2000-06-20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
ALAN ABBOTT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
April 18, 2000: NONE
April 19, 2000: NONE
April 25, 2000: NONE
April 27, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, APRIL 19, APRIL 25, AND
APRIL 27, 2000, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO., INC. AS
CONTRACT VENDEE AND AGENT FOR WARREN CO. OWNER: COUNTY OF
WARREN AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION:
BAY & OLD BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,845 SQ.
FT. BUILDING FOR THE BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC. SITE WORK
INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, THREE CURB CUTS, AND PAVED SURFACES. NEW
USES IN RR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 41-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/8/00 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-15 LOT SIZE: 4.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-
15
JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-2000, Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Meeting Date: June 20,
2000 “The application for Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company was tabled at the April 25, 2000
meeting to obtain a “sign-off” from C.T. Male Associates and to supply information regarding
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
generator noise. The applicant’s revised information was received on May 26, 2000 and was
forwarded to C.T. Male Associates for review and comment. (Attached is C.T. Male Assoc. review
dated 6/15/00 and applicant’s response dated 6/15/00.) The revised plan addresses the concerns
raised by Staff and Board members at the April 25, 2000 meeting. The applicant has provided
adequate information and clarification on the proposed curb-cuts, site improvements, generator
noise, lighting, septic, and water for the fire apparatus. The planting schedule for tree size should be
revised to 3 ½ inch caliper. The revision would correspond with the applicant’s response letter of
May 24, 2000.”
MRS. MOORE-The applicant did submit an additional revision that all the Board members have in
regards to the decibel level.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe you just want to read into the record the additional information
that they supplied, maybe tie it to the dates, so we can make it part of the record, please.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The information submitted today of June 20, 2000 is in regards to the decibel
levels, and that would correct the information prior to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we also have a letter of May 24, in reference to the lighting.
th
MRS. MOORE-That information is outlined in the prepared resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The only information that I know of that’s not in that resolution is the information
submitted today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Richard Jones. We hope that we
have supplied what the Board requested at the last meeting. Mr. Jones had actually responded to
C.T. Male, but not in time to get a response letter back to you guys to verify it, and that’s been done.
So we’re here to answer any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t you just pick up at that point and go through the responses, if
we could, to C.T. Male.
MR. JONES-Craig, do you want to go through the original letter?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, just where we left off, I think.
MR. JONES-What we had submitted on May 31 was a response to the Planning Board’s request for
st
the sound levels. We have provided. Our clarification today basically indicates the sound level
readings at the property line. The original was actually at the face of the residence, on both the east
and the southeast side of the property. Basically, with the generator, we’re looking at a muffler that’s
a critical grade muffler that will be actually pointing up. We’ve incorporated the sound attenuating
housing. They call a quiet site model. This is manufactured by Onen Generator Corporation, and
we basically feel that the noise levels that we’re generating are within acceptable levels and actually on
the low side of those acceptable levels. In regard to the questions and clarifications with C.T. Male,
they had asked, in reference to the various light fixtures on site, as to whether they had cutoffs. All
fixtures have cutoffs. They have the polycarbonate lenses. The bollards are basically 42 inches high,
and they have a directional louver which directs the light downward. Details were provided on the
original submission, when we submitted the plans back in the beginning of the month. The curb
cuts, as provided, are for separation of the Fire Company and the public traffic, as we had discussed
previously. Off-street parking, basically we had based that on public usage of one space for every
four seats in the assembly space. Therefore we’ve provided 25 spaces for that. The Fire Company,
we had provided 33 spaces. There are no requirements stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance for that,
and we basically took about 2/3rds of the current membership, which is about 55 people. So that’s
how we had come up with the parking for the site. The grading and drainage plan, basically, is
designed to infiltrate all stormwater runoff and development on site. None is escaping from the site.
The existing well on site has adequate capacity for the building, as designed and proposed. As far as
the septic system design, it is based on the New York State Building Code requirements. It’s a
Firehouse with assembly space, and that’s what it’s based upon. The plan will be revised to show the
tree size, the caliper size, as requested by Beautification, and also, as we look at it, the site has no
areas that will be susceptible to flooding or erosion. As I indicated before, everything is designed to
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
infiltrate on site. One of the comments from the Planning Department was in reference to a
comment that was made at a Town Board meeting way back in I believe January of this year, in
reference to a water table, and the water table is actually a reference to an architectural element on
the building, not the water table below grade, and we had clarified that with the Planning
Department. In reference to C.T. Male, we provided a drawing which indicated the footcandle levels
of all new fixtures that were being provided on site, and no footcandle level exceeds half a footcandle
on the Bay Road side, and more than one tenth of a footcandle on the Old Bay Road side, which is
the side that has the residences. The light poles are 20 foot high, and they have a fixture mounting
height on that pole of 15 feet, which is indicated in our details. The island between the handicapped
spaces that they were asking about is a lawn area, and we had provided a six foot wide concrete walk
with a crosswalk painted across the drive area for access to the front area of the building where we
have the handicapped ramp coming up over the curb. We have modified the grading on the
southwest corner of the parking lot into a more uniform one in five pitch. This will alleviate any
concerns that they had in reference to a retaining wall, and will allow the Fire Company to maintain
that with mowing. Grading in all paved areas has been modified to direct runoff to the drywells, and
the top of grade elevations have been provided and reviewed. We have done deep test pits on the
site, and the report was provided to C.T. Male and they found that acceptable. We actually went
down nearly 14 feet on the site, and found acceptable soils and the water. We added all test pit
locations to the plans. We modified the septic tank location so that we could eliminate the 45 degree
bend from the main building into the lead area or the inlet side of the tank. A reserve area has also
been indicated for the septic system on the plans. We had relocated one of the seepage pits that they
were concerned about in reference to the retaining wall that comes off the north end of the
apparatus bay. So we’ve moved that away from that for proper distance separation. The existing
culvert that’s on the Old Bay side of the property actually goes under Old Bay Road and it is owned
by the County, and it’s used to collect stormwater runoff that comes down the shoulder, it would be
the west shoulder of Old Bay Road. That is not part of our stormwater management. The existing
3,000 gallon, or the proposed 3,000 gallon underground cistern that we were looking for along the
front edge of the front concrete apron, is actually a pre-cast concrete structure that’s underground. It
will be used to basically store water for the lawn irrigation system as well as an occasional fill for
some of the pumper trucks. So it is not going to be used for domestic use in the building. As I
indicated before, the well has an adequate yield. That was tested, and that was completed in March
of this year by the Fire Company. The existing well system, because of its public usage, will receive a
treatment and disinfection system, in conformance with the Health Department requirements. No
on-site septic system or adjoining property owner’s system is closer than 200 feet to the existing well.
We went out and verified that in the field, and all erosion control measures will be incorporated, in
regard to the grading and drainage, to make it in conformance with the New York State Guidelines
for Erosion and Sediment Control, and basically, they accepted our responses and our supplemental
drawings that we provided. The last comment that we had gotten from C.T. Male was in reference
to basically incorporating the erosion control plan that we had developed as part of the contract
documents. That will be provided, and it’s a small plan for erosion control on the final site plan, and
with that, we’ve basically addressed all of their questions and concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. JONES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple, and they’re just procedural things. The drawing, I’ve attached
the drawing that showed the erosion control to SP-2. I really think that that, this is the drawing I’m
referring to, I think that ought to be, you know, there ought to be some, if this wasn’t attached to
this, I wouldn’t know what that was. So there’s got to be some identity to that drawing.
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s our intent to actually, both are in the CAD system. We’ll take and basically
footprint one and put it on the other document.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then the same comment goes for the lighting plan.
MR. JONES-Yes. We can do that, also.
MR. VOLLARO-I might have something lacking in mind. I couldn’t find SP-3 for the sign details.
Is there an SP-3 drawing?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-It may be just a small detail on one of the, in the utilities.
MR. VOLLARO-It says that the applicant refers to SP-3, re: sign details, and I was looking for it,
and I couldn’t see it..
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a detail called out on one of the drawings. I think it’s on SP-2.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s not on SP-3. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s labeled SP-3, but I think it’s on drawing SP-2, and all it is is a detail. She’s
pointing it out, if she can find it quickly.
MR. JONES-No, they are on SP-3. We have a plan.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I don’t have that drawing. I looked for it, but I guess it’s not in mine.
MR. JONES-That was submitted with the original drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as they’ve got it. I wanted to make sure it was part of the package.
I couldn’t locate TP-1 and TP-2, but, Marilyn, you had it identified as something else.
MR. MAC EWAN-PT.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I couldn’t find that. The elevation drawing is also untitled. I think that
should also be titled.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have a couple. With respect to the emergency generator, how often would
that be used? Would that only be used in emergency situations or?
MR. JONES-Yes, it will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a regular, routine test?
MR. JONES-They will perform one test a week, which would last about 20 minutes, and that is set
up, it can be set up on a time clock situation so that it can occur at a specific hour of the day. We
would recommend that it happen during the daylight hours, sometime between 10 in the morning
and probably 2 in the afternoon.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other question I had was with respect to the parking, and I don’t
know how much discussion there was before. I’m just curious as to if there are, you know, 55
firemen, if there are enough spaces. I mean, I saw the calculations and everything.
MR. JONES-It’s a difficult, the parking scenario or the parking requirements for a Fire Company
building are difficult to figure because if we have firemen responding to an emergency, several will go
to the Fire Company, and that’s the basic parking lot on the north end of the building. Other
firemen will go directly to the scene of the emergency. If there is a function going on at the building
where the fire company is going to be there en masse, the public use of the building will not be
happening at that point. So we felt that between the 25 and the other numbers that we were looking
at that we had sufficient parking to cover Fire Company use, if that was intended or public use if that
was intended.
MR. LAPPER-Chris, this Board traditionally asks for the minimum parking that you need, just so
that you’re not going to have too much blacktop.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I had one. I don’t know if I missed your explanation or I skipped it, but there
was C.T. Male’s letter of the 17 of May. Item Two under the following comments about regarding
th
the island between the handicapped spaces, what is that going to be made of?
MR. JONES-That is a grass area, and that was in my comments that I managed to squirrel away again
here. That was in my response letter of May 24, comment number two, the island between the
th
handicapped spaces and the building is lawn area, and a six foot wide concrete walk would be
provided across the lawn area, with a painted crosswalk leading to the handicapped curb ramp at the
walk, at the front of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Comments from Staff, questions?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MRS. MOORE-I put together a list based upon some of the comments you made. Do you want me
to go through that now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Would you rather wait after public hearing or do you want to do it now?
It’s up to you.
MRS. MOORE-Why don’t we wait until after the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. We left the public hearing open. If anyone wants to come up and
comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. I’d just ask you to identify yourself and your
address and your residence for the record, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NANCY NEWBURN
MRS. NEWBURN-I’m Nancy Newburn. I live at 40 Sunnyside North. It had to be changed again
for 911. That’s where I live. It’s within earshot, certainly, of the proposed building. I’m just curious
I wasn’t able to attend the first hearing on this, the first public hearing on this, and I’m just curious as
to why, with the building on Glen Lake and the building on Sunnyside, this is necessary. I don’t
mean to make you repeat what has already been said at the May meeting, but there are two perfectly
good buildings. Why is another one necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d be happy to ask them to provide another for you. That was discussed in-
depth at the Town Board meeting, two Town Board meetings, I believe it was, in early spring, late
winter, and then they discussed it with us again the last time they were here in April or May. So we’ll
ask them to reiterate that for you.
MRS. NEWBURN-Okay. I appreciate that, because my concern is with the diminishing open space
in Queensbury, and there’s precious little of it, and with this little, it’s just a little parcel, but it’s really
one of the last remaining nice, scenic views in Queensbury, when you crest that hill, which is, I know
there’s a Beautification board and all that, but I just, it bothers me. Also the light pollution aspect of
it bothers me. Because, for instance Lowe’s. You drive by Lowe’s at night and your eyes hurt
because it’s so bright. Now maybe this stuff is trivial, but I’ve lived in this Town all my life, and with
the barracks across the street, and destruction of Meadowbrook Road now, and I call it destruction
because I went last spring and photographed that whole, walked it and photographed the whole road
because I knew that it was not going to be the same forever and that I’d like to have pictures to
remember what it looked like before. I don’t know, I just would really like to know why it’s
necessary because it’s taxpayer’s money. The environmental impact on Dream Lake is another
concern I have, and that’s probably been addressed already, but I’d like to hear something about that.
Maybe if I could get copies of the minutes, where this stuff has been addressed, that would simplify
that situation. The day after I received the letter there were surveyors on the site and then there was
a backhoe or some big piece of machinery like sitting smack dab in the middle of the site, like it was a
foregone conclusion, and is this, the other question is, is this going ahead? No matter what anyone
says?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not until this Board approves it, or denies it, either way, but the backhoe, I will
take an educated guess and say that they were there probably performing test pits, as part of their
requirements to be in front of this Board.
MRS. NEWBURN-Okay. It just took me back a little bit. Because I got the letter one day and the
next day there was machinery there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the way they determine percolation tests.
