2002-05-23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION PROSPECT CHILD &
FAMILY CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES
ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 4’ HIGH SECTION FENCE THAT WAS ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEIGHBOR
TO THE EAST OF THE SITE. REQUIRES MODIFICATION, AS IT WAS NOT ON THE
ORIGINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-
2000, AV 54-2000, AV 34-2002 TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 4.79 ACRES SECTION:
179-74 B2
JON LAPPER, DICK JONES, LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing scheduled. It’s been advertised.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2000, Modification, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: May
23, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant has constructed a section of 4 foot tall stockade fence along the easterly property line near the main
parking lot. Modification of the site plan is necessary, as the fence along this property line was not originally
approved to extend to the current location.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The Prospect Child & Family Center is considered a school, which is an allowable use within the
Single Family Residential zoning district. Similarly, the proposed fencing style is allowable in this
zone.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The fence, as constructed, does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood or district.
The fence does not appear to present any undue visual impacts to the area.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The fence line appears to be constructed in an area sufficiently removed from the edge of
the right of way for Aviation Road and should not present any adverse traffic impacts.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The fence should not present any undue adverse impacts relative to these matters.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
No changes to the buildings, lighting or signage are proposed with this modification.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
No changes to the onsite traffic patterns are anticipated with this modification. The fence does not
appear to present any undue visual impacts or interference with access sight lines.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
Apparently, the installation of the fence was initiated in response to a request by the immediate
eastern neighbor. The fence apparently provides additional, wanted screening for the neighbor.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Adequate, no changes proposed.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Several site plans and variances associated with the recent expansion of the campus.
Staff comments:
The fence line appears to be a viable solution to address the neighbor concern for screening. If the only issue
is the clothing containers, perhaps relocation of the containers would be preferred to the additional fence. ?
Type II”
SEQR Status:
MRS. RYBA-Just to summarize, there was a variance hearing last night at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
the variance was approved for the fence. It was put up at the request of a neighbor to hide the blue clothing
boxes, donation boxes that Prospect School has.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dick Jones, who’s the project architect, and Larry
Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect School. Very briefly, I’m sure you’ll all remember that we were
here last year for the very involved process to do the expansion of both of the facilities on the north and
south side of Aviation Road. They have now recently been opened. They’ve been very well received by the
neighbors, a lot of the issues there. It really changed the architectural nature of the facility, modernized it, I
think, very much for the better. It’s really quite an attractive facility, compared to what it was. As part of that
process, we entered into discussions and negotiations with the neighbors, at both the Planning Board
meetings and the Zoning Board meetings, which resulted in, among other design changes, the fence being
added along the back, with very significant berming and planting of Canadian Hemlocks, which are pretty
decent size to begin with, and should be very nice when they get larger in a few years. The fence was
intended to only go, on the plan, along the east side of the property, up to where it drops down to the four
foot fence. It’s supposed to end there. As a result of, really, one of the site contractors trimmed the lower
limbs of the trees toward the front of the site because he didn’t read the plans to determine that the fence was
going to end that, and, as a result of that, they didn’t take any trees down, but they just trimmed some of the
lower branches, it allowed the neighbor to the east a clear view of the facility and the parking lot. So he called
Larry. He wrote a letter to the Town, and he requested that the fence be put up. The fence was put up, and
at the time it was put up, nobody stopped to think or to ask whether that would be considered the
architectural front yard because it’s, technically, part of that is in front of the front of the building, and that’s
why we needed a variance. So we came last night. The neighbor’s son came to speak as well, and the Zoning
Board, after discussing it, unanimously approved the variance for the fence to be there. Now we’re here for
site plan review, because that is a site plan issue before the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems relatively simple. Anybody got any questions, comments?
