, regarding Mr. Brower’s October 19 statement, Mr. Brower admitted he hasn’t lived in
th
our neighborhood for five years. The kennel has only existed for four years. He could not possibly
be aware of the daily conditions which currently exist in our neighborhood. I personally view this
statement as irrelevant and as an attempt to bring political pressure to bear on this Board. I believe
his decision to speak last week was an unfortunate one, which the Queensbury voters will not take
lightly. Six, regarding Mr. Vollaro’s October 19, 1999 statement on Page 10 of the minutes, that he
doesn’t see the noise as a problem, because we don’t live in a development. I cannot agree. I don’t
believe I have fewer rights because I live on Tuthill Road and not in Hudson Pointe or The Pines,
and that is how that comes across to residents. I am just as entitled to peace and quiet as other
Queensbury residents living in developments. In closing, I’d like to reiterate, the number of dogs we
are discussing can easily exceed 31, due to being able to double up in kennels, and puppies cannot
leave their mothers until at least six weeks of age. Second, the kennel is now a public business, and
should have to comply with the same standards as other Queensbury businesses, including sales tax
collection and meeting commercial building codes, especially those related to handicapped citizens.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is a Federal law which requires that public places provide
handicapped access. This Board does not have the legal power to override or ignore a Federal law.
Finally, the Board has the right to require modification of the site plan to enclose the noise source,
the exercise area, and to include commercial building standards. I believe the other Queensbury
business owners who had to meet those commercial standards would be extremely upset if this
Board does not impose standards equally on all businesses in Queensbury. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
BETTY POTTER
MRS. POTTER-My name is Betty Potter, and I did not come here tonight specifically for this
reason. However, I have lived in the area that I have heard everybody complaining about longer
than any one of them. I have lived there 18 years. I can honestly say, I have never heard these dogs.
One gentleman said the sound carries. There’s five acre zoning up there. I never hear the dogs. The
dogs I have problems with are the owner’s pets. Mr. Inglee himself can tell you, I took him to court
three times for his own dogs.
MR. INGLEE-My dog is dead, so leave him out of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep it down back there, please.
MRS. POTTER-This is the problem. They don’t want to take care of their own dogs, but they want
to complain about someone else’s. If the Board wants to take care of one, the Board should take
care of others. Like I said, I’ve lived there 18 years, right behind these people, and I don’t hear those
dogs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
HEATHER FAHLMAN
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MS. FAHLMAN-Hi. My name’s Heather Fahlman. I oftentimes help Chris Stewart out. I do not
work there. There were some things said about puppies being born and being there. They do not
leave their mother when they’re six weeks old, but they’re not outside. They don’t make noise.
They’re kept inside. There was also something else said about when her collie got moved out of the
kennel, that there would be more room for extra dogs. They weren’t in the kennel. They were out
back of Chris Stewart’s house. They did not have a proper place to go into. Therefore, the barn was
transported there so the collies now have something to go into, be in at night. There’s hardly ever
two dogs in one kennel together and one run together. Once in a great while, it might be requested,
and we do try very hard to keep the noise down. I know when I’m there, we don’t let them all out
together. The collies go out in different groups. They don’t all go out together. That’s all I have to
say. We do try and keep the noise level down. I help once in a great while, and everything’s tried to
keep under control while I’m there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MS. FAHLMAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-Craig, I do have some additional letters.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll start with. “We, the undersigned, have entrusted the care of our pets to
Clendon Brook Pet Care Plus…on several occasions. We have been inside the kennels often since
we are offered a chance to bring out pets to their accommodations. The kennels are clean and we
have been very happy with the quality of care our pets have received.” This is signed by 21 people.
I’ll continue. This is from Sherie Alden, “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in
support of the care provided by the Clendon Brook Kennels. I boarded my Siberian Husky, Lobo at
Clendon Brook from October 14, 1999 through October 24, 1999. When I went to pick up Lobo, I
was made aware by Chris that there had been concern about the quality of care given at Clendon
Brook because of some noises that a certain dog was making during the time Lobo was there. I am
most certain that those noises came from Lobo. As a breed, Siberian Huskies have a tendency to talk
and sing instead of bark. For many people who are not familiar with the breed, these noises may
sound like a whining or moaning child. Understandably, hearing those kind of noises without
understanding the source could be quite alarming. I can assure you, however, that this is normal and
healthy Siberian Husky behavior and Lobo is a very happy, healthy dog that had a very good
experience at Clendon Brook Kennels. I have attached an article about Siberian Huskies from
Siberian Huskies magazine to give you a more complete idea of their manner of vocalization. I hope
this clears up any confusion pertaining to the strange noises that were heard coming from Clendon
Brook Kennels. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Sherie
Alden” This is from Susan Smith, “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in support of the
kennel and pet grooming service owned and operated by Chris Stewart of Queensbury, New York.
While visiting a relative in Queensbury in August, I had need of a dog boarding service. Chris
Stewart’s kennel came highly recommended, and I am pleased to say, accurately so. I am very
particular about the treatment my dog receives, and was in no way disappointed by her experience at
this kennel. The personnel were very friendly, thorough and accommodating. They handled the dog
as if it were their own, with kindness and affection. They were very thorough in terms of the
information they required before boarding. The dog’s needs were met with access to outside runs as
well as the protection of an indoor area. While accompanying the dog to her run, it was clear that the
facility was well cared for. All areas were clean, obviously disinfected, and adequate for various size
dogs’ needs, with runs lined up side by side throughout the kennel. I did not observe any
overcrowding or inappropriate conditions for any of the animals. Neither at that time, nor since,
have I had any reason for concern about the quality of the care provided or the facility itself. I can,
with confidence, recommend Chris Stewart’s kennel. Sincerely, Susan D. Smith” This is from
Christina Graves “To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the allegations that Clendon Brook
Kennels is an unfit place for pet boarding I feel I should voice my opinion on the matter. I have
never felt safer leaving my dog (whom I consider my child) there than any place else. Chris Stewart
has a wonderful reputation for not only breeding dogs but also giving love and care to each animal
she is responsible for. When I leave my dog there, I feel secure knowing that he will get the best care
possible plus extras – grooming, walks and even gets to visit with the other dogs. That’s more
attention than he would get if I boarded him at a vet where he would be kept in a tiny cage. At
Clendon Brook Kennels, he not only has his own run, but it’s extremely clean and he is provided
with somewhere comfortable to sleep – to make him feel at home. Chris also has me fill out a long
form asking me all important questions regarding his health and vet records, if I have any special
requests for him, and his basic daily routine such as feeding and walks. I don’t think anyone could
ask for anything more. In the past when I’ve picked him up, his run is always clean, he’s well fed
and all my requests have been met. My dog is not only happy when I pick him up, but even when I
drop him off – he’s happy to see Chris who is an obvious animal lover and treats all the dogs and
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
cats there as her own kids. Sincerely, Christina Graves” The last one is from Jo Ann Holmes “I am
a resident at 265 Clendon Brook Road. I can hear dogs barking at every resident dog owner from
West Mountain Road to Tuthill Road. Yes, the cacophony from the kennel across the street is loud
at times, but not anymore irritating as some pets that are left outside all day and late into the evening.
Luckily, we all have a good deal of distance and woodland insulation between our homes. In my
case, the noisy traffic is more annoying than the animal chorus from Clendon Brook Kennels. This
used to be a neighborhood with helpful, friendly people who talked out their differences. I only
hope it can be that way again. Maybe, it will take new people on the mountain to show some that
tolerance of others is what real neighborhoods are all about. Sincerely, Jo Ann Holmes”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else from the public want to speak? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-An interesting, I guess argument, was raised, and I’d like to get maybe come
comment from Staff. I’m glad Mr. Round showed up when he did. One of the neighbors raised the
issue of, why does this kennel’s operation seem to be different than another one across Town that
had to go, through their opinion, a much more stringent building, I guess, code compliance, I guess
is the word for it. Is there some sort of guidelines or codes that, does this fall like under the State
agricultural laws or something that there are certain criteria for doing boarding kennels and such?
MR. ROUND-I guess I don’t know what specific differences we’re talking about, Number One. I’m
not familiar with the code. I know if you’re given veterinary care, there’s Health Department
certifications required. Beyond that, I can’t speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there certain building construction methods that have to be adhered to in
designing kennels for animals, I mean, certain types of materials and such?
MR. ROUND-Not to my knowledge, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about the issue of handicapped access on the parcel because it’s a business?
MR. ROUND-There are ADA requirements for parking and access to commercial facilities. There’s
triggers put on renovations, whether it’s an existing facility, size of renovation, etc, there are some
thresholds.
MR. MAC EWAN-They would need probably at least one?
MR. ROUND-I don’t know, specifically for this project, whether that’s necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-How can we find out?
MR. ROUND-The Building and Code Department can review that. It’s unique in that we don’t have
a proposed construction project in front of us. You have an existing facility that you’re reviewing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Last week I asked if there was any kind of inspection or they had to adhere to
any guidelines, and then I hear tonight that the other business has to have the compliance standards,
you know, to meet OSHA, the OSHA standards, and I was told last week that there really wasn’t any
kind of restrictions or inspection on this kind of a business.
MR. ROUND-Yes, again, I don’t know what inspection we’re talking about, and what the accuracy
of that statement is. So I can’t answer that here at the table. To my knowledge, I’m familiar with, I
believe talking about Kip Grant’s facility, that there was no certifying board, other than the one we
normally deal with through our building code inspection process.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m trying to decipher, and I think the Board’s trying to decipher, out of
this is, is what route he took something that was his personal endeavor to want to have these kind of
systems involved in there, and that kind of heating system, and that sort of thing, versus what is
required, possibly, by the State or Agricultural Department or whatever.
MR. SCHACHNER-The “he” you’re referring to now is Mr. Grant?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Again, from the standpoint of anybody, at least here, I mean, a statement
was made by a member of the public about what.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, I realize that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. My point is, we don’t have any basis for knowing whether that statement
is accurate or not. If you have independent knowledge of that, that’s fine, but we can’t sit here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I’m asking. Is there some way we can verify that there’s certain
criteria, or is this just, in this particular case, is this other applicant’s desire to build a better building?
MR. ROUND-To my knowledge, the procedure that Mr. Grant went through was subdivision and
site plan review, and the building permit process. We have not forced or obligated Mr. Grant to go
through any other process, and it’s not our job to identify any of those other, you know, as a business
or an entrepreneur, you realize that there’s a litany of permits and registrations to do business in New
York State. So I don’t know what all of those are.
MR. PALING-Well, I think the question really is that if a building permit was applied for, as it
should have been, they would have gone through the permit process, I assume, and I don’t think
that’s been done.
MR. ROUND-Right, that’s where we’re at now.
MR. PALING-Yes. We should at least go back to Square One, in that regard, and have them apply
for building permit and go through the inspection process.
MR. ROUND-We can’t issue a building permit, because we don’t have an approved use, or approved
expansion of use. That’s why we’re here tonight, is to review a proposed use that’s already been
constructed. So you apply and you receive site plan approval, and then you apply for a building
permit and you go through that. So that’s why we’re here tonight.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I get Mr. and Mrs. Stewart to come back up here, please. Okay. I’m sure
we’ve probably got some more questions by now. Alan, have you got any?
MR. ABBOTT-Yes, just clarifying a few things. Back to 1995, the purpose of this kennel was to get
13 dogs housed and probably two or three places to rent out. As we’ve heard tonight, and from the
minutes of last week, that recently your dogs that were originally intended to go into this kennel, have
been out behind your house, fenced in.
MRS. STEWART-No. That was before we built the kennel.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That was before you built the kennel. Okay. So since you built the kennel,
your dogs have been inside the kennel. There have not been any dogs outside?
MRS. STEWART-No, they’re never left out.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I got the timelines right or wrong. Okay. So, okay,
that’s my question for now. Go ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are we going to address the building issue first, or the noise issue first, or the
fact that, if you can’t hear the dogs inside the building, the neighbors can only hear the dogs outside
the building, then like I said before, that doesn’t make much sense taking care of any kind of
soundproofing inside the building, and the second thing that really, really has me stumped is that it’s
just this group’s word against this group’s word. Some people have come up here tonight and said
they don’t hear a thing. Other people have come up here tonight and said that the noise is pretty
annoying and pretty loud. So, we could go up there and sit watch for 12 hours, and maybe never
hear a thing, and as soon as we leave, all hell breaks loose. I mean, it’s like one word against the
other, and we could sit here until midnight addressing this, and I don’t know where to go from here.
MRS. STEWART-When the dogs are outside, it is loud, but like they have to go out and go to the
bathroom.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right.
MRS. STEWART-We don’t want them to go to the bathroom inside.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, Chris, now, that’s right, and back in 1995, we weren’t going to have
more than 19 dogs, and I can remember that number, and I haven’t gone through the minutes. Now
we’re up to 31, and there’s a possibility that we could even go higher. So that’s my concern. Now
you’ve just said it. The dogs do make noise when they’re out, and they’re out five hours a day, from
nine to twelve, because you said those were hours that you thought would least inconvenience your
neighbors.
MRS. STEWART-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because people have left for work by that time, and then five to seven
because that’s dinner hour, and maybe, you know, people aren’t trying to rest in the evening, or
whatever.
MRS. STEWART-But when I let them out, that’s when I’m cleaning up the runs.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, sure, but I guess, back to what I’ve been really concerned about, you
know, at first I wasn’t concerned at all about putting in an Amish shed, because it didn’t have a
foundation, but, in actuality, I think the business has expanded, and there’s no doubt about that, and
now we’ve got a whole different level that we’re discussing, from what we were discussing four years
ago, and like you said, if they are making noise outside, then we’ve got to do something about it, I
guess.
MR. STEWART-So what you’re saying then, if I had applied for the building permit and put this
shed out behind my house, we wouldn’t have had this problem?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. We would have had an opportunity to address this thing before
the fact, not after the fact. We’ve got a mess here. We’ve got to try to figure out what we can do to
correct it. I’m sorry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Some people say there’s a lot of noise, some people say there isn’t a lot of
noise.
MRS. STEWART-The noise is only in certain periods of time. Not like early in the morning or late
at night. It’s like when people should be up. I mean, it’s probably some people that work nights and
sleep during the day, but.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But like when Dennis was up there, the other Sunday, and it’s Sunday
morning, nine o’clock, trying to play some music, you know, do some music stuff, and it was very
loud.
MRS. STEWART-That’s when they’re out, nine to twelve. I could let them out earlier and put them
out later, or, but they have to go out to the bathroom.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, maybe we should put it back down to 19 dogs, like it was in 1994.
MRS. STEWART-Well, I have 19 dogs of my own, then there’s the boarders.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, see, that wasn’t the case four years ago.
MRS. STEWART-I know, but on the thing it says I’m allowed to have a breeding and boarding
kennel. Everybody keeps calling me up, wanting to board their dogs.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you also have to understand, as part of our review process, in doing site plan
approvals or denials, is based in part on some of the information that you provide us during the
review of your application, and when you indicate to us that you’re going to have, you know, 19
dogs, and you also were indicated and agreed to that if you were going to expand your business,
you’d come back in front of this Board for the proper modifications or approvals. Because you
didn’t, that’s why we’re here tonight, and that’s why we have a real sticky wicket on our hands. And
how do we fix it, how do we remedy it? And if we were to go ahead and say, okay, let’s make some
sort of approval tonight that says you’re going to do work on some sort of sound prevention, so that
you’re not going to be obtrusive to your neighbors, what is to say that, you know, six months from
now, that business doesn’t take off to you even more and you end up having 50 dogs up there.
MRS. STEWART-But I can’t handle 50 dogs.
MR. MAC EWAN-We got the impression you couldn’t handle more than 19 four years ago.
MRS. STEWART-I could handle my dogs, plus, I could handle.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you, my memory serves me pretty good, four years ago, I was under the
distinct impression 19 dogs is what we were looking at. I was also under the distinct impression that
if you were going to want to expand your business, you were going to come in front of this Board
and discuss it before you went ahead and did it. Now you’ve got 31 dogs. You’ve got a bunch of
neighbors who are upset. Some who are saying that it’s not accurate.
MRS. STEWART-It’s not always full.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it has the potential to be full.
MRS. STEWART-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right? How many dogs do you have on an average up there, at any given day, on
an average?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many are there right now?
MRS. STEWART-I have seven boarders, and then my dogs.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there’s 26.
MR. STEWART-And during most of the winter, there will be no boarders.
MRS. STEWART-During the summer and on weekends when there’s school vacation, it’s busy.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe I’ll ask a question, is what measures do you think you could enact,
on your own, that would help alleviate some of the noise concerns from neighboring properties?
MRS. STEWART-Well, they do have a device, it’s called.
MR. STEWART-There’s two or three. One is called the Barker Breaker.
MRS. STEWART-We have that, and I don’t think it works very good.
MR. STEWART-Well, that one’s an expensive model. They have another, they have model. We
haven’t tried it. There are other kennels that have used it.
MRS. STEWART-And their town board requires them to have this device.
MR. STEWART-This other kennel that she knows was required to purchase one of these and install
it, and basically, it’s unit which reacts to barking and emits the high pitched sound that only dogs can
hear. In other words, it doesn’t, it wouldn’t effect us. Whereas, the one we have now it does have a
high pitched sound to it which is annoying. That is one device that we can purchase, and it basically
trains the dog that if they hit a certain pitch, then they’re rewarded with this, what’s to them probably
an ear piercing sound. It’s not harmful, but it hopefully stops the annoying type of barking. That’s a
device we can install. I was toying with the idea, if, when you went up there you saw the front of the
kennel, the outdoor runs that are in front, which are the little sections, four by ten areas, as far as
possibly enclosing those, not roof height, but actually enclosing the sides of a pen, to try to see if that
would muffle the barking when they’re outside, the boarders are out. As far as enclosing a whole
area, I don’t know. I’d have to look into that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we need to come up with some answers relatively quick here. I mean, I
think we have a situation on our hands that seriously needs to be rectified quickly, and how we’re
going to do it, I don’t know.
MR. STEWART-Well, two or three people mentioned the last two weeks have been, well, in their
words, an awful lot better. I really don’t know why. We haven’t changed much. They still have to
go out, but if we’re trying to be quiet or not, they have to go out.
MRS. STEWART-Plus, the people behind us have been logging, and every time a tree falls down, it
scares the dogs and they all bark, and that’s much louder than normal activity.
MR. STEWART-I’m not really sure why the last two weeks have been much better, as far as they’re
concerned, but obviously if what they’ve heard in the last few weeks is better, then whatever we’ve
(lost words) has helped.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you boarding less dogs these last two weeks than prior to the last meeting?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. STEWART-No. Last weekend it was very busy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And holidays.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I left you out. Do you have any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t have any questions. I’ve just got a comment I want to put into the
record, just so that everybody knows that in the zone that they live in, which is rural residential zone,
five acres, under the Type II, it permits a dog kennel. So that everybody understands that these
people are operating legally. That’s number one. Now, having said that, I still want to get back to
my position where what’s really in front of us is whether or not the Stewarts put in that Amish
building out of ignorance or out of the fact that they just tried to put it up without us knowing about
it. So it’s a site plan thing with me, and it’s a building permit thing, and then I can start to deal with
the noise issue, but I think these are, again, two separate issues, in my mind. What’s before this
Board now is the fact that the applicant has put in a building without getting site plan approval and
without getting a building permit, and I think that’s the issue that’s before this Board. Once we settle
that, we can then talk about noise or no noise or 19 dogs, 31 dogs and whatever. It’s still, I don’t see
anything in the zoning that says anything other than dog kennel is permitted. With dog kennel, to
me, goes dogs. With dogs go some barking, and that’s how I see it, but I’d like to address the first
issue first, and then take up the noise issue. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. What’s the Board’s pleasure?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Table it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you think we ought to go with this?
MR. PALING-Well, I think that we ought to go through the, I agree with Bob on one point, that we
ought to go through the building permit process before we act on this, and let them come back to us,
and I think they ought to perhaps consider putting a maximum number of dogs in that building
permit process. Now, I don’t want to go back, this is the second night. We could come back a third
night and go through the whole thing again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I don’t mean to interrupt you. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. I got the
impression from Mr. Round that in order for the building permit process to go, we have to take
action on this?
MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we can’t put the cart in front of the horse.
MR. PALING-Well, okay, then I guess where I have the hang up is when Kip Grant came in here,
we looked at a finished product, and a lot of that stuff wasn’t required. It’s what he did, and we’re
not looking at that same kind of situation here. So it isn’t the same, and I guess I’d have to question
that what we’re saying, that we have to wait behind that. Normally, that kind of, any building or land
we see is in its final form. This is not.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand that comment. Normally, actually, the buildings and lands
you see are not in their final form. Normally, you see proposals prior to construction, and in the case
of, I don’t know why everyone’s so focused on this particular other applicant, but since you’ve
chosen to focus on him, in his case, as I recall, you were presented with proposed plans, which were
then discussed, subject to public hearing, approved, and then implemented.
MR. PALING-But we could still, Mark, talk about parking spaces and roof height and this kind of
thing with the other one or this one, either one.
MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true.
MR. PALING-Yes. So I guess I don’t understand, totally, where you’re coming from.
MR. SCHACHNER-I was just commenting on your point. I understood you to be saying, Bob, that
normally this Board sees a finished product a done deal.
MR. PALING-Yes, virtually finished. There may be some building permits which we’re not aware
of.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m saying I don’t believe that’s empirically true, and in fact, Bob Vollaro,
your Board member, has expressed his concern that you should not be seeing finished products after
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
the deal is done, that you should be seeing plans, and that’s typically what you see. You see plans
prior to implementation of plans, and in the case of Mr. Grant, that’s what you saw.
MR. PALING-Okay. We don’t really have plans to look at, is my point.
MR. MAC EWAN-For this application, no, because it’s done.
MR. PALING-Right. If we had a set of plans, I’d agree with everything Mark says, but we don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-The problem we’re going through right now is we’re trying to deal with
something that’s already been put up, without us having the opportunity to look at the plans, and
review it.
MR. PALING-Well, I hope they go through the building permit process anyway, no matter what
happens here.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer to that is, no. They’ll only have to go through the building
permit process if site plan approval is granted. If site plan approval is granted, they’ll have to go
through a building permit process.
MR. PALING-That’s fine.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to twist that even more. We’re not granting site plan approval. We’d
be doing a modification to a previously approved site plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s a form of site plan approval, but that’s fine. If you approve the site
plan modification, then the applicant will have to go through a building permit process. That’s
correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you have access, references,
resources, that would help you determine some avenues of helping to deaden noise, kennel noise and
such? Are there certain reference manuals that you can look into or sources you can go to to help
with that?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have anything immediately in the office, but I can look for something, if
that’s what the Board wishes me to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got five things that I’ve come up with on my little list that I think I need to
have answered. Noise control, obviously. I’d like to hear what the Stewarts would propose to do.
I’d like to hear some recommendations coming from Staff on what would be a viable avenue to
pursue with the kennels, if there’s something available out there, what kind of resources are available
to Staff or reference, whatever. Also, the regulations that effect the building itself, and the operation
of the business itself, if they fall under any kind of particular, not only what’s required for site plan
review, possibly, for handicapped access, but if they’re required to be under any other kind of
regulations or guidelines.
MR. SCHACHNER-You mean non-Town, correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-Non-Town, right. Lastly, the potential, too, of limiting the amount of boarders
you have. One alternative. I thought we had an understanding, in 1995, but obviously we didn’t.
MRS. STEWART-We didn’t have anything on paper about that.
MR. ABBOTT-It didn’t make it to the resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to split hairs with you, either, but you didn’t have anything on
paper that said you could put up a building without site plan approval either, did you? Okay. Leave
it at that. I’m inclined, at this point, to want to table this, because I do want to get more information
about it, and I would seriously urge you two to really look into doing some sort of noise reduction up
there to try to mitigate some of the concerns you have with neighbors up there.
MRS. STEWART-Well, if we put like a hedge of evergreens around the kennel, would that help at
all?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you need to do something immediately, not wait five, ten, seven, fifteen
years for something to grow.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. STEWART-Or like a wooden fence or something?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I think that there’s already lots of greenery and growth up there, because
you’re up there, on the mountain. So I think you might have to resort to technology, you know, like
some other places, like the vets and the Grants, where, you know.
MRS. STEWART-They don’t really have a noise problem with cats.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I don’t mean as far as noise. I mean, as far as technology and to make
their place a better place in other respects, and there’s technology out there, and, believe me, there’s
stuff that can help you out, but you might have to pay for it, that’s the problem. You’re going to
have to sink some bucks into it.
MR. ABBOTT-I think being a complete package, as if this modification hadn’t happened yet, and
how they’re going to, you know, mitigate the noise.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’d like to approach that noise problem from two aspects, from the
applicant’s, their willingness to want to do something on their own. I want to hear what Staff can
possibly research out, that may be a better alternative than what they’re going to propose.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just make a recommendation here, though, that, after all
this information is collected, all of the, if you want to call it testimony or you want to call it whatever,
that we don’t go through this again, at the next meeting. We’ve heard all of the pros and the cons
from the neighbors and so on, and we’ll certainly take that into account, at least I will, but when we
get this information collected, then we’ll look at it, as a site plan review, as opposed to a lot of
testimony again, because I don’t think we have to go through that all over again. I don’t know
whether my fellow Board members feel that way or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m on that page.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you, 100%.
MR. PALING-Well, I think if I hear you and Craig right, the issue is noise.
MR. VOLLARO-The issue with me is, first, site plan review, always has been, last meeting and this
meeting, and I clearly separated the two in my mind.
MR. PALING-And noise.
MR. VOLLARO-Noise is another issue, a different, separate issue. One could be treated differently.
I want to get to the site plan review first, get that under our belts, then we’ll talk about noise. If in
their site plan review, they present to us some means of mitigating noise, that’s fine.
MR. PALING-You can’t separate that. Well, I’m going to go back to Staff notes in their last
sentence, and insofar as noise is concerned, I’m satisfied if we comply with their request, from noise
standpoint only.
MR. VOLLARO-If they come in with a site plan, for example, and in that site plan, it talks about
soundproofing, not thermal insulation. I went through this one time on the roller coaster ride, or the
Nightmare. There’s a distinct difference between thermal insulation and noise insulation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But the sound is when they let the dogs out.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m not even sure what you can do about that. Sound bounces around.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They were just saying they’ve got the barker biter, or whatever it’s called,
there’s things that they have.
MR. ROUND-Can I interject? And it’s not to Mr. Vollaro’s comment. I heard three things, the
noise issue, other requirements that a private business owner might be subject to in conducting a
kennel activity, and then you talked about limiting the number of boarders. The short answer to the
noise is that if the dogs are outdoors, and I apologize, I wasn’t here for the whole meeting, the short
answer is to not let the dogs outdoors, and that other soundproofing activities are going to be largely
ineffective, hedges, etc. So, I mean, we can research until the dogs come home, but I don’t know
what we’re going to identify that’s going to lend any additional light to this issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-The issue here seems to be the noise that the dogs obviously are evoking when
they go out on their runs, and is there some way.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. ROUND-So we’re going to be, I mean, do you want to see some sort of behavioral
modification research, other than physical improvements, or?
MR. MAC EWAN-Me, I’m looking for some sort of applicable screening, whether it be some sort of
poly type screening that goes on the chain link fence, whether they’re talking about these sound
things that they use for controlling dog noises. Those are the kinds of things I’m looking for. I
don’t think planting anymore evergreens in a heavily wooded area is going to solve anything.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, me either.
MR. ROUND-But, I mean, we’re not going to be, in a month, we don’t have the manpower or the
technical capabilities to come back and say, a fence is going to limit the noise to the neighbors, or a
fence twenty feet tall, or a fence constructed of X or Y material is going to satisfy and satisfy
anybody, the landowners or the neighbors.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I just asked. Is there some resources that you have available to you
that you can go to and get this information.
MR. ROUND-I guess that’s what I’m saying. The short answer is, no, and in lieu of keeping the
dogs indoors, I don’t think we’re going to find something that’s going to satisfy everybody here
tonight. I don’t want to set false expectations for yourselves, and for us to come back, that’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-That just threw a big monkey wrench in everything.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a big problem on your hands, and I honestly don’t know what to do
about it, other than telling you that you can’t board that many dogs. So I guess I’m looking for some
suggestions, as to what you can do.
MRS. STEWART-So, are you saying that there can be no kennels in Queensbury?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what we’re saying.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-If that was the case, we wouldn’t have given you a site plan approval back in
1995.