MRS. NEWBURN-Sure, and the noise level. The Sunnyside Road whistle, when it goes off, it has a
tendency, if the air is right and so on, it wakes me up. So with this one like practically in my front
yard, I’m a little concerned about that, too, but especially the environmental impact on Dream Lake,
because now that wild fowl is not allowed on Lake Sunnyside, a lot of the wild fowl is using Dream
Lake, and I’m wondering what’s going to happen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask them to respond to that.
MRS. NEWBURN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else?
GEORGE STEC
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. STEC-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEC-My name is George Stec, Butler Pond Road, Queensbury. I’m here to speak in favor of
this project. What they propose to put here is better than what’s been there in the past, and when
people talk about, what should Queensbury look like in Planning and Zoning, when you look at the
five fire department’s buildings in this Town, they are to be commended, and they should be the
benchmark for the type of Planning and Zoning structures that we want in this Town, and I would
be honored if a volunteer fire company wanted to put a firehouse across the street from my house. I
would look at that as a great plus. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-As the Chairman correctly stated, the record does indicate the detailed discussions
that we’ve had on the need for the facility, but since the speaker wasn’t here, it’s certainly appropriate
to answer that again.
CHARLES MELLON, JR.
MR. MELLON-Charles Mellon, Jr., Bay Ridge Fire Chief. I’ll try to remain somewhat brief.
Basically, as far as the background of how we got to where we are, with the two existing buildings
that we have, they’re basically not large enough for us to provide the services that we want to provide
to the community. The Sunnyside Road station was built, originally, in 1954. With additions after
that. The apparatus bay space is inadequate to house some of our apparatus at this time. We
currently do not have adequate facilities for a meeting room, training facilities, and importantly, an
emergency shelter if the need should arise. Within the last few years, we’ve had two occasions. Most
recently, when Hurricane Floyd came through in September of ’99 we had to evacuate one of our
communities to our firehouse. Although it was crowded, at least we had a place to put the people
where it was safe. This facility will have a full emergency powered generator that was discussed
earlier. As far as operations, we feel that this will enhance our operations by consolidating both
facilities into one. All of our manpower will be responding to one station, which will enable our
firefighters to respond quicker with apparatus to the scene of an emergency anywhere in our district.
We require that apparatus and our firefighters, let me go back here a minute. We require that our
firefighters respond to the station instead of to the scene if possible. Officers usually go to the scene,
and what that does, with a crew of firefighters on a piece of apparatus, when they get to the scene,
they’re already wearing their appropriate turnout gear with self-contained breathing apparatus. When
they exit the vehicle, they’re all ready to perform whatever firefighting or rescue operations are
needed. So, by having everyone respond to one facility, we believe that we can get apparatus en
route to an emergency quicker, and our operations, we believe, will be more efficient, as I mentioned.
We are going to sell both stations and consolidate our operations into this one facility. We do have
interested parties in both stations at this point, and at a point when we can actually get approval for
our project, that will allow the realtor to give these interested parties a proposed date when the
existing facilities would be available for purchase. So as far as buildings, they would be put back on
the tax rolls, by going to someone in the private sector. As far as some of the other issues that were
raised, as far as the noise pollution, as I mentioned, I believe, at the last Board meeting here and I’ve
mentioned at some other meetings, our air horn, which is our audible warning system, is required for
a couple of different reasons. Number One, it serves as part of the Warren County Emergency
Services or Civil Defense Warning System, in the event of some type of natural disaster, and also
most importantly, it serves as a back up, and sometimes a primary alerting system for our firefighters.
At the last meeting, I mentioned that a few days before, the Warren County radio system had been
taken out of service for a time, and the only way that they could alert us from the County was
activating our siren, and ironically, a few days after the meeting, the Warren County radio system
went down again. So within the period of about 10 days, the Warren County radio system, for
whatever reason, was inoperable, but we did have a back up system where they could activate our
siren to notify our members to respond to emergencies. As far as the number of times that it’s
activated, we responded to 349 incidents, in 1999. Approximately 250 were actual fire calls, when the
siren is activated, it is not activated for emergency medical service calls, ambulance calls, when
somebody gets hurt or injured. As far as nighttime calls, we had 13, I believe, calls at night. So as far
as disrupting the public or anything like that, you’re basically looking at approximately one time a
month where the siren will blow at night. So we feel that we can’t jeopardize the safety of our, of the
community by turning off the siren, as it serves as an integral part of our operation. I’d be happy to
answer any other questions anybody might have.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’ll do it, Chip, thank you. Dick, could I get you just quickly to
respond to the lighting again? I know we’ve worked hard on this.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. JONES-Yes. The lighting that we’re proposing, I think we’ve taken great pains to provide
lighting fixtures on site that provide cutoff of the light, which means that they’re directing it in a
downward direction. The light poles that we’re proposing, the fixtures are mounted at 15 feet, and
they are a cutoff fixture directing the light down. As I indicated, our footcandle levels are maximum,
at a half footcandle on the Bay Road side where we’d have the two primary entrances, into the public
area and the Fire Company area on the north side. On the property side, which is the east side of the
site, we’re looking at a tenth of a footcandle at the property line on the east property line. So we feel
that the fixtures are appropriate, and it will not provide or create light pollution, as indicated.
MR. LAPPER-It should be mentioned, also, for the speaker, that compared to Lowe’s, that the
lighting scheme has changed substantially in the last few years.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think, you know, the footnote on behalf of the Board, we recognize the
very rural aspect of that end of Town, and we worked very hard on not only this application but the
previous, the Bay Road Presbyterian Church, regarding lighting, considering how rural it is up there,
and the last thing to comment on, if you would, is Dream Lake. I actually don’t think that this site is
within proximity to.
MR. JONES-No, and basically, as I had indicated, all of our stormwater that’s being generated by any
development on site is being basically infiltrated on site or not allowing anything to escape from the
property itself. We have designed an infiltration system that’s designed around a 50 year storm. We
have more than adequate capacity of that system on site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. JONES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff?
MRS. MOORE-I just made a couple of notes in regards to incorporation of some drawings, and I
would consider maybe a complete set, and you can amend this if you want to. SP-1 would be the
layout and planting plan. SP-2 would be the site plan drainage, and incorporating the drawing that
was submitted on May 24, 2000 called Erosion Control.
MR. MAC EWAN-What did you want to label SP-2?
MRS. MOORE-SP-2 is already currently labeled as Site Plan and Drainage, and I would incorporate
on that, which Dick already mentioned he would, was the drawing that was submitted on May 24,
2000 that’s labeled erosion control.
MR. VOLLARO-So erosion control is tied to SP-2?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and then maybe add a fourth drawing called SP-4 that addresses the footcandles
and includes the luminar information. The lighting information was also submitted on May 24.
th
MR. VOLLARO-If I could just add on Drawing SP-1, the three and a half inch caliper. I think you
want to add that to it as well, because that’s just a handwritten note.
MRS. MOORE-And then you also mentioned that you wanted the elevation drawing labeled. So it
sounds like there’s five drawings that we’re putting together. That’s all the comments I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Long or Short?
MRS. MOORE-Short.
MR. VOLLARO-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC., and
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to introduce a motion please?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll introduce a motion to approve site plan no. 35-2000 for the Bay Ridge
Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with the document prepared by Staff to support that, and in
addition, we’d like to have the lighting and erosion control plans, which are separately put together,
that it should be identified and dated and made part of SP-1 and SP-2. The note for three and a half
caliper trees should be updated on drawing SP-1. I don’t think there’s anything else that I see here
that’s not written in the document that Staff supplied to support this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were you striving to rename all those drawings, though? Is that what you were
doing? So they all?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, SP-1 and SP-2 are, the erosion control drawing and the lighting drawing
are to be made part of SP-1 and SP-2.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is the Layout and Planting Plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-The lighting, I would say the lighting plan, unless he wants to, that may be too much
to add to SP-1. That may be better off as a separate drawing on its own, but however you word it, to
create a packet that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s figure out right now how we want to do this.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, the lighting drawing or lighting plan, then, has to be developed as a
brand new drawing with its own identification. If you’ve got it in CAD, you should be able to do
that without a problem.
MR. JONES-Yes. We can sticky back it on any drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-And the erosion control drawing then becomes part of SP-2.
MR. JONES-Yes, that should be on SP-2.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The three and a half caliper for the trees, that goes to SP-1.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s all I really have. There’s this letter of, but it’s dated 6/15. I
believe this is on there, Larry, or not?
MRS. MOORE-It is not on there.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on there. So we have to add to Item 19, which would be a letter from
Richard Jones to Jim Edwards of C.T. Male, dated 6/15, and that letter reads, “Per our discussion,
we will be incorporating the erosion control plan to Drawing SP-2 as a separate plan and will amend
the plan to indicate protection of the Bay Road from grading operations and also the protection of
the water quality for the culvert at Old Bay Road.”
MRS. MOORE-That comment is already included. What I was referring to was the comment that
was submitted today of 6/20/00.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I thought this was in here. I thought it was, as a matter of fact, it wasn’t
6/15.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know what I’d like you to do, as much as you’re going to hate me, start all
over again, and do this real clean, so we’re not getting confused here.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. No problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please, just so we have it documented correctly.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to go forward with it that way?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE
CO., INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan 35-2000, Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire
Co., Inc. for construction of a 15,845 sq. ft. building for the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.. Site
work includes landscaping, three curb cuts and paved surfaces, Tax Map No. 48-1-15/Cross
Reference AV 41-2000 (5/17/00), and;
WHEREAS, the application received 4/26/00 consists of the following:
1. Application, C. Mellon from CME re: sight distance analysis, Stormwater Management Plan
prepared by R. Jones Associates, Agreement with County of Warren and Bay Ridge Fire Co.,
Maps SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 dated 4/25/00, Map untitled received 4/26/00 showing west and
south elevation
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/20/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/15/00 C. Round from J. Edwards – eng. review
3. 6/15/00 J. Edwards from R. Jones Assoc. – response to eng. review
4. 6/9/00 Note To File
5. 6/9/00 J. Edwards from C. Round
6. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
7. 5/31/00 L. Moore from R. Jones Assoc. – Emerg. Generator Sound
Attenuation
8. 5/26/00 J. Edwards from C. Round
9. 5/25/00 Staff Notes
10. 5/24/00 Response to Staff Notes rec’d. 5/23/00
11 5/24/00 Response to Eng. comments of 5/17/00 w/attachments of test pit
info, drawings of footcandle levels, erosion controls, lighting info,
revised SP-1, SP-2
12. 5/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing
13. 5/17/00 C. T. Male Assoc. engineering comments
14. 5/17/00 ZBA Resolution - approved
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
15. 5/10/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution - approved
16. 5/6/00 Beautification Comm. recommendation – approved as presented
17. 5/3/00/5/15/00 J. Lapper from C. Round – Zoning Determination
18. 1/24/00 Town Board minutes
19. 6/20/00 L. Moore from R. Jones re: sound levels
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 5/25/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the provisions as they are prepared by Staff, adding to
those provisions:
a. No. 19 and No. 19 is a letter from Richard Jones to Laura Moore
dated 6/20/00,
b. In addition to that we want the May 24, 2000 lighting plan that was
submitted to be a separate plan with its own identification,
c. The May 24, 2000 erosion control plan will be added to drawing SP-2,
d. The elevation drawing will be identified, since it’s not identified now,
e. the three and one half inch caliper that’s written on SP-1 will be
included on SP-1 as a note.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 MODIFICATION TYPE: UNLISTED SUNSET HILL
FARMS/DAVID BROWN OWNER: PAUL KNOX, III/DAVID BROWN AGENT:
BRUCE JORDAN ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: KNOX ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION.
THE MODIFICATION IS TO ACQUIRE 0.08 ACRES FROM 7-1-16.1 OWNED BY PAUL
KNOX, III AND ADD TO 0.46 ACRES OWNED BY MR. BROWN. MODIFICATIONS
TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1, 15
BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1991 Modification, Sunset Hill Farms/David Brown, Meeting
Date: June 20, 2000 “The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment that involves a parcel of land
located in a Planning Board approved subdivision, Subdivision 11-1991 “Sunset Hill Farm”. The
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
specific property within the subdivision is parcel 7-1-16.1. The parcel is owned by Paul Knox and
will be reduced by 0.08 acres. The adjoining parcel 7-1-15 is owned by David Brown and will
increase by 0.08 acres. The purpose of the adjustment is to allow parcel 7-1-15 to have more
property frontage on Knox Road. This will allow the owner Mr. Brown to landscape the entryway to
the property. The proposal does not change the original SEQR Findings for Subdivision 11-1991
“Sunset Hill Farm”.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. JORDAN-Good evening. My name’s Bruce Jordan. I represent the applicant and I submitted
he papers that you all have in your folder.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us briefly what your intentions here are Mr. Jordan?