MR. SANFORD-No, I don’t have any.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. 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-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITEPLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD &
FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for:
Site Plan Review No. 10-2000 Applicant: Prospect Child & Family Center
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same
Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates
MODIFICATION Zone: SFR-1A
Location: 133 Aviation Road
Applicant proposes a 4’ high section fence that was added at the request of the neighbor to the east of the
site. Requires modification, as it was not on the original site plan approval. Any modification to an approved
site plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: AV 22-2000, AV 54-2000, AV 34-2002
Tax Map No. 82-3-1, 82-2-6
Lot size: 4.79 acres
Section: 179-74 B2
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02:
5/23 Staff Notes
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
5/22 ZBA resolution
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/8 Warren Co. Planning
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002; 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, 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
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with
no further comments, and there were no changes to the original SEQRA findings.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2002 TYPE II PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER PROPERTY
OWNER: UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. OF THE TRI-CO., INC AGENT: RICHARD
E. JONES, ASSOCIATES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: DIXON ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,780 SQ. FT. INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL
ALTERNATIVE (IRA) DUPLEX RESIDENCE. DUPLEX IN A SR ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 2-88 TAX MAP
NO 93-1-1.5, 1.6 LOT SIZE: 2.60 AC., 1.97 AC. SECTION: 179-4-010, TABLE 1
JON LAPPER, DICK JONES, LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-2002, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: May 23, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 4,780 sf Individual Residence Alternative, (IRA) duplex residence.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Duplexes are allowable Site Plan Review uses within the Suburban Residential zoning district. Staff
is of the understanding that the parcels will be consolidated as part of the project.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed duplex is planned to be maintained and operated by the Applicant and as such, should
not present a significant increase to the burden on public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed project plan appears to offer adequate on site parking and with the addition
of the on site turn around area, minimal, if any traffic conflicts are anticipated.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed site appears to be located in the most ecologically protective area on the property.
The conservation of the wooded area near Halfway Brook appears to be a consideration in the
development. No trees are to be removed within 100 feet of the water courses in the area.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed site layout appears to be the most logical application for the plan on this property.
The proposed residential style lighting may be more noticeable off site than conventional commercial
cutoff parking lot lights, however, this project is planned to have a residential appearance. No signs
are proposed with this plan.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The on site parking and turn around appear to be sufficient for the proposed project. The turn
around should alleviate most traffic conflicts on site.
3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The sidewalks and unloading appear to adequately address the pedestrian needs of this site.
4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
Infiltration trenches along the drive, parking areas and around the building are planned to address the
stormwater needs for this site. Based on the grading plan, it does not appear as though the parking
area will be graded to effectively utilize the trenches to the north. Regrading of this area, to pitch to
the north, is recommended. Further, the remainder of the drive and turnaround appear to be
relatively flat, a positive slope, toward the stormwater devices is recommended.
5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site will be serviced by municipal water and on site sewage disposal systems.
6. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
The proposed landscaping plan appears to be consistent with the surrounding residential
development.
7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The 24 foot wide drive aisle appears to be an adequate emergency access lane for the site. There
appears to be a fire hydrant approximately 100 north of the site.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
The project plans appear to indicate that erosion control measures will be observed. The plan
references a continuous hay bale barrier, however, the location is not shown on the plan. Staff
recommends a hay bale and silt fence barrier below all disturbed areas in this sensitive area.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None applicable
Staff comments:
The proposed residential development does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff
concern is for adequate erosion control measures during grading and construction. While the proposed
structure may be considered substantial in size, it should still appear residential in appearance from Dixon
Road.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. The applicant did supply an erosion control plan which was distributed to you this
evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to read in to the record Craig Brown’s memo of today?
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Memo from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, to Craig MacEwan, Chairman, “It has
come to my attention that the above referenced project involves lands that are part of a subdivision that was
approved by the Town Planning Board several years ago and that there may be some confusion with regard
to the applicability of the previous approvals. Based upon the information of record and my understanding
of the authority granted to the Planning Board, it is my position that the proposed Prospect Child & Family
Center application on Dixon Road can proceed at your discretion. While an argument could have been
presented for a modification to a previously approved site plan, none was offered, and it is my opinion that
the best course of action is to review this project as a new application, while at the same time being
knowledgeable of the previous approval. However, the previous approval should not, by itself, limit this
application. The currently proposed use is an allowable use in the SR-1A zoning district, and the Planning
Board has the authority to approve the plan if the same is found to be acceptable. It appears as though the
parent property was a 15 +/- acre parcel which was divided in 1985 by way of site plan review 6-85 into five
residential lots, totaling eight and a half acres, with the remaining six and a half acres to be conveyed to the
City of Glens Falls. Upon review of the records associated with SP 6-85, it appears as though there was
neighborhood concern regarding the number of duplexes proposed, originally five, one per lot. Apparently,
in response to these concerns and those of the Planning Board, the applicant offered a reduction to the
number of duplexes and amended the plan to offer three duplexes on the northerly three lots and two single