MRS. STEWART-Most kennels leave their dogs out all day long. They open the (lost words) at
seven, eleven at night they shut them.
MR. MAC EWAN-If neighbors were coming to us regarding those kennels, we’d probably be dealing
with them the same way.
MRS. STEWART-Well, they aren’t in this Town. None of them are in this Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know what to tell you. I can only deal with the application that’s in front
of us tonight. I’d like to hear some input from my fellow Board members.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Back to the original site plan review. Maybe we have to look at it as if there is
nothing there, that 12 by 24 foot structure is not there anymore, and we just have to have them just
come back to us and say, look, this is what we want to do. These are the reasons, our business is
growing, if that’s one of the reasons, and then we’ll take it from there. In other words, lets just come
back and let’s, you have to get it out of our minds that that building is there, and now you’ve got to
come and give us a formal presentation, and to why you want to put that building up, and all the
reasons, and I know you did that. You did do that, you know, why you put it up, to store the dog
food and to put your own pets in there, but then, when the public hearing opened up, we hear the
other people take it farther. Well, if you can store your own pets in there, then that means you’re
going to have more room to store other people’s pets, to board other people’s pets. So maybe now
we have to put a cap on the number of dogs that can be there, and it may have to be back to
Number 19. I don’t know, but we’ve got to come to a compromise, and I don’t know if, right now,
we’re any closer than we were. We’re not any closer to a compromise, I don’t think, than we were
initially a week ago, but we’ve got to get back to that, like Bob said, you’re right, the site plan is the,
we’ve got to get over that hurdle.
MR. VOLLARO-Just give us a site plan, I think Cathy’s on to the right, she’s seeing the picture
correctly in my mind. Do a site plan like the Amish building was not there, and propose a site plan
to us, and in that site plan, you can devise to mitigate the noise, whether you chose a fence, whether
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
you chose a high tech inaudible noise, whatever you choose to do, and let us take a look at that site
plan and see how that plays, and I think that’s the right way to do it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’ve got to meet them halfway and give us something to mitigate it, an
attempt or something. That’s what compromising is, too, because we’re not telling you that your
dogs have to go. Your dogs are staying. They’ve been okay to stay, four years ago, but now, they’re
effecting the tranquility of the mountain, and so now you give a little bit, because those people aren’t
saying get rid of your dogs. So now you come a little bit further.
MRS. STEWART-Yes, we would like to do something to control the noise, but another thing, some
of these, a lot of these people, they knew the kennel was there before they moved there.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the issue here is, and we can’t get around this, other the fact that you were
given approval for a kennel that you propose to house 19 dogs in. You’re now over 30. That’s the
problem. I think probably if you had still stuck with your 19 dogs, you probably wouldn’t have half
the neighbors that you have here tonight complaining about it. You’ve added more than double that,
almost double that, I should say, and that’s the problem in itself. Now you’ve got to deal with the
noise issue, how you’re going to control it, how you’re going to rectify the problem that you’ve got
by putting up this extra building without site plan approval, and that’s what we need to get done.
MR. STEWART-So you need a site plan, though, for the building that’s already there? I mean, forget
the Amish building. You’re talking you want a full site plan for the kennel that’s?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we already okayed that.
MR. VOLLARO-We already okayed that. This is for the expansion of the approval that we given in
1995.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For the modification.
MR. STEWART-Start with the kennel that’s there now, and propose the site plan for the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and now that you know the obstacle in front of you, when you come to
us the next time, you can have something to resolve the problem, and believe me, employ
technology. It works.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel about that? Are we all on the same page?
MR. PALING-I think we’re pretty close, but we shouldn’t, watch out with the number 19 or 14 or
13. There was no commitment made or not any part of the resolution that any number would be
met.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re right, it wasn’t, but.
MR. PALING-And so what I suggest is that they do go through the site plan review, but you pick a
number of the dogs that you’re going to max out, at this location, and then let us exercise judgement
on that, and of course how you’re going to handle them with noise mitigation and all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, to follow up on that, I’ll throw in my two cents. Yes, we didn’t say a
specific number of animals on that property, but like with any application that comes in front of this
Board, part of our determination is made upon the presentation by the applicant, and when they lead
us to believe that they’re going to have X number of whatever, or so many hours of operation, or so
much, you know, people going through the turn style, it doesn’t matter, and if we base part of our
approvals on what they tell us in the presentation, that, to me, carries a lot of stock.
MR. PALING-Craig, if you’ll go back to a couple of the situations that we’ve had, unless the
principal makes a direct promise, or it’s in the resolution, it doesn’t stand up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. PALING-And I think that’s what we’ve got here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you wholeheartedly, okay.
MR. PALING-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And just to follow up on that, the fact that they were very clear that any
expansion of the business would require them coming back in front of this Board. They knew that.
It’s right in the minutes of that meeting in ’95.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALING-Not with the number of dogs.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they wanted to put in, and I’m not going to beat on this here, but I’ll read the
excerpt to you, just so that everyone’s on the same page here. I asked “If we were to approve this
tonight, Jim”, I’m speaking to Jim Martin at the time, “and she thought the business was doing well,
in a year or two she wanted to expand the kennel, does she have to come back in front of this Board
for a modification to the site plan that was approved or could she just, if she wanted to add on to it,
put more kennels on, as in just a matter of going through the building permit process?” And Mr.
Martin responded, “If she were to physically add to the structure, it would require further review
from this Board, and their own option is in the past, like car sales for example, if you set parameters
on numbers of cars present….she would have to come back to this Board for approvals.” Okay. So,
that’s it. We’re going to table this thing, okay. You’re going to put together a full site plan, with all
the requirements of what’s required in a site plan application.
MRS. STEWART-Can you give us a list of what that is?
MR. MAC EWAN-You see her. She has all the lists for an application packet, everything that’s
required. I would encourage you to really look into coming up with some sort of mitigation to the
noise problems. I’ll tell you, my personally feeling is right now, I’m not sold. I’m leaning very
heavily right now to saying no more than X number of dogs on that property. You need to sell me
on it. I don’t know how the rest of my members feel up here, but I’m not sold on this at all. I think
you need to make a real consorted effort in coming up with some sort of noise mitigation up there.
Okay. With that said, we’ll table it.
MR. STEWART-And how long do we have for that?
MRS. MOORE-The deadline for November’s agenda is this Wednesday, tomorrow.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you get up to see here tomorrow, Laura, I’m sure that we could extend some
consideration beyond the deadline of submissions, provided you do something relatively quick and
put all your information together. Staff will contact me and we’ll take it from there. Okay. Thank
you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-
3A/LC-42A LOCATION: RT. 9L & ALEXY LANE ON DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 135 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 13
ACRES, 116 ACRES AND 3.08 +/- ACRES. APA CEA TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.1 LOT
SIZE: 135 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1999, John, Jr. & Kathleen Salvador, Meeting Date: October
26, 1999 Description of Project: The application was tabled on October 19, 1999, pending Staff’s
review of newly submitted information. The applicant has provided an updated drawing
demonstrating the location and size of a proposed wastewater infiltration structure. Staff Notes:
The applicant has submitted information that meets the minimum requirements for a proposed
conventional on site residential septic disposal system. Recommendations: Staff recommends
approval of the subdivision with the condition that Lot 3 be combined with parcel 4-1-11.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Good evening. Would you
identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. I’m John Salvador, and I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen.
We just have one question. We read under “Staff Recommendations”, that you approve this with the
condition that Lot Three be combined with parcel 4-1-11, and we would like to know the meaning
and significance of “combine”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would Staff please respond?
MRS. MOORE-They have to go to the County and ask for a consolidation.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SALVADOR-Right now, we have but one deed for all of this land. How do you do that?
MRS. MOORE-Consolidation, it’s a form that the County office has, and we have a copy of it in our
office for you.
MR. SALVADOR-These two parcels that you refer to here are not contiguous. The best we could
do is a land hook.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SALVADOR-A land hook satisfies your condition?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-John, I think that’s what you wanted to do all along, though, isn’t it?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s correct, but providing that, because we can’t get a land hook without your
approval of the subdivision. That’s why we’re in this process.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. SALVADOR-Their condition for a land hook refers to subdivision.
MR. ROUND-With your map, when you file the map and you identify that on the property those are
to be combined, graphically, with a land hook on that, and then there’s a form, it’s a consolidation
form, it’s consolidation of tax parcel mapping, and that’s to be identified as a single tax map parcel,
and I think that’s going to accomplish all our objectives.
MR. SALVADOR-Then would it be a waterfront parcel?
MRS. MOORE-It would be considered a split zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay?
MR. SALVADOR-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff satisfied that all the issues have been addressed? Okay. Anything else
you wanted to add? We’ll open up the public hearing. We had left it open, actually. If anybody
wants to speak to this application, you’re welcome to do so. Come right on up and identify yourself
for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 17-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR,
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1.
No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2.
The following agencies are involved:
NONE
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
3.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4.
An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up for Preliminary?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 JOHN &
KATHLEEN SALVADOR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Catherine LaBombard:
As per resolution prepared by Staff previous to the examination of the O’Brien and Gere study, and
include the O’Brien and Gere study as part of that motion.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 17-1999
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1.
Preliminary Stage application w/map dated 8/25/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
9/2/99 - Meeting notice
2.
9/28/99 – Staff Notes
3.
9/16/99 - Letter to Planning Bd. from F. Alexy
4.
9/14/99 - FOIL request from F. Alexy
5.
9/13/99 - APA Project Notice
6.
9/16/99 - Chairman from F. Alexy
7.
9/23/99 - Fax to J. Salvador
8.
9/23/99 - Fax to M. Steves
9.
9/23/99 - Town Bd. Res. from 1961, 1963
10.
9/24/99 - J. Salvador to F. Alexy
11.
9/27/99 - J. Salvador to M. Steves
12.
9/27/99 - APA Notice of Incomplete Permit
13.
9/28/99 - Fax to J. Salvador – amended staff notes
14.
9/28/99 - Staff Notes
15.
9/28/99 - Planning Bd. resolution
16.
9/29/99 - L. Moore to C. Round
17.
10/7/99 - C. Round to J. Salvador
18.
10/8/99 - New Info – Letter from J. Salvador to C. Round w/map
19.
10/7/99 - Meeting Notice
20.
10/19/99 – Staff Notes
21.
10/19/99 - Revised Map
22.
10/18/99 - H. Shoudy, LGA
23.
10/19/99 - Rec’d Planning Bd. mtg. Info dated 9/13/96 from O’Brien & Gere
24.
10/21/99 - Rec’d, 7/89 DEC publication
25.
10/26/99 - Staff Notes
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/28, 10/19, and 10/26/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage for Subdivision No. 17-1999.
2.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-And I’m going to use the resolution prepared by Staff, previous to the examination
of the O’Brien and Gere study, and include the O’Brien and Gere study as part of that motion.
Because that’s the only document that was standing out at the time we made the last, we almost got
to an approval last time, but there was a discussion that we wanted to have time to look at the
O’Brien and Gere supporting documentation. So I would include that.
MR. ROUND-We’ll note that as information of record.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Final?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1999 JOHN &
KATHLEEN SALVADOR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Paling:
With the resolution as prepared by Staff, and including in that the O’Brien and Gere study of
September 13, 1996. In addition, the approval of the subdivision is with the condition that Lot 3 be
combined with parcel 4-1-11, by land hook.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 17-1999
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Final Stage application w/map dated 8/25/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 9/2/99 - Meeting notice
2. 9/28/99 – Staff Notes
3. 9/16/99 - Letter to Planning Bd. from F. Alexy
4. 9/14/99 - FOIL request from F. Alexy
5. 9/13/99 - APA Project Notice
6. 9/16/99 - Chairman from F. Alexy
7. 9/23/99 - Fax to J. Salvador
8. 9/23/99 - Fax to M. Steves
9. 9/23/99 - Town Bd. Res. from 1961, 1963
10. 9/24/99 - J. Salvador to F. Alexy
11. 9/27/99 - J. Salvador to M. Steves
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
12. 9/27/99 - APA Notice of Incomplete Permit
13. 9/28/99 - Fax to J. Salvador – amended staff notes
14. 9/28/99 - Staff Notes
15. 9/28/99 - Planning Bd. resolution
16. 9/29/99 - L. Moore to C. Round
17. 10/7/99 - C. Round to J. Salvador
18. 10/8/99 - New Info – Letter from J. Salvador to C. Round w/map
19. 10/7/99 - Meeting Notice
20. 10/19/99 – Staff Notes
21. 10/19/99 - Revised Map
22. 10/18/99 - H. Shoudy, LGA
23. 10/19/99 - Rec’d Planning Bd. mtg. Info dated 9/13/96 from O’Brien & Gere
24. 10/21/99 - Rec’d, 7/89 DEC publication
25. 10/26/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/28, 10/19, 10/26/99 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 Final Stage for
Subdivision No. 17-1999.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A
PROVISIONS OWNER: SAME ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 62 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF AN EXPIRED SITE PLAN THAT
INCLUDES AN EXISTING ADDITION AND PROPOSED PARKING AREA. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 29 7 94, UV 14-1994, AV 15-1994, UV 18-1997, AV 19-1997, SP 22-97, AV
83-1999, BP 92-209, 92-374, 93-652, 96-103, 97-358 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE:
9/7/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1, 14 LOT SIZE: 0.70
ACRES, 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-24
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing Ben Aronson, Double A Provision? No?
We’ll table that one tonight.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1999 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED FOREST
ENTERPRISES, INC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE
RIDGE RD., OPPOSITE MEADOW DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 31 LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE FIRST PHASE WILL CONTAIN 14 LOTS WITH
LOT SIZES OF 10,000 +/- SQUARE FEET. CROSS REFERENCE: QUAKER RIDGE
PUD TAX MAP NO. 57-1-2.1, 109-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 14.47 AC., 11.35 AC. SECT: SUBDIV.
REGS
FRANK DE SANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled at Sketch.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1999, Forest Enterprises, Inc., Meeting Date: October 26, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant has requested the Board review a revised sketch plan
subdivision for Ridge Road. The Board had asked the applicant to provide additional information on
the possibility of sewer for the proposed subdivision (June 3, 1999 Planning Bd. minutes attached).
Staff Notes: The applicant has revised the sketch plan to 31 lots, with Phase I for 14 lots and Phase
II for 17 lots. The proposed lot size varies with a majority being 10,000 +/- square feet. The
applicant has provided information from CT Male indicating sewer hook-up could be possible for all
31 lots. Upon review of the June 3, 1999 Planning Board meeting minutes, the following items need
to be addressed by the applicant. A. The proposed subdivision does not meet the current zoning
requirements for the Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-1A) zone. The applicant will need to
apply for a Petition For Change of Zone. B. The proposed increase in density for this area
(Neighborhood 10) is not consistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
recommendations. The applicant will need to supply supporting information as to the need to differ
from the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding area is zoned for one acre or greater (SFR-1A, SR-
1A, LC-10A), this may make it difficult for rezoning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan identifies
properties near Cedar Swamp be zoned for low impact recreational uses. Recommendation: Staff
would suggest the applicant apply for the Petition for Zone Change with the condition the
applicant address the above two items with the application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record.
MR. DE SANTIS-Good evening. My name is Frank DeSantis, and I’m here on behalf of Forest
Enterprises, Inc., relative to this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you. We were here back in June, and we listened to the comments that
were part of the Sketch Plan at that time, and we revised the application to essentially be, the
concerns, there were several concerns raised at the last meeting, relative to the overall density of lots,
lot size, and density of the use of the parcel relative to the zoning. Part of that has been raised in the
Staff recommendation, which I just received tonight. The parcel that we’re talking about for the first
phase or for this Sketch Plan application, is Tax Map parcel 52-, I don’t know the rest of the
numbers, but it’s in 52, and 14.74 acres, and we’re seeking Sketch Plan approval for 14 lots. The
property that our proposal would be served by municipal water and municipal sewer. I’ve attached
to the application a study done by CT Male, which would involve the creation of an extension to the
existing sewer line, which is on Ridge Road, which I’ve tried to outline in pink, so you can see it on
the map, which involves a gravity feed sewer, which runs from here out to Ridge Road, and that is
the scope of the property, obviously, from that point. The length of the road coming in from Ridge
is slightly over 600 feet. It’s about 610 feet, which eliminated one of the other concerns that the
Planning Board had back in June, about a second entrance if you were over 1,000 feet. The yellow
line I put on here is the buffer from the wetland, which is one of the other items that was raised at
that time, and the applicant proposes, should it receive Sketch Plan approval, at the next step would
secure a traffic study, as to the impact of these 14 lots on Ridge Road, would secure an in the field
delineation of the actual wetland, the current map that is drawn is off a DEC map, adding 100 feet
onto this corner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. DeSantis, can I interrupt you just for a second? We need to clear up maybe
some nomenclature we’re using here. What you’re in front of us here tonight for is a Petition for
Zone Change, not approval for Sketch Plan for Phase I of a subdivision.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s what I applied for.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not correct. I’m wrong?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHACHNER-Our understanding is that that petition has not yet been submitted, correct?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s a recommendation that I received here in writing from the Staff.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s not the application we made.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The applicant has come back, as we understand it, correct me if I’m
wrong, Staff, for another shot at a Sketch Plan discussion. Is that the applicant’s understanding?
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s what we’ve asked for. We were here in June. We took under advisement
the comments that were made by the Planning Board and the Staff and members of the public, most
prominently represented by Attorney Caffry, who I’ve spoken with earlier, but he had to leave, and
we’ve tried to incorporate those comments and suggestions into this revised Sketch Plan. As I said,
I’m now in possession of the Planning Staff’s recommendations, but we’re not seeking a zone change
at this time. We are aware that this is an SFR-1A zone, and that we would need to apply for an Area
Variance, relative to lot size. Where, I’m attempting to show you here on this map that in overall
density, we would meet the requirements of that zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I stand corrected.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but Mr. MacEwan, your point still is worth exploring because I believe it’s
Staff’s opinion that the proposed Sketch Plan is not in compliance with zoning requirements, and if
that’s true, you can’t approve the proposed Sketch Plan. So I think we need to explore that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I was getting baffled there for a minute, because the last I knew.
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to mislead you, but we hadn’t applied for a zoning
change.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-But again, I want to make sure that I’m being understood. I think we need to
explore whether a zone change is needed or not, because if it is, you can’t approve the Sketch Plan. I
believe Staff’s position is that a zone change is needed here.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, in that zone. Those are quarter acre lots, roughly. Is that correct,
10,000 square feet?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. Actually, the average size, if you do the average, the average lot size is in
excess of 14,000.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have two options available to you here, as I understand it, and correct me if
I’m wrong here. Number One, you can apply for petition for zone change to change that to a zone
that will accommodate the lot sizes you’re looking to develop, or you can go to the ZBA and ask for
a variance to the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the buildings that you want to put on there.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s my understanding, also, and we recognize that we’re going to need an Area
Variance.
MR. ROUND-Yes, both of those are correct. The SFR zone doesn’t allow clustering. We saw, a
similar project was the project up the street here, Surrey Fields. They’re in a one acre zone. The lot
sizes are smaller than one acre, but they didn’t exceed the density. So they received an Area Variance
to allow clustering or smaller lot sizes.
MR. DE SANTIS-We haven’t made the application yet, for an Area Variance, but it would certainly
be along those lines. Because we’ve met the overall density required by the zone, yet for reasons
which we believe to be good ones, most notably protection of the wetland, and the ability to use
municipal sewer, by moving the lots closer to Ridge Road, that we would seek an Area Variance as to
lot size only, not to overall density on the parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t mean to throw a monkey wrench into the application.
MR. DE SANTIS-No. Until I saw this, we did not ask for a petition for zone change at this point in
time. We realize that that’s one way to approach this problem.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Proceed. I’m sorry.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s quite all right. We’re trying to answer any questions that you’ve got. As I
started to say, the issues that were raised last time were the density overall, relative to the lot, or to
the parcel size, the number of lots versus the number of acres. I think we’ve answered that question
here. This is one tax map. One of the other questions was the length of road. We’ve answered that.
Another question was, traffic study, by having one entrance, this is a relatively flat section of Ridge
Road. We will do a traffic study to address that. The wetland question we will address with an in the
field delineation. That’s really it. The only other proposal that we’re considering at this point, in
respecting this neighbor right here to the north, relative to these three lots, is probably a cutting
restriction on the rear of those lots, to provide him with some buffer there. Because he’s the only
neighbor that we’re really impacting on. There’s no one to this side or to this side, and I’m talking
about lots 10, 11 and 12, because we’re closest to his residence.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the depth to bedrock there?
MR. DE SANTIS-Actually, I don’t know, if you mean through all the lots? I’m not sure that I know.
They’ve done a study in how much cover we need for the sewer, and that’s attached in the lower left,
here. So there’s some depth that we can dig, and in fact at the manhole number S-2, which is actually
out at Ridge Road, and you come on in, with S-2, we have to cover it to 20 feet. So we have to go
pretty deep. If you go all the way back in here to S-4, due to the slope, we only have to cover it to
four feet, but we haven’t done any actual borings in this locations at this point. So I’m not trying to
avoid your question. I just don’t know the answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a curious question, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the status of your dealings on the sewer?
MR. DE SANTIS-The status is that we’ve had discussions, through C.T. Male, with the Sewer
Department.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve read the C.T. Male report. I know you have. I’m just wondering, how close
do you think you are to getting that sewer approval? Because I think everything is contingent, a lot is
contingent on that.
MR. DE SANTIS-Absolutely. These lots and this entire proposal would not fly without municipal
sewer. We recognize that.
MR. VOLLARO-And if that’s true, I was wondering, in my own mind looking at this, taking a look
at these other lots, I just ask myself on this drawing, what are the lot sizes down Ridge Road. I
suspect they’re pretty large, from what I can see in scale here. So they’re probably all on septic, I
would guess.
MR. DE SANTIS-My understanding is that they are, that this point, if I may, down here, in the
upper left of the map, is the terminus of the last manhole that’s part of the current existing sewer
system.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that. I understand that.
MR. DE SANTIS-So I doubt that any of these homes on the easterly side of Ridge Road are served
by sewer at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I know they’re not. I guess my question is, in the interest of good planning
in the Town of Queensbury, I think that, in my own mind anyway, if we’re going to bring a sewer up
the line, right to the end of your curb cut there.
MR. DE SANTIS-To this point.
MR. VOLLARO-Right there, then why not take it down, a good deal down Ridge Road and service
some of these other lots that are on septic? That would be good planning. I mean, if that’s what this
Board is supposed to be doing.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, that’s certainly something that I will pass on to C.T. Male and ask them to
incorporate as a suggestion in their discussions with the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a question of Staff. With an extension on an existing sewer district,
once you make that extension to the district, does everyone who now falls into that new sewer
district, are they required to go on line?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. ROUND-It depends on how you draw the district, what properties are included. If you’re
included in the district, there’s typically provisions that you have to tie in within a certain timeframe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. DE SANTIS-And what we’re proposing here is that we don’t pass anybody that’s not in the
subdivision, you’ll notice. I agree with Mr. Round. By coming to here and here, we’re not going by
someone else who then would be faced with the question that you raised.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about those other parcels that are farther down on Ridge?
MR. DE SANTIS-These parcels are part of our subdivision, and that’s where the sewer ends right
now. I can’t tell you what status they are.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the other side of the road, though?
MR. DE SANTIS-They’re just homes. I don’t know. There’s a line on the other side of the road
because, I’ve covered it up here. I think it’s Meadowview Drive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Meadow Lane, I think.
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m sorry if I get the lane and the drive, but there’s a highway right here, and that
is part of the sewer district. There’s sewer on that side of the road. I don’t know the exact status of
the homes on Ridge Road. I believe they’re served, are part of the district.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of homes are you proposing in there?
MR. DE SANTIS-I would call them, the proposal before the, in the sewer commission talks about
four bedroom homes. They may or may not be. I think they’re more likely going to be three
bedroom homes. These lots, as I said, average 14, a little over 14,000 square feet in size. The largest
is 17, 300. The smallest is 10,008. You’re talking about homes that are probably going to be in the
1700 to 1900 square foot range. They may be four bedrooms, but most likely they’re going to be
three bedrooms. As to style, I don’t have an opinion on that or I haven’t gotten that far.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you had an opportunity to look into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
Have you looked at that?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, we have, and we’re aware of this.
MR. VOLLARO-Neighborhood 10.
MR. DE SANTIS-That size, and also the question of the, what Staff raised in the reading of this,
about the low impact recreational uses, and I don’t think that the variance, if we sought one for
clustering, I think would fit right into that, quite honestly. Because what we’re talking about is,
essentially, this is a stormwater retention area, here. I didn’t delineate, but is over here, and the
balance of this property, due to the DEC buffer, and our decision not to use it, is going to be there
and left as open space, which essentially amounts to, as you can see just graphically, you know, six or
seven acres of property out of the 14. So we think it fits, if you had to draw something up that
would fit into that plan, absent the conflict with the no clustering in that zone provision, we think it
fits, and we’re aware that that exists. So we’re going to have to address it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got any other questions, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Alan? Bob?
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m sorry I stood between you and this map, due to the length of this cord.
MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff. Could you elaborate a little bit on Item B, on how it’s not
consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, just kind of address that for a second if you
would?
MRS. MOORE-In Neighborhood 10, it just indicates that it’s, lots near the Cedar Swamp should be
zoned for low impact recreational uses. I don’t know quite what else you’re looking for. That’s
pretty specific.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. MOORE-And all that is is a guideline. That’s not, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Understandably. Anything else that you guys wanted to add? Okay. We don’t
have a public hearing scheduled on this, but we always like to take public input on this sort of
application. I would welcome anyone that wants to come up and address the Board with their
comments and concerns. If you do, please just identify yourself for the record, so we can record it
on tape.
PATRICIA JAMESON
MRS. JAMESON-My name’s Patricia Jameson. I live on Ridge Road, and I just have a couple of
questions. One is, where is the one entrance? Where on Ridge Road would the one entrance be, at
the crest of the hill?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s approximately across from about where Meadow Drive would be, farther up.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s not accurate, Mr. Chairman. It’s not across from there. It’s about 800 feet.
This scale on this map, if I may approach, to answer the question. The crest of the hill, ma’am, is
about where my finger is. It’s off this map, and the scale on this map is each inch equals 50 feet. So,
as we proceed this way, there’s a measurement here on this sewer line distance of 1440 feet, I believe
it is, from here to here. It’s quite a distance from the hill. This is where the entrance is. The road
the Chairman’s talking about is about here on the map.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s pretty darn close.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s close.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, about 500 feet, 10 inches, 11 inches.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s more than that. That’s more than a foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two lots to the left of that, there’s a house up there with a detached garage, way
over on the right hand side of your map right there, see it.
MRS. JAMESON-Dr. Glendennings house has the sewer, and that’s the last one. That’s the last
sewer going up the hill, is Dr. Glendenning’s house. I wonder if this driveway crosses that house,
where that For Sale sign is. Is that about where the street would be?
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m not sure where you’re talking about, ma’am.
MRS. JAMESON-(Lost words) the last house that has the sewer.
MR. DE SANTIS-On the east side of the highway? On the right hand side as you’re going north?
MRS. JAMESON-On the west side, north of.
MR. DE SANTIS-I believe it would be past this roadway, as I stated before. I’ll turn this more
toward you.
MR. ROUND-Do you have the first property owner that you’re adjacent to? Do you know who that
owner is, Mr. DeSantis?
MR. DE SANTIS-Right here?
MR. ROUND-No, on the north side of the map. Right there.
MR. DE SANTIS-I’d have to check.
MR. ROUND-Okay. Maybe that would give a landmark.
MR. DE SANTIS-Maybe this will help. This is Ridge Road. This is the proposal.
MRS. JAMESON-There’s only one house between Quaker Road and Meadow Lane, on the west
side. My other question was, I was looking, do you know what school district these houses will be
located in?
MR. MAC EWAN-What school district? That’s a good question.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-Queensbury.
MRS. JAMESON-Not necessarily.
MR. DE SANTIS-I believe it’s Queensbury.
MRS. JAMESON-Well, the line runs through there some place. I just wondered. The line’s north of
Quaker Road, along Quaker, the City School District line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In the interest of keeping this public forum moving along, I’d like for
other questions to be addressed to the Board, and we’ll certainly get them answered.
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m showing the applicant right now a smaller photocopy of a larger area map, I
would be glad to share with the Board that shows Meadow Lane on it, and the entrance.
MRS. JAMESON-And where would the second entrance be?