MR. JORDAN-It’s hard to elaborate too much on what’s set forth in the papers. What we’re doing
is we’re adjusting the boundary line by annexing a small portion of lands owned by Mr. Knox to
round out our parcel near the road frontage, which is now owned by the Town of Queensbury as a
result of the subdivision that was referred to as Sunset Acres. I don’t know why I’m here, to tell you
the truth, because typically, I did this on a signature, but I was told I had to present this to the full
Board to add this little piece, and in my mind what we’re doing is we’re taking a prior
nonconforming, substandard lot of record and improving it for the Town, and of course for my
client, and that’s all we’re doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re lucky we’ve got a full Board here tonight, too.
MR. JORDAN-I’m gratified because I traveled 400 miles to get here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. JORDAN-No, that’ll do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I agree with the gentleman. I looked at this and I wondered why myself, but,
no, I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce the resolution, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET
HILL FARMS/DAVID BROWN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a request for modification to Subdiv. 11-1991,
Sunset Hill Farms, by David Brown to acquire 0.08 acres from 7-1-16.1 (owned by P. Knox) and add
to 0.46 acres owned by Mr. Brown (7-1-15), and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/29/00 consists of the following:
1. 5/26/00 Planning Office from B. Jordan – letter, memo and drawing
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/20/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
3. 6/5/00 L. Moore from B. Jordan – Authorization Form
4. 5/30/00 B. Jordan from L. Moore – fax of authorization form
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved with the resolution as prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard,. Mr. Abbott, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Have a nice trip back.
MR. JORDAN-Thank you. Shall I assume that I’ll receive something confirming this decision, that I
can make part of my records?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be a safe assumption.
MR. JORDAN-And do I need to file anything with the County Clerk’s office to fulfill your
requirements, or whatever I’m happy with will do it?
MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look into it. I believe you would, I would recommend that you do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would assume you’d have to file a new plat, wouldn’t you? You’re modifying it.
MR. JORDAN-Who’s going to pay for that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably your client.
MR. JORDAN-I don’t think I want to do that. If I take your resolution, I can file that as a
miscellaneous record. That’ll make you happy?
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t wrap us up in the legal thing.
MR. JORDAN-Okay. Good. I’ll withdraw that question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. JORDAN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2000 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SDC
ASSOCIATES/VENDEE OF IDA OWNER: IDA OF WARREN WASH. COUNTIES/
SDC ASSOCIATES AGENT: DENNIS J. PHILLIPS, ESQ. ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION:
DIXON ROAD AND POPLAR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.63
ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.38 AC. AND 1.25 ACRES. THE DIVISION
WILL SEPARATE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS TO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS.
CROSS REF: TAX MAP NO. 91-1-2.1, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES, 1.25 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
DENNIS PHILLIPS & JOHN SCHUTZE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And a public hearing isn’t scheduled at the Sketch Plan stage.
STAFF INPUT
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-2000 Sketch Plan, SDC Associates, /Vendee of IDA, Meeting
Date: June 20, 2000 “The applicant requests sketch approval of a two lot, parcels 91-1-2.1 and 91-1-
2.41, subdivision that was performed by deed dated December 31, 1987. The subdivision regulations
prior to 1988 indicate the subdivision would require Planning Board review. Since, the parcels were
created prior to the two-lot subdivision regulation of 1992, review of the application should proceed
through a Planning Board review process. The property history identifies the site as the Evergreen
Professional Park that received approval in April 1985 by a use variance, UV 982. Building permits
were issued for the development of the project. The Professional Park then applied for an area
variance, AV 1202, for development of a building with separate ownership and zero setback relief.
The variance caused the first subdivision of the building footprints, noted as parcels 91-1-2.42 and
91-1-2.43. The request for approval is for a subdivision that did not receive Planning Board approval.
The Planning Board should consider the following items during their “Sketch Plan” review of the
application: 1. The subdivision map should identify all of the parcels within the Evergreen
Professional Park. 2. The subdivision map should include references to the use variance and area
variance received. 3. The subdivision map should include a reference to any waivers the applicant
may request. (Such as two ft contours, utility connections) 4. The subdivision map should identify
the buildings by letter to correspond with previous approvals and building permits.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer for SDC Associates, and
with me is Dr. John Schutze who is a principle of SDC Associates.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. This is a built out area known as Evergreen Professional Park, which currently
has three professional office buildings on it, and the building which is closest to Poplar Lane
currently houses the professional practice of Dr. Schutze and Dr. DelSignore. The building that is
closest to Dixon Road currently has Dr. Dier and a Queensbury Family Health Practice in it, and Dr.
Esmond, a dentist, and then the building closest to Aviation Road has three lessees in it. This project
began in 1985, approximately, by SDC. SDC stands for Schutze, DelSignore and Cifone, and at that
time, it was put together as a joint kind of ownership. Fifteen years later where people have matured,
we now are involved in some financial and estate planning, and so we’re trying to unbundle some of
the things that were done 15 years ago. What is being proposed in this subdivision is that the
building closest to Poplar Lane be subdivided into a separate ownership, and after the subdivision,
Dr. Schutze would ultimately become the owner of that building, through some distributions within
the partnership. As to the other two buildings and the other part of the property, they would remain
in their current condition, and no additional subdivision would be proposed for those buildings at
this time. So what is being proposed is the area that is currently under the ownership, the legal
ownership, of the IDA, we’re proposing, and that is the tax map parcel 91-1-2.1, consisting of
approximately 1.38 acres. We’re proposing that that become a separate subdivision lot, so that that
lot then can be conveyed to Dr. Schutze.
MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds straightforward. Anything else?
DR. SCHUTZE-I think one of the things I wanted to make sure was clear is that the overall property
is under the control of the SDC Associates’ partnership, which has pretty much, I don’t want to say
rule, but controls how it’s maintained and how it’s kept in order. So that relationship does not
change. That’s set up there in the rules of our SDC Partnership and of the tenants that are there, but
this is simply from a banking and estate planning point of view a way to put things into a better
position.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a comment, it’s one of the nicer looking office complexes in Queensbury.
It’s very well kept up.
DR. SCHUTZE-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to know, on the 1.38 acres, is any building anticipated on that,
or will that remain as it is now? There’s nothing on there at this point. You’re going to have that
conveyed to you?
DR. SCHUTZE-The conveyance would include the building that I’m in.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s already there.
DR. SCHUTZE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-But on the other side of that asphalt parking, there’s a blank 1.38 acres.
DR. SCHUTZE-No. Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’ll remain as it is?
DR. SCHUTZE-That is the way it is. Originally, when we built this project, it had been, part of the
plan was to build parking there, and at the time when we built this, we set it up so that we would put
all the trees, do all the landscaping, and use that as necessary for any additional parking. What I
anticipate in the next year or two is that I will modify the front of my building to dress things up, and
that we will probably take one line of parking on the parking lot and add it to that side, not taking
much out of it, but the original plan that we went by the regulations was most of that would be
parking, based upon the square footage, and we realized we didn’t need that much parking, and the
Town went along and certainly it went along that way. So the only thing I see changing on that side
of the asphalt parking would be some additional slots for cars to be able to park there, give us better
parking.
MR. PHILLIPS-And actually, Mr. Vollaro, the map might be a little bit deceptive, because although
the 1.3 acre area seems to appear as though it’s all within those lines, that 1.38 acre is actually the
whole lot, and the whole lot has an outline to it which does include one asphalt parking area, the
building as it exists, and another asphalt parking area behind. So that’s a little bit deceptive in terms
of how that’s set forth there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got them lined out, and I can see where the division, this is basically a
two lot subdivision, is really what you’ve got here.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman, on this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only questions that I had are relative to the parking that currently comes off
Poplar Lane that serves the other building. You’re going to create two separate lots. There’s going
to be easements granted or something for access back there?
DR. SCHUTZE-The whole project has a common area. So the buildings have had individual usage,
myself, Dr. DelSignore, and next door, the medical office, and the dental office, but everyone that’s
in those buildings is required to treat the entire parcel as a common area. So we all pay for the
grounds maintenance. We all share in the parking, and so this separation doesn’t take anything away
from the parking that’s allowable for the second building, and for that reason, that’s why I’m
expecting we’ll put in a little more parking, just to lighten up, so there’s no problem with somebody
finding a parking place.
MR. HUNSINGER-You are creating two separate legally owned lots.
DR. SCHUTZE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, there’s no guarantee, in the future, that that relationship will
continue.
DR. SCHUTZE-We’ve tied that guarantee to the original covenants and restrictions as we set it up
when we did this, so that Dr. Esmond certainly as an owner of that half of the building, wanted to be
assured, and we wanted him to be assured, that not only can he park next to his building, he can also
park in front of my building. Now it doesn’t make much sense, but just so that there’s never any
question, we have two responsibilities, one to care for, and, two, to use, and the care for comes first
and the use comes second.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d have covenants and restrictions that guarantee?
DR. SCHUTZE-Yes. That we set up originally for that very reason not to be tamped with, because
that’s the other thing that I didn’t want, now my son coming along, I don’t want somebody to say,
well, I’m just going to kind of have my own little spot here. It’s all for one, and that has helped us
with keeping the grounds up and keeping the place looking the way that it does. So, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I want to echo Craig’s comments, though, that the place really does look very nice.
DR. SCHUTZE-Thank you very much. We owe it all to Jim Girard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comments?
MRS. MOORE-I would hope, when you consider your recommendation, that you add, I have four
things that you should have considered, and now I’ve found three additional ones. I would say that a
note be added to the subdivision plans that indicates the easements be noted on the plans showing
that there is that shared comment between the parking and the land, and then number six I have a
copy of the covenant and restrictions to be included for reference, and then number seven, I would
indicate a proposed location for future parking, if he is going to do that. It would be nice to have
that notation in the plans.
MRS. RYBA-And if that happens, the only comment that I would make it that there’s quite a bit of
green space and landscaping which really prevents people from using that parking area and that
driveway area as a drive through from Poplar Lane, over to Dixon Road. So on each corner, I would
just recommend keeping quite a bit of space there, so that that prevents people from just using it as a
shortcut.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Okay. Well, we don’t normally do a recommendation? That’s
sketch plan. I mean, we just take in the information, exchange of ideas. I would encourage you that
when you make application for your subdivision, take into consideration the seven requirements, the
four that were prepared in Staff Notes tonight and three additional we’ve added. I don’t see any
reason why we couldn’t do this as a two step process in one night. It’s pretty simple and
straightforward. Just make sure that any waivers you’re requesting from the Subdivision Regulations
that you put it in the form of a letter to us, to document. Okay. Good luck.
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much.
DR. SCHUTZE-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JESSE STILES OWNER: HELEN
SLEIGHT, c/o V. SLEIGHT AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: NC-10
LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SEASONAL PRODUCE
STAND. SEASONAL PRODUCE STANDS IN NC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 1.71 ACRES
SECTION: 179-25
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-2000, Jesse Stiles, Meeting Date: June 20, 2000 “The applicant
requests approval to operate a seasonal produce business. The business will include a 144 +/- foot
canopy, parking area, a vegetable sign, and will operate from noon-7pm, July 1 through October
st
15. A letter of March 2, 2000 from Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer informed the applicant
th
the existing operation had not received the appropriate approvals to operate. The applicant has
proceeded to apply for site plan approval of the seasonal produce business. The seasonal produce
business is an allowed use through site plan review. The use is compatible with the surrounding uses
and meets the purpose of the Neighborhood commercial zone by providing small scale shopping.
The parking area is not delineated, and the amount of traffic expected is not known. The nature of
the business indicates continuing traffic movement. However, the stand is very small compared to
the amount of land surrounding the farm stand, thereby allowing plenty of room for traffic flow and
parking.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MULLER-Good evening. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Michael
Muller. I’m here on behalf of Jesse Stiles. It’s a simple application because it’s a simple project. It
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
requires no building permit. It has no lighting. It has no plumbing. It’s temporary. It’s been there
in the past, and only through some sort of slip up it had not obtained site plan review. So we present
it for that purpose.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MULLER-I’d like to keep it brief.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s enough parking in there, people can pull over? I’m trying to think
how, I’ve driven by it so many times.
MR. MULLER-It’s not marked, but you can drive, if you were intending to do so, you could drive
around it in a circle.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s what I was hoping, because there’s so much traffic in that exact
spot, you know, within 100 feet other way either way, and across the way.
MR. MULLER-But it is off the road. It’s on the paved area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I just want to make sure that it’s easy to get into and easy to get out of.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Stiles has several of these places around Town. They’re all easy in and easy out.
It takes about a minute to shop for vegetables, unless you like to think about it, then it takes two
minutes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’m just trying to make sure, because it’s like I say, it’s so congested in
there. Doesn’t he live next door?
MR. MULLER-No. He lives in Glens Falls, in the City.
MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to know, once the site plan approval for something like this is
done, should this come up every year before the Planning Board? This gentleman owns a number of
these stands, obviously, around, and it happens every year. Is this something that could come before
the Planning Board every single time, or it’s just, they missed the site plan review on this particular
site?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s my only question.