family dwellings, one each, for the two southerly lots. While the explicit conditions describing duplexes on
the southerly lot does not appear in the adopted resolution, it is clearly discussed in the minutes and the
original plans, showing 5 duplexes, were revised to show 3 duplexes and 2 single family dwellings prior to
filing at the Warren County Clerks Office. In 1988, a new party filed a site plan with the town for the
southerly two lots of the subdivision. This new plan proposed to revisit the duplex plans for these lots. The
applicant ultimately withdrew the application, Site Plan 2-88, apparently in response to an opinion offered by
then Town Counsel, R. Case Prime. It is mentioned in this opinion that a modification to a subdivision cannot
be done by the Site Plan Review process. I do not agree with this position. The authority for approval and
modification of Site Plans and Subdivisions lies solely with the Planning Board. The method used to evaluate
these proposals is the Site Plan Review process. As you know, applications can be and have been approved
by the Planning Board, with specific conditions or prohibitions and subsequently, if requested by an
applicant, the applications can be modified, at the discretion of the Planning Board.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, again, Jon Lapper, Dick Jones, and Larry Gouge. There’s
nothing that we disagree with in Craig Brown’s letter to you, memo to you, but this was all news to me and
Dick. So we have just gotten up to speed about it. We felt that we were coming in with a pretty
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
straightforward application for these two duplexes units attached, which would be four bedrooms in each for
the Independent Residence Alternative is something that Prospect School has been hoping for a number of
years that they could afford to provide for the community. It allows eight handicap individuals to live more
independently than they might be living if they’re living at home with their families. The location, as Craig
said in his memo, it’s permitted under the Zoning Code, the duplex unit, and we felt it was an appropriate
location for a duplex because you’ve got the three, right up the road, duplexes, and also the Dixon Heights
multifamily townhouse development, right across the street. So it’s an area where there are a lot of
multifamily uses. In terms of that prior approval, and what we’ve been educated about recently, originally
they were proposing five lots with two units on each lot for a total of 10 units, and as part of a compromise,
when it was approved, on the lots that we’re talking about now, they agreed to do one single family home on
each. What we’re doing is proposing to combine those two lots together to make one lot, and still to do the
same two single family dwellings, we’re just attaching them. So in terms of density, it’s the same thing that
was agreed to at the time to have two units, it’s just that the two units are attached, and it just works better
for the site plan. Dick designed it so it’s single family in character, in design of it, and I guess at this point it
would probably make sense just to have him go through the site plan with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get that far, I have a question, I guess, regarding the first paragraph on the
second page of Craig Brown’s memo, and what I’m having trouble with is his line here, it says, “While the
explicit conditions describing duplexes on the southerly lot does not appear in the adopted resolution, it is
clearly discussed in the minutes and the original plans. Now I know from my experience on this Board, if we
don’t have it in the resolution that’s adopted by the Board, it’s not part of any approval. Whether you discuss
things during the course of the review or not, if you don’t tag it in to the written resolution, it doesn’t become
part of the resolution. My second question, I guess, to that is, what takes precedent here, the written
resolution that approved this subdivision or the plat that was filed with the County?
MR. SCHACHNER-What was your first question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Where it was clearly discussed, but it’s not in the written resolution. It’s discussed in the
minutes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think that’s an accurate statement, and you accurately recited it. What’s your
question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it part of the resolution?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s clearly not a part of the resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-So is it an approval?
MR. SCHACHNER-The rule on that is not quite as black/white as you might make it out to be, Mr.
Chairman, but the prevailing view is that if it’s not part of the resolution, it’s not a condition of approval.
Now, the reason I say it’s not as black/white as you might make it out to be, and as I would wish it to be, is
that if the applicant, there are cases that hold that if an applicant clearly makes a representation, as part of the
application approval process, that certain things will be done, then those things can be deemed to be part of
the application and can be relied on as part of the application, even if they’re not enumerated as specific
conditions of approval, and I think that’s why the Zoning Administrator struggled a little with this, and rightly
so. We’re all going back into history, into 1985, and trying to make the best that we can out of minutes from
that time and a resolution of that time. I mean, both you and the Zoning Administrator, I think, have very
accurately recited the facts. The facts are that there is discussion in the minutes about those two lots having
only single family residences and not duplexes on them. However, it’s clear that that discussion does not
result in a condition of approval so stating. Now, I don’t know if that answered your question is, but is it part
of the resolution of approval? No. I think the Zoning Administrator has taken a position here, and he has
the authority to take this position. He is the person that has that authority, and as I understand his position
here, his position is that, although the notion that there would only be single family dwellings on those two
lots, does appear in the minutes, that because it does not appear in the adopted resolution, the applicant can
proceed with the current application, and that’s not a violation of the previous approval. That’s my
understanding of the Zoning Administrator’s opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Just to clarify, our position, which I stated already, is just that they were going to from four
units to two units, and whether attached or not attached, the density is the same. We’re only proposing the
same number of units that the applicant, at that time, agreed to, and I don’t think that that’s, necessarily,
binding regardless, but just in terms of the density, the Board can feel comfortable that what we’re doing is
the same number of units. It’s just that they’re attached.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, what was your second question? I think I only answered one.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you answered it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. JONES-What I’d like to do is briefly discuss the project itself, how we’ve sited it on the property. This
is an enlarged portion of plan. The parcel actually still goes down the hill much further, and to the west much
further. Basically, this is the Old Mill Lane, across the street from our property. What we’re proposing to do
is put our residents in what would be the northeast corner of the property. We’re looking at two units that
are combined into one building. We have our entrance drive along the north side of the building, parking for
vehicles, and a turnaround loop so that we don’t have to have anyone backing out onto Dixon Road.