MR. DE SANTIS-Currently, there’s not one planned. We changed it from the very first
presentation, which did show a second entrance about 400 feet, 250 feet, rather, across Ridge Road,
right here, but that’s no longer. Mr. Chairman, this is what I did show to the woman that made the
question. Here’s the entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-You said something about, you’re only going to have one entrance to the
subdivision now.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, there’s only 14 lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what about Phase II, are you eventually going to put a curb cut?
MR. DE SANTIS-The Sketch Plan’s only for 14 lots.
MR. VOLLARO-There is no Phase II. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of confused here. I’m looking at maps that are in our application that
show 31 lots. You’re intentions are not to have 31 lots?
MR. DE SANTIS-No. This application is for 14 lots. That’s what the application says.
MR. MAC EWAN-When did it change, though, that you didn’t supply?
MR. DE SANTIS-The end of August.
MR. MAC EWAN-But why didn’t you supply new drawings demonstrating what you want to do to
Staff? I mean, we’re all sitting up here looking at a 31 lot subdivision, with two accesses on Ridge
Road.
MR. DE SANTIS-The reason for that is this was a revision to the application filed in June, and we
were attempting to show the revisions. If the Board would like, we can take everything off to the
right of that map, bring it back next month, and it would be the same as I just tried to show you.
That’s why I highlighted.
MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the things that confused me is in the CT Male memorandum, it
states as project description, the Quaker Ridge Subdivision is a 31 lot single family residential
subdivision located on Ridge Road, and that’s dated September 24, 1999. It’s not that old.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, I understand that, but this is a 14 lot application.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at what’s on our agenda for tonight, and it also says here, applicant
proposes a 31 lot residential subdivision with the first phase containing 14 lots, with lot sizes of
10,000 square feet, plus or minus.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s inaccurate.
MR. VOLLARO-And then Phase II, 17 lots.
MR. DE SANTIS-Actually, that is inaccurate, because the application was filed on the last day for the
application, and the agenda was typed up after the application was filed, to be honest with you.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-But if you submitted an application, I don’t understand why you didn’t submit
new plat drawings to go along with it, demonstrating that you’re only looking for a 14 lot subdivision.
I think everyone sitting in this room tonight expecting we’re reviewing a two phase, 31 lot
subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s not what we’re doing.
MR. DE SANTIS-I can’t answer that question, because the application states 14 lots, and that’s
attached to the current.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When Laura read the Staff Notes, isn’t that what she said? Why didn’t we
catch it then? Why didn’t we catch it at the Staff Notes?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, then, I guess what I would like to do is I’d just like to stop things.
MRS. JAMESON-I just had one more question. When you get the plans, how soon after that will
the neighbors be able to see it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what I’m kind of frustrated about tonight. I was assuming we were
all going to be looking at the same application, and the same proposed plans, and the applicant’s got
something different envisioned than what we all anticipated looking at tonight. So, in my mind, it’s
back to the drawing board.
MRS. JAMESON-So we’ll wait and see.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll wait and see. We’ll have him submit a new packet.
MRS. JAMESON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I was looking at a 31 lot subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So was I.
MR. ROUND-I guess the purpose of Sketch Plan is to discuss, what are you looking for, to give the
applicant feedback, realize that there are some inaccuracies between the applications, and I think you
have the applicant here. So he’s able to communicate what the project is, and apparently it’s a single
phase, 14 lot subdivision. Is that correct?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes.
MR. ROUND-And are there other issues? Sketch Plan is not an approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-The two issues that Staff has recognized in their notes, Items A and B, I certainly
would like to see the applicant respond to that.
MR. ROUND-Sure. So would you encourage the applicant to go forward through a variance or a
petition for zone change to proceed through with the project?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m leaning toward.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, in the interest of obtaining guidance from the Planning Board, and the Staff
that we have here this evening, are you suggesting that I apply for a variance before I have a Sketch
Plan?
MR. ROUND-Well, Sketch Plan is basically an informal discussion amongst the Board and the
public. So Sketch Plan is not a mandatory requirement, and prior to preliminary application, we
won’t receive a preliminary application until zoning allows you to do what you want to do.
MR. DE SANTIS-Fine, that’s the process.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest that we have the public here, and I’m sure there’s more people
who want to express comments regarding this application, I think, in all fairness, we’ll just continue
taking on some more comments, if it’s okay with everybody else. I don’t have a problem with it. So,
does anybody else want to come up and comment on this application? Everybody wants to sit back
and wait and see. Okay. We’ll do that. Any other comments from Board members? So, then your
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
options are including along with Staff and fellow Board members, is to pursue either an Area
Variance or a petition for zone change. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
NEW BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 6-99 NIGRO COMPANIES, AS CONTRACT
VENDEE OWNERS: J. SKINNER, IIID, SKINNER, M. TIPPETT, C. TIPPETT, J.
MADDISON, S. EDICK, L. GREENE, B. GREENE, B. PLUNKETT, T. CLARK, D.
CLARK, M. VAUGHN, C. SHATTUCK CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A PROPOSED
ZONING: HC-1A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/99 APPLICANT PROPOSES
REZONING OF PROPERTIES ON HOMER AVENUE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL –
ONE ACRE (LI-1A) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL – ONE ACRE (HC-1A). TAX MAP
NO. 107-1-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, & 47 LOT SIZE: 1.93 ACRES
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone PZ 6-99, Nigro Companies, Meeting Date: October
26, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant has requested a zone change for Tax Parcels 107-
1-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 47 that front on Homer Avenue. The proposed change is from
Light Industrial (LI-1A) to Highway Commercial (HC-1A). The applicant proposes a 65,000 square
foot grocer y store to be located on the adjacent properties. The application has been referred by the
Town Board for a rezoning recommendation. Staff Notes: Staff considered the following factors
for review of the proposed project: 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone
or new zone? The project developer is allowed to utilize the land in the manner proposed. The
change in zone will allow the site to be configured as proposed. The project developer may be able
to develop the site without the proposed change, however the proposed configuration limits the
development on the adjacent parcel in regards to setbacks. 2. What existing zones if any can
meet the stated need? The Highway Commercial (HC-1A) zone. 3. How is the proposed zone
compatible with the adjacent zones? Adjacent property is zoned HC-1A and LI-1A. This is
consistent with existing zoning. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the
proposed zone? The site is generally level, serviced by municipal water and sewer, stormwater
management and wetlands present a design constraint. 5. How will the proposed zone affect
public facilities? The HC-1A (proposed) and LI-1A (existing) have similar effects on the public
infrastructure. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in
question? Limited potential for development is anticipated given the location, adjacent uses,
property size, and individual lot configuration. However, any loss of the light industrial inventory is
significant. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Refer to the EAF
completed by the applicant. The Town Board has requested SEQRA lead agency status. Impacts
anticipated include increased traffic, noise, light spill, diminished wetland area, increased stormwater
generation, among others. 8. How is the proposed compatible with the relevant portions of
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? The 1998 Comprehensive Plan makes no property specific
recommendations regarding zoning changes for the site. Relevant portions of Section 2.0 Townwide
Plan include references to maintaining the rural nature of Queensbury, sensitivity to landscaping on
commercial areas, architectural review of commercial development, and examination of parking
standards to reduce visual impacts. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being
served by this proposal? The proposed rezone increases the amount of land associated with the
Highway Commercial zone. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the zone
change request.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper. With me tonight are Frank Palumbo,
from the Sear Brown Group and Steve Powers, Vice President of the Nigro Group. I’d like to start
with some preliminary comments about the zone change. This is our first meeting with this Board,
and I’m going to ask Frank to go through the site plan, just to get you familiar with what we’re
proposing, and ask him to talk about the zone change, and respond to comments from the public.
To begin with, we think that this is an example of good planning. The building that we’re proposing
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
could fit on the approximately eight acre site without the rezoning. In order to make this a better
project, we have under option eight parcels which include five houses, for many, many, many
hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we could have done without that, and we’re doing that in
order to mitigate the potential impacts on those houses. So that instead of looking over their back
fence at our building, they’re going to be gone, and the majority of that property is going to be used
as a very significant buffer. So that the people across the street, which now are a few houses, and of
course the area across the street is also zoned light industrial, they would be buffered from our site.
No driveway, as you can see on the plan, is planned for access to Homer Ave. It’s just, the way the
Zoning Ordinance, the zoning map exists now, the lots which are 143 feet deep, which are on the
north side of Homer Ave., are zoned light industrial. So there’s a narrow light industrial strip. We’ve
acquired options on those properties so that we can incorporate them into our commercial zone. If
we didn’t do that, some day there could be a light industrial building project constructed on those, so
that on the 9.78 acre site, just about 10 acres that we’ve amassed, you could have a commercial
project in front, like we’ve proposed, and you could also have an industrial project on Homer Ave., w
which would create more traffic than just the commercial project that we’ve proposed. This is, by no
means, the most intensive development that you could have on this property. You could do a
commercial project and an industrial project, but by using the land that we’ve acquired for a berm,
and significant landscaping, which would all be site plan issues that will be discussed with you when
the project moves forward, it insulates the people that are on Homer Ave. now. It protects them
from any traffic. All traffic would be from Quaker or Bay, and it buffers anybody living south of that
area off of Bay. So we think that that constitutes good, albeit expensive, planning. So what we’re
here tonight is to discuss your recommendation, which again is just a preliminary stage in this
process, the recommendation for the zone change to the Town Board. We’ve already been to the
County Planning Board. After we went through the presentation and they asked a lot of questions,
the County Planning Board unanimously voted to support and recommend the zone change. They
thought that it was good zoning, and you should have that resolution by now. With that said, if there
are any preliminary questions, we’d be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I’ll have Frank go up with
the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you go through your entire presentation.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one question, if that’s okay, Mr. Chairman. It has to do with the Warren
County Planning Board, which you just mentioned, and I read their Staff Notes, and at the end, it
says the project is recommended for discussion and of course then they approve it, and I’m just
wondering, have those discussions taken place at the County?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-The Warren County Staff Notes, the same form is prepared before the meeting.
So when they say, recommended for discussion, that’s the Staff’s recommendation, and the
discussion that occurs, the action, if there is an action, is then reflected where it says County Planning
Board Recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Thank you. That’s it.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. PALUMBO-Good evening. I’m Frank Palumbo with the Sear Brown Group. Just to maybe
give you a little point on the history that Jon was talking about, before going to our site plan, this is
the building, the supermarket that we are proposing. This is the same size as what you’ll see on the
site plan. In this case, it was facing Bay Road. These are the residential lot areas that are in the light
industrial zone, right up in this area here. So this was just the light industrial zone. What you have
on here, that we can point to and reference, are the existing houses, and it’s also, just for reference
sake, a typical building that could occur in a light industrial zone, but as Jon has already pointed out,
we didn’t feel that that was really the best way to approach the site. This is our proposed site plan.
What we are proposing is a 65,000 square foot supermarket that would face Quaker. We would have
access on Bay and on Quaker, with no accesses on to Homer Ave. What we have done is we are
utilizing the very significant portions of the lots that we are acquiring for a berm that would be right
in that area. The berm itself would be approximately seven feet high. We have a 50 foot area there.
We are going to berm that up as quickly as possible. We have a flat area at the top to do some
landscaping, as is shown, incorporation of a fence that we assume has to come back before you for
more site plan issues or anything you want to comment on tonight about these, that we’ll incorporate
those with the design as we move forward, but the intent here was not to take care of solely these
landowners here, but also to show that we do have some concern for the residents that will be
remaining on the other side of Homer, and so for that purpose, we would intend to build that berm
as significantly as we could, as high as we could, with a fence on top, with a lot of screening and
landscaping on that berm. The area does include the loading facilities, but we believe that we can
show that we can screen, entirely, the loading areas. We would not be seeing the operational aspects
over the berm. You’d basically be seeing some of the portion of the building. The parking field
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
would be primarily in front of the facility. That was another thing that, you know, we, by re-
addressing the site, we were able to get what we liked, with having a more, a parking facility that was
more in tune with the building. It also allows us to be basically pulled back away from a large
existing wetland area down here. We do have some wetland impact here, but it’s been reduced
significantly by the alteration of the site, of the site plan. We will have some mitigation that will be
necessary, due to the development, and we are working with the Town on an off-site mitigation plan,
with that department, with the Recreation Committee for an off-site plan, and instead of trying to do
anything on-site, where we really didn’t think it was going to be beneficial. There is also a wetland up
in this area that we can leave relatively untouched. The traffic also, we feel, by orienting it this way,
we will be able to best distribute the traffic onto Bay and Quaker, rather than having it focused
towards Bay, and having a more predominant use when the building, if the building were to face this
direction. We think that that distribution will help work in our traffic analysis. What we have
currently done is we have worked with the County, and are utilizing the computer model that was
developed for the Quaker Road corridor analysis. We have run our preliminary numbers through
that. What it has identified to us is that there are just specific areas that we need to do additional
counts at, and one of the things we were hoping with tonight is to also get some feedback from
yourselves, from the public, about other areas of concern. So before we go and do our full traffic
analysis, we will be counting cars at the appropriate places. We have done the model. We have run it
through, and we believe that it’s given us a good lead, that certainly this intersection needs to be
addressed in more fullness. We’d have to do some counts at the Hannaford driveway, which is right
here, and also to validate some of the information that was provided in the Lowe’s traffic study.
What we have done stormwater wise is the site is basically split along a ridge here. Some of the
drainage goes to this wetland area. There is a small creek that comes across Homer, up at this point,
and goes off the site to the east, and crosses Quaker at a point further down. The majority of the site
from this area goes through this wetland area. A lot of it was coming through here, but it meanders
through this wetland area and eventually crosses Quaker Road in a culvert that crosses at this point,
and does connect in to the Halfway Brook, across the way. What we are planning is to maintain as
much of the natural integrity of that system by dividing ours. We have a detention basin down in the
front. We have a detention basin in the rear corner. We have yet to do the full analysis to size those
basins. In our theoretical aspect of it, what we are hoping is to take the large parking area into this
detention basin, let it accommodate the added flow that’s being created because of the pavement,
before being dissipated into this wetland area, which basically serves as a natural stormwater basin.
So it’s almost getting a primary and a secondary stormwater treatment before going out and through
into the Halfway Brook through the culvert at Quaker Road. Similarly, the detention basin up in this
area is meant to detain any stormwater before it would exit the site, and exacerbate any problems that
may be there with that drainage system. So we know that the responsibility is on us to show Staff
and the Board a full stormwater analysis that will validate the issues that I’m talking about. We did
them at this point going further because we wanted to address the zone change first and get some
comments from the Boards on this site plan. At that point, I’ll basically stop. I think that the
comments were that there is water and sewer available, basically all around the site. We have
received a comment letter from Mike Shaw, from the Town, addressing some of the things they’d
like to see with utility connections, how we would go about doing that and that we have to do some
further work for them. So we know that we have more issues when it comes to site plan. Right now
we wanted to get some advanced comments and also seek your recommendation on the zoning. So,
if there’s any questions, we’re here to answer them. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob Paling, we’ll start with you.
MR. PALING-Okay. Looking at it from the site plan standpoint, I would suggest that you allow no
left turn on Quaker.
MR. PALUMBO-We will take that suggestion. One of the things that we would ask your leeway
with is that we do the traffic analysis to see what works best. If we don’t allow the left turn on
Quaker.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, do you mean left turns into the site, or out of the site?
MR. PALING-Out of the site.
MR. PALUMBO-If we don’t allow the left turn out of the site, then the natural place for those
people who have to go west bound on Quaker is to make a left at Bay. What we’d like to do is do
the traffic analysis and see how the distribution of that functions and works within the computer
models that have been done, and the analysis that has been done to date, so that we can decide
whether or not that has a better or worse effect on the overall traffic pattern, and I’m just asking that
you give that some consideration, as we move forward, so that we don’t aggravate Bay Road so
significantly, because all the lefts have to be done at that point. We think that, you know, again,
theoretically, we’d have to provide the numbers to back it up, but that the distribution of those lefts
may actually be better for the system.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALING-Okay. We’ll wait and see, but a left turn on Quaker at busy times is kind of a tough
proposition, and a left turn on Bay is not much better. So you’re kind of caught between a rock and
a hard place. Now, are you firm on the access between the Denny’s and the bagel restaurant?
MR. LAPPER-Bob, when you say, are we firm, that we can’t do that you mean?
MR. PALING-No, what I’m saying, that’s what you’re going to do.
MR. LAPPER-No. The access is to the east of the Denny’s. It’s not between the two.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-If you’ll recall, we came before this Board when the Denny’s was being proposed, and
we discussed that, and that was not the option that this Board chose to go.
MR. PALING-Okay. So you’re going in east of Denny’s?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and actually, we met, preliminarily, with Warren County DPW, and they liked the
fact that our access is about 1,000 feet from the intersection. This is the easternmost part of our site,
where the access is, and that gives a separation between our entrance and the intersection of Quaker
and Bay. So the DPW thought that was a positive.
MR. PALING-Where’s Parcel E on yours? Okay, here it is here. I’ve got a question about Parcel E.
What’s the access for this parcel here? There is no access to Homer or to Bay, right? The only
access to that is through here.
MR. PALUMBO-So everybody sees what we’re looking at, Bob’s looking at, is this area right here.
In the survey map that was done, identifying all these parcels, that was referred to as Parcel E.
Basically, that will become part of the whole site. In other words, this is a mix of all these different
lots. So some of the information on there is slightly confusing. That will become one parcel,
incorporated within the overall site plan.
MR. PALING-One whole thing, okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s now a paved area, that’s part of the Nova Care business that just closed there,
and so that would all be incorporated into the 75 foot green space buffer that’s required along Bay.
MR. PALING-Now you’ve got a tough situation in that lot, in that you’ve got, the number of trees
that you’ve got. You’re going to do a lot of cutting. You can’t avoid it, and I stopped counting at 64
trees when I was on that lot. How many, can you save many or any, or what are your cutting plans?
MR. PALUMBO-One of the things that will be, there will be a significant area, which is right behind
the Denny’s, that will have a lot of trees. We basically can’t go into that wetland area without
claiming it as an impact and therefore having to mitigate additionally. So, certainly, we want the
building to be seen from Quaker Road, but that’s going to be really through this area here. A lot of
the trees that are going to be over by this road we have limited the effect of that roadway going out
there, to within or just within and slightly spreading outside of the Niagara Mohawk easement. We
are accessing through the Niagara Mohawk easement that has been worked out with Niagara
Mohawk, and so we’re limiting our effect through that wetland as much as possible. So there will be
a lot of the existing trees that are in this corner, that I’m sure the owner of the building, the tenant,
would love to have those out of there, but we can’t touch. They’re going to be within the wetland.
MR. PALING-Okay. One other question, and that probably isn’t a sensitive area, but there’s quite a
few grocery stores close by to you here, and it seems pretty aggressive, at least, that you would
choose to come in and do that kind of in between the existing grocery stores, and we also read about
the abandoned big boxes around the Country that are coming, and we’d hate to see you move into
that one, and then put somebody out of business in another one.
MR. LAPPER-What we’ve found, in talking to a lot of retailers that are interested in the Queensbury
area, some of which are here, some of which are looking, is that Queensbury has truly become a
regional market. That it’s not just the people in Queensbury/Hudson Falls that are shopping here.
It’s the people in the Adirondacks where their shopping potential is limited, that are coming down
and shopping regionally. People from Indian Lake driving an hour and people actually do that. So
the fact that we have a Hannaford and a Price Chopper that are very nice supermarkets nearby, that
Grand Union wants to be back in the market has more to do with their place in the regional market
than just Queensbury, but at the same time, they all feel very strongly about this. I know that Lowe’s
is doing gangbusters since they’ve been here. Wal-Mart and K-Mart both opened up and everybody
said, gee, how can we support both of them? And they’re both doing well. So apparently, there is a
market for this, but that’s why these national companies and regional companies are coming here.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALING-I don’t know how to respond to that. The question still bothers me, and there’s other
grocery stores not that far away.
MR. LAPPER-Which is one of the reasons why they want to be there.
MR. PALING-Then you’re saying they’re going to attract more business to the area? They’re not
just going to spread what’s here.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not privy to their market study, but part of it is it’s a free market, and people
want to be in the community, and this is a commercial corridor in Queensbury. There’s really very
little commercial land that’s left in the Town, and Quaker Road and Route 9 are the main commercial
corridors, and this is where commercial businesses want to be. The alternative would be to encroach
into residential areas.
MR. PALING-Or to go to a different location entirely.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. PALING-That’s my question. That’s my doubts that I have, but this is just preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I’d like to hear what the public has to say first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one question as to how close you encroached upon the boundary,
see where you just have a little bit of green, where the parking lot comes down so far? I guess that’s
the accounting place. See how close you are there? Do you have to be that close, or do you need a
specific number of parking spots for this building?
MR. PALUMBO-We have on here what is required by both the tenant and the Town codes. It’s 325
spaces. What we basically rationalize with us is that we would have that buffer there. Since this is a
business, we’d prefer to say, well, if you have a parking lot here, and we have a parking lot here, the
impact is on each of us. I’d rather have those parking spaces there than trying to cram them in, you
know, somewhere else that may cause us to move this space down at all and encroach on any further
wetland, or even encroach further back here. We’ve tried to maintain a larger green area than this, in
this proximity, because we think that that’s where more people are going to see it. We didn’t think
that, we thought that the actual views from the road and the whole purpose of having a 75 foot
buffer here meant that if we had to give somewhere, that would be the ideal place to do it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do they have their parking lot on the side of the building there?
MR. PALUMBO-This is showing, from the survey, asphalt paving right in there. I believe that
building sits right about here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I didn’t realize it was that far over. It’s a nice site plan, but it’s scary,
you know, it really is, and like you say, there’s not much commercial land left on Quaker Road. I
don’t even know if that’s on Quaker Road. To me, it’s not on Quaker Road, but.
MR. PALLUMBO-Well, that can be seen as a positive.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know.
MR. PALUMBO-That is that the retailer wants to be faced toward Quaker Road, but there is a good
significant buffer here. This is set back further. We see that, among the other things that we’ve
already talked about, as being the best way to do the commercial on this property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know the layout is nice, but it’s just so much impermeable material there,
and it’s just such a nice piece of land. Why couldn’t you have found an ugly piece of land? And
another thing I’m concerned about. You know how you have the detention basin there, or whatever
you call it, and then you said it just flows into Halfway Brook and empties out, but what about when
you put salt and all that on it?
MR. PALUMBO-This is something we’ll be able to show with our stormwater management report.
We’ll be required to show not only the flow and quantity that has to be taken, but also the water
quality treatment, especially with Halfway Brook.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’ll do that right there?
MR. PALUMBO-Well, what will happen is, first of all, this detention basin will take care of what
they’ve referred to as the first flush. That’s water that comes off quickly. It takes care of any of the
sediments and things that might be in that parking lot. That’s why they have it. They basically have
you set that down at least a foot lower, so that that just sort of basically settles in. It doesn’t go, that
doesn’t go anywhere.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Those are dissolved particles. I mean, salt’s dissolved. It’s not as if they’re
not dissolved. I mean, there are things that are particulate.
MR. PALUMBO-I can only go as far as, I can’t say that we can take care of everything. I honestly
can’t, but what I would say is that the standards that we’ll be doing that to are the State DEC
standards for water quality treatment. We may even have to incorporate some of those treatments in
the catch basins themselves. We will have a standard of quality that we will have to reach. The
detention basin, before it goes into that wetland, basically, that’s a catchall. That’s going to catch it
all, and hold it, so that, one, the flow rate isn’t any greater.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. PALUMBO-The second thing is that one of the functions of a wetland is for water quality
treatment, in the most natural (lost word). So I see this as a real great advantage, that we’ll be able to
take, every detention basin eventually releases that water. Okay. A retention basin is one that
catches it and it eventually all percs into the ground. You can’t do that on a commercial site like this,
because you may have the rainstorm the next day, or a few hours later. This will fill up. It will be
designed for 10, 25 year storms, all the requirements that the Town has and the DEC has. So you
can’t really plan for this size of a flow with a strictly retention basin. So we’re detaining, we’re
keeping it from going off the site too quickly, but the next best thing that we could actually have is
that it would go into that natural basin that is already there, and function in the same way that is
currently. There is stormwater that comes from up in Homer and in the back of these lots, that
comes down this way, goes through this wetland, and basically settles here, until it reaches the
elevation of that 36 inch pipe. Then will start to go out. That natural basin there is going one of
those functions, taking care of the water quality.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but in all fairness, the amount of contaminants that are there now, in a
natural setting, of that parcel with the residential houses that are in there, versus what this is
proposed, it’s like 100 times more.
MR. PALUMBO-Agreed. That’s why, that’s what’s referred to as the first flush. I can’t say that I
can take care of everything. I wouldn’t make that statement, because it would just be too easy for
people to say, some of the oils that come to the top, they have to go out. What we will do is design it
to the best of technology available, which, and the State requirements for that are not simple. We
will have to design this to ensure the best quality that we can get. We will not be allowed to
discharge into Halfway Brook without doing what the State would require us to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got a couple. Can you just spot for me on that site plan where the
Applebees/Lowe’s curb cut is on the other side, just roughly spot it.
MR. PALUMBO-What we have is, we see, right down here it says existing bridge. This was the
bridge before the Lowe’s plan was done. I believe that their proposed plan went pretty close to
where that existing bridge was. So that driveway comes out right about here. I believe the
Applebees would be sitting right there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the scale on that is what? What scale are you working to?
MR. PALUBMO-We’ve got a one inch equals 40 scale, on this map.
MR. VOLLARO-Forty, okay. So what are we talking about in curb cut distances from the Applebee
to the other side?
MR. PALUMBO-From here to here?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, roughly.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALUMBO-I’m going to say roughly, we’re about 180 to 200 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, now the other thing, you mentioned before about taking a look at the
traffic count at the Hannaford exit. You’ve got two exits to deal with there. You’ve got the
Hannaford, and you’ve got the CVS right next to it. So there’s two you have to deal with on Bay
Road there. The one coming out of the CVS exits onto Bay, and the Hannaford is separate from
that. They haven’t made the connection yet between those two. So you’ve got separate entrances
you’ve got to look at.
MR. PALUMBO-In most cases, the CVS generation would not be significant enough to count,
compared to the Hannaford. The Hannaford is going to be the more pressing issue here.
MR. VOLLARO-Agreed, but I don’t think you can just plain discount, in the interest of, you know,
accuracy, I don’t think you can discount an exit in terms of (lost words).
MR. PALUMBO-No. I don’t think we can say that, we can’t review how that will function. I just
don’t know whether or not those counts would add anything to the analysis. What’s really going to
be, is can we improve the flow through here that would make it actually make it better or worse. If
we were to degrade this system, you could probably make the rational connection that we would be
degrading the ability of cars to get out of CVS.
MR. VOLLARO-See, if that intersection wasn’t so critical.
MR. PALUMBO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I would say you’re probably right. Maybe you’re talking about a 90/10 relationship
between the one that Hannaford has and the other one, considering the 100% of the cars, but we’ve
got to be careful that, we’ve got to look at the level of efficiency of that intersection, and just a few
cars can turn it from a D to an E, for example. That’s going to be very critical at that intersection,
between Lowe’s and what you’re putting up there. That’s really going to impact that intersection.
That’s very impacted right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have to look at the cumulative impacts of everything that’s dumping out
there, and you also have a Convenient Medical Center that hasn’t opened up its doors yet for
business, that’s going to be a high traffic thing.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, right. I have just another question. You talked about, I assume the
back of the building, the one facing that roughly 150 foot buffer back there, is that where the loading
docks are going to be?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes, these two extensions of the building are the loading areas.
MR. VOLLARO-So, if that’s the case, then that means that those loading docks are about 250 feet
from the front of the residences on the other side, the ones that will remain. I’m just concerned
about the noise, knowing that that big box operation will take a lot of cyclic input of trucks and so
on, loading material on and off. I just want to get a feel for the efficiency of that buffer. That’s
about 150 foot, and you said you were going to berm that?