MR. MAC EWAN-You stole my question. Anything you wanted to add? Staff? I’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 37-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JESSE STILES, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2000 JESSE STILES, Introduced by Catherine
LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 37-2000 for operation of a
Seasonal Produce Stand, Tax Map No. 78-1-8.1, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/8/00 consists of the following:
1. Application
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/20/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/13/00 Notice of Public Hearing
3. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
4. 5/30/00 M. Muller from L. Moore – re: completeness
5. 5/31/00 Staff from M. Muller – new info
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/20/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
1. Approved as written.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go, Mr. Muller.
MR. MULLER-Thank you very much. You stop by for a free tomato in July, okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. We’ll take you up on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if we can do that.
MR. MULLER-It comes with a $25 limit.
SITE PLAN NO. 42-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY & KAY COOK OWNER:
SAME ZONE: UR-10 LOCATION: 11 BELLE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
HAIR SALON IN A PORTION OF THEIR HOME. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
INCIDENTAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: TAX MAP NO. 111-7-18 LOT SIZE: 0.16
ACRES SECTION: 179-17
JEFFREY COOK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-2000, Jeffrey & Kay Cook, Meeting Date: June 20, 2000 “The
applicant proposes to open a beauty salon within the home. The applicant has provided information
on the location within the home, hours of operation, parking location, and interior changes to be
made (adding a wash sink). A Professional Office is an allowed use in the Urban Residential zone
with site plan approval. The operation of a beauty salon within the home meets the intent of the
Urban Residential zone where the residential aspect is maintained. The residential homes
surrounding the site may have little or no impact from the proposed use. A beauty salon incidental
to a residential use is a less intensive use then other uses allowed in the zone through site plan review.
The applicant proposes no exterior improvements to the site other than vehicle placement. The
applicant intends to place a personal vehicle to the rear of the home when the business is operational,
so customers may park in the driveway. A site visit identified a driveway that appears to be merged
with the neighbor’s driveway. The Board may want some insurance that customers will not be
parking in the neighbor’s driveway.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. COOK-Good evening. Gentlemen, Members of the Board, I’m Jeff Cook. I’m here on my
wife’s behalf. She was unable to make the meeting because our child was born last week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Congratulations. Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed project?
MR. COOK-Thank you. Well, basically, we don’t want to do any major alterations, just add a salon
sink to the room proposed, and we do not plan on putting a sign or anything like that. It’s all word
of mouth and clients that she’s gained over the last 10 years, and as far as the parking, we’ll move the
vehicle to the back yard and I’m at work most of the hours. So my vehicle will not be at home.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the area where you’re proposing to have the, okay, it’s right in here,
and everyone would be coming through the main entrance on the front porch to access it?
MR. COOK-Yes, through the main entrance.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about handicap access?
MR. COOK-I was told that I wouldn’t need that.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would that be?
MRS. MOORE-My understanding is he spoke with Dave Hatin, who indicated that if he was just
placing in a wash sink, and that was the only change he was making, then the handicap accessibility
was not the issue. It’s when they make extensive interior alterations to the home for a business.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what the threshold is that’s considered extensive interior
alterations?
MRS. MOORE-No, I do not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us about it?
MR. COOK-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. ABBOTT-Just the same as Staff brought up, and that is sort of a shared driveway with your
neighbor.
MR. COOK-The driveway’s merged right together.
MR. ABBOTT-Yes. It sort of looked like blacktop running across both. Are they going to have any
problem with traffic, do you know?
MR. COOK-They don’t have any problems as far as that. I talked to her today, and I will put up a
sign, if that would help, to specify where they should park, and my wife also said she would inform
all of her clients to try and stay in our driveway.
MR. ABBOTT-Just logistically, if you have one person finishing up and the next person coming,
they’re going to be in line sort of opposite, because the first person’s going to have to get out, with
the person behind them. So you could, logistically, run into some issue there. Just some assurance
that you’ll watch that.
MR. COOK-Yes, we’ll take the responsibility for that.
MR. ABBOTT-That’s all I had was the parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was really the only issue I had, too, was the parking.
MR. RINGER-Parking was a concern, but you’ve talked to the neighbors, and we might hear more at
the public hearing. I don’t know if we’re going to hear anything or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come up and identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Notifications, how were notifications done for this, just via the ads in the paper?
MRS. MOORE-No, this was a site plan review, notices were sent within 500 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that was done by?
MRS. MOORE-The Planning Staff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members or Staff? We
need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
JEFFREY & KAY COOK, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-One quick question for you. Do you share you driveway with the Hildebrandts?
MR. COOK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And they have no problem with this? I mean, obviously they aren’t here tonight
or sent a letter.
MR. COOK-No, and I mentioned it to her today, and she said they had no problem. She said her
husband may attend or may not, but apparently he didn’t have the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the hours of operation that you plan on having this open?
MR. COOK-They vary from day to day, but it would probably be no later than 7:30 at night on
various days.
MR. MAC EWAN-Weekends?
MR. COOK-I think she had noon.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, eight to twelve on Saturday. There’s an hours of business operation, Mr.
Chairman, is right there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just wanted to get it on the record. Okay. Does someone want to
introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2000 JEFFREY & KAY COOK, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 42-2000 to operate a hair salon
in part of their home. Professional office incidental to a residential use requires Planning Board
review and approval, Tax Map No. 111-7-18, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/25/00 consists of the following:
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
1. Application, Warranty Deed w Lien Covenant, narrative and drawings of floor plan, location
plan, lot dimensions and tax map
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/20/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/13/00 Notice of Public Hearing
3. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
4. 6/20/00 Received at meeting – Hours of operation
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/20/00 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the resolution that has been prepared by Staff with the
additional note that the applicant will limit parking to his side of the shared driveway
only, during business house, and to the hours of operation as it’s outlined and
initialed and dated by the applicant.
2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for
the Zoning Administrator’s signature. A note shall be added to the approved maps
stating the conditions of approval in the following manner:
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-With the additional note that the applicant will make every attempt to keep the
parking off the neighbor’s driveway and to schedule appointments so that no congestion takes place
at the driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re going to put something in a resolution, let’s put something that’s
enforceable. There’s no point in making something part of a motion that you can’t enforce. So either
re-word it that you don’t care about the parking in the driveway, or re-word it in such a way that we
have enforceability of parking in the driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-How many spaces are there on your side of the driveway to park?
MR. COOK-Two.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The resolution will say that there’ll be no more than two cars in that
driveway on the applicant’s side at any time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have the hours of operation as part of the motion, too.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I think so, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before he leaves, I’d like you to initial that for us, please.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. VOLLARO-And the hours of operation as it’s outlined and initialed and dated by the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s amend that motion to say that no more than two customer cars parked
during business hours. Does that sound doable?
MRS. MOORE-The question there would be how do you define customers? It could be just
someone visiting the home. We had a situation that appeared on Big Bay Road that simulated
something similar.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what we’re trying to do here is to protect the other people that are using
that parking lot, that driveway, and if we limit it to two cars on the applicant’s side, no matter if one
of the cars belong to the applicant and one of the cars belong to a customer, that’s still protecting, in
a sense, the other side, and it is enforceable, I think.
MRS. MOORE-I find that would be hard to enforce, because you’re asking the Code Enforcement
Officer to ask, are you a customer or are you a neighbor.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Throw a suggestion by us. How would you like that worded, then?
MS. RADNER-Why don’t you just limit parking to his own side of the driveway, during business
hours, and then if he’s parked on his neighbor’s property, there’s obviously a trespass issue involved,
but you’re only giving him approval for parking his customers on his side of the parking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we amend Bob’s motion to limit parking to the applicant’s side of the shared
driveway only? During business hours.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Plus we’ve got the business hours. He’s going to sign it and date it.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Go right over and see her and sign that for us if you would, please.
MR. COOK-Okay. Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 66-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION MICHAEL S.
HAYES/PAUL J. HAYES OWNER: SAME/MARION O’NEIL AGENT: JONATHAN
LAPPER ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: SW CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & EVERTS
AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. COOL
BEANS RESTAURANT/COFFEEHOUSE. THE MODIFICATION IS TO INCLUDE A
SECOND STORY FOR STORAGE AND OFFICE SPACE. MODIFICATIONS TO
APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
TAX MAP NO. 107-1-1 LOT SIZE: 10,320 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-23
JON LAPPER & MICKEY HAYES, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was back on December 28, 1999, and it’s a
modification. So we’re just starting again.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 66-99 Modification, Michael S Hayes/Paul J. Hayes, Meeting Date:
June 20, 2000 “The applicant proposes a modification to the Cool Beans Restaurant SP 66-99 to add
a second story for storage and office space. The applicant’s original site plan drawing indicated the
building would be one story with attic space. Planning Board review and approval is required for the
modifications as proposed. The proposal only modifies the height of the structure. There are no
other site alterations or building changes proposed. The SEQR findings are not affected by the
proposed modification. The Planning Board should consider the location and type of any lighting on
the second-story of the building if proposed”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, again. Jon Lapper, Mickey Hayes. Could I ask that my cover letter be
read into the minutes, because that pretty much sets out what we’re here to talk about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Dear Craig: As you will recall at the end of last year, the Queensbury
Planning Board granted site plan approval to the Hayes for construction of a new Cool Beans
Coffeehouse facility. The prior tenant has now vacated the property and the building which formerly
stood on the site has been demolished. During the building design phase of the project, the Hayes’
and their architect have determined that it is preferable to construct a second floor to the building
which will primarily house storage and will also include a small, 400 sq. ft. office area. By this letter, I
hereby apply to the Planning Board for a modified site plan approval to include the second story.
Although architectural review is not a component of site plan review, this second floor proposal is an
increase in square footage beyond what we discussed at the Planning Board and it is therefore
appropriate to bring this before the Planning Board for a discussion. I have enclosed a copy of the
elevation drawing along with an interior layout which indicates interior first floor square footage of
1,188. The second story will have no effect on any area requirements and no additional parking
spaces will be required because storage space is not included in the parking calculation. Please place
this matter on the agenda for June as a site plan modification. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C.
Lapper”
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Just as the letter stated, this was just a design detail that they didn’t think
of at the time that we were here last year, but it made sense, so that there’s ample storage space
upstairs. They were always going to have storage, but it would have been in an attic space with less
than a full roof height, and it just seemed that, for the size of the building, it wasn’t that much of an
additional expense to make a real second story so that they could have an office for running the
business and also some storage space, and since it doesn’t effect the parking calculations, with the 14
spaces provided, we don’t see it as changing the site plan in any way, but it’s still different than what
we talked about. In terms of the exterior elevation, when we were here last time, Mickey brought
photographs of the existing Cool Beans that everyone’s probably familiar with over on Western, and
it’s the same clear cedar siding, same design, just adding the additional space upstairs, and they’re
ready to go in the ground immediately after we are approved, and we’re here to answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-How much is the elevation increased as a result of the second story?
MR. HAYES-The elevation is increased approximately four feet, because it was like a Cape style
anyway. We intend to have an attic with attic trusses, but for a few thousand dollars extra, we could
actually have a real, functional space up there for storage.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kinds of things will be stored?
MR. HAYES-Well, in the coffee business, you have a lot of paper cups which take up a lot of room,
and the basement area, we’ll try to store stuff, but that area is very wet and the cups absorb a lot of
the moisture. So I really don’t have any choice but to put them up higher. They take a tremendous
amount of room up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-You said four feet difference?
MR. HAYES-Yes. The total height of the building is still only 24 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as they make the same stuff as they’re making in the other one, it’s good
for me.
MR. HAYES-We hope we can do that, if we can find workers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just love the elevations. I think the architecture is so nice. What color are
you going to make it?
MR. HAYES-It’s going to be the clear cedar which is a lot of maintenance, but it kind of fits the
Adirondack. It really serves our purpose well, and that’s what we’re going to stick with.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s really nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? Staff?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question that’s an academic question. Back when we did the
original site plan, I had asked, although I guess just for the sake, how much has been done to try to
look at that interconnection? Have you made any progress on that at all?
MR. HAYES-Well, we’ve talked to some people, and they want to see what it’s going to look like,
but we feel that eventually that should be able to happen. It’s just, there’s quite a few people
involved, but we feel when they see the way it’s going to look, I think they’ll be comfortable, and
they’ll be able to work with us.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a resolution please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 66-99 MICHAEL S.
HAYES/PAUL J. HAYES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 66-99, Michael
S. Hayes / Paul J. Hayes for construction of a second story for storage and office space, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/25/00 consists of the following:
1. 5/31/00 C. MacEwan from J. Lapper, letter w/maps Elev. (2) dated 4/18/00, FLR-1 dated
4/25/00, FLR-2 dated 4/24/00, FND-P dated 4/24/00, S-1, S-2 dated 4/17/00, S-3 dated
4/25/00, D-1 dated 4/17/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/20/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/20/00 File Info (map) from previous SP approval identifying the bldg. ht.
as one story w/attic
3. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
4. 12/28/99 Previous Planning Board minutes
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved the modification in accordance with the resolution as provided by Staff.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. HAYES-Thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUD SITE PLAN 44-2000 FEIS: 7/2/87, RES. 201 MICHAELS GROUP (WAVERLY
PLACE) OWNER: SAME ZONE: PUD LOCATION: SOUTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF HAVILAND ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK ROAD
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION FOR IMMEDIATE AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 56 TWIN TOWNHOUSE UNITS, 35,000 SQ.