Basically, the unit front entry to the north side, septic field’s in the back yard of the building itself, the
recreation space. We’ve basically taken and tried to plateau the area where the building. We have all of our
utilities coming in from Dixon Road. Basically, the grading has established an area that’s sufficient for the
recreational aspects of the program for the facility. We have limited plantings. The site currently is heavily
treed, heavily wooded. We’re doing minimal clearing, basically what we need to be able to do the grading, the
topography changes on the site. Any directional flows of on-site drainage is being taken care of with our soil
erosion plan, which we’ve clarified with the plan that you’re looking at here. We’ve picked up drainage from
the existing swales in some of the new swales that we’re creating. Basically, everything, as far as drainage off
of a hard surface, whether it be pavement or the building itself, is being collected in infiltration trenches at the
edge of the parking lots and at the eaves of the building as well. So we’re basically controlling everything in
that aspect on site. The basic building itself, as I said, we want to keep it residential in scale. We’re looking at
residential type lighting fixtures. We have a couple of lampposts in the parking lot and drive area. We have
canopy lighting under the front entry of the building, and some lighting around the back side where we have
to walk going to the three season porch that’s going to be situated on the back side of the property, or on the
back side of the building, excuse me. Basically, the building itself is designed to look like a single family
residence. Rather than have two entries into the unit, we have a single entry, with a large covered porch.
This is actually the north elevation. This is what you’re going to be looking at when you pull into the
driveway and park. Bedrooms on either end of the unit itself. The center portion of the building is the living
space, kitchens, dining, living room space. This is the back elevation. This is our three season porch on the
back side as well. Again, we’re looking at asphalt shingled roofs, vinyl siding, the types of things that are in
character with the other residences, whether they be single family or multifamily, in the neighborhood. This
is actually the elevation of the building from the road. We’ve tried to minimize it. It’s a fairly long structure.
The roadway elevation is going to be very narrow. So it’s going to, technically, look like a single family
residence from the road elevation. This is actually the bedroom wing here. This is the front entry porch, and
the rear three season porch on the back side. That’s basically the plan, and I’d be happy to answer questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Rich, we’ll start with you.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have too much, but I recall, it might have been in the 80’s, that there was an
initiative, almost a Statewide initiative, to try to move a lot of these types of developments into the
neighborhoods, and I guess this is kind of along those lines, but it’s certainly not really what I envision as a
typical neighborhood. Could you bring me up to date on the trends that exist, in terms of housing, for the
disabled?
MR. GOUGE-Sure. I’m Larry Gouge. I’m the Director of Prospect Child & Family Center, and the trends
have been to actually move people out of large institutions and have people live in neighborhoods. Over the
last several years, there’s been trends away from larger homes of 12 and 15 folks to more home like
environments, and before you can do any construction, you really need to look at the possibility of doing
something in a pre-existing house. We looked at, literally, hundreds of houses in that area. It’s very difficult
because four of the males are physically handicapped. They have wheelchairs, and the females that are living
on the other side of the house have mobility issues, okay. So, it became virtually impossible to find a house
that could be rehabbed. This is in a location that’s near our Center, which we were pretty excited about being
able to do something, and the local, DSO, Developmental Service Office, has allowed for some building to
occur after you’ve looked at all existing structures, and we went through that process for over a year, in terms
of looking at different sites. I think the major issue that we faced, really, was trying to find living
arrangements that would meet the consumer’s needs, the people who were going to live there, within the
community where they could access recreational activities in Lake George and Queensbury, and surrounding
areas. So a lot of these folks are living in more distant areas that are much more isolated. So they’re very, all
eight people are very excited about moving into the house, absolutely thrilled, and have been a part of the
process and their families helping to design the structure, picking out the interiors and that sort of thing.