MR. PALUMBO-Well, actually, right in here is 50 feet from the right of way of Homer to the edge
of the pavement. It’s a required 50 feet, okay. So I don’t want any misconception of that. We’re
going with 50 feet. We will start on 3 on 1 slope up, as quickly as possible, reach an area where we
could have a 10 foot wide plateau, basically, at the top of that berm, and then back down at three on
one. With that slope, that gives us the ability to get that approximately seven feet high. So if you
were standing on Homer, you should be looking into that berm. On top of that berm, that’s a (lost
word). On top of that berm would be a fence. Also on top of that berm would be as many, all the
trees that we are showing at this point, and anything that you would review during the site plan
approval to say you think that’s the right trees or the wrong trees, or whichever we’re going with
there, but we would provide that, and show a detailed plan of that berm, but that’s why we, to get
that seven foot height, we have to go up at the maximum slope. We will have to then pick up that
drainage down along Homer, which is going this way, alongside the road, you know, we’re not going
to start right at the road and go up to that berm. We start at the right of way. We will allow the area,
and have the room to bring that drainage down, as it currently does.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just looking at a drawing that I have here, which is S-1, and I’m getting
the depth of those lots you’re going to buy at 150 feet?
MR. PALUMBO-It’s 143, I think.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s right, nominally 150 I get on that.
MR. PALUMBO-Right. That goes to this point right here. There’s a line right through there. That’s
the 150 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I got that. Now we talked about stormwater management. One of the
things that I’ve noticed over time, I’ve got that in my own neighborhood, and I have to stay after the
Town to keep drainage pits clean and all of that. What does the DEC or the Town have? Do we
have maintenance spec on stormwater, in other words, does somebody regularly come through once
a year and make sure they’re clean, or is that something you would do on your side? You can design
for it. There’s one thing to do the design, but designs are only as good as the way they’re maintained,
over time.
MR. PALUMBO-Right. You can design a sump, in the bottom of that basin, so that the pipes aren’t
right at the bottom of the basin. You have, you know, foot sump down there, and that’s supposed to
collect some of that sediment. If you don’t get in there and clean that out, you’re going to start to
block up that.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the responsibility of this company to do that on their property?
MR. PALUMBO-Of the owner.
MR. VOLLARO-The applicant would do that.
MR. PALUMBO-Right. If there was sediment problems that were occurring down here at the
culvert, anything within the Quaker Road right of way would be the responsibility of the County.
Anything that was occurring in the Bay Road or the Homer would be the responsibility of the Town.
Again, our quality standards that we need to undertake with the stormwater management should
address sedimentation as, you know, sedimentation of sand and stuff, that’s an issue, too. We were
talking about some chemicals and things, but sand comes off of those cars and gets washed down in
that, and that fills up the basin, and we have to take care of that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have, taking up on something that Mr. Paling had to say. I see
Number Nine in here. These are the nine things that Staff has written out, and one is very
interesting. It says, “How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal?”
And I think that’s something that Mr. Paling was touching on, and also concerns me, as well as it
does him, as to whether or not the interests of the community are really being served, to some
extent. Other than the marketing and the economics of Grand Union, are the interests of the wider
community being served by having that store that close to Hannaford, with all the problems that it
can generate, traffic wise and so on, particularly with the amount of pressure that’s already on the
Bay Road/Quaker intersection there.
MR. PALUMBO-The one thing I can address with that is that the majority of this site is zoned for
the Highway Commercial, which would allow this type of use.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. PALUMBO-So, you know, if you had the same issue of anywhere in the past, whether it was a
Burger King across the street from the McDonalds. I can’t say that everyone in the Town is going to
feel that this is the most appropriate thing that should be going in here. What I can say, though, is
that it’s within the guidelines of the zoning that were set forth. I don’t want to bring up that issue
that you had earlier tonight, but, you know, you mentioned the dog kennel was an allowed use in that
zone. This is allowed in this zone, that’s why we’re going, and we think that the zoning request
actually is in the interest of betterment.
MR. MAC EWAN-But I think you have to be fair here. I mean, yes, it’s an allowed use in the zone,
but you’re trying to take part of another zone as part of this site plan that you’re proposing to do.
MR. PALUMBO-Only because we don’t want to do the other plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, there’s other ways around it, too.
MR. PALUMBO-Well, I think that the honest approach, I mean, Jon referred to the amount of
money that’s being spent on these lots. The developer is spending that money because we think we
can do this site better, from an environmental standpoint, the wetlands and stormwater management,
and we also feel that the 143 foot deep light industrial zone is not going to have a great benefit to the
Town. If I may go back to the other plan for a moment, I said that we could show something
representative here with a building. That’s not, in my thoughts going to be what’s going to happen.
If we were to do this commercial plan, and go through site plan, without the rezoning, these
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
neighbors here are going to own those lots. They’re going to stay there. We can do what we can to
mitigate the impact on them, but we would try to get this site plan approved if we were turned down
in the zoning. That’s not going to happen. Nobody’s going to come in and spend the money on
these lots. I shouldn’t say nobody, but I sincerely doubt that somebody’s going to come in, because
143 foot deep light industrial property is not going to have a lot of call for, and so those are going to
remain residential, and that would have the commercial. I know we have to get this approved, all
right, but that’s an as of right zoning right there. Okay. It would have impacts that we’d have to
mitigate, but what we’re saying is that’s not doing any good to anybody. We think this plan is really
working better. It’s the same size building at the same amount of parking. It’s on more land, and it’s
using land better suited.
MR. MAC EWAN-For who?
MR. PALUMBO-For both, I think for the Town and the developer. We’re leaving this area up here.
We’re limiting the impact on the wetlands. I think that would be generally considered a beneficial
thing. When we had that plan and the other plan there, we’re impacting this to a great deal. Yes, it
would have an impact on us that we would have to mitigate, but it doesn’t do the residents there any
good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the two plans that you’re showing here, that you’re jumping back and forth,
I mean, there’s no guarantees that either plans would fly as you’re presenting them tonight.
MR. PALUMBO-No, there’s no guarantee. We would have the right to apply for the site plan,
which is what we’re planning on doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. On your parking, you made the comment that it’s the Town’s
requirements plus it’s also what store design requirements are, or something to paraphrase like that.
Is there any way that you could decrease the amount of parking that you’ve got? It seems to be a
(lost word) with our Planning Board in recent months that the amount of impervious space that
seems to be accompanying these big box retail stores. We live to see a direction heading toward
cutting down on the over abundance of parking that all these big box retailers say that they need to
have, and, you know, they never fill them up.
MR. PALUMBO-I’d have to take that under first advisement with the Town, what they’d go for.
The second issue that I would have to ask you is, if we were to come back with something that was
below the Town standard, is there an option of doing that without actually having to receive a
variance?
MR. LAPPER-We can do that.
MR. PALUMBO-So I think the first part there, we will go back. We’ll take that under advisement,
and go back to the potential tenant and see if there’s something we can do.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much wetlands are on that parcel now?
MR. PALUMBO-There is 1.1 acres on site.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much will be on there when you’re done developing it?
MR. PALUMBO-Well, we’re impacting .42. So, about seven tenths.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re proposing to mitigate that as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he basically did go through that. You say there’s a little over an acre of
wetlands on there, and you’re not going to impact less than half of it?
MR. PALUMBO-Correct, we’re impacting .42, .3 would be the threshold for the core, that we
actually have to go through. Since we are over that, we would have to go through the Nationwide
permit allowing us to do this, but it’s the 1.18 minus the .42, and so .76.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is what you’re left with undisturbed.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes, which is basically here and here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Store size, why 65,000 square feet? Why can’t it be 40,000 square feet?
STEVE POWERS
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. POWERS-I’m Steve Powers with Nigro Companies. We’re in the development business, and
we’re pretty much driven by what the tenant desires, as far as a location, and their prototypical
building. Like a Wal-Mart store of a certain size, Grand Union now has it’s new prototype which is a
65,000 square foot store. That’s what they believe they need to do in order to compete in this market
place.
MR. VOLLARO-About the same, almost a one to one equation, I think, between Hannaford and
this building.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the proposed architectural style of the store?
MR. PALUMBO-Well, it’s a prototypical plan, this new concept that Grand Union has come out
with. I believe that we’ve shared that with the Board before, (lost words) and have comments from
the Board as far as what the building, architecturally, is going to look like. Again, that’s driven by the
tenant and what their prototypical plans are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what are they? I mean, it’s important to us. If you’re asking this Board to
make a recommendation, I think that we need to be sensitive to what kind of store, and what the
architecture’s going to look like, so that it blends in with the community.
MR. LAPPER-That’s something that will probably change as the process moves forward. Because
that’s what the Town Board indicated was that they’re going to want to have input on the
architecture of the store. So we showed, last time, that to the members of the public.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Town Board fit into that equation?
MR. LAPPER-They have to do the rezoning, and as a condition of the rezoning, they’ve talked to us,
Chris has talked to us about having some input on the design of the building, but we’re also here to
listen to your comments and the public’s comments as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-How high is the proposed building?
MR. LAPPER-Well, when we came with the first plan, it was 46 feet, and now it’s 40 feet, at the
highest. We already went back to the tenant and asked them to take a look at it and they’ve come
back and agreed that we’re going to be making a smaller building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Forty feet with a seven foot high berm, with trees and a fence is, what, a six foot
high fence in the back of it?
MR. PALUMBO-The front façade is 50 feet. The rear, I believe with the modifications that we’re
requesting, is 24 feet in the rear of the building. The façade is, like on most of the big box retailers,
that’s the front façade is the highest point. It steps back as you get back, and at the 24 foot height is
the actual height that’s required for the large ceilings inside the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the back of the store would be 24 feet high to the roof?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re still talking a seven foot height berm with a six foot high fence, and
trees that’ll grow probably to, what, 20 foot to maturity, 25 foot maturity?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes. I think that that’s probably practical.
MR. MAC EWAN-To beat Mr. Paling to the punch, is the HVAC equipment going to be located on
the roof?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes, it would.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of screening is going to be, so that it’s not a visual impact?
MR. PALUMBO-We can give some consideration for that.
MR. PALING-Put up a façade or a fence or whatever up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess at this point, if nobody else on the Board has got questions, or Staff, I’ll
ask you folks to give up the table, and we’ll open it up for some public comment. Does anyone want
to come up and address this application? You’re welcome to do so. I’d just ask you to please
address any questions you may have to the Board, and identify yourself for the record.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BETTY POTTER
MRS. POTTER-My name is Betty Potter and my father and my brothers and sisters and I own a
house on Homer Avenue. I have a list of problems here from the residents that live on the opposite
side of Homer Avenue that is residential, whether it is zoned light industrial or not. They are
legitimate concerns. The people who want to build this store, want to do it strictly for monetary
value, but people that live there will be staying there. They have legitimate concerns. When these
gentlemen talk about building a berm and it being (lost word), if they build the back of that building
24 foot tall, it’s going to go over that (lost words) with the lighting. It’s going to impact on the
lifestyles of every person that lives on that street. The house that I built, if that house was in another
zone, would be a $150,000 house. This company proposes to put their ditch on the opposite side of
the road to collect water. When I built that house, I dug a pond in the back yard. The water is one
foot below the ground level. It does not dissipate. It stays there. If they put a ditch to hold the
water, it’ll stay there, and it will be putrid. The houses that are there on that side, most of them don’t
have cellars. The ones that do have sump pumps. Mrs. Paradise’s house is on the opposite side of
that Brook. The last heavy rainstorm we’ve had, the water was up to her back door. The water was
up to the edge of my father’s property. If you put that store in there, and that parking lot, you are
capping that area. That water’s got to go somewhere. It’s going to go into that Brook. It will not go
through a 36 inch culvert. It’s going to be in all our properties. Under that property is an aquifer.
It’s been there for years. That area is not zoned wetland. It’s a Type B trout stream. At this point in
time, the Department of Environmental Conservation is getting ready to do a study on it to find out
why it’s not zoned wetland, and what the impact on that stream is to the culvert. None of that is
being taken in to consideration. When this company says that they paid thousands of dollars for the
houses on the other side of the street, that’s fine. They bought those houses at twice their value
because they want to put in what they want to put in. The people that live on the other side of the
street want to know, if they put this in, is the Town of Queensbury going to cut our taxes, because
now you are claiming it’s commercial, not light industrial. Okay. That house that I built is valued at
$80,000. Are you going to cut it down? Because if this store goes in, I’ll never get $80,000 out of it.
The other people that live there, these lights are going to shine in our windows. The tractor traffic
and unloading on these docks, we’re going to hear that day and night. The other people complained
about dogs, tractor trailers are going to be there all night long. That’s when they deliver. You’re
going to have food in that store. That means you’re going to have scraps and everything out back.
You’re going to have to be concerned about rats. That street, Homer Avenue, and that bridge, are
not conducive to tractor trailers. When they say they won’t come that way, they come that way now.
One tractor trailer knocked down a wire, and Mrs. Paradise happened to be there and she got hit. If
that was a child from the day care center on the opposite side of the road, the child wouldn’t be here.
When you say that you don’t want left turns when you go out, that means that you can make a right
turn. The majority of people, if there’s no street light there, will make a right turn, a right turn on
Everts, a right turn on Homer, and go back to Bay, but they will not wait for the traffic. Right?
Right. Now it’s fine to put it there when we’ve got nine million other supermarkets, and it’s fine that
you want to sell this property, and the people will make money on the opposite side of the road, but
there’s two sides here. My father lived there for 35 years, and you can change the zoning all you
want. It’s still residential. People live there. They have families. They have children. If you make
that what you want to make it, I wouldn’t let my five year old granddaughter walk on that street. I
mean, the list I’ve got here, the people want to know about the late night deliver, snow plowing in
the middle of the winter time that’s going to be out there. The noise, the lights, flooding, which is a
major concern, truck traffic, the increase in crimes you’re going to have Grand Union there with
money on (lost words). The bridge. The buffer that they’re proposing will not keep the lights out.
What it will do is force the water off of Homer Avenue down to that Brook, and down to that place
where they want to hold the water. The property where my father’s house is, which is right across
the street, okay, was a dump when my father bought it. There is nothing but garbage underneath
that ground, which causes decay, which goes underneath that land, okay. If you want to come look
at the pond in my father’s back yard, you can come and look at it, because I had the Department of
Environmental Conservation come down and check it, okay. His advice to me was to fill it in,
because the water will never go any lower, and you don’t need another outlet on this pond. That’s
the water table. It’s one foot below the ground. They want to know, when you changed that side of
the road, should you change that side to commercial, will you change the other side, or will one side
by light industrial and one side be commercial? They feel that if it goes through, the taxes should be
cut in half, or, if this company really wants to put it in, let’s buy all the houses on the street, so they
don’t have to worry about it. They want to know who’s going to compensate for the loss of values
of their houses, for the loss of their lifestyle, which we all know, whether we want to talk about it or
not, is going to make an impact on those houses that are left. They want to know, apparently, if the
assessments on the properties that they’re buying were lowered. That’s on here. They want to know
why. I think I have covered just about everything that is on her. On top of the berm that’s they’re
proposing building, if they say they’re going to put trees there to block the light, we all know in order
for a tree to grow tall enough to block a light that’s 24 foot tall, I’m going to be dead, and somebody
else is going to own that property. That will not block it out. I guess that’s it.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
JOYCE THOMPSON
MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson. I don’t live on Homer, but I just live a few
streets down, on Garrison, and it’s a very nice residential street, and probably my biggest concern is
the traffic. We have to exit out on Bay Road, to go north or south, and it’s really a struggle to get out
these days. In fact, I can envision, probably, a traffic light at Garrison and a traffic light at Fort
Amherst, and a traffic light at Webster, because you have a lot of traffic coming down from ACC.
You have traffic coming from Lowe’s, from Hannaford, and everybody in Town, and I’m sure
everybody would admit to this, they use Garrison and Fort Amherst as cut throughs, from Glen to
Bay. Nobody wants to deal with Aviation Road traffic. So I’ve lived on this street since 1971. So
you can imagine the increase in traffic that I’ve seen, and we have a lot of young children living on
the street, and it’s really a concern, and also this is a nice street, nice homes, and I always thought
we’d get the value out of our homes, but I’m not so sure now, because I see the neighborhood
changing with the traffic concerns. One thing I was wondering about, with the Grand Union, we
had a very nice Grand Union on Glen Street. In fact, they had the best meat in Town, and suddenly
they closed, and now there’s one in South Glens Falls that the butcher’s went over there. So you can
go over there and get some awfully good meat, but I also read, recently, that Grand Union was in
Chapter 11, or was possibly going bankrupt, and I’ve wondered a little bit about that, and then I’ve
kind of wondered what kind of a store this one is going to be? Is it a warehouse store, or is it a
regular supermarket with produce with stuff like Hannaford and Price Chopper, or is it a store for
restaurants maybe to shop in, or perhaps, you know, you hear lots of rumors. You don’t know
what’s true, but I heard that maybe this was a warehouse distribution center, so that trucks would be
coming in and getting stuff for Grand Union and taking them around to different areas in the east. I
mean, I have no idea if that’s fact or fantasy, but we went through the Cracker Barrel thing for
several years, and then finally it was resolved, and then two weeks later you learn that they’re
bankrupt, and I was just curious about Grand Union’s financial situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that question answered for you.
MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. I guess I just wonder about, you know, the market study. Do we really
need this? You sort of have the feeling sometimes that stores are coming in just to put other stores
out of business, and so many of our nice local stores are really struggling with all these big boxes, and
I can still remember going into Doyle’s, after Hannaford was built, and I said, gee, where are all those
trees that were supposed to be left, and she said, well, they cut them down by mistake, and, you
know, this just seems to be an issue. Everything looks great on the pictures and everything is green
and attractive, but then when it comes actually down to it, like have you ever noticed the trees that
are planted in front of Lowe’s? I mean, they’re three feet tall and half of them are dead, but anyway,
thank you for listening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JACK LEBOWITZ
MR. LEBOWITZ-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, I’m Jack Lebowitz. I live at 39 Garrison Road, and
I’m a neighbor of Mrs. Thompson’s. I share her concerns about the traffic generation issues here,
and I realize that when an applicant comes before the Planning Board for a zoning change, because
of the peculiarities of the Queensbury Ordinance, a very early stage in the review process before a
SEQRA is done, before environmental studies are done, and the Planning Board is often called upon
to give a recommendation to the Town Board for the principal action of the zoning which is
sometimes taken by the Town Board is more significant or more important than that
recommendation actually is, based on the quantitative information before the Board. I, too, have
noticed in the past year, particularly since Lowe’s opened on the northeast quadrant of the
Quaker/Bay intersection, that that whole Quaker/Bay corridor and that intersection has seemed to
grow a lot more congested, and I don’t have any hard evidence, but just by anecdotal evidence, I’m
seeing a lot more traffic that’s being induced on residential streets, that go between Bay and Glen,
such as Garrison, Fort Amherst, Webster. I know that Mr. Vollaro and I attended a workshop in this
very room a week ago, about encouraging and preserving pedestrian and bicycling, non motorized
circulation in residential neighborhoods, and one of the points that was made there was that the
more these neighborhoods get congested by traffic, there’s kind of a downward spiral that makes
them less attractive for walking and cycling and just being outside in the neighborhood and that, in
turn, uses more cars, and what they were arguing for in the seminar, among other things was, to try
to keep streets, keep traffic on streets, according to the functional characters of the street. So the
traffic on an arterial like Glen Street or Quaker Road behave like traffic on an arterial, traffic on a
residential street behave like traffic on a residential street. So my concern, and maybe it’s premature
at this point, maybe we’ll be back here on site plan review, really is the induced traffic that building
up now the third corner of this Quaker/Bay intersection is going to cause, and I think that we’re
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
going to see a lot more traffic using our residential streets to get to this as a destination and so my
point tonight would be to ask this Board to make sure that it outlines traffic studies for the applicant
to be doing, that could lead to some mitigation, that Garrison Road be studied for, it’s an effected
intersection. Because it is the next major effected intersection to the south of this project, once you,
you know, between Bay Street, that there we are. I think that some of these things may be able to be
addressed by some site plan type issues. I note that the Staff, in terms of the zoning change, seemed
to be comfortable with it. I heard some things tonight, particularly from Mr. Palumbo, that I think
seem like it’s making it at least a better project so far than what was first proposed, and I’m referring
primarily to the fact that this, the big box faces Quaker Road instead of faces Bay Road. I think that
if it did face Bay Road and the principal entrance were from Bay Road, we’d be seeing a lot more
traffic and commercial development start to creep down Bay Road. So, that’s my two cents, and I
hope that the Board will insist on good traffic studies being done for this project that can lead to
some mitigation, if the Town Board approves the zoning change and the project goes forward.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JIM TOWNE
MR. TOWNE-My name is Jim Towne. I live at 48 Garrison, and my concern is the same as what
Joyce Thompson and Jack were just talking about, but also, I’d be almost willing to bet, with the
overpopulation of stores of this kind coming into this community, in the area that they want to put
them, that in five or ten years, you’ll see one of the four that will be there, empty.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MIKE INGALLSTON
MR. INGALLSTON-My name’s Mike Ingallston. I live on the corner of Homer and Bay, 302 Bay
Road. I live in a two story house. I don’t believe this berm and this buffer is going to do anything to
benefit my residential area. I don’t want to be looking at the back of his store. There’s a lot of area
on Quaker Road that is for sale, up by Garvey’s. They want to be a couple of feet away from
Hannaford because of the competition, they want to eliminate this residential area, instead of some
other residential area. They brought it up in their discussion tonight about they didn’t want to
eliminate a residential area. They’re eliminating half of a residential area now with this plan. They’re
destroying that neighborhood, because right now it is a nice neighborhood. So I don’t think their
berm and their fence is going to benefit to the back of my property one bit. I want to know how
wide that buffer is on both sides of my property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty foot I believe the number is, but we’ll get it reconfirmed.
MR. PALING-Yes. That’s the right.
MR. INGALLSTON-They want to do a 50 foot berm, right buffer with a three or four foot high dirt
level, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Seven foot, is what they’re proposing.
MR. INGALLSTON-Seven foot dirt, and then seven foot fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Something along those lines.
MR. INGALLSTON-So I live in a two story house, and I’m still going to be looking inside of this
parking lot. Now, right now you’re telling me they’re going to put grass for 50 feet through my fence
toward King Fuels. They’ve already mentioned tonight that that area’s paved. That is probably
going to be one of their areas that’s an entrance or an outlet onto Bay Road. TPI is right next to me.
When they put two additions on to that piece of property, they continued to make that piece of
property look like a home.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you on the northwest corner of Homer, is that where you are? You’re at
Homer and Bay, on the corner?
MR. INGALLSTON-I’m right on the corner of Homer and Bay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. INGALLSTON-So I’m going to abut to that property by two sides. Right now it’s pavement,
which they’re saying they’re going to have an entrance on Bay Road, but you’re telling me that that
green is a 50 foot buffer, on both sides of my property.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Well, if I’m looking at where your house is located, if you look in that
green area, which would be north of your house, that first green area, if you look at the one right
next to it, you can see the silhouette of the former TPI building there. To give you an approximate
location of where your residence is located, you’re going to be buffered on both sides of them, on
the back side of your parcel by a 50 foot buffer, which would be looking back toward the loading
dock area of the store, and to the north of your parcel would be that entire green space that would be
abutting their parking areas.
MR. INGALLSTON-Right now in the upstairs of my house, I look out my back windows, I see
trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-You won’t anymore.
MR. INGALLSTON-That’s right. I’m going to see black top and cement blocks. As far as I’m
concerned, I hope that you turn this down. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No one? Okay. Gentlemen, do you want to come
back up to the table, please? A couple of questions. The Grand Union’s financial status.
MR. POWERS-Well, when you’re looking to invest in an eight or nine million dollar project,
obviously, our main concern is the viability of the Grand Union company. We’ve done that
investigation, probably about 10 years ago, probably 15 years ago when Sir James Doltzman
originally had purchased the Grand Union company. At that time, it was junk bond era, and he
leveraged the company to two or three times, to approximately a million and a half dollars in debt.
Only in American can you get that completely wiped out (lost words). The company now is very
viable. It has no debt. It runs off its cash flow. Again, we’ve investigated that, and the company is
very viable.
MR. MAC EWAN-The DEC trout stream versus the wetland, and a proposed study that one of the
proposed residents says the DEC is about to undertake.
MR. PALUMBO-We have no knowledge of that study. It’s certainly something we can follow up
on. We investigated the stream ratings in the area, and did not have anything for that tributary. We
will confer at greater length with DEC about that. If it is a rated trout stream, as stated, we will be
under an even higher standard for our stormwater quality before anything were to be discharged into
that stream.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff aware of anything going on with DEC?
MR. ROUND-I’m not aware of, there is the Halfway Brook Watershed Plan that was just recently
issued, within the last two weeks, and I don’t know if that’s maybe what’s being referred to, is it’s a,
Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District did a watershed wide study, and looked at
stormwater issues and how to mitigate stormwater in the area.
MR. LAPPER-If I could just make a quick comment on that. When we did the Lowe’s a couple of
years ago, one of the benefits of that project was hailed by the Town Environmental Committee was
cleaning up the existing condition of the runoff of the site into Halfway Brook. What was done there
was on a much larger scale, similar to what’s been designed by Sear Brown here, where there would
be this detention area. The wetland would act as a natural filter, and it would control the flow and
quality of the water that runs back into Halfway Brook, and that’s what’s proposed here. By leaving
that wetland area, which this design allows, it acts as both a buffer behind the Denny’s, as Frank said,
in terms of trees. It also acts as all the benefits of a natural wetland, filtering, and it just separates the
area from Quaker Road, visually, so that you don’t see a building on top of a building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? No? I’ll revert back to the Board. We’ll start with you,
Bob. Any additional questions you wanted to ask?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s a couple, I think. I’d like to address that water table that the woman
talked to. Have you looked at that water table back there, on the other side of that proposed berm?
MR. PALUMBO-On the other side of the berm, I can’t say that we have. What we have had done is
a geo technical engineer investigated the site for Nigro Companies, and did some preliminary soil
borings, and some test pits, to establish where the water table was. Now, in the area, that was done
in accordance with where the building was going to be, where the parking areas were going to be, for
the sole purpose of that we need to know what we have to do to construct on top of that. So, they
did not go that far back.
MR. VOLLARO-What did you find?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALUMBO-What we found was that we’re down, in most of the areas, down around, I believe
it would range from six to eight feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, for example, taking a look at where the loading docks are now, for example,
were any test pits drawn to the rear of the proposed building?
MR. PALUMBO-I will have to confirm that. I believe it was, because that was one of the areas that,
based on when we set up the, send the geo tech out, we want him to confirm the areas of the
building, so that we know what type of foundation would have to go there, and so we give him a
layout at that point in time to identify the areas. That area there will be a critical area. It will be
important because the loading dock would be lower, obviously, than the floor of the building. I
can’t, right now, say that I have the memory that, to say, one, what those borings registered. I don’t
have that information.
MR. VOLLARO-I sure think that we’d want to know that, and I’d think you’d want to know that,
too, not only for that, but for the amount of surface loading, for big trucks and stuff like that. If
we’re really talking about a water table that’s a foot below, and I don’t know that, if the lady’s correct,
I don’t know that you’d have such a difference in water table within maybe 100 feet.
MR. PALUMBO-Well, I wouldn’t deny anything that she had said. I can vary. What we have here
is, if you can see the shaded, the gray shaded area in the center of that parking field, existing wetland
there, you’re going to have some water, but it climbs up quickly from there. The water table at
certain points in different proximity’s of the site, could be much closer to grade, because it would be
at a set elevation. What we would have to do is not only work from the high ground, but possibly
even go up from there, and that would entail some fill. We want to keep the building elevation as
low as possible, for some obvious reasons. We don’t want to impact, by bringing that building up,
it’s only going to become more visible. That is not what we want to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Essentially, you’re saying you don’t want to put any fill in there to raise the building
level up. I can understand that.
MR. PALUMBO-We have a preliminary grading plan that was based on some of the information
from that soil report. We believe that we can get the drainage out of that loading dock area, and that
the construction can be done without that water table becoming a factor that could only lead to some
problems.
MR. VOLLARO-I still think you’ve really got to look at that to make sure there’s no off site impacts
that would effect the remaining neighborhood in the back. I mean, I think you’ve got to take a good
hard look at that, because if water does lay stagnant, it gets stagnant and it begins to have an odor.
MR. PALUMBO-One of the things that I did want to clarify is that, when I said that we’d have a
ditch on that side of the road, it’s basically going to be at the existing elevation that is there now.
We’re, from the edge of the road, where there is some drainage that occurs down there, we will go,
we’ll move into the site, right to the right-of-way line. So that’s where the existing drainage occurs.
We’re going to maintain that, so we don’t have to dig down, in order to get that drainage to occur.