FT. OF OFFICE SPACE AND 48 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 12 +/- ACRES FOR
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF THE HILAND
PARK PUD THAT OFFERS GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND
RECREATIONAL AND OFFICE SPACE FOR CONVENIENCE TO RESIDENTS.
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP
NO. 60-1-2 LOT SIZE: 74.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-58
JON LAPPER, DAVE MICHAELS, DAVE CARDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRES.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want some guidance from Staff on exactly what we’re doing here tonight.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Sure will. I’ll give you a summary on this. I apologize for the administrative
slip. It says preliminary review of site plan/subdivision. It really is a concept plan which is the same
as preliminary, but it could be taken out of context to mean that we were doing preliminary
subdivision. That’s not the case. It’s a concept plan review that was submitted by the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-This review tonight is just to establish if it is or isn’t consistent with the PUD?
MRS. RYBA-That is my understanding.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no need to apologize, by the way.
MR. LAPPER-We’re also looking for some guidance for the preliminary stage, just to hear what you
have to say, in terms of concept, but procedurally.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked at this as a sketch plan submittal. That’s what it says, “On behalf of the
Michaels Group, we are pleased to submit a sketch plan”. Is that what we’re doing?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the same, synonymous with your concept plan?
MRS. RYBA-Concept plan, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MRS. RYBA-And I will brief through the notes here.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan 44-2000, Michaels Group (Waverly Place), Meeting Date: June 20,
2000 “Application The applicant proposes a concept plan for 56 twin townhouse units. 48 multi-
family units, and 35,000 square feet of office space. The applicant also proposes to convey 12 acres
of land next to the Adirondack Community College to the Town Recreation Dept. Master Plan A
master plan showing proposed and approved density has been submitted. The master plan covers
74.46 acres of land within the Hiland Park PUD, referred to as the “Retirement Village”. Phase I of
the “Retirement Village” is for 56 twin townhouses and recreation. Phase II is for 48 multi-family
units and 30,000 sq. ft. office space to be developed at a later date. The entire PUD contains over
700 acres. Notice of Intent A notice of intent was submitted to the Town Board. The Town Board
reviewed the concept plan during a 4/24/00 workshop. No formal resolution was made concerning
consistency with the original PUD. Sketch Plan For Phase I the applicant has provided a sketch
plan and narrative. Review of the sketch plan and narrative indicates a better explanation of the
market structure is needed. The narrative for the “Retirement Village” demonstrates total density for
residential units and office space is less than that originally proposed. Subsequently, the applicant
concludes there will be fewer impacts. The applicant will bring architectural plans to the meeting.
Site Plan A site plan has also been provided for Phase I for preliminary site plan approval. More
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
details regarding signs, refuse and other outdoor storage, landscaping, and lighting are needed. Soils
information needs to be submitted and the applicant indicates such information will be included with
the stormwater management plan. Homeowner’s association information is also required and is to
be submitted. The applicant has indicated meetings with Town water/wastewater and highway
departments will begin soon. A site development plan for the office and commercial area will be
needed. PUD Consistency The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town Board
concerning consistency of the proposal with the original PUD. SEQR Findings and the original
Town Board Resolution outline requirements for the PUD, as summarized below. SEQR Findings
SEQR findings indicated a need for housing and a recreationally oriented community with elderly
services and commercial support facilities. This proposal addresses that need. Signalization at four
intersections (Bay/Cronin, Bay/Haviland, Meadowbrook/Cronin, Meadowbrook/Haviland) was to
be constructed when dictated by future traffic studies with costs shared among developers. Since
there is much less single family housing in the entire PUD than originally proposed, fewer vehicular
trips will result with less traffic impact on these intersections (10 per single family unit versus 6.1 for
an apartment and 3.3 per unit for a retirement community). Phasing of the project was to be
determined by market conditions. Town Board Resolution for PUD Districting Review of the
Town Board resolution shows the following activities have yet to take place: Commercial; loft mart,
convenience stores, sports complex, office park Residential retirement village, Recreational
amenities, Hiland to provide updated traffic study for intersections prior to site plan approval This
proposal will address some of those activities. Comments/Concerns/Questions The applicant has
submitted a density analysis of residential units and office sq. ft. for the area shown on the Master
Plan. A chart with the original PUD figures is shown below. It does not incorporate information
shown on The Michael’s Group density analysis. What is the timing for development/completion of
the proposed project phases? What impact does additional wetland acreage have on the proposal?
How much additional wetland acreage is there from the original PUD? (Total ACOE and DEC
wetlands are 12.8 acres. The applicant indicated during the Town board workshop a willingness to
share the wetland report with the Town.) How do changes in the PUD mix impact traffic? (Verify
that intersections will not have increased traffic load.) How do land uses (existing and proposed)
relate to retirement center? What is the office market? Is there an appropriate balance between
residential and commercial density? What is the price range of the variety of housing proposed?
What commercial activity will be proposed on the corner 5,000 sq. ft.? Next Steps Planning Board
submits report and recommendation concerning consistency to the Town Board. Planning Board
has a public hearing on preliminary and/or final stage subdivision plan for Phase I Final site plan is
approved by the Planning Board Town Board reaffirms SEQR”
MRS. RYBA-At this point, there are a couple of phases which really consists of a number of
subdivisions. One would be dedicated lands. Another would be 5,000 square feet of office space.
The other is what I believe the applicant refers to as Phase I, which is 56 twin townhouse units and
homeowner association lands, and then the last would be future development, which consists of 48
units and 30,000 square feet of office/commercial space. The way the Planning Board has been
looking at the PUD’s lately is putting forth a recommendation to the Town Board concerning
consistency after their review. However, the Town Board, of course, did take the Lead Agency status
on this for SEQR quite some time back, and, therefore, it really is up to the Town Board to do that
final resolution, and as Mr. Lapper pointed out, the applicant is looking for some guidance as well as
portraying their concept plan, at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Hello. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dave Michaels and Dave Carr from the LA
Group. I want to just make some preliminary comments, and then Dave will walk you through our
concept plan, Dave Carr, and then Dave Michaels will talk about some site design and market issues.
We’re all very familiar with the Hiland Park PUD at this point. Although it languished for some 10
years, all of a sudden now there’s a whole bunch of activity. The Michaels Group has been involved
in some of that. They purchased the remaining townhouse footprints, and we were before the Board
at the end of last year and beginning of this year to reduce the density up there to do what Dave
considered a better project with less density, and as of last week, the shovel was in the ground, and
they’re in the process of constructing a model home, a model two unit townhouse home. They also,
when we learned that Family Golf was marketing their property, they also contracted and then closed
on all of the existing remaining single family lots in Masters Common North and Masters Common
South. That has also sat as fields of tall grass for all these years. So certainly from my perspective as
a resident and community perspective, it’s nice to see all that moving finally, and they’ve just, in the
last couple of days, started moving dirt for a model on the first lot on Masters Common South. So
all that is the background in terms of the Michaels Group’s involvement in this project. They also
have a contract to purchase all of the land on the west side of Meadowbrook. In the original PUD,
this was sort of a transition zone because it backs on ACC. So it was viewed as not prime single
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
family residential because you’ve got the College and the College parking lots and traffic back there,
and what the original PUD proposed was an awful lot of office use, really, what they considered like
a high tech office research park which things just haven’t progressed to that level in Queensbury
where there’s that kind of demand for that kind of space. What’s also changed since then is that in
1988, when this was approved, the original Hiland Park approval, it was very early on in the stages of
the Army Corps Wetlands regulations on the Federal side, and DEC also came in in ’91 and ’92 and
reflagged the State wetlands to create what you see as the dark green space, which is the buffer
around the existing stream corridor. So much of this land that was originally intended to be
developed, now you’d have to cross the stream corridor to get to the land behind ACC, and as a
result of that, Dave commissioned wetland studies and delineations to determine what was what, and
the plan that they’ve come up with, and that we’re presenting tonight is a very much reduced plan
from what was in the original PUD, but we feel, and we’re hoping you’ll agree, conceptually, it meets
the same general criteria for what was approved, because it still has an office component, although
that’s not proposed to be constructed now. It’s part of the Master Plan for this area. We did not
come before you, but Van Dusen and Steves purchased what was the old Hiland Park office a few
months ago from Family Golf, with the little white farmhouse next to the driving range, and they
also purchased the office building, which is the model sales office for the Eddy for their project, and
that’ll only be a model for another year, and that would be converted into an office building. So
there is now some movement toward commercial office uses up there, although up to this point it’s
all just been residential, except for the golf course facilities. So the Michaels Group expects that that
will be viable and that in the future there will be a market for office space, but what we’re proposing
to begin with is the 56 units of duplexes, two family units, and Dave has met with the Park and
Recreation Department, and they’re very interested in acquiring land on the southwest corner for
some sort of a recreation facility for Town residents. Dave will talk about that. I want to just point
out that when Hiland Park was approved, the land in lieu of cash for the recreation fees was all done
by conveying some 60 to 80 acres, I don’t recall the exact number, along the southern end of Hiland
Park, all in the Halfway Brook corridor. So rec fees don’t have to be paid now, nor does land have
to be dedicated, but this just seemed like appropriate land that the Town might be interested in, and
apparently they are. So that’s also a component of this, a recreational component, and then Dave
Michaels and the LA Group went to the Town Board, I didn’t join them for that meeting, as the
Staff mentioned, just at a workshop meeting, but the Town Board seemed very supportive of this
plan. It’s certainly less dense than what was proposed originally, but I think, conceptually, the same,
and let me turn it over to Dave Carr to walk you through some of the details.
DAVE CARR
MR. CARR-As Jon mentioned, what I would like to do first is just kind of run through the existing
PUD that was approved in 1987, which was part of the Hiland Park PUD which was called the
“Retirement Village”.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since the original PUD was never developed, doesn’t the PUD become null and
void? It doesn’t expire?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a change of zone. It would be like Light Industrial.
MR. HUNSINGER-The plan becomes null and void though, right? I mean, that’s what the Code
reads.
MS. RADNER-I’m looking it up.
MR. LAPPER-You can’t say that the plan hasn’t been done. It just hasn’t been finished.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Correct.
MRS. RYBA-Right. Through the years, pieces of it have come forward for approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We have the townhouses that were part of the original golf course, and
Masters North and South were done.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was all part of the original PUD?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. See, I didn’t know all that background. That’s part of why I needed that
clarification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. CARR-Okay, and part of the package that we submitted, there’s a table, and a narrative that’s, I
think, very helpful. The original PUD, in 1987, for this area was approved for 240 congregate care
units, 120 critical care units, 344 multi-family or townhome or duplex units, and 86 single family
homes, along with 140,000 square feet of office, which was primarily in this area here, bringing the
total to 670 residential units and 140,000 square feet of office. Now, what we have today is just
recently two projects have been approved on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, one being the
Glen at Hiland Meadows, by the Eddy Group, and that was approved for 126 congregate care units
with the possibility of 48 future units, 18 multi family units with the possibility of 10 more, bringing
that to a total of 144 residential units, and then the other project that was recently approved, and
both of these are currently under construction, was the Hiland Springs project, which was approved
for 120 residential units. So, basically what you have here is a total of, basically what has been
developed or approved is 282 housing units, and the congregate care units which really we’re not
dealing with. So what we’re proposing is 56 townhouse units, at this point, and in the future 48 multi
family units and the 35,000 square feet of office space, which is in this area and this area, and of
course in the center is the 56 townhome units which is really what’s shown in the green here. After
the total build out of these three projects, there would be an unused density of 178 housing units,
and 105,000 square feet of office. So from the original PUD that was approved in 1987, the
reduction in housing units is approximately 36%, and the reduction in office square footage is 75%,
from what was originally.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that at the full build out?
MR. CARR-That is at full build out of all three projects.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I should re-phrase my question. Is that the full build out of the PUD?
MR. CARR-That is the full build out of the PUD in the Retirement Village section, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. CARR-Now getting back to our parcel, as Jon mentioned, what we are proposing is the 56 twin
townhome units in the center. The site, in total, is approximately 75 acres, and there’s a 12 acre
swath of wetlands which runs from south to north through the project, which basically cuts the
parcel into three large parcels and one smaller parcel. The three large parcels is obviously this
portion along Meadowbrook Road which is approximately 48 acres. There’s a nine and a half acre
parcel of upland which has been referred to as the area being dedicated to the Town Recreation
Department, and Dave will get into that. There’s another portion that buts up against Adirondack
Community College, which will just be HOA land and left as forever wild green space, and then
there’s a small portion site here, which is kind of separated from everything else, and that’s what
we’re looking at as future development of possibly a 5,000 square foot office building, and again,
that’s future development, along with this development over here, which we are, at this time
contemplating 48 multi family units and 30,000 square feet of office, and the way we’ve developed
this, we are concerned, and we felt the neighbors would be concerned, with how this would be
viewed from Haviland Road. So this is set back over 100 feet from Haviland Road and what we are
proposing is a buffer and a buffer of vegetation along Haviland Road, and obviously that 100 foot
distance, and then the concept is to develop the buildings and to use those buildings to additionally
screen the parking beyond that. Getting to the 56 acre, or the 56 unit townhouse section, again, we
are proposing buffering along Meadowbrook Road for the backs of the units. If you’ve been past
here, the site’s pretty much devoid of all vegetation except for the wetland areas. So we’re planning
on vegetating and buffering along Meadowbrook Road. The road will be designed and built to Town
standards and specifications. We’re planning on municipal water and sewer. We’ve already met with
the Water and Sewer Department last week. Their concerns were mainly about future development
and how we would be hooking these units in and the office in and capacity. There were no capacity
issues at this time, and they’re looking forward to our detailed plans when we get to that point. So
that’s pretty much the development, as it is proposed right now, and I think I’ll turn it over to Dave,
at this point. He can discuss the details of the actual units.
MR. MICHAELS-Just to pick up a little bit where Dave left off, in terms of the concept. We did do
wetland analysis since the Hiland was originally laid out. They did not factor all DEC and Army
Corps areas, that it came out to be a substantial area that effected this parcel, and other parcels at
Hiland. In fact, we’ve looked at other pieces of land, at Hiland, in particular to the north, you know
where the driving range area is to the left. That open area there has single family proposed in the
main PUD. To the north of the golf course along the rear boundary, there was quite a bit of
substantial multi family going on along through there. The reality is, as we saw it, after doing
analysis, it’s all wetlands, and the feasibility of doing any kind of number of units or homes along
there is not going to happen, in terms of, as long as the wetland delineations are what they are and
the criteria are from both DEC and Army Corps. So what you’re really looking at is this is probably,
realistically at Hiland, one of the last large pieces that can have something done substantially. Again,
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
I don’t want to rule out there is potential to that area, if somebody purchased it down the road, or
Family Golf, whatever to that area went by the driving range to the north, but anyway, with this
piece, our concept for the project is for Phase I we’ve laid out twin townhome units. The concept
for these buildings is similar to what we did when we re-laid out when we took over at Cedar Court,
and modified that project and put it to two unit buildings. We found Cedar Court sold very
successfully. The target market was really empty nesters, mainly town residents, that wanted, didn’t
want the large home and were after a home with a master suite on the first floor and a property that
would have full grounds maintenance and snow removal. That’s the same concept that we want to
apply here and would be the same target market. I brought a rendering of a typical two unit building.
That would be very close, although the actual product that we would come up with would be more
of an evolution of what we’ve been doing, and updating, you know, we try to improve things all the
time, better floor plans, better elevations. That’s what would be in store here. We look at it. It
would certainly compliment what was done in Cedar Court, if you’re familiar with that. This is a
typical rendering of a townhome building. In this case, this happens to be a three unit building but
we would be proposing only two. The one car garage is a narrow unit in the middle, but it would be
really the end two units. We have another rendering here, which shows what a typical two unit
building looks like. The nature of these lots, We’ve had the LA Group lay the footprints for the
townhouses out in a way that we felt there would be adequate space between the units. We had, the
way the land works, these homes here would all have a very nice rear forever wild area that we’re
proposing to be HOA owned property. The units that back up along Meadowbrook Road, we held
them in substantially. We’re very concerned ourselves on the aesthetics and the privacy factor for
these homes. If somebody’s going to be interested in these, we’ve got to make sure we do a good
job of how we landscape this area and berm it. We haven’t gone into, we’re just showing some
conceptual plantings. What our plan would be is for, and we met with the Beautification Committee,
too, by the way. What our plan contemplates, we’ve held the units considerably back from the road,
and what we’re proposing is an actual paved walking bike trail type trail that would meander in and
out of the landscaped berming, possibly consider some passive exercise station, you know, if
somebody wanted to use them along the way. I don’t know if you’ve seen that. That’s done in quite
a few communities, especially down south, but this is a fairly long area, and it would be a nice
amenity for the residents here, and be off the road, and look at this area more as a positive instead of
a negative. In addition, we laid out an access to a nature trail. Which we’d dotted along here. It’s
possible, too, the nature trail could come back off of this corner, but that brings over the other
component, which is the, well, let me finish on the townhomes. These would have full ground
maintenance, full snow removal. These are the footprints for each building, and when the
foundation actually goes in, the division line of the common wall is what actually separates the
property for each half. That’s when each property is designated for this lot and this lot. So what is
pre-dicated now is the outside footprint for a two unit building. The homes would all have lanterns
all tied in with electric eyes at night. So you have a nice natural streetscape with just the lanterns for
the homes, which is more than adequate. That an exterior lighting on the buildings. The entrances,
we held the buildings back because we feel it’s important to come up with a really nice looking
entrance, similar to what we did at Cedar. Similar to what we did at Surrey Field, to give you that feel
for what we would want to accomplish. That entranceway would be irrigated, as a homeowner
maintained item. So the landscaping of that entrance, the central irrigation of that, would be
included. On the units themselves, we envision, in all likelihood, a sprinkler system package that
would go with the homes, at least for the fronts and side yards to make sure the community always
looks good. We’ve found that that’s been pretty well received and just included it in the price of the
homes.
MR. VOLLARO-Would that be, the maintenance of those, be under the HOA agreement, under the
Offering Plan?
MR. MICHAELS-No. The individual sprinkler system for each unit would be metered to their
individual water service, and that would be their responsibility, but in the covenants and restrictions
that we put together for the community, there would be language in there about how they have to,
you know, maintain their irrigation system, and how they have to maintain the exteriors of their
homes, in terms of painting and those kind of things. If they don’t, then the Board has the right to
come in and do those things. That’s the nice thing about an Association. We’ve done these many
times, and we have to take it right through. We have annual meetings with all the homeowners until
such time as we turn it over, and it seems to work pretty well, and then they either take over and they
self-manage or they get a management company, but anyway, getting back, you know, we see the
people in here as people, really, it’s the empty nesters. I would be surprised to find too many
households in here that would actually have children. They would be more attuned to the single
family products that we’re offering and other builders are offering in the area.
MR. VOLLARO-Will there be any deed restrictions on rentals?
MR. MICHAELS-On rentals?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Suppose I’m an owner, and I eventually want to leave, but I want to rent my
unit?
MR. MICHAELS-No. There wouldn’t be any restriction if somebody wanted to rent their unit, but
there would be, we typically will put something in that doesn’t allow short term rentals. If they do a
rental, it has to be for at least a number of months, so that you don’t have a transient type occupancy
issue to be concerned about. Getting back to the parcel, when we looked at this, in terms of the
PUD, we met with Chris Round to get some of his observations from planning, in terms of the
overall PUD, and some of the uses, we want to get some input from planning, in terms of some of
these ideas, which is sort of what helped prompt this plan as it was presented. One of the issues that
came out loud and clear was, he felt that there was a real need in the Town for some recreational
area, and uses. There was a survey that went out some time ago by the Rec Department, and I think
that the results of it were published, and it was felt that the Town needed some definite uses. So
with that in mind, we met with Harry Hansen, and then I did meet a couple of meetings with the
Recreation Department, and after hearing about their issues and also meeting with the College, we
met with the College numerous times, and what ended up was a proposal by us to provide a 50 foot
transfer of property at this point, which, all in all, comes to 12 acres. Nine and a half is basically non
wetland, usable. So this is a very prime and very good part of the project. This land backs up to
Adirondack Community College. This area right here where my hand is contiguous to there is where
their existing baseball and open rec fields are, and the interest was that if the Town wanted to just
work access in and come up with some future uses here, they could do that, or they could do that in
conjunction with the College, because there was some discussion made about some maybe
partnering, joint venturing if they ever did an enclosed building for swimming or whatever, but they
don’t have any set idea of what they would actually go forward. They’ve done preliminary ideas and
discussions, and we said, this area we would be willing to just, as part of our PUD, donate and they
could do what they wanted to between themselves and with the College, and they’re pretty
enthusiastic about this, and how far things have taken with the College, I don’t know, but that’s really
up to them. So the other part is our Phase I, which you’re talking about the twin townhomes, and
then for future, we’re talking, for future development, we’re talking about this quadrant of the
property and this small quadrant right here, and in here we’re proposing a 5,000 square foot “office”.
This is a very nice portion of the property that could have, we feel, an ideal use down the road. It
could be a municipal use, firehouse, post office. We don’t really know that, but we’re here to present
that we know we’d have to go forward, down the road, with site plan review of whatever was
proposed here and whatever the ultimate use was, but we wanted to have it conceptually considered
and sort of reviewed, and with the idea that that intended use would be okay, in terms of our overall
plan. The same applies to this quadrant of the property, and here, we’re proposing office in
combination with future multi family buildings, and the multi family buildings and the office, we feel
the market’s really not ready for either one right now, in terms of what’s really going on right now,
but we do think, down the road, there could be a real need, and what we would do is, down the road,
when we feel we know what the market would be, is we’d come up with a detailed and architectural
site plan for this area and present a use. What we’re really after, though, is because of our reduced
densities that apply to the overall is, again, to get this conceptually okayed, the concept of what we’re
proposing. That’s what we really want the Board to consider as part of our submission.
MR. VOLLARO-Would they be part of the HOA? In other words, would you eventually fold that
48 unit piece into the Homeowners Association, or would they stand separate?
MR. MICHAELS-This would stand as its own boundaried area with its own Association. Our
concept here, as we’ve seen it in a number of places done pretty well, is it includes, it’s not designed
by any means in these buildings aren’t exactly at all we’ve proposed. It was just more or less get an
idea, if these buildings were in, you’d get a feeling for spacing and density, but the idea is to work the
commercial offices and the multi family buildings around a village green. So they can work with each
other, that it’s just not the commercial use and then the residentials over on this street over here.
We’ve seen it done very successfully with a village green how it can work together with an overall
Association and work pretty well. The multi family, we look at that, there’s a number of different
uses that either it could be rentals, which we’d probably perceive as fairly high end rentals, or actually
condominium homes for sale. We’ve done a lot of those in the past, and we feel, down the road,
there could be a market for that also. The entrance to this, we felt that the best place with site
distances was not on Haviland would be in the project off Meadowbrook, and no matter what we
would do here, would contemplate at least 100 foot of buffer, again, berming and heavy landscaping
for the Haviland Road and to the adjacent land owner, which owns the large white farm home right
across the road there. Again, going back to Phase I, the HOA would really own all the remaining
area in part of Phase I, and that would be left as forever wild, and then we would dedicate the
recreation area here to the Town. That would be part of Phase I, and then for future review, this
would be carved out, and this office building here would be carved out subject to, the idea would be
subject to future site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-Would the HOA also have the responsibility for maintaining that piece to the west?
In other words, where you’ve got the 12 acres now that’s going over to the Rec Department?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MICHAELS-You mean this area here?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, but the area now is just a naturally draining ravine, and fields and it’s wooded.
We wouldn’t see any need for maintenance. In fact, in the offering plan, it would prohibit any people
using it in a way that would ever require maintenance. Where they couldn’t go in and clear, the HOA
couldn’t do any of those things.
MR. VOLLARO-Has the Rec Department accepted that 12 acres now? Is that done?
MR. MICHAELS-The Rec Department has just told use, we like what you’ve proposed. We’re very
interested in receiving this acreage, but they know I can’t do this unless I get approval that we can
live with, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you spoken with the Rec Commission?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-Harry Hansen, and then I had a meeting with the Rec Commission. Then there
was, then they gave us enough direction in terms of what they needed and what they were after, and
then when we laid out this plan, that’s when we carved this out, and then we followed it up with a
letter to Harry and that’s what prompted him, then, to meet with the College and those things. So
there was quite a bit of background work to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-When are you scheduled to go back in front of the Town Board, in reference?
Now, the Town Board is going to review this thing as far as its consistency with the PUD, correct?
MRS. RYBA-Correct. It’s not scheduled, but I believe that we could get it on to the next Town
Board session, which is July 10.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and pending that review, you’d make application back in front of us for
site plan? Now you want our thoughts and comments?
MR. MICHAELS-For the 56.
MR. VOLLARO-For the 56, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re looking for our comments.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-What’s the difference between multi family and duplex?
MR. LAPPER-Multi family could be condos, as Dave said, because it’s, the duplex you own the
footprint. It’s your building. It’s just, a townhouse, you own your townhouse and you own the land
underneath it, and with a condo, you just own the space in the air, like an apartment building, but
you own it, but it could be rental or it could be a condo, depending upon the market.
MR. METIVIER-And how many would you have of the multifamily units?
MR. CARR-Forty-eight.
MR. METIVIER-But, I mean, not all continuous, would they be?
MR. LAPPER-Not in one building.
MR. METIVIER-How many in each building?
MR. MICHAELS-Up there now we have six buildings.