It’s basically going that way now. We’re going to work with that. Then at the point where we collect
in a detention basin, that’s where it’s collected before it goes into that stream that was discussed, as
to whether or not that would be a trout rated stream.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The other thing I have, and I just made a note here, that it was mentioned
from that table, by somebody there, that a zone change, and I guess it was Mr. Lebowitz that made
the statement, that a zone change is made without the benefit of empirical data, and sometimes I’ve
often wondered about that myself. How do we here, at a Board, sit and recommend a zone change
without knowing enough about the empirical data that’s collected? Traffic, for example, is one of the
things that really concerns me on that. We should have traffic studies available to be able to say to
the Town Board, yes, we’ve looked at those studies, and we think that we have acceptable levels of
service at an intersection like Bay and Quaker, for example.
MR. LAPPER-There’s two separate answers for that. In the process in Queensbury, this is at a
preliminary stage where you’re only making a recommendation. The Town Board can’t vote on the
rezoning until they make a SEQRA determination, and they can’t make a SEQRA determination
until they look at all of the impact studies, including the traffic studies, stormwater report and
everything else. You’re just making a recommendation, but in terms of that issue about traffic, the
rezoning, in and of itself, by definition, has to reduce traffic from what the maximum traffic could be
if you had a commercial business and if you had an industrial use or even existing residential uses on
Homer Ave. By taking the land along Homer Ave. and converting that to the buffer area, that
reduces the total impact that you could have, traffic wise. So the rezoning is certainly going to help,
but in terms of the project, the site plan issues and the traffic generated by the site plan, that has to
be reviewed by you, by Warren County DPW, by the Town Board for the SEQRA review.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes, though, the process doesn’t work that well. I mean, you’re asking
this Board to make a recommendation for an approval to a new zone, or deny the recommendation,
solely based on the fact that your presentation tonight, without any hard evidence to back up, for us
to make an informed decision, and that’s the problem I’ve always had with the process. I mean, you
can leave here and you could go to the Town Board and you could say to the Town Board, well, yes,
the Planning Board didn’t have any problem with it. They didn’t see any major impacts. That’s why
they recommended this zone change, and we’ll deal with those issues at site plan. Well, if you were
to come back at site plan and we started having some real reservations about maybe traffic impacts
or stormwater impacts or the impacts on the aesthetics of neighboring properties, then you would
say to us, well, gee, you guys, you know, you didn’t identify any problems when we were doing our
rezoning request. Well, we see it’s come back to the burden on this Board to do its job, and in my
mind, where we’re going here is I’m hearing things that are raising great concerns with me, about the
intensity that this project is going to have on that parcel. There’s an old adage that we’ve been
talking about in recent months, is that, you know, not every parcel of land is able to be fully
developed, and I’m wondering if this project isn’t too much development for the parcel, that you
shouldn’t scale this thing back.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of this project, what we have now, half of the parcel that’s there is in
residential use. There’s a widow who owns the property that’s immediately next to Hughes
Insurance Company. She’s got an antiquated residential use. She’s sitting in the middle of a
commercial zone now, looking out at Bay Road. What we’re allowing, by doing something that’s
allowed in the Highway Commercial zone, on the eight out of the 9.7 acre site, is to allow her to
move to a residential area. It’s the same thing with the residents on Homer Ave. I mean, in terms of
just acknowledging that this area has become commercial, as it is in the Master Plan, and giving these
people a way out.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I don’t necessarily share, maybe, that philosophy, but in the like
sense that if you use that philosophy, that doesn’t mean you’ve got to come in and build a 65,000
square foot store. Maybe that parcel’s more appropriate for a 20,000 square foot store.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at what the Town area requirements are, we’re certainly not maxing this
out. Frank said we’re going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-It becomes a development issue. It becomes an impact in the community. I
mean, you have to weigh what the positive impacts of the development would bring, versus the
negative impacts it’s going to have on not only the infrastructure to the Town, but to the aesthetics
of surrounding properties, and we have to take all this into consideration.
MR. LAPPER-No question, but we feel that as we go through the process, in terms of the aesthetic
issues, one thing, you’re dealing with a known quantity. The Nigro Company is in Town. A few
years ago, we developed, re-developed the Glen Square Plaza, where the Taco Bell and the video
store are located. We took down that old ugly Carvelle building. Their site has underground
sprinklers. It’s very nicely maintained. They’ve re-developed the old supermarket into the Toys R
US. They spend money to do quality projects. They maintain them themselves. They’re nice
looking projects that clean up that Glen Square corridor. They’re not trying to get anything done
quickly or cheaply. They’re trying to do it right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that, and certainly we are appreciative of that and the efforts they’ve
made in the Town. At this point, personally, I’m not swayed on the project. I just think it’s way too
much development for the parcel. If you can come back and supply data regarding the impacts of
the traffic in the corridors, if you can supply some data that supports that it’s not going to have
adverse effects on the wetlands and on the aquifer that’s in the area. I’m hearing things from the
engineer that says that maybe you may have to bring in fill. Well, if you have to bring in fill, like
Lowe’s brought in fill, on the other side of the road, you’re talking six foot, but he didn’t pin himself
down either, and that’s the thing that I’m thinking of. I mean, you’re talking a building that’s 24 foot
high in the back, but even if you bring in a couple of feet of fill, you’ve just moved that building up
another two feet, which is two feet more of an impact on the abutting properties than the back side
on Homer.
MR. PALUMBO-That was my point. We do not want to do that. We don’t want to bring in.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you going to do if you get the site plan and you start doing your site
development and you start digging with a back hoe and say, whoops, we’ve got a problem here?
Then what do you do? You come back to this Board. You ask for a modification. Then the
pressure’s on this Board again to approve a modification for a site plan that was done based on a
certain presentation. Now the information you’ve gotten out of your site development is inaccurate.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALUMBO-What we’ve done to date was done to point because we want to have these
discussions. Okay. What we also did, and I guess I would just ask (lost words) is the difference
between the two plans. Now you reference a 20,000 square foot building. Without the lands up on
Homer, we’re talking about eight acres of property. Yes, you’d like to see something smaller, but I
don’t know whether or not a 20,000 square foot building is going to be economically practical, one,
on an eight acre parcel. I’m just saying, in terms of, if you look at other parcels that have been done
in the Town, you’re probably not going to find too many 20,000 square foot buildings that have been
done on eight acres. Okay. What we’re asking you to review here, from the context of the zoning
change, is that we will have no greater impact by virtue of that rezoning. That’s what we were trying
to show. We don’t want to do the other plan, okay. We don’t want to come back before this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re making it sound like the other plan is a fate accompli, it’s going to be
done.
MR. PALUMBO-No, I’m not trying to suggest that, but it certainly is a viable option. We would
have the right to come back with that, and when we’re asking for the rezoning, we’re asking for the
consideration of say something would occur on that eight acre property, okay, and now I guess I’m
asking you to sort of take a look and say, would you think it’s more likely to be something of this size
or more likely to be something of 20,000 square feet? My opinion would be you’re going to more
likely have something larger than the 20,000 square foot. Somebody’s going to come in with
something that way, and then you’re going to have that large building right adjacent to those
residential lots. Okay. It’s probably going to have equal amount of traffic impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a guarantee either, because if an applicant came in with that kind of a
building, and we’d recognize that although it’s zoned light industrial with a highway commercial zone
abutting it, that there isn’t a buffer required, we recognize also that there’s families that live back
there and we would ask for a buffer. That’s good planning.
MR. PALUMBO-The plan that’s underneath there has a 50 foot buffer between the back of those
lots and the pavement.
MR. MAC EWAN-But I don’t consider that much of a buffer when you’re talking a building that’s
24 foot high, and it’s going to have, and that’s where the main influx of that truck traffic is going to
be.
MR. PALUMBO-But what we’re saying is that that’s what, that plan is per the Ordinance, and I’m
not, honestly, and I want to make this point. I am not saying that to say, you know, that’s the plan
we want to do. We don’t want to do that plan, but what we want to do is be fairly evaluated from
one plan to the other, what could occur on that property. The amount of traffic that would be
generated from that 65,000 square foot building on the eight acres is going to be equal to the amount
of traffic generated by the 65,000 square foot building on this 9.7 acres. It’s actually going to be less,
because you’re not going to have anything else developed or even the residential houses which will
have their traffic going there. If you came in, and I know it’s not (lost words) complete, but if
someone came in to do the improvements to Bay Road and Quaker and improvements that are
scheduled to be made on Quaker Road, from the corridor study that was done, could allow that to
occur, we’re asking you to compare those two, and I realize that we have more information to
provide for you, for site plan, and we really, and we had some discussions with Staff to say, you may
have some serious concerns about, for instance, why continue with the traffic study, when you may
have some serious concerns about the left hand out on Quaker Road, should we go that route or not,
and should we have any access to Quaker Road? Should it be just Bay? All those things that we
wanted to address, as I’ve said, we’ve done a preliminary analysis of that traffic, using the counting
data. We met with the DPW. We’ve run it through a computer model. We know there’s other areas
that we have to count, but basically, that traffic from that plan is going to be no greater than the
traffic from the other plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-The issues I’m seeing right now aren’t necessarily site plan issues. They’re issues
to get beyond this next point from a rezoning standpoint. Until, in my mind, I overcome those
hurdles and rest assured my concerns with it, at this point, I can’t support it. Unless you can supply
me with more information that would sway me the other way.
MR. PALUMBO-Well, one thing that we do have is that we have a number of comments that were
gained. That was one of the things that we hoped to achieve tonight, was to get some of these
comments so that we can address them. The comments about the traffic on Garrison. We can
address that in our traffic study, and we will be doing that. That’s one of the purposes we felt to be
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to move along and give my fellow Board members an opportunity to say
their piece. I’ve taken up enough time here. Cathy?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have anything right this second.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-All the parcels that are on Homer, that you’re looking to put into this, are they all
included here on your contract?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBOTT-We didn’t hear from any of those people tonight, did we? I’m wondering what their,
this might be a rhetorical question, but what their thoughts would be, if they were not in the situation
they were in, and we went to the other plan that you had talked about? What, you know, impact, not
even across the street at Homer, but those homes on Homer, what impact that would be, and
unfortunately they’re not here to answer that question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to hear from them?
MR. ABBOTT-Yes, I would like to hear their take on the whole situation.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think I have to point out that you don’t really have the option to require
neighbors to speak if they don’t wish to. I just want to make sure.
MR. ABBOTT-No, no, no. I’m not forcing anybody to speak here.
KEVIN SMYTHE
MR. SMYTHE-I’m volunteering. I’m Kevin Smythe. I live at 4 Homer Avenue, the third house
down from Bay Road. I just came up here to take in this whole thing. It effected my life, too, and
we’re happy with (lost words) the way it is, and I can see where the people on the other side of the
street, they’re effected and all, but I do have, it just seems all the issues that are brought in front of us
here, the traffic issue, being that that’s a grocery store, traffic in and out of there is in kind of a
trickle. I go through the intersection of Quaker Road every day, and even since Lowe’s has been in
there, and the most that I’ve had to wait there, when I come out on Bay and turn on Quaker Road is
sometimes I have to wait for two lights, and they only give you about four cars to come out. So the
traffic is not really a big issue there right now, and with it being a grocery store, versus a Wal-Mart,
more of another type of business, like a mall or something where the traffic, there would be a lot of
people coming. It’s not going to be like that with a grocery store, and one of the other good things,
the competition is always better (lost words) jobs, which is another positive thing, I think, for the
community, and competition always helps the prices, and those are some of the good things to look
at. As far as the water table goes, I have a cellar. In the spring time, my sump pump runs (lost
words). I think the water table is around five or six feet (lost words). So I don’t know if there’s any
questions you have for me.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. You said your basement is how deep, where you are?
MR. SMYTHE-Roughly about six feet under grade.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and where are you on this?
MR. SMYTHE-I’m the third house down, from Bay Road.
MR. VOLLARO-So you think the water table is about six feet from grade at that point?
MR. SMYTHE-Yes. Most of the time of the year, in the spring time, my sump pump runs, and like
she said, when we had those hurricane rains, and the water table did come up, my sump pump didn’t
come on, but the Brook through there did back up for a couple of days.
MR. ABBOTT-If they went with the other proposal, with the building facing Bay, and your house
were still there, would there be any concerns you’d have at that point?
MR. SMYTHE-I’m sure that the light is going to be an issue to the people living there, and I’m sure
the noise level, the number of trucks coming in and out. (Lost words). They’d probably come more
in the daytime. You have to have people to unload the trucks.
MR. ABBOTT-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. PALING-We’ve got to clearly understand, and I know most of you do, that a zoning change
does not give automatic site plan approval, and there’s a lot of good things I see about the zoning
change, but I have a lot of site plan, major questions in the site plan area, and I’d hate for anybody to
go forward thinking if the zone change went through to their satisfaction, that site plan approval
would be automatic. Because it isn’t, not even close.
MR. LAPPER-We clearly understand how the process works.
MR. PALING-Yes, I know you do. That’s all I have.
MR. VOLLARO-I think my only comment on that is, again, I would like to see a little more
empirical data so I had a better feel. For example, I’m sitting here thinking that we’ve got a 65,000
square foot building there. It’s exactly the same size as Hannaford. So what I could do is take the
Hannaford traffic, do a straight line extrapolation, and say that this building will generate, if the
economic studies hold up, now, that this building would generate exactly the same amount of traffic
as Hannaford would. I could just do a straight line comparison, or extrapolate the Hannaford data
into this data, and say, okay, we’ve got twice as much traffic now as Hannaford is currently
generating, on the Bay Road. So that’s something I would like to see, you know, before I was able to
really sit down and say, yes, this zone change is a good thing.
MR. LAPPER-Just one quick comment before I turn it over to Frank. A lot of this traffic is
background traffic, and I don’t want to get us into traffic theory. We’ll do this in detail as we get
further along, but a lot of the supermarket traffic, during the commuter hours when it’s heavy traffic
on the road, are the same traffic as people who are on the road anyway going to and from work and
stopping at the supermarket. So when you say that, comparatively, that there’s twice as much traffic,
it doesn’t mean that you’re bringing twice as much traffic into the corridor, necessarily, because some
certain percentage of that are in the corridor anyway and it is going to stop and shop.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have numbers that would back that up? I mean, to me, if I understand
your statement, as saying that while people are out driving around, they say, let’s swing in to the
supermarket. In our family, in our household, we say I’m going to the supermarket.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the supermarket tends to be a destination, in my mind, at least it is.
MR. PALUMBO-First of all, any of our traffic studies, we’re not going to be dealing with the State.
We’re dealing with the County. I can give you an example with the State, though, that (lost words)
their studies, they would apply a pass by credit. That’s what they refer to. We are not currently
utilizing, as I’ve said, we’ve run this through the computer model. We use that based on the trip
generations, from the standard trip generation models and tables that are identified for a 65,000
square foot building. To those numbers, maybe actually worse than the Hannaford numbers, and
that’s why we now go out and do additional counts.
MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t want to look at probabilities. I’d like to look at data. See, we can play
with probabilities all night long here.
MR. PALUMBO-That trip generation comes from other projects. You’re mixing that nationwide.
That is the standard that is applied, and every trip generation is based on whether it’s a supermarket,
home improvement store, a retail store, a fast food store. They all have their own generation rates,
based on the square footage. One thing that I did want to make the point on is we are not expected
that we are going to add this traffic to that highway system without having some forms of
improvements to that highway system. The County DPW, when we met with them, they’re in full
recognition of the fact that one of the problem areas of the Bay and Quaker Road are the left hand
turn movements. The gentleman had state that he has to wait for two lights to get through and make
the left, that’s something we have to address and we have to do some form of an improvement, in
order to accommodate that, and that’s what the traffic generation will show. I’ll give us the numbers
and tell us what we have to do to make sure that that works at a decent equal, and hopefully possibly
a better rate.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice to know what that data was. It would be nice for me to know.
MR. MAC EWAN-We seem to be stuck here. You’re talking about wanting to address issues of site
plan. I, for one, want to address issues before we even make a zoning recommendation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, me, too.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Because if you can’t pass the hurdle on this, there’s no point in discussing it at
site plan, because there won’t be one. That’s my opinion. I don’t know if the rest of the Board’s
with me on that or what. Bob, how do you feel?
MR. PALING-I don’t want to comment now. I think I’ve said enough. Go ahead.
MR. POWERS-Well, I just wanted to make a comment on the amount of improvements on the site.
When we first started this project, it was probably about two years ago, and we started and continued
on with the project on the property without Homer Avenue. We looked at it two ways. First, as a
developer, we felt the project would be more viable if it faced a major commercial thoroughfare,
which we view as Quaker Road. So, in looking at that and in looking at the properties on Homer
and their potential impact to the project right next to them, that’s the reason why we went to the
property owners on Homer and negotiated with the seven or eight property owners to come to an
agreement with them. We felt that that would further limit the amount of congestion or total site
coverage. You could probably stick some more retail or an out parcel on that, but we felt that that
was enough on that parcel, including those properties on Homer Avenue. So I just wanted to
address that we feel that we’re impacting the site as little as possible with the tenant’s prototypical
plan that they want to do. They could put a 40,000 square foot building in there, perhaps not be
viable against the Hannaford or Price Chopper.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and that’s my whole point that I’m trying to make. Maybe this site isn’t
doable for a store like that. Maybe it’s doable for something else.
MR. POWERS-That’s why we went out and bought the additional land, to make the site less of an
impact.
MR. PALUMBO-The green space that we do have on this is 46%, which is significantly higher than
what the Town requirement would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it compared to what it is now?
MR. PALUMBO-I think that when you have a commercial zone, are you expecting that the
commercial zone is going to stay (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, and that’s not what I, you guys are. I guess I don’t mean to be hardcore
in digging in my heels here. I’m not sold on this plan. I don’t think you’ve provided me, particularly,
with enough of a sales pitch here to want me to lend my vote to approving a rezoning request,
because you’re lacking significant data that I think that I need to make an informed decision. More
importantly, I think that the proposed development for that parcel is too intense for that parcel of
land.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, Craig, we would ask that you reserve your thoughts on whether it’s too
intense, and we’d request that you table it and we’ll come back with more data, and then perhaps we
can all discuss it next time.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of data are you going to bring back?
MR. LAPPER-Well, it sounds like you want to see the full traffic report.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have major concerns with the wetlands, and how that’s going to be impacted.
MR. LAPPER-That would be the stormwater management report.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would like to see an architectural rendering, a prototype of the store. That’s a
big concern in this Town these days, what they actually are going to look like, and I think maybe you
ought to be looking at something maybe a little bit more significant to buffer those back parcels than
what you have shown.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We have your list.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that anybody wants to add?
MR. PALING-Do you include the potential water problems, I would assume you’ll address that.
MR. LAPPER-Stormwater.
MR. PALING-Well, stormwater, and also where the level of the water table, and what that.
MR. LAPPER-That will all be part of the stormwater management plan.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. PALING-Okay, and the lights is a site plan thing. Noise can be part of what we’ll do here.
Okay. Traffic will be the biggest thing here, and, no, that’s okay with me, but the size of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think this is a big hurdle that needs to be overcome.
MR. PALING-I still have major site plan questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. When we get to that, I will agree with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we get to that.
MR. LAPPER-What we also heard is that you’d like us to look at reducing the size of the parking lot,
and we’ll talk about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan, anything you wanted to add to that list?
MR. ABBOTT-Include in the wetland the stream issue that was brought up, that goes across Homer,
to the south side of Homer. Make sure that’s addressed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you, you guys, for putting it all into words for me. I’m getting a little
tired. Yes. I could not have voted on this tonight all, not with a good conscience.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think we’ve covered all the points. I was just wondering if anybody up at
the Staff has a feeling what the level of service is currently at Bay and Quaker. Does anybody know
what that is now?
MR. ROUND-We do have that. They’re not, I’m not going to throw something out if I don’t know
what it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but we do have that data as it currently stands.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any additional information Staff would be looking for that we didn’t
hammer on tonight?
MR. ROUND-You’ve touched on most of those issues. I know it’s a struggle, because we’re talking
a lot about site plan issues and separating the two, and it’s often.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t really separate the two. They come hand in hand. I don’t think we
really mean to play hardball up here, but we’re looking at the impact that it’s going to have on the
community.
MR. LAPPER-All the information you’ve requested is information we expected to provide. It’s a
question of the timing, and we’ll go get the reports done and come back to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Great, super. Thank you very much.
MR. PALUMBO-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, would it be appropriate for us to huddle these two applications together?
Considering we’re basically aiming for the same end result?
MR. ROUND-To a certain extent, we can, but I think you need the individual presentations from
both. I mean, we can talk about process and the status of both projects, because they are in a similar
stage in the review process. I know you have some generic questions. I don’t know if the Board, if
you want to talk to process specifically?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you want to announce the agenda, and we’ll rock and roll right into it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
SITE PLAN 53-99 EIS/FINDINGS ACCEPTED (7/2/87) SCHERMERHORN
PROPERTIES, INC. OWNER: FAMILY GOLF CENTERS ZONE: PUD LOCATION:
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MEADOWBROOK RD. – HILAND PARK PUD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 140 UNIT
TOWNHOUSE PROJECT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF A 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
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes, please. Summarize where you want.
MR. ROUND-I’ll read them. The project applicant is Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Site Plan No.
53-99, Meadowbrook Road, October 26, 1999. The applicant is requesting preliminary review of a
140 unit multi-family dwelling project. The project is part of the Hiland Park PUD approved on July
14, 1987. Town Board Resolution No. 212. The proposed multi-family project has been
acknowledged to be consistent with the requirements of the Hiland Park PUD plans according to
Town Board resolution 258.99. That resolution was passed this year so that the consistency with the
PUD has been approved this year. So that’s a recent resolution. I apologize for not having the date.
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Article VIII PUD and found to be in compliance
with the Ordinance requirements. The applicant has provided plans to demonstrate the natural
features, all those provisions that are required under the Ordinance. The applicant has provided, as
you see tonight, colored elevation drawings. The proposed style of the structures include
architectural details, soffit and facia returns, shutters, architectural shingles, French window inserts,
etc. The plans submitted include overall site plan and detailed plans of Phase I. We’ve utilized
Sections 179-58, Site Plan approval process, as it relates to PUD’s, and it lists a series of factors, A
through N, and I can’t do the math right now, but a series of factors, and we’ve listed our Staff
Notes questions in response to those factors, and I think the full Staff Notes will be made part of the
record, and I know you’d like me to paraphrase some of the aspects. You have those notes in front
of you. A. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation,
including intersections, road widths, channelization structures and traffic controls. The plans
have been forwarded to the Highway Department for review for most of those aspects. There is
some concerns with turnaround areas on the primary road. It’s a single intersection. It’s not a
complex intersection. It’s a “T” intersection on Meadowbrook Road. B. Adequacy and
arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian
from vehicular traffic, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and
pedestrian convenience. There’s sidewalks identified on Lots One, Two, and Three, not on Lots
Four or Five of the proposal. Those are, Lots One through Five are the proposed phasing. The
plans do not demonstrate any intersection control devices for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The
plans should also identify some type of connection/pathway to the “open space” land that are
adjacent to the property. C. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street
parking and loading. There’s satisfactory parking on the site for the most part. D. The location,
arrangement, size and design of buildings, lighting and signs. And this is an important factor
when considering a PUD, and the overall consistency with adjacent properties in the PUD, the
community in total. The building footprint, landscape, lighting for Phase I are compatible with the
area. We’d encourage similar lot layout, landscaping and lighting for the additional four lots. The
plan includes a sign location that meets the required setbacks, but does not provide a sign detail or
size. The plans also include light pole fixture detail, but does not provide for light pattern display.
E. The relationship of the various uses to one another and their scale. We feel that’s
consistent across the site. 299 multi-family units were proposed in the overall project, the whole
PUD. They’re proposing 140 in this portion of the PUD. F. The adequacy, type and
arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or noise-
deterring buffer between adjacent uses an adjoining lands. Site plans for Hiland Springs
identify landscaping throughout the project. The Beautification Committee has reviewed the project,
and recommended approval based on the review of the plans for Lot One, Phase I. We’d encourage
lawn sprinkler systems for continued maintenance of the site. G. In the case of apartment houses
or multiple dwellings, the adequacy of usable open space for playgrounds and informal
recreation, including land reserved for recreational use. There is an area identified for
playground on the site plan. There is a request for additional information in regards to maintenance
responsibility, liability issues. Is there future expansion for the playground areas proposed? And
we’ve commented previously on the access to the adjoining open space lands. H. Adequacy of
stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities. That’s been referred to Rist-Frost Associates,
and they propose to connect to Town Water and Wastewater connections. I’ll ask Laura, has there
been Rist-Frost comment and response?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, there has.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. ROUND-Okay. I. Adequacy of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with
moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and ponding and/or erosion. Three of the
detention basins are proposed on Lot One Phase I with a grading and drainage plan. The proposed
project does not appear to infringe on the designated wetland areas identified on the plans, and also
that would be subject to Rist-Frost comment and review. J. The protection of adjacent
properties against noise, glare, unsightliness or other objectionable features. It’s a residential
use adjoining. So there’s not a potential for conflict in that area. K. Conformance with other
specific charges of the Town Board which may have been stated in the zoning resolution.
The applicant has not supplied an updated traffic study for the intersections noted in Resolution 212,
and that’s a point of discussion. Rather than to say that a traffic study is required, the original PUD
required, as build out progressed, through Hiland Park, that certain key intersections would be
evaluated, and we haven’t come to terms, an agreement as to what the extent of that evaluation is,
and I think that’s something that you have to discuss tonight. L. The architectural compatibility
with other elements of the project with the neighborhood. They’ve indicated the proposed
plans would be consistent or compatible. That’s a judgement on your part. We have the other
project that is the directly adjoining property, and I think that’s something, having them both here
tonight, you’ll be able to make that judgement. Other Factors N. The adequacy of fire lanes
and other emergency zones and the provisions for fire hydrants. There’s two existing hydrants
on Meadowbrook Road, one proposed hydrant on the new road. Bay Ridge has been provided the
plans for review and comment. Recommendation: We suggest preliminary approval conditioned
that supplemental information be provided as a part of final review of the project, and then I’ll hand
it back over to you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I guess I’ll turn it over to you guys.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. We’ll try and quickly
paraphrase, as well, because of the time. Rich and I are both residents of Hiland Park. So we’re both
very familiar with this area and we’ve watched it develop, or not develop, as the case may be, since it
was approved 10 years ago. This was the area in the PUD designated for the multi-family housing.
Rich’s project, at the lower end of Meadowbrook, is at the end of the project. There’s a large area
south of this that was originally designated for multi-family also, which we believe will never be
developed, everything south of the pump station, because of DEC wetlands. What’s happened with
Hiland Park that relates to the traffic is that, after this was approved, DEC came in and re-flagged
the wetland. So that stream corridors, that (lost word) stream corridor will now have a 100 foot
wetland on either side of it that encompasses the area that runs up behind and parallel to the
Adirondack Community College property, crosses Haviland Road, and goes north along behind
Town Hall here, along the back of the golf course. These were areas that were proposed for
significant intense development which will either never be developed, or will be developed very
modestly because of the cost of the wetland impact. It’s a big deal. It’s a big change that was never
contemplated. When this project was approved, the Army Corp had just put their Regs into effect in
’88, and then DEC came in and re-flagged it and it changed everything. So in terms of the number
of units that were proposed and approved for the Hiland Park PUD and the number of cars that that
would thereby have created, it’s just not going to happen as intensively as it was planned. Rich has
designed this project to be a much higher scale than other projects that he’s done in the Town. This
will be higher priced, and more expensive because it’s Hiland Park. That’s my paraphrase. Let me
hand it over.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess the easiest thing to do is maybe I’ll address the issues that were the
Staff comments, and I’ll try to do it quickly. Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. Under “A”, Lots
Four and Five are similar in nature to all existing townhouse projects in the Town of Queensbury.
Driveways will be approximately 30 to 40 feet from proposed Town roads. That seems to be the
nature with other townhouse projects. Examples are Overlook at Hiland, Cedar Court, Woodlands,
Queen Victoria’s Grant, Westwood, also Dixon Heights. They all have similar driveway
configurations and all back out on Town roads. Few or none that I’m aware of have turnarounds.
I’m just trying to say that the ones on the north side of the road, those are the ones that are going to
be more, what I call my independent units, with garages, and they’re going to be set, like I said, 30 to
40 feet off the road. That’s why I don’t put the turnarounds on there, and then down below,
regarding the future interconnection of adjoining parcels, I’m not opposed to joining the Glen at
Hiland Meadows, but the Glen is a retirement community that encompasses both independent living
and assisted living, whereas Hiland Springs will encompass a variety of age groups and lifestyles that
may not be compatible with those residing at the Glen. The parcels themselves (lost words) Army
Corp wetlands, which would mean little or no development. The roads will be to Town specs, and if
accepted, the Town would naturally maintain the road.
MR. LAPPER-The only road that would be dedicated would be that one drive. The rest of the
parking areas will be maintained by the developer.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Going down to “B”, lots four and five are more of an independent nature.
The tenants will have private walkways versus a community walkway. That’s why I don’t show the
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
walkways like the other ones. The plans will identify, per the, phases, as we go, DOT and New York
State Pedestrian Laws proper signs and markings. In regard to the open space, I’m agreeable, but I
would like suggestions for the proper locations. I’m not exactly sure where you’re talking about
having pathways to the open space. I assume maybe the vacant land to the south, that can certainly
be worked out. Going down to “C”, regarding handicapped spaces for parking, I don’t have a
problem with it. It’s not a New York State Code. It’s a code for garden style apartments. So it
wouldn’t be required. It hasn’t been required on my past projects. Lots Four and Five are
townhouse units with full garages where tenants will keep plastic toters in their garage and will be
responsible for their own rubbish removal. That’s why you don’t see the garbage facilities around
those particular units. Going down to “D”, as far as the sign, the sign design will be similar to the
Hiland Clubhouse entrance, with the same earth tone brick, approximately six feet in height, and
eight feet wide, and a slight radius contour, with plantings of shrubs, bushes and flowers. Going
down to “E”, I’m just answering the things that I can answer and the engineering questions, of
course, we’ll let Tom answer. Lawn sprinkler on Meadowbrook frontage was always intended by
myself, where the greatest concentration of landscaping was proposed and approved by the
Beautification Committee, and then going to “F”. The playground will be private for residents and
guests of Hiland Springs, and maintained and insured by myself. Baseball fields, bathrooms are not
intended at this time, but the applicant would certainly follow common local laws before adding such
amenities. Again, access routes to open spaces is acceptable to the applicant, which is me, but I
would just like suggestions from Staff as to where you’d like the locations, and I’ve addressed the
questions which I feel I can address.
MR. NACE-Okay. Particularly with Staff comments, the only other thing I would add to what Rich
has said is that in “B” there was a question about the plans asking for a light pole fixture detail, or
saying that that’s provided, but no light pattern distribution has been provided. The lights detailed
are down lights to minimize glare, suitable for a parking lot of the small scale that he’s talking about.
If you want to see similar lights around at the project on Woodvale, and they’re on now. So if you
want to take a look at that, the main parking lot light there would be the exact same fixture as would
be used here in the parking lots. It’s simply a down light type of a square can, and there’s very
minimal glare from that. We also received comments from Rist-Frost. I’ve responded to those. I
don’t think we’ve received back a letter today from Rist-Frost as to my response, which I’ll find it
here. The only real questions that they’re, I guess, referring back to the Planning Board are who
maintains what, as far as Town maintenance and maintenance by the owner. As regards to that,
obviously we’re asking the Town to take over the Town road. So that would be maintained by the
Town. The drainage facilities that serve that Town road, there are a couple of detention basins that
will accept drainage from the road. Easements will be provided through those basins to the outlet,
through the outlets to those basins, and so that the Town can maintain them if they ever had to.
However, it would be the intention, since those basins are located all within this area to be developed
by Rich, that he would simply mow those and maintain them on a normal basis. I guess that’s all I
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else to be added?
MR. NACE-Not unless you have specific questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll probably have at least a couple. I guess the first question is directed toward
Staff. How does the original PUD zoning apply to changes of ownership? Does the original PUD
document go the lay of the land? Because it was originally done with the Hiland Park, Gary Bowen’s
company, and how does it effect? Has nothing changed now that Family Golf Centers has taken
over, portions of it, now we have two more entities becoming involved? Are you with me what I’m
asking?
MR. ROUND-Yes. I think that the PUD is intact. It’s a master plan for development of this Hiland
Park community. So that runs with the land. It’s become difficulty, from an administrative
standpoint, to track who’s responsible for what aspect of the project, and we’ve had discussions with
Family Golf Centers, communicating that issue, but I don’t know if there’s specific language in any
of the approvals that contemplated approvals in ownership, but I think I would anticipate there were
because it’s a project of such magnitude that a single developer doesn’t often take on a project of that
magnitude, but I think I’ve answered the question. If you have something else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve had four meetings with the Town Board to go through the issue of whether
this was compatible with the original Hiland Park plan, and as part of that, Rich came back and
provided the drawings to show, and we also reduced the density of the project, but Rich came back
with the drawings to show the architecture that they wanted to see, and then the Town Board
ultimately, in August, passed a resolution saying that this was compatible with this area.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHACHNER-And if I could just add to that, that compatibility determination by the Town
Board is one of the required steps of the PUD modification process.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to say one thing about that. I read, I came in to Town Hall today and
sat down for a few hours and read the PUD, and I picked up some pieces there that relate pretty
much to what Craig was saying. Under “Architecture”, for example, it says “Hiland Park”, the
Hiland Park Corporation, we’re talking about, Hiland Park Corporation “will maintain architectural
control over all structures that will be developed on the site”, not only the residential units. That’s
one of the statements they make in there. They said “Additionally, Hiland Park will maintain control
over the architectural character of the development. All structures, site materials and amenities will
be coordinated to present a theme which has visually compatible components.” Now I’m just
wondering whether the organization that’s taking over from the now separated Hiland Park
Corporation has the same requirements. Did those requirements transition to the new owner? I
guess that’s a question that I have.
MR. SCHACHNER-Where did you read that?
MR. VOLLARO-I read it in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the PUD done in 1987.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. ROUND-I think there’s two issues, I guess. That’s, to a certain extent, a contract between the
developer and the Town, that they affirm that, you know, we’re going to make sure that this all looks
the same, or that this is all consistent across the community, and I think that’s the responsibility of
Family Golf Centers, to make sure that coordination is still being completed. I don’t know if the
applicant has an explicit document, a document that articulates that they have done that. I think
maybe they can respond to that, but I think, enough said I guess.
MR. LAPPER-What I can say, with my familiarity with Hiland, is that covenants were implemented
for the single family lots, and recorded, but there were no covenants for this area, nor the area the
Eddy is (lost words) developed by the original applicant. So we’re here, and that’s why you went to
the extent that you wouldn’t always do if this was just site plan approval, to design the architecture,
so you can see exactly, so you’re sort of fulfilling that role, because.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you go right on ahead and give us the overall architecture.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as far as the architectural, going by the Hiland Park’s covenants
that’s in place right now, that I have for Masters Commons North, South, you overlook townhouses
in Fairway Court, which is developed now. One of the covenants was, you can’t have roof pitches
less than a seven twelve. I have the seven twelves. They require a certain return. I call them like a
bird’s nest free turn, I guess they call them. The crown molding pieces over the garage doors, the
windows, some of the decorative pieces that you see, these are all covenants of Hiland Park that’s in
place now for the subdivisions. The only thing that I know that I’m doing different than what’s in
the covenants that I have is I’m proposing vinyl siding on the buildings, which is basically for
maintenance thing, and also I believe my neighbors, the Eddy Group, is doing vinyl as well. That’s
the only thing that I know that’s not the same as the covenants that I have in the neighborhood that
I live in, but I don’t know if that covenant, to answer your question, Bob, was meant for a separate
part of.
MR. LAPPER-It was not applicable to this, anything recorded. There’s no covenants of record for
this property, but Rich is trying to be sensitive to what’s out there in the single family housing.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And that’s exactly right. I’m just trying to, I was following, basically,
everything that’s in my covenants now. The only thing that wouldn’t be is the siding, because I’m
proposing vinyl siding versus wood siding, which is the covenants up at Hiland now, but as far as the
elevation, I think if people took a drive up through Hiland, they’d see that some of the elevations and
the looks of these are very similar in nature. The only difference about my townhouses, I think you
see a little less garage than some of the homes that are up there now, and just at little more detail on
the (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you, Rich, that rendition looks strangely familiar to the apartments that are
adjacent to my community. It looks to me like you’ve modularized, really, what you’ve got on
Walker Lane and kind of dressed it off a little bit, and they look strangely familiar to me. I’m talking
about this one now.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. This one is actually a very, very different floor plan. It’s a
different square footage than on the 1500 square foot level. It has palladium windows over the front
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
doors, where it’s a vaulted ceiling area. When the people walk in and there’s balconies up above.
These are my units that I consider my higher rent units. These are going to be more in the $900 to
$1,000 a month rents. This is very similar to the ones on Walker Lane. The differences here, of
course, are there’s just some more added roof pitches. The returns are a little different. I have some
circle windows. There’s vaulted ceilings in every one of these bump outs in the interior. As far as
the exterior goes, it’s hard to see it from there. There’s crown molding pieces and decorative pieces
around all the doors and windows, where I don’t have that on the Walker Lane piece, but this, it may
look the same to you, but to me, it’s, I did design this as entirely different from the other ones on
Walker Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got a lot of amenities on there, a lot of crown moldings and a lot of
surface dressing and so on, but the basic construction that I can see through, just by being familiar
with your other buildings, that looks very familiar to what you have. What’s the roof pitch over on
Walker Lane?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Seven, twelve, as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Seven, twelve as well. So, you know, getting down to the drawings, you’ve taken
the Walker Lane drawings and kind of dressed them up a little bit.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-This particular building, yes. This is a whole new design, this building
right here.
MR. NACE-Well, that one includes garages. That’s the ones for lot four and five.
MR. VOLLARO-I see the garages, yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One of the reasons for this design as well is it’s been a very successful
design. I’ve had a lot of compliments on the Walker Lane design, because of the hip roof, the
architectural shingles, of course. So I just thought it was an attractive design, and people commented
on it, so why change what works.
MR. VOLLARO-You can give me a little commission on that when you get a chance. Okay. See,
what I’m trying to get at here, and I guess I don’t understand the situation where we departed from
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, saying that because there’s no covenants on this, other
than, there’s covenants just on certain sections of the development right now. How did we get away
from the fact that this thing talks, or this Final Environmental Impact Statement talks to maintaining
of architectural character? How did we jump off that page?
MR. LAPPER-The discussion of the early 90’s. The project wasn’t developed as everybody had
anticipated, in terms of timing or the identity of the developer.
MR. VOLLARO-So there was a time constraint on when that had to be done?
MR. LAPPER-No. There’s just been a hiatus where nothing’s happened. I mean, we can talk about.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-When I had met with the Town Board, six months ago, we actually had
three private workshop meetings and one public hearing for one, and these were questions that were
brought up, and I just did an average here. Back in 1988, when Hiland started, there was
approximately 1,157 units that were approved. Now that’s counting multi-family, the single family,
the congregate care units. To this date, there’s 29 homes, and that’s including townhouse units, that
have been built since 1988. That’s only an average of three homes per year, over an 11 year span. So
things have changed a little bit, and basically that’s the reasoning behind.
MR. VOLLARO-I can’t make that connection, in my mind, for some reason or other. I’m having
trouble putting that together, that events that have taken place have managed to alter what was in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement, in terms of architectural control. I guess I just don’t
understand how that separation took place.
MR. SCHACHNER-What is it exactly that you’re concerned about having been altered, Bob? I
mean, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, as I understand what you’re saying, indicates that a
particular corporation will retain authority to ensure consistency of architectural features. Is that a
fair statement?
MR. VOLLARO-Fair statement.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That corporation, I don’t believe, currently exists.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Is defunct. I agree, but somebody else has replaced it. Now I don’t know how
they replaced it, and what was in transition? Did everything transition over?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but I mean, Chris answered the question, I think, accurately, to indicate
that basically those things run with the land, that you can substitute new owners for old owners with
these various, not conditions, but these various discussions in environmental review documents. It
would seem to me that you’re concern, as a Planning Board, should be is the goal of architectural
consistency being met or not being met. Isn’t that your concern?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that is my concern, but I couldn’t even answer that question today, until I see
these two, you know, these two developments kind of married together, because.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. I understand that, but it seems to me that you should, that should
be the Board’s concern, and you don’t need to get too wrapped up in the nature of the bankruptcy or
whatever type of proceeding eliminated Corporation A and lead to Corporation B.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that I’m dwelling on, Mark, is the fact that an outside source, an
outside person was taking a look and making sure that the architectural theme was being maintained.
It’s very difficult for the developer himself to do that, because there are economic concerns when
you try to do those things.
MR. MAC EWAN-But there wasn’t an outside concern because when Hiland originally developed
the parcel, they were going to be the developer of record. They were going to ensure that if there
were senior housing or multi family housing go in.
MR. ROUND-Gary Bowen said all these houses were going to be consistent with one another and
it’s going to look as a cohesive unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because they were going to be the developer of everything.
MR. ROUND-Of everything. Now it’s independent developers. They have a contract with the
property owner, and I mean, they’re not out of the loop here. They know what Mr. Schermerhorn is
proposing , and they’d be here if they had an objection to what he’s proposing. So I think that
answers part of Bob’s question, but part of your decision tonight, is to, again, you have the
opportunity to comment on that. Is this consistent with the surrounding architecture? And that’s
something you have to make, and you’re not going to be able to defer that to a third party.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I see what the complimentary architecture looks like, I’ll be able to
make a better judgement as to whether it’s compatible or not.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. ROUND-Right. There is a public here, and you can ask them to come forward with some of
that information.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have one small question. Does the 140 units cap the 299? In the multi-
family buildup of the 670 units, there’s 299 of those are multifamily. Does this 140 cap off the 299?
MR. LAPPER-There are other areas of Hiland that, across the street, Meadowbrook, that are also
zoned, the original PUD concept plan, it also had some multi-family, on the other side of
Meadowbrook. So it could be that someone’s going to come back in the future to do other multi-
family in that same area.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. There’s nothing to say that this 140 caps the 299, then. I guess that’s the
answer to my question.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. ROUND-I don’t mean to interject, but there’s an important note that we haven’t touched on is
that any time a contract for sale of imports to the PUD occurs, or anytime that the original project
developer, and in this case now that Family Golf Centers proposes to sell a portion of their property,
they have to notify the Town Board, and that discussion occurs, and did occur, between Family Golf
Centers and the developer, brings the Town Board into the loop that says, okay, you guys are selling
a portion of this, do you know what our concerns are? And that concern was raised with Family
Golf Centers and with the applicant, in a meeting with the Town Board, and said, architecture,
overall density, consistency with the original development plan, and I think that answers some
additional questions.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess we’ve got some looking to do. I do know that, and you were with
me this afternoon, Chris, when I was talking to the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury on this
subject, and it was interesting to note, during that conversation, that he himself felt that the
apartment type thing was just a little bit of a stretch, in his mind anyway, and I think that’s exactly the
words he used was a little bit of a stretch in the sense, when you look at particularly the Executive
Summary in here, where it, you know, it mentions that Hiland Park includes single family homes,
multi-family dwellings and units and a variety of housing available to the elderly in a retirement
village. You see, when I read that PUD today, and I read it, I tried to read it so that, what was the
message it was trying to give, and it was one of cohesiveness. That’s what I got out of it, and that’s
what I’m trying to make sure develops out of this conversation. I think I’ve said about enough of
that, and I’m going to let my fellow Board members soak some of this up as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have more of your presentation you want to go over, to kind of wrap it
up? Because you were discussing your responses to the certain issues that were raised.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure we’ll have some responses to questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have any comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-Just for clarification’s sake, obviously, the picture with the garages are four and five.
You’ve got another picture here and one on the wall. Which goes with one, two and three?
MR. NACE-With the other lots down here, okay, that are clustered units, the four unit is this, okay,
and the eight unit is the one on the wall.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay.
MR. NACE-This are all the ones here in lots four and five. They will all be the townhouse and
garage type units. Okay. These are all four dwelling unit structures.
MR. ABBOTT-As you come in to lot one, you’ve got, it looks like four units in a row. Are those
two four units put together, or an eight unit?
MR. NACE-These are actually eight units, eight units, then a four unit in the corner and then an
eight.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So even though they’re offset, they are one building, the one on the wall.
Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I may, they are two four-plexes off set, and that was a Staff
recommendation tonight.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We broke them up so they look more like this.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Would there be any chance of taking that one off the wall and getting it on a chair?
Because it would be a lot easier to make comparisons.
MR. MAC EWAN-While he’s doing that, anymore questions, Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. PALING-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question. Does the use of vinyl siding appear anywhere else in Hiland
Park?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-And if we’re to be in keeping with the architectural standards that have kind of
been established and set forth, why would we want to divert from that into vinyl siding?
MR. NACE-Long term aesthetics.
MR. MAC EWAN-Long term aesthetics?
MR. NACE-Vinyl is going to look, easier to maintain and keep nicer looking for a longer time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I don’t agree with that. I think if you don’t maintain vinyl siding after, it
starts looking terrible, and I think you can maintain wood if you just want to put the money into
painting it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just before you respond, a comment I want to make. One could possibly
successfully argue that in my mind, if you were talking about a residential home, but considering
you’re talking buildings of this size, vinyl has a history of just looking worse as the years wan by.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It kind of falls out of its plane.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would prefer to see that you carry on the tradition that’s already been
established at Hiland Park, you go with wood clapboard siding that’s appropriately stained, that goes
along with what the color schemes have always seemed to be established over there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can use spruce. You don’t have to use cedar.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If that is one of the requests of the Planning Board, I’m not opposed to it.
Vinyl is definitely, for the long term, less maintenance. Not to throw my neighbors in, they’re going
with vinyl.
MR. MAC EWAN-They haven’t gotten here yet.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And the question did arise earlier that, like I said, I didn’t want to throw
my neighbors in, but they’re going with vinyl. I thought we both would be the same.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stick around. You’ll probably get the same response. I mean, I look at the
townhouses that are up along Rockwell, where some of the townhouses are up there, and they look
nice. It’s a nice stain that they have on them, you know, and I think that’s the mood you should
carry through with these. That’s my opinion, and I think I’m getting the consensus that we’ve got a
majority up here. As far as the landscaping. You said that you had gotten approvals from the
landscaping committee?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, Beautification gave us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Beautification, I’m sorry.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, the Beautification did give me a unanimous. They did recommend
this for use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t have anything in front of me. I didn’t see in my packet, but what
type of tree stuff are you proposing caliper size. Have we got things that are going to mature
relatively quick, or have we got things that are going to take a couple, four decades to get where they
need to be?
MR. NACE-I knew there was a reason Jim Miller should have been here. I’ll try and ad lib for him.
Jim did the landscaping plan. So I’m not intimately familiar with the (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Just give me an idea of some caliper size.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, here’s a crimson king maple, three to three and a half inch caliper. That’s a
fair size, probably a 12 foot tree. Crab apple, two to two and a half inch caliper, pin oak, three, three
and a half. The pines, Jim typically does the pines in groupings where he’s got one or two larger trees
and a couple of shorter ones. The white pines he’s got six to seven foot height and then the three to
five foot height. Those will grow about a foot a year. The Colorado Spruce the same thing, six to
seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m satisfied. The other question that I had in my mind is that you note
on here the tennis courts and the play areas as future. When is future?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the second phase, the top lot I call it, when I develop the second
phase.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, if you could while you’re there, just kind of show me which phase is what
stage.
MR. NACE-Okay. Phase I is this. Phase II would be this, plus a portion of the townhouses with
garage.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re basically chunking it as you work your way in.
MR. NACE-Exactly. Phase II would include this top lot. Then Phase III is the remainder back here.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the time that the tennis courts would go in?
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any other recreational amenities you’re proposing for this, not for what’s
already there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Rich, do you think you could squeeze out more than one court?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or like a basketball court.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A basketball court is fine.
MR. NACE-A basketball court would be, two tennis courts would be tight, but a basketball court
could be.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking like what’s in Hudson Pointe. There’s a tennis court and a
basketball court.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s also a softball field, but you don’t have room for a softball field, and they
do have like a little play area there. Of course they’ve got the day care center. Okay. That’s all I
have for now. Does Staff have anything they want to add? How do my fellow Board members feel
about vinyl out or clapboard siding in, appropriately stained?
MR. ABBOTT-Vinyl out.
MR. PALING-I don’t have any objection to vinyl. I don’t see that it’s that far off of the design. It’s
fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you. Suffering under the burden, right now, of maintaining Baybridge,
because it happens to be cedar and it soaks paint up like a sponge, and we wind up having to paint
that place probably, at a minimum, of once every four years, even though we’re using real good
Cuprinol stain, highest priced stuff we can find and all of that. I, like Bob, would not have an
objection to vinyl, no. That’s a benefit to you, Rich, because having to maintain that operation that
you’ve got there would cost you a young fortune.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I realize that.
MR. VOLLARO-So I might go along with the vinyl on that, and say that, if it’s a good grade of vinyl,
and they’ve got them today so from 15 feet away you have a pretty tough time telling whether it’s
wood or vinyl, actually.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t change my opinion. I think, if you’re going to keep the architecture
consistent with what’s already been developed in the Planned Unit, that it should incorporate doing
the appropriate siding and color schemes that have been already penetrated throughout. So, based
on that, what kind of a consensus are we going to come up with here
MR. PALING-Say what you said again, it kind of flew by.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-The architectural tone that has already been set at Hiland Park, whether it’s the
single family houses, whether it’s the townhouses over on Rockwell Road, have already denoted that
they aren’t vinyl sided. They’re either cedar sided or clapboard sided of some kind, with the
appropriate paint and stain, or whatever the color scheme is. I’d like to see that carry on through,
not only with this one, but with the next project that’s going to come in front of us.
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, you haven’t changed your mind, then. I thought you said you’d changed.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. PALING-I haven’t changed, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know. That’s why I said, what’s the consensus we’re going to come up with
here? That’s where I’m going with this.
MR. PALING-Okay. Vinyl’s all right with me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think, down the line, you’re going to be happier with the wood. I think it’s
going to make it classier and you’re going to have more positive comments. As soon as you put vinyl
on, there’s going to be an influx of negative comments, right away.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I do agree with you. I’m not opposed either way, but the vinyl siding is
definitely, definitely going to be a maintenance thing in the future. I have a home. I’ve been in it five
years. I’m a builder and I thought I used the best primers and stains on our wood siding, and we
have to paint our house next year, and at Hiland Park, the winds, there’s no relief from the sun in the
summer time. It’s going to take an awful abuse, the wood siding. From experience, from building
homes, I do agree, people do prefer the wood over the vinyl, but sometimes when vinyl starts to look
old, and not taken care of, sometimes just proper cleaning makes a difference. I just had my
Meadowbrook Apartments power washed for the second time in nine years on Meadowbrook Road.
It was a huge difference just by having them cleaned. Like I said, I’ll work with the Board. Wood is
a lot of work.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think, aesthetically, it’s a leap, in my opinion. So what is it that we’re looking to
do here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because, you know, Rich, as far as architecturally, you’ve really basically
stated what you had, and the modifications that you made haven’t really, you know, cost you a lot of
money for a designer. I mean, I know exactly what you did here, and I think it’s going to work, but I
think that you can, lets put it this way. They’re nice, but they’re not overly creative, you know, but
like I say, they’re going to work, and with the double roof gables and everything else, they’re good,
and I think that keeping the wood on them is just going to raise them to the next level, and I know
wood’s a pain. I mean, heck, you’ve got to paint it. You’ve got to stain it a lot, but I think if you
don’t use dark colors, dark colors really, in this climate, get abused by the weather so much quicker
than more muted tones, and I don’t think it will fade as quickly as it would if you used a dark green
or a deep brown or a deep burgundy or something like that, but if you kept the lighter colors, but I
think they’re nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? We’ve got a public hearing. We’ll open up the public
hearing. If anyone wants to come up and comment on this application, they’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DOROTHY BURNHAM
MRS. BURNHAM-I have some questions. Are they all going to be the same color? Dorothy
Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. Are they all going to be the same color?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. It’s going to vary throughout the project.
MRS. BURNHAM-Because the ones over here, and the ones on Walker Lane have a barracks like
look, if you don’t mind my saying so, and I would hate to see that happen to that project.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did put a notation on there. I can’t remember exactly what I wrote, but
I said colors and renders are for illustration purposes only. The colors will be decided at future
Town Planning Board meetings with Staff. So we can work with them.
MRS. BURNHAM-Well, I would just hate to see a duplication of what you have over here.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MRS. BURNHAM-I just am offended by the appearance of the apartment buildings over here. I
think they’re too close to the road. They’re too close together. They give such a barracks type
appearance, and I would hate to see that happen in Hiland Park area. Secondly, I notice there are no
one story buildings here. I think varying the height would be an improvement. Are these all two
stories?
MR. VOLLARO-They’re all two stories, yes. They look to me like the basic design that’s across the
way and next to me over on Walker Lane, yes. There’s a little dressed up stuff, a little, they took a
page out of Walker Lane and hit the books, hit the roof, but fundamentally they look, you know, to
me like the same building. It’s almost like if I were to take and make a modular, and just put the
modulars together. I could create any one of those, without too much trouble. I think your point’s
well taken, too, on one story and two story, a mix of the two.
MRS. BURNHAM-I think it would be more in keeping with what is already there, and also the
existing town homes have a little more detail, a little more variety of design, other than a box.
MR. MAC EWAN-The town homes you’re referring to on Rockwell Road?
MRS. BURNHAM-On Rockwell, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But some of those are built into the hill, too, where you can do a lot with
that. You can get the effect, as you’re approaching it, as a one story, but really, in essence, on the
golf course side, you see three stories, in some cases.
MRS. BURNHAM-Yes. I’m aware of that, too, but they have a little more variety to the design, so
that they’re much more attractive. Again, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, they’re also much more expensive to build. When you start to do that.
MRS. BURNHAM-If you provide a more attractive place, people will be willing to pay a little more.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m on your side on this one.
MRS. BURNHAM-How close are those buildings over there?
MR. VOLLARO-Some of them are very close.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. I think they’re relatively close.
MR. VOLLARO-Some of them are around 25 feet apart, in some cases, just roughly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably 25 to 35 feet apart, on an average.
MR. VOLLARO-The other one’s, the town house units with the garages, are maybe a little more, 50
feet.
MRS. BURNHAM-I think that’s all I have to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. BURNHAM-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DOUG COON
MR. COON-Hi. I’m Doug Coon. I live on 32 Bayberry Drive. My land abuts Meadowbrook, right
across from the pump station. It’s been a long night. I’m not against the development of this land at
all. I just think that there’s too many units and too few acres. I also read that whole file in the last
couple of days, and reading over the PUD and what Gary Bowen did, and I guess you had a planner
here that’s no longer working here. It’s a lot of comments on things. Originally, there were 299
multi-family units approved for this entire PUD, and that was over 700 acres. Now with this, it’s 140
town houses, that’s nearly half on just 21 acres. It just doesn’t seem consistent with the plan and
with the way the PUD reads. I don’t really believe that was the intent with the original PUD. Your
Senior Planner back in the spring, I think his name was Mr. Voss.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Chuck Voss.
MR. COON-He had a lot of great concerns about the proposal. He spent pages on outlining some
of the concerns he had about this, and I don’t know if you’ve read that. I just read it today, and it
might be a good thing to read, so you can address your concerns to it, and I know people bought in
to this PUD, put up beautiful, expensive homes over the years, with the idea, I think, that their
investments would be protected and that there would be certain regulations that would be followed
in keeping the PUD, which you people refer to with the painting and the woods and so on. That
part’s pretty good. I think it was spelled in the PUD that it was going to be more of a village type of
style, rather than, I don’t know, this lady said barracks. I don’t know if that’s true, but more of a
village style throughout the whole PUD, rather than homes clustered 25 feet apart, one right after the
other. In reading the PUD, I did read that, even though rental units are mentioned I think one time,
that’s all I found. It may be mentioned more but one time I found that rental units were going to be
part of the PUD, but the main intent was for ownership of units, not large scale apartment buildings
for rent. That wasn’t the intent of that PUD, as I read it, and I’m certain it wasn’t the intent to allow
half the PUD’s approved units, in a concentrated area of just 21 acres, when you had 700 acres that
you were looking at originally. So I guess that’s my major concern, is that there’s a lot of units going
in just a small, small section of acreage here. I know it’s the developer’s benefit to do that, and
there’s town houses versus single families, as it vinyl siding versus wood. I know all that makes
sense, monetarily, to do it that way, but I think you have to ask yourself what was the intent, and
what’s the purpose of how you want that thing to look when you’re done with it. Also, not much as
been said on the sewer. The sewer, I imagine, will flow right into that pump station, and that’s right
across from me and I don’t know if that means it’ll be utilized more, the pumps that are grinding
pumps that come on every Friday, it’s just part of the routine. If I’m sitting in my house, which is
quite a ways a way, with the doors shut, I can hear those pumps as they pump. I can hear them just
as plain as if I was outside, and on days when the wind blows the proper way, I can get a little odor
from that pump station as well, and I don’t know if you had any plans on, since you’re putting more
into it, of every putting a building around it, over it, something aesthetically pleasing. I don’t know.