MR. LAPPER-But that’s all just a concept, and that could change. I mean, it could be four years
from now that they decide the market’s ready to do that and they finish the other project. It’s just
what they want to do, but there’s no timeframe right now.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. METIVIER-Still, for the 56, you propose that they wouldn’t be rentals?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-They’d be purchased, but the multifamily either way.
MR. MICHAELS-It could go either way, and like I said, it would be depending on the market, but
either way, we look at that area as prime land with prime use that it would be definitely either luxury
condo or rentals.
MR. CARR-And obviously, when we came in for that approval, we would know what it would be,
whether it would be rentals or not.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and it would have to be laid out architectural of the buildings and the village
green all would have to be presented and approved.
MR. LAPPER-And it may not look like what’s there. That’s just really boxes on a piece of paper.
MR. MAC EWAN-What we’d be looking at, as this progresses, based on their proposal, Tony, is, at a
minimum, three different site plans, reviewing in the process. Do you plan on phasing the duplexes,
or is that all going to be done in one shot?
MR. MICHAELS-The development of that, we’d probably like to consider two phases, from the
standpoint that we might do the drive through road and maybe leave out one or two of the cul de
sacs. They’d be just carved in later.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-And the drive in roads, that’s off of Meadowbrook there?
MR. CARR-The loop.
MR. METIVIER-No more.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-How many units in each of the multi family, four units?
MR. MICHAELS-The multifamily buildings, what we’re proposing is six buildings and eight units
per building.
MR. RINGER-Eight units.
MR. MICHAELS-But the multifamily considers stacked products, you know, first level, second level.
Sometimes second levels are a story and a half, with lofts and things like that. There’s some
buildings that actually have internal garages, even though they’re multifamily, which we’ve been
looking at, but again, we don’t feel comfortable presenting that actual site plan review right now.
MR. RINGER-Nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-You will have an offering plan prepared for the 56 units, is that correct?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, that will be required.
MR. VOLLARO-Will we get an opportunity to look at that?
MR. LAPPER-Well, what we did last time, with Surrey Field, we submitted the declaration of
covenants section of the offering plan. The whole thing has to go to the Attorney General’s Office.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason why I ask the question, so you’ll know why, I’m not just asking, I don’t
want to have to read another offering plan. I’ve got enough problems with my own. I’m trying to
figure out whether building maintenance, roof, trim painting, what’s the extent of the maintenance
coverage, under the offering plan. In other words, when does the owner, does the owner take care
of his entire building, his roof, his painting, all of the on-site stuff that has to do with his building and
the only thing the offering plan covers is snow removal and their grounds maintenance? Is that
generally what?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MICHAELS-It can go both ways. It can go very comprehensive, where the HOA takes care of
everything, and is budgeted, or it can be just on the exterior grounds of it, and then covenant
restricted in terms of what, you know, they’re bound by what their responsibilities are for their
maintenance. If they’re supposed to re-paint, then there’s language.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to be the sponsor under this situation. What’s your view? In other
words, what do you think?
MR. MICHAELS-That will be the next thing for us to think out and decide what’s the right thing to
do.
MR. LAPPER-My recollection is that we submitted that for final approval, before final approval on
Surrey Field across the street. So we had all that figured out at that point, and presented it to the
Board to look at. We can do the same here.
MR. VOLLARO-My other question is, where does Family Golf fit into this thing? I’m trying to take
a look at the lineage here between the original Hiland Park PUD, the sale over to Family Golf. Does
Family Golf play a role here at all?
MR. LAPPER-They don’t play a role in our project, just like they didn’t play a role with the Eddy or
with the Schermerhorn project, because each of these entities contracted to purchase a piece of land,
and then came before the Town to develop the land. The word on the street is that the golf course is
for sale, and that there are a number, what I’ve heard, as recently as a couple of days ago, is that there
are a number of large national golf interests that are bidding on the golf course, and that something
will probably happen pretty quickly, and that’ll either be the golf course and the clubhouse by itself,
or it’ll include the 20 acre commercial piece across the street from this and the remaining single
family land that Dave talked about, up behind Town Hall here, by the driving range.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I asked is I noticed in our Staff Notes, underneath the Town Board
resolution for the PUD redistricting, it says, Hiland is to provide the updated traffic study for
intersections, prior to site plan approval. Well, is it Hiland or Family Golf? See, that’s what, I’m
trying to get my arms around this project, and it’s tough to do.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s no Hiland anymore, and Family Golf is really not part of the process.
MR. VOLLARO-So who would prepare an updated traffic study? Would that be the Michaels
Group?
MR. LAPPER-Well, I have two answers for you. Our first position would be that, just like with the
Schermerhorn and the Eddy project, that what’s proposed here is significantly less than the
thresholds that were considered in the original SEQRA and the original PUD. So perhaps that
doesn’t need to be done, and to the extent that it does need to be done, the Michaels Group can do
an update of the traffic studies that were done at that point, to deal with Meadowbrook, but it’s really
up to the Board as to what you’re looking for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. I just have one question. Are we proposing, tonight, making
a resolution that the Town Board declare that this operation is consistent with the original PUD? In
other words, is this a recommendation we’re going to make tonight? No, it is not?
MRS. RYBA-Well, yes, because the way, it’s been done differently a little bit in the past couple of
ones. For example, with the Top of the World PUD, you did make that recommendation to the
Town Board, and then the Town Board did the resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought I read in the notes here some place that, I may be mistaken, that the
Town Board was going to take that posturing, whether it was consistent with the PUD or not? They
did that with the Schermerhorn. We didn’t.
MRS. RYBA-Right. It was my understanding that, previously, the Staff had determined consistency,
and then that went to the Town Board, and it was my understanding that fairly recently, that the
Planning Board was looking to make that recommendation to the Town Board, rather than the Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, speaking for one seventh of this Board, the only way that we could do this is
to state that we would make that determination based on Staff’s study, not something that this seven
member Board would be able to recommend, that this is consistent with the original PUD? Having
not examined that, how would we do that? We would have to rely on your examination of the PUD
and the consistency of this proposal, or application with that PUD.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MRS. RYBA-Right, and that’s what my Staff Notes provide.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 11 buildings that you have sketched in there, are those just the way
you’re going to build those 11 first, or are you just randomly just sketched them in?
MR. CARR-This is a graphic representation.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I think it would have been better if you’d put all of them in, but, okay,
that’s no problem. So there’s no set order, the way you’re going to build them?
MR. CARR-Well, I think what Dave had mentioned was quite possibly a loop road would be
developed road. So maybe all of the first units would be on the loop road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the dark green going through there is the wetlands?
MR. CARR-That’s one portion of it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And will that be, well, let’s say, is there going to be an area where, like the
people can just, on the west side of the little road there, of the loop, can they just like walk, will they
be able to just walk out of the backyards of their homes and kind of just go through the fields?
MR. CARR-Probably in summer, yes. I mean, it’s not open water. It’s just, so this spring maybe not.
You’d probably get your feet wet, but maybe by the middle of July you would be able to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s good.
MR. CARR-It’s actually, that middle light green section is very nice. It’s an upland section.
Obviously, it was farmed at one time. It is nice.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what did the Recreation Commission, did they have any plans like
outright plans for that land that you want to give or?
MR. MICHAELS-No, they didn’t have any outright plans. They had a menu of items they’d like to
explore.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But would it be something where the public would be allowed in on it?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes. Whatever would go in there would be for the benefit of the residents of
Queensbury.
MR. LAPPER-Like Gurney Lane.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but then the public, you’d have to find some kind of an access where
they wouldn’t, that’s where I missed that. I see, that’s where it is. That’s what I was wondering.
Okay. That’s where I didn’t quite catch it. There is it. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-No, I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess a lot of my comments were already answered. I asked the question
about the PUD earlier, because the zoning regulations do say that if a PUD is not started within one
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
year after adoption then it becomes null and void and there’s also language that if the PUD is not
phased in according to the original plan and certain things, the Town actually has to take action, in
order to try to pursue the further development, and I am not familiar at all with the original Hiland
development plans. I mean, even Mr. Michaels admitted earlier that a lot has changed since 1987,
and that was 13 years ago. So I guess I raised the question because I don’t really see a lot of
relevance in comparing this to what the original PUD was designed for, since it was never built and
couldn’t be built.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let’s talk about that. In terms of the PUD. What happened, unfortunately, was
that this was, you know, a year and a half in the planning process, and it hit at the recession of the
late 80’s and early 90’s. So the developer went in, started the project, built the clubhouse, built the
golf course, built the infrastructure for single family and the first townhouse development, which was
a large investment, and then it’s been going a few houses at a time, and a large water and sewer
investment to get the infrastructure up here to support the whole project, which is another story. So
in terms of the compatibility question that you got to at the end, what we’re talking about, we’re not
talking about the whole project. We’re talking about the west side of Meadowbrook, just what we’re
proposing here is compatible with what the concept was, and that doesn’t mean that there’s a
building in the exact location of a building because that plan was only a concept plan that was
approved at the time in 1987, I guess, but the uses are compatible and the general layout is
compatible, it’s our position, and we hope the Board agrees, and that’s what the Town Board is
looking for you, compared to, with Schermerhorn where they asked him to go and meet with the
Town Board in a couple of workshops and then they passed a resolution, now I understand you’re
being asked first to make a recommendation to them, before they pass on it. So that’s where we are
in the process.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I’ve got to reiterate the same point, without having reviewed the
original Hiland plans.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I would tell you that I think it’s a lot simpler than that, that you just have to look
at this piece of property and see what was on it before, office and multifamily, and what are we
proposing, office and multifamily, but you also have the Staff Notes backing that up.
MR. VOLLARO-Just to communicate on the Board here for just a minute, going back to Hiland and
to the Schermerhorn application, I did what you would like to do. I reviewed, fairly in-depth, the
original Hiland Park PUD, and I determined, as party of one of this Board, that it was not consistent,
there was not consistency with the original PUD, as far as Hiland Park was concerned, and
particularly the Schermerhorn rental apartments, but that was just myself. I would only like to see
here that the overall development of this PUD put out somewhere. I don’t want to use the word
segmentation, because that’s a bad word coming off this Board, but what I see is this thing being
developed in pieces, by different developers, who have to somehow or other retain, in their
development philosophy, the consistency of the original PUD.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I guess that’s part of my concern, because on the one hand we’re
saying, well, this is less dense than the original PUD, but then on the other hand, we’re only
reviewing it in segments.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. I have the same problem that you do.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like we’re trying to work both ends to the middle.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two thoughts that come to my mind with the comments you’ve made is that
there can be multitudes of developers in a PUD. It’s in the Code that it can be done, and secondly,
with the fact that the wetlands have significantly changed, as far as their delineation, has also changed
the concept of the PUD that, in some cases, it can’t be developed as densely as it was originally
proposed. Because then we have to take that into consideration as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Believe me, I know. We ran into that in the airport industrial park. We thought
we had developable land.
MR. VOLLARO-In checking with a couple of people in the staff at Albany, the State Department at
Albany, basically, when you do a PUD, this is zone change. It’s a zone unto itself, and you’ve got to
be very careful when you start violating the intent of the zone, if there are violations. The zone, it
has to be looked at in terms of how it’s been zoned out originally, in the original PUD, and that’s
where I had a problem, back upstream, not with Hiland, but with the Schermerhorn application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wasn’t here on the Board to go through that review. So, maybe that’s
why I’m raising the questions now, because you deliberated on them earlier.
MR. VOLLARO-I think your concern is still a valid one, frankly. That’s my opinion.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I guess the other questions that I had were related to the conveyance
of the property to the Department of Parks and Recreation. Is the 50 foot strip intended to be a
road access?
MR. LAPPER-An access strip. What happened, also, because all of the sewer capacity that was
planned for Hiland will most likely never be used, because it’s not being developed as densely, the
Town, I guess two years ago, conveyed or allowed ACC to hook up to sewer ACC using the Hiland
Park pump station. So the area where the road is is the area where there’s now a sewer line
connection. So it’s an appropriate place to put a road.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s an easement there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, so it would be across that area, which is the southern most part of the project on
the west side, where the road would go to get, the driveway to get to the Park and Rec piece.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was reference, earlier, to 60 acres that this “project” previously donated
to the Town. Where is that property?
MR. LAPPER-That is across Meadowbrook. It starts, if you look at the golf course, it’s the woods
on the southern side of the golf course which runs from the southwest to the northeast. There’s a
large, I mean, Halfway Brook corridor is a large stream corridor in the Champlain drainage basin that
runs from the Quaker Road commercial area of the Town through Fort Ann and ultimately to the
Champlain Canal, and that’s, those acres were very dense wetlands and forest, and that was all
conveyed, DEC was interested in that, at the time, being forever wild, and that’s where that area is.
So it’s on the other side of Meadowbrook, on the south border of the golf course, of the front nine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did speak to someone on the Rec Commission tonight before the
meeting, and he did inform me that they had scheduled a meeting to talk about this project, but they
didn’t have a quorum, so the meeting was cancelled, but, you know, obviously, it would be of interest
to know what value they might see on the property, and I guess a related question would be, is the
project financially feasible, if that property is not donated to the Park and Rec Department?
MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I guess that’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-My only comments would be architecture and color schemes, which we, as you
know, worked very hard, not only with the Eddy, but Mr. Schermerhorn, to get something that’s
consistent with the PUD. Whatever you submit with your site plan applications, I would ask, on
behalf of the Board, that it be along those same themes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought that those renderings were.
MR. MAC EWAN-Those are his examples, not either what we saw from the Schermerhorn’s
application or the Eddy. All I’m asking is that it be consistent with what’s been going on up there.
MR. LAPPER-That’s just our preliminary submission, and of course, Dave Michaels will work with
the Board to get into further details of the design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. You mentioned, David, you mentioned the fact that the owners of the
townhouses would have to maintain and do their painting. Is that, were you implying that there’s
going to be wooden siding or vinyl siding?
MR. MICHAELS-Well, we’d have to decide on the HOA part of it when it comes to building, what
we want to include as far as the HOA, and the homeowner’s responsibility, but the buildings
themselves, we see them going with vinyl siding, maintenance free, and cedar trim. We use both, not
just one product, and it really has the advantage of, it looks almost like wood from a distance, it really
does, and it’s maintenance free, and yet the wood accents in the corner window trims and fascia
boards and things give it, you know, a much nicer look to it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. They converted me over to the vinyl. I was surprised what they market
now. It’s nice.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments?
MS. RADNER-Can I interject before you go on? Chris made the comment about whether the plan
is null and void because there’s been no action within a year, and just so that the record’s clear, yes,
that’s exactly what happens. When there has been no construction on an approved plan for more
than a year, then it’s null and void. What happens then is before there can be any development, we
have to have a new precise plan brought to you, which is what’s happening now. They’re bringing
you new plans, which you are reviewing. It stays as PUD zoning, but you have to treat it as new
plans which you’re developing. What Bob was sort of touching on was that you have to consider the
intent of the zoning resolution, and you, as a Planning Board, have to make the determination
whether the modified plan keeps with the zoning regulation. We’re getting pretty far, though, from
what I think the intent of the zoning regulation was, is where you have an approved sketch plan and
then that’s being modified. Here we’re basically having a whole new site plan brought before you. I
also want to point out to you that there’s a provision in the plan for staging, and in fact staging’s
required if construction’s not going to be completed in two years. So you really haven’t gotten any
dates on when these different phases are going to be completed. We’re talking only about that center
colored in portion, but that’s perfectly in keeping with what’s allowed in the Zoning Ordinance,
assuming that they’re not going to complete all of what they have there in two years.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Any other Staff comments? Okay. Does someone want to
introduce a motion, please.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE MICHAELS
GROUP, ENTITLED THE WAVERLY PLACE RETIREMENT VILLAGE, IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN, WITH THE ORIGINAL PUD FOR
HILAND PARK, AND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-Motion that the Planning Board recommends that the Michaels Group, entitled the
Waverly Place Retirement Village, is consistent with the PUD concept plan, , with the original PUD
for Hiland Park, and this recommendation is based on an analysis prepared by the Community
Development Staff. I just want to put that in since I don’t think anybody on the Board has had a
chance to really review this. We’re really relying upon the Community Development Staff to
determine the consistency with the original PUD.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which I’ll add is very appropriate to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second?
MR. ABBOTT-I’ll second it.
MRS. MOORE-That’s a lot of language. You may want to just amend that that you’ve provided
information about Staff notes and things like that, and you added some personal comments in there.
So I don’t know whether you want to just shrink that up a little bit.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, my last sentence of my recommendation is that this recommendation is based
on an analysis prepared by the Community Development Staff. Period.
MR. MAC EWAN-The last two parts were just comments. They weren’t part of the resolution. I’m
sorry. Now do we have a second?
MR. ABBOTT-Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’d also like to know if there’s anything else besides the issues that we
talked about, anything else, any other direction you want to give us for our submission for
preliminary for August.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you know what we’re looking for.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Are you going to take comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-We will start taking comments when we start doing the site plan review process,
which will be in August. Now, the Town Board will be taking public comment when they review
this, because they’re the ones that are going to make the initial step as to whether this project is in
consistency with the original PUD, which will probably be, when did you say you were anticipating it
being put on the Town Board agenda?
MRS. RYBA-July 10. One of the things, though, this was warned for public hearing.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-It was?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wished you had said something. I missed that. Sorry. I’d ask somebody to
rescind that resolution, please. My apologies. I screwed up.
MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize. That was my mistake. I’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone
wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KENNETH WINTON
MR. WINTON-My name is Kenneth Winton. My wife and I own that house that is directly
opposite this project. The house is 175 years old. Last month we received a historic preservation
award from Chapman Museum for taking care of a historic piece of property. We are very interested
in what happens in that area. We know the PUD has been coming along for a long time, 13 years. I
always remember Gary Bowen who, if you didn’t know, he was the one that started the Hiland
Development. He had meetings with us, and he said there would be no appreciable increase in
traffic. That was before we put 10 traffic lights between Blind Rock Road and Martha’s, really, and
all the way down to Ridge Road. So people have found a way of bypassing, and it was also when
Meadowbrook Road was a dirt road. Now it is a paved road, and a 55 mile an hour speed limit. I
think, one of the questions I have is Environmental Impact Statement. That was made 13 years ago.
Should it be reassessed and looked at, along with the traffic study? The other thing that I am very
concerned about is this multifamily. I don’t understand exactly what that is, and of course, for 33
years, we’ve looked across from our porch into a beautiful meadow, 75 acres of it. We have not had
any neighbors for a quarter of a mile, and now all of a sudden we’re going to have maybe a few
thousand people, within our site. So, the multifamily thing I think you should look at very carefully,
even though it’s planned for the future. I don’t understand it. I’m also interested in that 100 foot
buffer zone that is being planned, and I wonder should it be started with trees and growth because
we look directly into the area that is being planned right now. That’s a little background on my
concern and interest.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your comments are valid. I would encourage you to attend the Town Board
meeting, July the 10 you’re anticipating that being on?
th
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And voice those same concerns, because the Town Board is the one who
establishes the zone, and if you feel that you want to encourage the Town Board to revisit the
original SEQRA findings from the Environmental Impact Statement, they’re the ones that would do
that. If you wanted to talk to them about additional traffic studies or additional traffic data for that, I
would encourage you to do that as well.
MR. WINTON-Okay. I was under the impression that would fall in your category, but it doesn’t.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-It can. Asking for additional traffic data is a part of what we can do, but because
this is a zone change that was done by the Town Board, and they’re the only body in local
government that’s empowered to make a zone change, they did the Environmental Impact
Statement for this project, and they’re the only ones that could amend that Environmental Impact
Statement.
MR. WINTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else?
DOUG COON
MR. COON-Hi. I’m Doug Coon. I own the property immediately south of the project. It goes to
Meadowbrook Road and to Bayberry Drive. I have a couple of questions, I’m not sure on the plan.
I see a number of those multifamily units that are pictured up there, but I don’t know the total, in the
first phase.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty-six total.
MR. COON-Fifty-six. What’s the square footage going to be? Has that been determined yet, or is
that something that’s going to have parameters set to it?
MR. MAC EWAN-In site plan review.
MR. COON-Site Plan Review, okay. The road that’s on the south end of that development, which
would be on the north end of my property, I just would like to know how far away from the property
line that’s planned for, at this stage?
MR. MAC EWAN-Again, that information would probably be more defined at Site Plan Review. I
mean, this is conceptual, what they’re showing us right now. So when they make application, which
they’re anticipating coming back in front of this Board some time in August. We would be able to
have that information for you.
MR. COON-All right. I guess, I’m part of a neighborhood in Bayberry Drive, and it’s a quiet
neighborhood, and so I think we’d be very interested in knowing, which you can’t answer now. I
understand this, with knowing the activities that are going to be planned for the open space, by the
Recreation Department. Is that something that I should ask Mr. Hansen, as far as a starting point
goes for that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. I don’t think the Rec Department has actually met on this yet,
because of what Mr. Hunsinger said. When they were to meet, they didn’t have a quorum, so this
was never fully discussed.
MR. COON-Okay. So that’s really in the beginning stages, as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, in its infancy.
MR. COON-Okay, and the other question I have, it’s kind of hard to tell from the plan, Laura went
over it with me last week, and we roughed up a guess, but from what I can tell, the distance from the
multifamily unit to the south line of that project, is that close? Can you tell me if that’s close to
maybe 250 feet?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s a scale right on the lower right hand corner. You can measure it
yourself.
MR. MAC EWAN-The southernmost townhouse unit?
MR. COON-Yes, wherever the southern most unit is going to be. I was just interested in seeing how
far from the line it would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Three to four hundred feet, roughly.
MR. COON-Okay. Just a point that, in going over it with Laura, it seems like it’s quite a bit less
dense than normal, and I think that’s a plus, because I think the green space, a lot of it will be
preserved in keeping that density low. The layout, as far as I’m concerned, at least at this stage,
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
doesn’t look so bad. To me, it looks like a fairly nice layout. We know that this land is going to be
developed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably the single most important factor that’s impacted this entire PUD has
been the re-delineation of the wetlands on it. It’s made this whole zone much less dense than what
the original plans conceived, and probably that’s a huge plus.
MR. COON-Right. I agree with you on that, and that southern area for future development of office
space, Laura had thought it would be more along a professional line, and I didn’t know if that meant
post office, fire station or whatever. I suppose I’d have to be concerned if there was a fire station
there, from a noise factor, but even that, the office space in that southern corner seems like a good
place for that, as far as I’m concerned. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MARY FLANNAGAN
MRS. FLANNAGAN-My name is Mary Flannagan. I live at 5 Bayberry Court. My property would
be at the corner, the southwest corner of the property, kitty corner to that. It would abut my
property in general. I’m very interested in what would be happening in the area that is supposed to
be given to the Recreation Department. Obviously, you can’t address those issues. I want to know if
it’s appropriate for members of the Recreation Commission, when they meet, to let people who
might be effected by whatever is put there, to come to their meetings or be informed or whatever. I
had a question that was also addressed already about the access road which would be on the southern
part of that property where the sewer lines are now. A lot of cutting of trees was done to establish
that. Thankfully the leaves have come back. For the first time since I’ve lived in that property on
the second floor I can actually see traffic on Meadowbrook Road. That never happened before, but I
realize progress is progress. Also, part of my property is very wet and part of it also is on the DEC
wetland maps, and I’m wondering, in that particular southwest corner, if there are areas in that area
that’s being given to the Recreation Department, are there areas in that property that are also
considered wetlands, and I don’t know if that’s been explored by the Michaels Group or not, or if
that is something that is going to be explored by the Recreation Commission. Also, there’s a buffer
line of trees between that property and ACC, and I’m not sure where the property line is, but that
tree line has been, from my personal point of view, a good buffer, as far as not even being away of
what’s going on in that property, and it was farmed at one point in time. I believe that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does Staff have any idea, or maybe one of you guys could tell us, when
you plan on going back in front of the Rec Commission?
MR. MICHAELS-As far as the Rec Commission goes, we’ve had some conversations. Really, after
we had tonight’s meeting, I was going to let Harry take it the next step.
MR. MAC EWAN-So probably maybe July. Some time in July. I’m not sure when the Rec
Commission meets, though.
MR. LAPPER-They meet the first week.
MR. MAC EWAN-They meet in the first week of July. Okay. You might want to call the Rec
Office, Harry Hansen, and ask him, you know, when do they plan on putting this on their agenda so
you can attend.
MRS. FLANNAGAN-Okay. I realize there are a lot of variables and there are a lot of issues to be
addressed, but I would be very concerned about access to that recreation area, if it was coming
through ACC. That would be a real, this beats, though, the original idea that Gary Bowen had. They
wanted to build a dorm in that corner of that property at one point in time for ACC. So, there is
progress.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. FLANNAGAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. WINTON-There was just one thing. The notice of public hearing had the tax map at 62.1. I
know I’m 61.3 and 61.4, and the paper that’s handed out tonight has it as 61.2. I think it’s in error.
There’s a correction there.
MR. MAC EWAN-60-1-2.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
MR. WINTON-I think it’s 60-1-2.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and on our agenda it says 60-1-2.
MR. WINTON-And the notice came out as 62.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a typo. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-You didn’t have any correspondence or anything, did you? Okay. Any additional
comments you want to make?
MR. LAPPER-Those were pretty positive comments in general, and we’ll address them during site
plan. A lot of them dealt with the Rec plan, which we’re going to have nothing to do with the design
on, but certainly, they should be aware of all of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any Staff comments. We’ll try one more time. Would somebody
introduce a resolution, please.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll do it again.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE MICHAELS
GROUP PROPOSAL FOR THE WAVERLY PLACE RETIREMENT VILLAGE IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE HILAND PUD, AND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS
BASED ON AN ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MICHAELS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-Tonight we gave out the Miniature Golf Course map and a piece of information.
Please make sure you take that with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are they on Tuesday or Thursday?
MRS. MOORE-They’re on Thursday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? Meeting adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/00)
42