I mean, that to me, of course, that’s my concern because I’m sitting in my kitchen area looking at it
all day.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the only pump station that services that community right?
MR. COON-Yes, as far as I know. There is another one down Meadowbrook, but that’s more
toward Quaker Road. That doesn’t service that area, and also the College is just tied in with that,
probably two months ago. They have access over my land so they could get at it a better way, and
they ran out of line, basically from right where their, I think they had a small station just south of the
College, and they are, I think, bypassing that, and going right into the pump station now. They ran a
line from along my border all the way down to Meadowbrook Road and are tying in to that. So, of
course, that makes it utilize that much more and I just want to make sure that the odor is going to be
taken care of and possibly the aesthetics of it could be increased, because all it is now, it’s just fenced,
chain link fence, and it’s got some nice shrubbery in front of it, but that goes so far. I’m really not
well versed in all this. You people deal with it on a regular basis. So all I’m saying is that there’s a lot
of material in that file, and the Planner back then was just relaying his concerns about the project. I
just hope that you would take some time and look at those as well. That’s it. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
KENT KILBURN
MR. KILBURN-Good evening. My name’s Kent Kilburn. I live on Meadowbrook Road. I’m the
last house (lost words) property. First, I’d like to know if you can clarify where exactly this project is
destine to be set on Meadowbrook Road. I’m not familiar with where that project is laid out. I’d like
to know where, in relation to my home, it’s going to be. I’d like to know what considerations have
been made for traffic flow and increase on the road. Are there improvements scheduled for the road
itself? The Hiland Park, when that went in, I was living in this house at that time, and was assured
that traffic wouldn’t be effected it all on my road. Hiland went in. As these gentlemen stated, there’s
29 some units, and that’s all been developed, and believe me, traffic has been impacted on my road
significantly. I don’t know if there are that many golfers in Glens Falls that have got to make their
way out there every day, but this is obviously going to impact the traffic flow on that road
significantly, in conjunction with the next project coming up. You’re talking about putting a large
density of people up on the road above my house. That’s obviously not going to lower the traffic. I
have concerns about traffic on the road. Speeding is a real serious problem now. There are a lot of
people who use this stretch of road from my house up because it is unpopulated. There’s a lot of
walking, biking, jogging, rollerblading, that type of thing. So there’s a lot of pedestrian traffic on the
road. This is going to make that significantly more dangerous for anyone working or trying to use
that. I’m familiar with Mr. Schermerhorn’s project. I live right down the road from the one on
Meadowbrook Road, and if in fact this project is going to be similar to that one in nature, I don’t
think that’s going to lend anything at all to the area. I have to go back to one of the comments you
64
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
made earlier tonight, in that maybe this project isn’t suited for that piece of property. I agree with
Mr. Coon who says that the density of this project looks extremely high for the amount of property
that’s out there from Hiland Park down to where I live. The other project that’s going to be
discussed tonight, the Eddy Group project, whatever that is, is obviously going to, another lot of
buildings and I’d like to know exactly where that’s going to be located in relationship to this.
Probably my biggest concern is the traffic aspect of it. What’s being done about that? Has that been
addressed? If it has been, what are the plans, what’s going to be done about it, and consideration for
trying to maintain the rural environment that Queensbury has had for a very long time. I think if you
look in certain areas of Queensbury, that rural environment has disappeared. I think that’s
unfortunate. I think a community like Queensbury is a rural community. I’d like to see it remain as a
rural type community, and this type of development I don’t think lends itself to maintaining a rural
flavor in Queensbury, and we are aggressively going away from the rural areas, and this type of
development is cropping up all over the Queensbury area. The whole complexion of the community
is changing. I just question whether that’s really a positive for the community, or whether it’s simply
more houses being put up. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? If not, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, do you want to come back up? The distance between buildings, on
the average.
MR. NACE-Okay. The first answer is that all of the townhouses in four and five with garages are 50
feet apart. As far as the other buildings, there’s 55. There’s 35. The closest down here looks to be
about 22, 21. That occurs two places, it looks like. This is 25. Some of these are more in the order
of 60, 70. So I’d say probably an average of 50, between 25 and 75 or 80, averaging somewhere
around 50. While I’m right here, to answer one of the other questions, as far as location, right here
at the very southern corner, southwestern corner of our property is the pump station, okay, the
existing pump station. So that, as you come up the road, just past the pump station, the property
begins. There’s a little bit of a rise here, between the land and a little dip. The property just to the
north of us is the other project that you’ll hear about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. One of the comments, one of the questions that we were
asked was numbers, units versus acreage and how that seems to differ from what the original PUD
called for.
MR. LAPPER-In fact, this is the area of the original PUD that called for the multi-family. That’s
why the Town Board said it was compatible. This area is near Regency Park, the rental housing
that’s right down at the foot of Meadowbrook, by Quaker Road. So that this is really compatible
with the area, that distinguishes itself from the single family part of Hiland Park. Also, in the PUD
FEIS there’s talk about various levels of housing that are supposed to be median income as well, and
that’s what this is geared to, although this is much higher end rental than anything else that really
exists in Queensbury.
MR. MAC EWAN-The question was number of units versus acreage of land. It differs from what,
according to the comment, it differs from what the original PUD called for.
MR. LAPPER-He’s talking about, he’s spreading it over the whole PUD, the golf course, and the
area that was dedicated to the Town along Halfway Brook corridor. So to just do a per acre thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-All of the units. Traffic and road improvements.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the traffic, I would maintain that this is far less than what were contemplated
and approved in ’88, because there are far fewer units that have been built and are going to be built
compared what was approved. If you look at the piece of property that’s between here and the edge
of the Hiland Park property to the south, which is all Army Corp wetlands, that’s just going to stay as
fields.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and these next two are directed toward Staff. The comment was made
regarding some report or old review that Chuck Voss had put together regarding the Hiland Park.
Are you familiar with it?
MR. ROUND-It’s a memo to the Town Board during their review of the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did he express concerns with certain areas of the PUD?
MR. ROUND-I think the person who spoke was probably accurate in most of those.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. LAPPER-We changed the project after meeting with the Town Board.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’m not sure which, if it refers to a larger, higher density project or the one that
we have in front of us. I can’t tell you for sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that memo available.
MR. ROUND-We can give you a copy of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-The grinder pump on Meadowbrook Road.
MR. NACE-Can I address that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody.
MR. NACE-Okay. I met with Mike Shaw this morning to iron out some of the details for sewer
connection. He informed me that the Town has budgeted money to address the odor control on
that pump station. This pump station, as part of our project, does serve all of Hiland. It serves
Adirondack Community College as well. It’s all tied in. Part of the problem that’s expected, and why
the odor control is because of the tie in to Adirondack Community College, but regardless, the
original design capacity of that pump station is far above what is contributed now and will be
contributed with it, the entire building of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the larger pump wouldn’t be in the picture then. The pump that is there,
designed, is adequate for build out?
MR. NACE-It’s more than adequate. In fact, probably adding flow to that will help the odor control
because it will turn the contents of the pump station over quickly. They won’t sit there and go
anaerobic.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a dual pump with a lead lag capability?
MR. NACE-Yes. It’s a submersible station.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. PALING-Not right now.
MR. ABBOTT-A couple of questions, and it sort of gets, the other people from the other project can
listen in. One of the concerns or comments came from the Fire Department about, he was talking
specifically about secondary access from Haviland Road down to, I believe it was the Eddy project,
but also would be appropriate here, that if there was something to happen here, you’ve got a dead
end in a turnaround. Is there any way we can get, combining the two projects and looking at the big
picture here, another road down from Haviland to this development?
MR. NACE-I guess a couple of things there. First, there’s a piece of property north of the Eddy that
they do not control. It’s still under Family Golf, the 20 acre parcel.
MR. LAPPER-That’s supposed to be commercial, under the PUD.
MR. NACE-Okay. Secondly, this does fall, I believe, within the realm of what is normally accepted
by the Town today as road, but connecting the two together, because of the different type of uses,
the different complexion of the residents I think might not be a good idea, okay. Within the Eddy
you’ve got a more elderly component. They will probably be out, you know, walking around on their
own roads quite a bit, and to direct traffic through that development into this probably would not be
desirable, from a traffic safety standpoint.
MR. ABBOTT-Going back to the question that Craig asked about the density, in the original PUD,
299 multi-family dwellings over what acreage were they done? I know we compared like the 700 and
some acres down there. What was the idea of the original PUD, acreage wise, for the 299 units?
MR. LAPPER-I can tell you that it was right in this location, but I don’t have the original map with
me. Chris, do you have that?
MR. ROUND-I don’t have a copy of that, but this area and the area, this whole area was designated
as the multi-family area. There weren’t any other areas outside the Meadowbrook corridor that were
proposed for multi-family use. It’s difficult to say, take a sketch plan or basically a bubble map, this
is where we want to do it, and then convert that to a detailed drawing and say, it’s taking place in or
66
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
out. I think it’s a valid concern, though, with the density on the site, and the configuration and the
way it relates to one another, that’s a concern.
MR. ABBOTT-The townhouses off the north, it would be the northeast corner of the golf course,
Rockwell, what’s the spacing between those town homes?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a very different type of project. I lived there, originally, and now my parents
live there, and those were 34 units that were approved, and only 10 have ever been built there. They
were at a price point, two of them that are three story, that Cathy talked about, are like 3500 square
feet per townhouse, just spectacular units, but there was never a re-sale market because people
apparently want to have a single family home rather than a townhouse of that size. That’s what the
realtors have said. So there’s something about that concept that is unsuccessful, so far. So it’s really
hard to compare. That area has the premier view of the whole project, because it’s up on a rise there.
You can see over the whole golf course, and the mountains to the west. It’s really spectacular, but
that sort of distinguishes it from where we are here. They’re still nice views, but it’s much lower. It’s
kind of hard to compare.
MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do have some stuff, and this is, again, from the Hiland Park PUD summary,
and I noticed, it says every effort has been taken to design a plan to offer a progressive community
component that will add to the local economy through job creation, etc., and not adding greatly to
service burdens such as schools. Now, I know that the School Board has got some concern with
these l40 units, particularly 140 rental units, which will probably attract a much younger clientele than
will what the Eddy’s going to put in there. So their impact on the school system would be minimum
to zero, I would suspect, but there’s another concern here about the impact on the Queensbury
School. It talks in here, again, about the housing and in parenthesis it talks about what the housing
will be, single family houses, condos and townhouses. See, I, too, could not find very much
reference to rental in this whole plan. Now I know that that’s been approved, and I know the Town
Board did it. That’s fine. I just couldn’t find where that was being expressed in words, other than a
word that talked about leasing. I think that’s the one word I’ve found, in all that I’ve read today, that
would lead one to believe that we were going to be building rental apartments in this unit. I had a
problem finding that.
MR. LAPPER-I’d argue, Bob, that this is one area that the ratio of acres to units does make sense to
talk about in, in terms of the whole 800 acre Hiland Park, or 1157 units, that this is the denser area,
but if you look at the whole project, in terms of the impact on the School District, there’s very, very
few kids up there now. So that you’re right, there probably will be more kids in this area. There’s a
need for rental apartments in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Rich is doing his best to fulfill that need. I certainly understand that.
MR. ROUND-Just so everybody knows, that both Staff and the Town Board struggled with this
rental consideration, and the Board, the Town Board, and I know the Supervisor spoke to you
directly, Bob, came to the conclusion, well, what’s the significance of rental versus private ownership,
as it relates to impacts, and there’s not a lot of differences, other than there’s specific issues, as you
mentioned, is the demographics, maintenance of facilities, but the PUD itself did consider town
homes, townhouses, condominiums, etc., which are all rental in basis, and we can’t prohibit anybody
that built a home in the PUD from renting a facility. So it was, that’s how we struggled with it, and
they reached a conclusion that it wasn’t an issue that was a make or break in the review of the
project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add, gentlemen, Staff? I guess we’re at that point we can
make a motion then, right? Does someone want to put something up?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES,
INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
With the stipulation that the buildings be sided with wood, spruce or cedar or whatever is the best to
hold up.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m not going to say anything about the density in my motion. I’ll leave it like
it is, even though I think it is a little dense there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second?
MR. VOLLARO-I would second it, but I think we have to say, in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The prepared resolution. Yes, I don’t know where I put it. In accordance
with the prepared resolution.
MR. ROUND-Can I just interject? There’s a couple of points. It’s not necessary, at this late hour, to
pass a resolution. I heard concerns about traffic, aesthetics density, building separation, and if you’re
not comfortable moving forward with that, I’d suggest that you ask for additional information.
Preliminary approval is not a binding approval, but you’ve got to give clear instruction to the
applicant what you want the final plan to look like, and if you’re not at that point, given this late
hour.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did I not hear, though that, maybe I misunderstood, that there didn’t seem to be
a concern with the traffic, that it seemed to have been adequately addressed by the Town Board in
their re-assessment?
MR. ROUND-No. The Town Board didn’t make that determination, and Mark will talk about a
discussion of the SEQRA process that, no, that, and our Staff notes reflected that there wasn’t a
satisfaction of the traffic issue. I haven’t made a judgement whether traffic is or isn’t an issue, but
the PUD did require evaluation of specific intersections, and maybe you want to hear, you know, you
haven’t heard the project next to you, as far as consistency, architecturally, and with all respect to
them, I don’t want to delay the applicants any further, but I think in fairness to everybody that’s here,
and given the thought processes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You have a good point, Chris, and I’m getting tired, and I’m probably not
thinking too clearly right now. So if we don’t make a motion to do anything tonight, what will we
do, just table it?
MR. ROUND-Give instructions to the applicant what you need to become comfortable.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I mean, I think all our questions were answered, like we know the
distance between the buildings. I think that we’re all aware of what the traffic is going up there. I
mean, it hasn’t been built out like it was supposed to have been built out at this point, when the thing
went into conception in ’87, but you’re right.
MR. ROUND-You certainly can make that judgement. I’m just offering you advice here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think you’re being prudent.
MR. ABBOTT-I think the question has been answered. I don’t think we’re comfortable with all the
answers yet. I think 25 feet between the buildings is a little too close. I think this is too dense for
this area. Also going back to Staff Notes A, the Town Board’s resolution suggests that as the
Planned Unit Development is developed, additional traffic review of the nearby intersections is to be
evaluated and goes on to list specific intersections. I don’t care whether it’s developed to what it was
intended to be or what it thought it would be in 1987. The fact is we’re now adding X number of
units here. The traffic analysis needs to be done, based on this here. Even if, you know, it’s only 141
versus 299, it’s an impact, and according to this, that additional traffic review is to be evaluated as the
PUD is developed. That hasn’t been done yet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Point taken.
MR. VOLLARO-I would certainly like to get a chance to read Mr. Voss’s opinion, too. I didn’t
know that that existed. I would like to have the benefit of his thinking then, and I don’t know, how
old is that memo?
MR. MAC EWAN-Spring time, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Spring time.
MR. ROUND-Four months.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Four months or so. So it’s germane, I would think, to this topic with that kind of a
time stamp on it. So I certainly would like to look at that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re looking for a traffic analysis to be done on that, to what extent?
I’m asking questions at this point. I’m looking for some guidance here.
MR. ROUND-I’m sorry. What was the comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking, you know, some members that are wanting to see some traffic
analysis. To what extent, to what scope and what are we looking for?
MR. ROUND-I think the next applicant has provided, there’s some level of analysis, and I think I
haven’t reviewed it in detail, but in the PUD there was specific intersections that were to be
developed, and I think one of those was Cronin and Bay, Meadowbrook, but I’m not sure whether
it’s a level of service. I just, I’m not comfortable making decisions based on a gut reaction, hey, 140
houses is not a lot of houses.
MR. PALING-This is pretty low impact to have to call for a whole traffic study.
MR. ROUND-But that’s 140 vehicles. If everybody works a seven to three shift or eight to three
shift, you’ve got 140 vehicles exiting. For instance, exiting at the a.m., that’s 140 vehicles at one.
That’s worst case, and I know that’s not practical, but I’m just, I’m trying to make a point that 140
units, this, given the context, may not be a lot, but 140 units at a problem intersection may be.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve had the feeling that 140 units is a fair amount, to be honest with you.
MR. ROUND-I’ll let the applicant offer some suggestions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, and this is right out of left field, something that I just
became aware of this evening. Is there any intentions, by another developer, to develop the other
side of Meadowbrook Road, are there some preliminary plans in the works?
MR. ROUND-None.
MR. LAPPER-I can answer that. A client of mine has it under option. They have 18 months to
decide what they want to do, and there’s absolutely no plan now. We’ve had discussions with Chris
that the Town may want a part of that for some recreation use that would be accessed, owned by
ACC, on the far side of the stream. So there’s nothing on the table now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but in all fairness, somebody doesn’t take an option for 18 months with no
intention of doing something with it.
MR. LAPPER-That’s all what the PUD said. That area’s all been approved for development.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but you have to look at, there’s one more chunk of development that’s now
going to happen there, or potentially could happen.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s part of the PUD.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’ll interject. The original PUD said, there was a traffic analysis done, and it said,
here’s the complete build out, and there were some assertions made that, hey, there’s not going to be
any problems at any intersections. There were conditions, I mean, this is 10 year old stuff as well,
though. You’ve got to take that into context, that says, okay, you’ve got to pave Meadowbrook
Road. If you remember, Meadowbrook wasn’t paved all that long ago, and it said, as build out
occurred, we should continually evaluate areas, and I don’t know. I’m not a traffic engineer. I’m not
going to tell you, you need to do trip counts, level of service evaluations at X, Y, Z, but I think you
need some additional level of comfort from a professional saying that you’re not going to cause
problems, and that was contemplated in the original plan and I think that the applicants have known
that from Ground Zero.
MR. MAC EWAN-But your statement, though, as build out continues, you need to re-evaluate the
traffic situation. There’s an opportunity to take all this in, encompassing.
MR. ROUND-But in fairness, we don’t know what the plans are across the street. We can’t predict
the future in that regard, and I know, in good planning, you predict the future, but we have an
approval. We have a process. We know what was contemplated, and you can only put the burden
on what’s in front of you. I know, when do we reach the critical threshold? If we allow 20%, 20%,
20%, now the 80%, the last guy in is responsible for a problem. I don’t know that you’re going to
want to go there. I’ll let Mr. Nace talk.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. NACE-Okay. I read the traffic study out of the original PUD, too, and I think what they were
saying is that they felt, based on their numbers and their projects, that there would not be any traffic
mitigation required, again, other than paving Meadowbrook Road, by the build out, but that as an
extra preventative measure, that, as you started to reach the latter stages of the build out, you should
monitor and make sure that that was the case. Okay. I think it was sort of a belt and suspenders,
but, yes, it’s a study. We think there’s, based on the study, there’s no issue, but just to make sure,
when we get down toward build out, let’s monitor and see, and determine at that point whether there
are any mitigation measure required. What we’re talking about with 140 units is a peak hour flow of
about 97 cars. Of that, I think if I remember right, 65% would be, this is the a.m. peak, the actual
peak occurs, I believe 65, 67% would be leaving and the remaining entering. Based on just
observations and, as Chris says, gut reaction, that traffic alone, in addition to what the Eddy, and I’ve
looked at the Eddy study, I think their peak hour is 34 cars. The addition of those two would have
little if any impact by the time you distribute it out on Meadowbrook and the adjacent intersections.
Whether a traffic study is warranted, my gut feeling says no. Somewhere down the road is it? It
depends on whether you ever approach even 50% of what the anticipated build out of this PUD was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the late hour that it is, and we still have one more application to
listen to.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it feasible that we can get the next applicant up, so that we can begin to make
some of these theme comparisons that were talked about in the PUD, so we can see what the other
applicant has, visualize what we have here, versus what they have, and see whether we’ve got a
compatible connection there or not. Is that doable, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t see why not. I mean, I guess, the answer is, if you actually enact a
motion about this applicant, than that might not be appropriate, but if you’re now talking about
tabling this applicant and moving on to the next one, that’s how you would conduct your ordinary
business.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I would like to now take a look at what the Eddy is proposing, so I can get
a feel on how these get tied into that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m inclined to go along with that, too.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, too. Let’s do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you understand what we want to do? We don’t want to take any
action on your project right yet. We want to table it, and digest what they’re going to present to us,
and how the two of them seem to impact each other, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t agree with that, Bob?
MR. PALING-I guess. If Mark says it’s okay, it’s okay. I didn’t realize you could do.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand why this is a complex question. Pretend that the next
applicant wasn’t here, okay. What I heard the Board members say is you want a series of additional
information for this application. Is that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If that’s correct, then aren’t you tabling this application anyway?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if you’re doing that anyway, then why is it complex as to whether you can
then move on to your next application?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not. It’s late. We’re all tired.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So it sounds like you would table this application. You would then call
your next application on your list. By happy coincidence your next application on your list happens
to be the neighbor, and you can start evaluating some of that information for this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-You make life so easy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You got it, Mark.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t write the agenda. I think it’s a good agenda.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-99 EIS/FINDINGS ACCEPTED (7/2/87) THE GLEN AT
HILAND MEADOW, INC. OWNER: EDDY PROPERTY SERVICE, INC. AND GLENS
FALLS HOME, INC. ZONE: HILAND PARK PUD LOCATION: HAVILAND &
MEADOWBROOK RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RETIREMENT CENTER
CONSISTING OF A TWO STORY APPROXIMATELY 126,000 SQUARE FOOT
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. 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
PAT BOYLE, JOE SPORKO, DAVID WENDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-99, The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc., Meeting Date: October
26, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a 124 unit retirement facility for elderly
care within a Planned Unit Development. The proposed project is part of the Hiland Park Planned
Unit Development approved in July 14, 1987, Town Board Resolution No. 212. The proposed
project has been affirmed to be consistent with the requirements of the Hiland Park PUD plans
according to the Town Board Resolution 72..1999. Staff Notes: Staff has reviewed the project for
compliance with Article VIII Planned Unit Development and found that it is in compliance with the
ordinance requirements. The following factors for review of the proposed project, Section 179-58
Site Plan Approval Process: A. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections, road widths, channelization structures, and traffic
controls The plans indicated all roads will be constructed to Town standards. The plans have been forwarded to the
Highway Department and Rist Frost for review and comment. The application included a traffic study for Haviland
and Meadowbrook Roads. The study concludes no mitigation measures are necessary given the amount of traffic
generated and access site distances. B. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access
and circulation, including separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and pedestrian convenience. The plans identify a
concrete walkway for the Two (2)-Story building, but no other pedestrian paths are shown. The plans demonstrate an
entrance divider to separate the entrance and exit, but no other pedestrian or traffic controls. C. The location,
arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The plans
demonstrate 124 parking spaces or one space per unit. The ordinance requires two spaces per dwelling unit. Staff
would request additional information supporting the number of parking spaces provided. The plans identify a service
yard for unloading for the 2-Story complex. D. Location, arrangement, size and design of buildings,
lighting and signs. The Highland Park PUD had described a retirement village of 670 units, this retirement
facility proposes only 124 units. The plans included a lighting plan and elevation drawings. There was no detail or
proposed location of the sign. E. The relationship of the various uses to one another and their
scale. The retirement facility was proposed in the PUD and is considered consistent with the plans. Since the facility
is residential in nature, it appears compatible with the surrounding residential areas. F. The adequacy, type
and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or a noise-
deterring buffer between adjacent uses and adjoining lands. The landscaping plans were forwarded to
the Beautification Committee for review and comment. The Committee approved the plans without substitution and are
to be maintained in the future. Staff would suggest a lawn sprinkler system be installed as part of the continued
maintenance of the project. G. In the case of apartment houses or multiple dwellings, the
adequacy of usable open space for playgrounds and informal recreation, including land
reserved for recreational use. The plans identify some common area for the Two (2)-Story building. Staff
would request additional information such as access to the golf course or access to the open space land identified in the
PUD. H. The adequacy of stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities. The applicant has
submitted a stormwater management plan that has been provided to Rist Frost for review and comment. The applicant
has proposed to connect to the Town of Queensbury Water and Wastewater lines. Plans have been forwarded to the
Water and Wastewater Department for review and comment. I. The adequacy of structures, roadways,
and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and ponding
and/or erosion. The plans have identified the five detention areas. The applicant has also included a detailed
description of the wetlands on the property and the permits they will need to apply for. J. The protection of
adjacent properties against noise, glare, unsightliness or other objectionable features. The
project is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD, and does not appear to have any objectionable features. K.
Conformance with other specific charges of the Town Board which may have been stated in
the zoning resolution. The applicant has complied with the requirements the Town Board imposed as part of
resolution 212.July 14, 1987. L. The architectural compatibility with other elements of the
71
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
project with the neighborhood. The plans appear to be architecturally compatible with neighborhood. M.
The protection of historical sites and/or buildings. There are currently no buildings on the site and there
are no identifiable historic sites. Other Factors N. The adequacy of fire lanes, other emergency
zones, and the provisions for fire hydrants. The plans identify two existing hydrants on Meadowbrook
Road and six proposed hydrants on the new road. The Bay Ridge Fire Department was provided plans for review and
comment. They proposed another access onto Haviland Road in case the access on Meadowbrook was blocked.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend preliminary approval with the condition that
Staff’s concerns are addressed during final review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost comments.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want those read into the record?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I know it’s late, but it’s our normal procedure.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. They’re dated October 20, 1999, addressed to Mr. Round, “We have
reviewed the documents forwarded to us along with the above referenced site plan and have the
following comments: 1. The applicant is proposing that the Town assume responsibility for
maintenance of the stormwater system including detention basins and median island, and will grant
appropriate easements. Is this agreeable to the Town? 2. Drawing L-1 does not identify the 36 inch
culvert southwest of the I.L.U. which is identified on Drawing L-5. 3. Drywell sizing calculations
should be provided for drywells #1 and #2. 4. Construction detail for asphalt pavement on
Drawing L-9 should be more specific. 5. Soils investigation for groundwater levels and percolation
rates at detention basins and drywells should be provided. The applicant should investigate if the
bottoms of the proposed detention basins or drywells are below extreme high groundwater levels and
if standing water will occur periodically. 6. Landscaping plan was not provided. 7. Applicant’s
report about wetland and water issues states that a NYS DEC – SPDES General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction is required, but it is not listed on the SEQR
Short Form. 8. The applicant should provide the source of the parking criteria used in determining
the number of parking spaces. 9. Will a parking lot be constructed at parking garage area if parking
garages are not built? 10. The water main connection is subject to the approval of the Town of
Queensbury Water Department. 11. The sanitary sewer connection is subject to the approval of the
Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department. The applicant is proposing that the Town assume
responsibility for maintenance of the new sanitary sewer system and will grant appropriate easements.
Is this agreeable to the Town? 12. The curb cut and roadway design are subject to the approval of
the Town of Queensbury Highway Department.”
MR. MAC EWAN-I see a whole bunch more.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets basically summarize those. Town of Queensbury Water Department
responded, as did Wastewater.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-As did Bay Ridge Fire Company
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-As did the Queensbury Beautification Committee. A quick question before we
go any farther. Item Seven of Rist-Frost’s letter. Why would a SEQR Short Form be done anyway?
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand the question. I don’t know the answer. Apparently, somebody
from the applicant supplied a SEQRA Short Form. I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Good morning. Would you identify yourselves for the
record, please.
MRS. BOYLE-Hi. I’m Pat Boyle. I’m President of the Board of Directors of the Glen at Hiland
Meadows.
LEONARD ANGERAME
MR. ANGERAME-Leonard Angerame, Angerame Associates. Architects for the project.
MR. SPORKO-Joe Sporko with the LA Group, site designers.
DAVID WENDT
72
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. WENDT-David Wendt, Senior Project Manager of Northeast Health and also the Project
Manager for this project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who wants to go first?
MRS. BOYLE-I’ve prepared a two and a half hour speech. With your indulgence, could I cut it
down to about a minute and a half?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give you two minutes.
MRS. BOYLE-All right. Now first of all, please beg my indulgence. It took a long time to get the
Town Board, and particularly Fred Champagne, to stop calling this the Eddy Project, and the reason
I say that, and everybody here is laughing. They’ve heard it so often. This project was started by two
not for profit organizations. The first is the Glens Falls Home. Now I think we’re the best kept
secret in Town, but we’ve been operating for over 100 years, and hopefully you’ve seen some of our
publicity from our recent Centennial. We’ve been operating an adult home down on Warren Street
all this time, and the Eddy, which is part of Northeast Health, which includes Albany Memorial
Hospital and Samaritan Hospital, as well as the Eddy. Now originally the whole project started
because we at the Glens Falls Home, our beautiful Victorian building was State of the Art when it
was built, but that was 100 years ago, and the quality of the care has never diminished, but it’s a 100
year old building, and we knew that we had to some how or another either re-build on the site or do
something else, and we began to learn all about the future of elder care, particularly as its next
generation matures. We needed to find out what the future was going to be for elder care. We did a
lot. I won’t go into all the detail, but we discovered that what we needed to do was a retirement
community which encompasses an entire continuum of care, a place where people could come when
they’re feeling independent and be able to age in place, and have the services and the security and
safety that they would need. Ultimately, we began a dialogue with the Eddy, and we wanted to work
with the Eddy, because they’re not for profit, just as we were. They have a long history of top notch
care and long term care, 70 years worth, but most importantly, from our point of view, they had that
same philosophy that we have, that involves providing a respectful environment in which to provide
services and care for our older residents. So we partnered with them and formed a joint venture, and
on New Years Eve of 1996, we bought 45 acres here at Hiland Park. We did buy the land. In 1997,
we formed the Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc. We sent out, one thing that we did during that year,
we had a lot of focus groups to try to decide and ask all the people who were identified as potential
residents, to come in and say, well, okay, if there were such a project, what would you want it to look
like, what kind of services would you like to have here, what kind of amenities would you like, what
kind of food menu, food plan would you like to have, and so all of that information, a program was
developed, all right. Then we put out requests for proposals to architects, and by the end of the year,
we had hired Angerame Associates to be the project architect, and that’s a lot of history in a little bit
of time. I just want to give you a little bit of an overview of what we’re talking about when we talk
about the kind of houses that are going to be involved. We talk about independent living and we talk
about assisted living, and independent living involves people living in their apartments, either in
cottages, which are like duplexes, or in apartments in the main building, various sized apartments in
the main building. The idea is to maximize the independence of our residents. Okay. We do
provide maintenance, certainly security, which is a huge issue to our residents. There are call buttons.
There are people available 24 hours a day to respond, and who are trained to know how to respond
to any of these instances. We provide transportation, and I know we’ll be talking more about this,
but the history of these kinds of projects is that, you know, a few people may bring in cars, but they
very quickly find that they don’t need them, because we provide transportation to doctors, for
grocery shopping, to church, to a whole array of social and recreational events and that kind of thing.
There’s a meal plan, and for independent living, basically we’re expecting one meal a day, in a
beautiful dining room, because all of these people in the apartments and houses have great kitchens,
and we also will have a country store, where they can go and have a light meal if they like, or meet
with friends for coffee in the morning and newspaper and that kind of thing. There will be wellness,
God love them, there’s going to be an exercise room. I always thought you get to an age where
people would stop harping about exercise, but apparently that hasn’t happened. So there is going to
be wellness, and there will be wellness programs dealing with nutrition and aging and all this kind of
\ thing. There will also be a full time activities director, and that’s to make sure that the quality of
life is there, and they’ll draw on the interest of our residents. We may, at one point, have people who
are heavily into going to the theater, or at another time people very into music or dancing or
whatever. That’s basically the concept behind the independent living. Then we talk about assisted
living, and that would be in one wing, and these are people who, perhaps, are a little bit more frail,
who perhaps need a little bit more assistance, and they’ll have all of the above, security,
transportation, but in addition, they may need some assistance with some activities of daily living.
They may need assistance with, you know, dressing or bathing or nutrition, and there will be health
aides on site to help will all of those activities, and they will tell you more about, you know, how
these areas are and what kind of amenities they have. Basically, that’s the outline. I have to tell you
one thing, and I know that Chris is very much aware of this. Last week, on the 18, we kicked off, if
th
73
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
you will, our marketing effort. We had the grand opening for the information center here on
Haviland Road, and I hope you’ve had the chance to get in and see, but if not, please do. We have
models of the site. We have models of the apartments, and there’s a full scale apartment actually
built. You can go in and kick the tires and see how you like it. Well, that grand opening was actually
the beginning of our marketing effort. However, just by word of mouth, and by people asking and
seeing and what we had in mind, what we were planning on doing, and based on the reputations of
the two organizations, we already have a list of openings, people who are priority lists, people who
said, I’m moving in, get it built, I’m there. We haven’t even started marketing yet, as one gentleman
said, so can the Marketing Department, you know. It’s really amazing the acceptance of the project,
ever since we first said this is what we’d like to do, because there’s been no other place where people
who want to stay in this community, have an active, independent lifestyle as they age, and yet have
that safety net, there’s no place in this community where they can do that, now, and you’ll find a lot
of people, when they retire, they’ll say let’s go South, or let’s got to Arizona. Eventually, I’m sure
your experience would coincide with ours. Eventually, they want to come home to be with their
families, and this is a place where they can do it. Having said much more than two minutes, I’d like
to turn it over to Joe Sporko, and he will describe the site.
MR. SPORKO-Thank you. For the record, Joe Sporko with the LA Group. I’d like to stand over by
the site, and get through this pretty quickly. I’d like to explain the site plan and hopefully address
some of the questions that have come up along the way here. First all of, the site that the project is
on, the 45 acres, is the site that was originally proposed for the retirement center when the Hiland
Park PUD was approved. The main difference was it was originally approved for 670 units. The
plan that we are proposing here is for 124 units. We are showing some areas for some expansion,
but nothing too that extent whatsoever. The main entrance would be off of Meadowbrook Road,
and it would be a Town dedicated road. We would be asking the Town to take over the road system
that would be developed throughout the Glen at Hiland Meadows. We do not have access to
Haviland Road. There is a separate piece of land, located along Haviland Road, which is zoned
commercial, or intended to be commercial as part of the PUD, that we do not have access through.
In fact, we think that access to Meadowbrook Road is, in fact, better for the project because it
enables the project to have its own identity and be a nicer entrance. What is proposed, as was just
explained, is three types of units for the project. First of all, there is an independent living units, and
the enriched housing units, which are both combined in the main building itself. There’s a total of 62
independent living units shown in these two wings, and a total of 44 enriched housing or assisted
living units shown in this wing. In the center, there would be a common area, common facilities,
dining facilities and so on located here. The third type of unit is the independent living cottage type
unit. There’s 18 units proposed on a separate cluster. So this cluster here, they have some link with
the main facility, yet it has some separation from the facility. So it’s a different type of unit. These
units have garages in them. People that live here are more independent, and we purposely designed
them this way so that they could be off in a separate little cluster. Some of the philosophy of our
design, I just wanted to mention to the Board. We wanted the entry way in the commercial area, as I
mentioned, wanted to apply our own identity, establish a sense of place. When you come here, we
want it to be known that this is the Glen at Hiland Meadows. So we’ll establish an identity through
the entry. There will be a landscaped entry with some entry walls located here. We did not detail, we
have a note here, (lost words) likely stone or brick, some type of nice (lost word) at that location.
Also, with the 45 acres, and the relatively low density for that acreage, we have a considerable
amount of open space for the project, which would remain open space, green space. Some of that
will be used by residents for walking. We do not show a trail system throughout the development,
although in the future what the Eddy has done in other locations is involve the residents with the
creation of such a trail system and made it sort of a community involvement type system, and
develop a trail system later. We certainly have the opportunity to do that here. We are showing a
walkway from the cottage units along the main road to our main facility, and that’s so the people
could walk down and go to the dining facilities. We are showing signage throughout here that will be
added to the final drawings. There will be safety signage, such as stop signs at the intersections, of
course. There will be some directional signage anticipated, toward the entrance. In addition to that,
there will be a cross walk located here, where the sidewalk abuts the other side. So that people can
safely cross the road. The main building is sited quite a distance away from the road, and we did that
for a few reasons. One of them is that the best views from the site are located in this area off to the
west. You can see West Mountain. You can see French Mountain, and we decided that was the best
location to put the main building, but also that was the flattest area of land that we had. The site is
sort of gently rolling, with an intermittent stream and narrow wetland which winds its way through
the site. So we cross that, and we’re going to locate the main facility there, back into the site a good
ways. The road system, we are showing this ending at this location here, about 1960 linear feet of
road, with a separate maintenance facility at the end of that, which would be off a gravel drive.
When the remainder of the facility gets built, the expansion wing shown here, the remainder of this
loop will get constructed, as well as the future parking area, which would service this wing, or facility.
There is a service facility located off a separate driveway, which would be landscaped to screen the
view from the parking areas located on this side of the facility. Also I mentioned the maintenance
facility located in a separate building, it would also be screened from view. We do have quite a bit of
landscaping associated with the project. The project received approval from the Beautification
74
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
Committee. We used landscaping at the entry. We used landscaping around the rears of units to
help screen (lost word) them. I mentioned the landscaping of the maintenance facility, and
landscaping around the building itself and within the grounds for the enjoyment of the residents. We
tried to incorporate a mixture of different types of species for seasonal interest, and tried to keep
native species, as possible. There are several formal common areas. There is a courtyard, which is
for use by the enriched housing wing over here. Also, the landscaping and sort of entry, courtyard
area at the main entry, but also there would be a future courtyard shown over in this location here,
which would I think be added in this wing, if added to the facility. The wetland which I mentioned
winds through the site. We are preserving as much of that as possible. We do have to cross it. So
there is some minor impact to it when we do have to relocate part of that intermittent stream.
However, the total amount of impact to wetlands is under a third of an acre. It’s .29 acres total
disturbance. We are proposing a sanitary sewer system to tie in to the main sanitary trunk line
located in this area over here. The system would be serviced by gravity sewers. It would service
both the cottage units and the main facility, and tie into that main line. Also, the water would be
extended from Meadowbrook Road, and extend through within the public road, the intended public
road, to service the facility, along with the hydrants which would be located along the road as well.
Drainage, we have a rather extensive stormwater management plan that we submitted to the Town.
We have a series of detention basins, which will control runoff and provide a controlled release,
which would assimilate the anticipated runoff for the 25 year storm. We have a number of detention
basins located throughout the site that would accommodate that range. With that, I’d like to turn it
over to David Wendt.
MR. PALING-Could I ask you a question, please? Just tell us a little bit more about the expansion
units. You seem to have three of them, and are they going to be the same, whatever the building is
they’re attached to?
MR. SPORKO-Yes. I think that probably Len Angerame, the architect, could probably describe
those better than myself. I’d like to defer that to him. I do want to talk briefly about parking,
because I know that was a question, and I do want to give you the numbers on that, and then I’ll turn
it over to David Wendt of the Eddy. The Ordinance in the Town states two parking spaces per
dwelling unit. It does not really specify the type of dwelling unit. We do not want to supply an
overabundance of parking here because we can have a lot of vacant parking lot sitting there. So we
look to the standards of the industry for retirement communities. It seems as though there really are
no standards of the industry. So the best thing that we were able to do, the best way to determine
parking is look to experience. The Eddy has several facilities in the Capital District that they own
and operate. They have very good figures on exactly how much parking you do need for these types
of facilities, how many cars are actually there, were at the actual usage of the residence, just some
basic numbers that we are providing. For the cottage units, which essentially are duplex units, we’re
providing, similar to a typical duplex units. There, of course, are garage plus additional space out
front. So there’s two spaces per unit for those. For the independent living units, there are 62 units
with the main building. We’re providing 45 spaces, and that’s .72 spaces per unit. For the enriched
housing, which is 44 units, we’re providing 25 spaces, which is .56 per unit. In addition to that, we’re
showing garages, 18 spaces which could be built in the future. We’re showing that as a kind of a
definite maybe right now. If the need does arise for those units, and it’s the desire of the residents
who reside there for the garage facilities, those will of course be built. So we’re providing 106 spaces
total, with the addition of the 18 would make it 124 units. David can give you some facts and figures
on how the parking was estimated.
MR. WENDT-Before I start, as you’re aware, we did contract with Creighton Manning to do the
traffic study for our project. In addition to that, once again, to support not only what Joe has just
mentioned to you, but also to support as an independent party, what their assessment is on parking,
as it relates to senior housing projects, in particular housing projects that have a combined facility
where you have independent living and assisted living on the same campus. Their basic finding, and
I have a letter here for you if you’d like, for your record, is that there are no national standards that
you can use, and again, they would recommend, our experience as operators of existing facilities here
in the Northeast, primarily in the Capital District, as a good benchmark for what is needed, and just
to give you an example of what we have experience to date at Beverwick, which is in Slingerlands,
NY, and the Beachwood Retirement Living Complex in Troy, NY. Down in the Town of
Bethlehem, it was unfortunate, but the Town did require us to maintain the 1.5 spaces per dwelling
unit. They did not have clear code, if you will, as it relates to senior housing, as defined by the
industry that we operate within. Having said that, we have, today, 235 spaces on site. Actually
constructed and sitting there. Additionally, there’s an additional 30 spaces of green space that could
be converted to future parking, should we need it. The reality, at Beverwick, is that there only 86
resident cars. Therefore, we have 149 spaces for visitors and/or staff to occupy, and on average, we
have basically, as in the past, parking spaces that you could land airplanes on. I kid you not, and I
have brought, as an example of one of the parking lots in particular, that is just continuously empty.
When you start looking at the assisted living piece, it gets dramatically worse, and when the Town
would hold you to a standard, again, when they don’t have codes that apply to assisted living or
retirement living, again, we as developers or we as operators are forced to incur costs of development
75
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
that are truly an enforcement because those costs, again, fall back onto our resident’s shoulders.
We’re a non profit organization. Our residents pay the cost of construction. An example, at the
Terrace at Beverwick, again, in Slingerlands, NY, we were required to put in an additional 62 parking
spaces on the same campus I just talked to you about. The reality is, in our study, one out of 26
residents in an assisted living facility will have a car. So again, we were left, in that situation, with
basically 58 additional spaces that were not required. That would be used, I guess, for Staff as well as
visitors. So what you’re basically seeing is a trend here. Without codes in place, because, yes, the
reality is in the Northeast, it is a new industry, a new animal that you folks are facing, we’ve been
dealing with as developers of these projects throughout the Capital Region. Having said that, the
facts of the matter are, basically what we are finding at our facilities, and this holds true, too, at the
Beachwood Independent Living Complex, about half of your residents will have cars. Those cars
typically, as Pat Boyle has mentioned, will not be operated. Residents will opt for scheduled
transportation and/or pay ala carte to have a campus driver, if you will, take them in the campus
vehicle to the doctor’s office, to the market, because when you’re looking at the age of this
population, they’re roughly 83 years of age, on average.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you’re going to get an argument from anybody up here on the
Board regarding the requirements for the parking. Let’s move on. It’s getting very late, folks, really.
MR. WENDT-Len Angerame.
MR. ANGERAME-I promise to go quickly. Basically, when we look at the building types that we
have here, when you go to the main kind of living community here, we are dealing with a building
that is a two story building, with two wings off the side with a one story commons. Now, again, we
were very sensitive when we looked at the design of this. We could have gone three stories and
stayed with the height, but we were very concerned with the residential community style that we
wanted to maintain. So we kept it to a two story. This elevation that you are looking at right here is
the main entrance, as you drive up to the facility, and as you come in, this is really what you’re
looking at, the main commons, within your apartment wings that are coming out, and I think if you
start looking at doing the design of the building, you’ll see this is not just a straight building. This
building is designed to be broken up into many different elements, almost to create this residential
style, almost like you’re living in individual homes. As you start looking to the wings, you start seeing
how we articulated elements of the standard style house along the entrance. We’ve created entrance
ways into the apartments. Again, using elements of style of the porch concept to create that home
style effect. So we’ve looked to the residential style. We’re using asphalt shingles for the roofing
materials. We are proposing to use a vinyl sided product, which I do take some exception to what
the Board has discussed already, because we have completed almost seven projects right now that
have vinyl siding on them, retirement communities that look outstanding. We are just going through
a process with the Town of Niskayuna through a project that we plan to have in the ground this
spring. There was a big issue that we originally had a cement side on the building, when it was a
three story. We went to two story to size the project back. We proposed vinyl siding. It was
rejected originally, but after going through a process of explaining how vinyl siding really is
nowadays, the project has improved. Everyone thinks that vinyl siding is a product that you
remember seeing 15 years ago, where it would be buckling on the walls because it was probably
installed improperly. If the product goes on properly, it looks absolutely fine, and from a
maintenance standpoint, there is no maintenance. If you put wood on this building, that’s going to
be painted every four years, and if it doesn’t get painted every four years, and the owner stretches it
out to six years, it’s going to look worse. That’s a Town issue we’re very concerned about. Vinyl
siding will look great for 25 years. The other factor that we’re going to be dealing with here, too, is
the cost. The cost of painting a project of this size is going to be quite large, and again, being a
nonprofit organization, it’s going to be passed on to the residents. So I think that’s a concern we
have to look at. We feel very confident with vinyl siding. We recently won a design award for the
Terrace at Beverwick, which was vinyl sided. So it has become a standard in the industry. We have
another two projects that we’re doing, one in East Aurora, outside of Buffalo, which is a very high
end community, and again, we’re using all different types of vinyl siding. So it is an accepted
products. I think it’s something that maybe you should think about reconsidering again, though,
because I can almost guarantee you that we will have a project that will look very nice. The fact that
we are set back, you’re not going to be able to tell if it’s vinyl or wood, and I think long term
maintenance on the project is a concern that you should be very concerned with.
MR. VOLLARO-How susceptible to mold is vinyl versus wood?
MR. ANGERAME-I’d be concerned more with wood, especially the tighter the building gets, and
that’s the problem. Nowadays, you try to get buildings tight, you create problems with vapor
infiltration and wood will definitely start peeling. When we go over to the assisted living wing, which
has its own private entrance in the rear, again, this building takes on a smaller style, almost a (lost
word) style house. Again, we carry the porch, which is the main trademark in our facility, at the
entry. The cottages, which are duplex units, take on another style, where we almost look like we’re
dealing with one large house. One of the things that we did in the design of the cottage is downplay
76
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
the garage. Typically, when you see duplex units, the garage is always sticking out front, and we tried
to put the garage back behind the unit, as you can see on the site plan, and have created a separation
of driveways so each unit almost acts as an individual house and that island between the driveway
(lost words) with a landscaped island. So, again, we’re trying to down play the mass of the building.
As you can see we’re still carrying through similar style of the residential style we use in the main
building, our siding, trim work, front porch, canopy, and basically the rear we have patios (lost
words).
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are the chimneys masonry, or are they going to be vinyl sided?
MR. ANGERAME-They will be vinyl also. We’re using zero clearance gas fireplaces. It’s not a
wood burning fireplace. Lighting I know was a concern that was brought up because basically it
wasn’t addressed from the standpoint of the type of fixture. What we are proposing to use coming
down the main driveway would be a cut off shoe box type fixture, which is pretty standard, and then
as we get closer to the building. We’re going to more of a Victorian type fixture that I apologize for
only bringing one sample. That’s the type of fixture we’re proposing. So it’s a very decorative
fixture, and that’s more or less a shoebox. Any questions, then, on the architectural style of them?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not from me at this point. Anybody else?
MR. PALING-Just tell me a little bit about your expansion unit. Is that going to be the same thing
as the building already does?
MR. ANGERAME-Yes. What we have here is expansion on the north side of the building for more
independent living. We also then have expansion on the south end here for independent living, and
then two wings, small wings of expansion.
MR. PALING-All right. So it’s just expansion of doing what the building already does?
MR. ANGERAME-Yes. No new programs. Also over here is future development which would be
possibly more cottages.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that above the 124?
MR. ANGERAME-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is that going to be?
MR. ANGERAME-Well, above the 124 would be this expansion, this expansion, the assisted living,
and then future cottages.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So 124 is kind of like Phase I, really.
MR. ANGERAME-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It sounds nice.
MR. PALING-How many of the residents of the existing home will be moving in to this facility?
MRS. BOYLE-All of them. They’re very excited. They’ll all be transitioned in.
MR. PALING-Good. I have no other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to look for some guidance from Staff on this. How can we marry
these two projects together for some review? It’s late. You haven’t said anything all night long.
Now’s your chance.
MR. ROUND-I suggest that you reconvene at an earlier hour. I don’t know what that is. I think the
projects should be going hand in hand, and I think that was the purpose that they were both placed
on tonight’s agenda. We have, Wednesday the 10 of November is a date that hasn’t been
th
programmed for another activity. We have Tuesday of next week. I don’t know if a week is too
soon or too late, or if you want, our regular agenda is going to be the 16 and the 23 of November.
thrd
The 23 is the Thanksgiving week.
rd
MR. MAC EWAN-What was wrong with that 10 date? It’s relatively around the corner.
th
77
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. ROUND-I have a conflict on the 9. I have a meeting. It’s a significant community related
th
project. It’s going to be at the firehouse on the 9.
th
MR. VOLLARO-But you say the 10 is good?
th
MR. ROUND-Tuesday the 2 is election day, and this room’s taken. It’s a polling place. We could
nd
go Wednesday the 3 or Wednesday the 10.
rdth
MR. MAC EWAN-How does that fit in to your schedule?
MR. SCHACHNER-Good for Wednesday the 3. No good for Wednesday the 10.
rdth
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How does it fit in for the Board members, Wednesday the 3?
rd
MR. VOLLARO-Wednesday the 3 would be good for me.
rd
MR. ABBOTT-That sounds good
MR. ROUND-My only concern is that, it’s a week from tonight, and to give instructions to one party
for additional information, whether they’re going to be able to comply with that. We’re not really
sure what we’re doing right now, and if that’s acceptable to both parties, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, would this be just a meeting of the two parties and the Board? There
wouldn’t be anybody else on the agenda?
MR. ROUND-Correct.
MRS. BOYLE-Could I make a suggestion?
MR. ROUND-Feel free.
MRS. BOYLE-I understand your need to see the two projects together for certain things, but I really
feel very strongly that our projects need to be, this just happened as a coincidence that we both
wound up on the agenda at the same time.
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MRS. BOYLE-Normally, each party would come in, we would present our project, and they would
be considered independently. It’s just as a course of coincidence we both have the same.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason that we’re looking for that is because, at least I am. I don’t like to
speak for anybody else on the Board, but in reading the original PUD, I sensed in there that they
were looking for cohesiveness and that the whole operation would have a blend, a theme is the word
they used, and I’ve gotten a lot out of this project, seeing the other project and seeing them, in my
mind, co-located, almost, or not co-located, but located as partners, and I’ve formed some opinions
on that myself, within my own mind.
MRS. BOYLE-Well, would it be helpful in any way, at the next meeting, if we were to hold it at the
information center?
MR. ROUND-We had talked about that previously, I know.
MRS. BOYLE-Yes. We have a facility there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that it would be appropriate for the proceedings of this Board to
have meetings outside of where we normally have them with the activities center here scheduling
here, only because the public has an opportunity and a right to participate in it, and you never know
what kind of crowd you’re going to get, and if you hold it in a different location, you might be
surprised, and we also do record our minutes to our meetings.
MRS. BOYLE-The possibility is available. I’d also love to see you take a run over there, if you
haven’t had a chance. I think a lot of the questions that you have about how the facility will look and
how it’s going to layout.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been there.
MRS. BOYLE-Okay. Good.
78
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m inclined to want to table this, just like we did the one in front of you,
because, for my mind, I need to kind of delve into this PUD thing a little bit, but I’m more
concerned, I want to see some of the things that Staff has, Chuck’s overview of the project. Quite
honestly, I’m going to be very candid with you. I’m not sure where I want to go, as far as, what’s the
problem with the traffic, if there is a problem with the traffic? I mean, how much was it studied in
the original PUD SEQRA review, or the Environmental Impact Statement, and how is this project,
these two projects changed from the original intent of what the PUD was? I mean, I’m hearing both
sides of the argument, that maybe there might be an impact to traffic, but I’m hearing that both of
these projects are less dense than what the original PUD called for. So, if that’s the case, then I don’t
see us needing to review traffic any farther. I mean, it’s less of an impact here, but for myself, I’d like
the opportunity to look at this information that we have, that isn’t in front of us tonight, before we
make a decision. I’m not swayed, at this point still, on the issue of vinyl versus natural wood siding.
I’m still leaning toward wood siding, based on the fact that that’s what the original theme of Hiland
Park was striving to achieve. To divert from that in my mind is lessening the quality of what the
overall concept of this whole park up here is all about, and it becomes at that point in my mind, you
know, pro con versus vinyl versus siding, but it goes beyond that. It goes, in my mind, to the
aesthetic concept of what the whole Planned Unit Development is all about, and that’s exactly what a
PUD’s about, is a homogenous mixture of uses in a zoning parcel, and I think we need to achieve
that. It’s two o’clock in the morning. I can’t believe I rattled that off.
MR. ANGERAME-One thing I will add to that comment, though, is they did have a nursing home
planned.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I was just going to say that, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. ANGERAME-In a nursing home, by Code, you cannot use wood siding.
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to investigate that. That’s what we need to understand.
MR. WENDT-If I may, too, as we move forward here, and leaving here tonight, we obviously want
to continue our process and following up open items. Are there any take aways that we need to be
looking at that folks have identified today which may not be on the transmittal that we have received
today or they may have developed as of this evening? I promise I won’t talk about parking anymore.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, actually I think you sold us on the parking thing. Have you adequately
addressed, I guess, the Rist-Frost comments? I think that may be about the only things left open,
plus the two letters from the Town, Wastewater and Water.
MR. ROUND-Those things can be resolved as part of final approval. That’s typically the process.
MR. MAC EWAN-Those are open issues right now that need to be addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-One thing I would like to get a look at is the plan, at least, for the over 124 units,
just an overview of what the full build out of this might look like, and it doesn’t have to be, you don’t
have to spend a lot of money putting a fancy thing together. I’d just like to take a look at what the
full build out really looks like.
MR. WENDT-What we could provide you is certainly a floor plan that was developed during one
portion of the schematic design. However, I would just want to go on record as saying, from the
developer’s side, is that the future build out would be driven by market forces.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. WENDT-We’re not necessarily just going to build 40 more units, because that’s what we have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, based on what the lady said a little bit ago, she’s already got 90 signed up.
People in the Marketing Department haven’t even gotten off the ground yet.
MR. WENDT-That’s very true.
MR. VOLLARO-So it sounds to me like you’ve got a winner here.
MR. MAC EWAN-So basically we’re aiming toward November 3.
MR. VOLLARO-November 3. Mark, you’re okay for the 3?
rd
MR. SCHACHNER-November 3is fine.
rd
79
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/26/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-The Third.
MR. ROUND-Could I suggest you do, as Board members want to get to the model, moc up, I’d
suggest that if vinyl/wood siding is one of the primary concerns you have is that you have materials
in front of you from both, material samples. Traffic issue, potentially maybe both parties could get
together and we could, I know it’s all there, I don’t know what additional analysis, but if somehow
we could work cooperatively toward making the Board more comfortable what was contemplated
and what’s proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s basically where we’re going at this point, is trying to make sure that
we’re staying on line.
MR. ROUND-And then you may have specific issues with each of the parties that aren’t generic.
MR. VOLLARO-On that flooring, where is the common boundary line between your project and
theirs?
MR. WENDT-That’s it right here.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it right here, okay. I’ve got it. That’s the common boundary.
MR. PALING-Just one more thing. The comment was made that vinyl siding was not allowed on, I
mean, wood siding is not allowed on nursing homes. What is that?
MR. ANGERAME-New York State Department of Health does not allow wood frame on nursing
homes. UL is not a rated wall system for wood siding.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good point.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do they allow masonry chimneys, though, even though they’re freestanding,
like brick? I mean, the thing is, I’ll go with vinyl siding, but I cannot handle those vinyl chimneys, at
all.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that’s up for discussion. Okay. So what we’re going to do this is table
this until November 3. I think we kind of have a consensus here between both applications what
rd
we’re looking for. We’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open..
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I had closed the public hearing on Site Plan No. 53-99. I’ll re-open that one and
leave that open as well.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, folks. Thank you for your indulgence. I’m sorry it took so very long
tonight.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, you need to open up the public hearing for BEN ARONSON.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, consider it done. We’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-And you need to open up the public hearing for Wilkison.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing for Wilkison, Site Plan No. 41-99, is open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
80