MR. SANFORD-Well, thanks for the update. I actually applauded that effort to move people into
neighborhood settings rather than the institution. I thought it was a good trend, and it looks like this is at
least, well not the same thing, but somewhat in character with that concept. Thank you. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay right now.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got just a couple of questions. One has to do with the letter that was received
from the Capital District Disability Service Office. It’s a mouthful, but that’s their handle. The very last
paragraph, before closure, says a finding of conditional approval indicates that there is sufficient jurisdiction
for you to proceed with the project as proposed, with recognition that there will be additional requirements to
be satisfied. I’d like to know what they are, and, you know, will they affect this application in any way?
MR. JONES-Subsequent to that letter, we have received what’s called conditional approval, and that really
means that the operational budget is still pending approval, which is fairly common. An operational budget
really means the cost of operating the home. That’s been submitted, and if they had significant concerns, I’ve
been told they would have brought those out up front. So we’re not anticipating any problems or issues, but
being the State, they never just say go ahead and do it, you have our blessings. They, all along the way, in
fact, we’ve had meetings surrounding the development of the house with the DSO. They had concerns about
some of the requirements that we were required to do, in terms of, based on the cost. So they are, ultimately,
supporting this project financially, by backing us up, even though we borrow the money, and that sort of
thing, through the rates that we received for providing the services. So they have their say as well, and had a
lot of good suggestions along the line. So we’ll continue to meet with them and it seems to be going
smoothly, but that’s just the way they do business. I guess it’s the best way I can say it. There’s no big
surprises, for sure, but they’re going to require us to meet standards in terms of all of the rules and regulations
we have to follow. We are submitting literally dozens of binders, everything from infection control, to how
you provide mitigations to people who live in the homes, to how you would involve the families, and we’re
providing that information as we go along, and as we do that step by step, they approve that, and we just
move forward. Does that answer your question?
MR. VOLLARO-So long as none of these statements affect this application. In other words, do they have
any architectural approval over that at all?
MR. JONES-They had some preliminary comments about some of the items on the site plan, and most were
related to the cost issues. They were at odds with us about planting plantings around the building. They did
not want to spend money, and I had to make them understand that we’re dealing with a site plan review in
the Town of Queensbury and it is a requirement of the applicant to provide that as part of the application, as
well as the sidewalk to Dixon Road. We felt that that was an issue that provided safety for the residents in
the building coming and going to Dixon Road if somebody was to drop them off at that location. So, there
were items like that that they were in disagreement with, but it’s on the plan. So we have won at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t have any overriding capability once this plan is approved, of any kind?
MR. JONES-No, they do not. If there were any changes that were to be made in the building itself, it would
actually be made with the internal plan of the building itself. We have to, as part of the bidding process,
guarantee that we don’t exceed the cost on the project. We have to provide them with some alternative
pricing on some items. So, the level of finishes may change in the building, that type of thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The second thing I have, and I think in some of the paper we got tonight, that I read
over at 100 miles an hour, I think I caught something in there that might answer my next question, but on
that driveway, getting into that sort of turnaround, I, in trying to answer some of the adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities, what my recommendation was here, what I wanted to talk about, was to crown that,
somewhat, so that you would have sheet flow to both sides of that and pick up both your perimeter drains as
what I’m calling them, and I think that that was mentioned in, did Mr. Miller mention that in the letter that he
wrote?
MR. JONES-Yes, and I think the new plan tonight basically addresses that aspect of that. Because we
modified the grades at the driveway area to basically get it flowing, the sheet drainage flowing more toward
the north along the drainage.
MR. VOLLARO-Will that plan be modified to show that. Is that what you’re saying, so this is not a full
description of what that site plan is going to look like eventually?
MR. JONES-This is the letter from?
MR. VOLLARO-I think I picked up a letter here from.
MR. JONES-I had responded to some comments. Is that what you’re?
MR. VOLLARO-I think he responded to some comments, and one of the comments. I don’t know, maybe
it was somebody else.
MR. JONES-I don’t remember that comment.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, maybe I don’t have it. I’ll stick to my own questions, and ask you about them,
because there’s were questions about the ability of that turnaround, of that driveway to catch all of the flow to
both sides of the perimeter.
MR. JONES-We had two Staff comments that we had questions on. One was the erosion control, and we
clarified that with this plan, and the other was the, basically the pitch of the driveway, so that we did get the
water manipulated to the infiltration trenches. This revised plan has shown that and accomplished that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That takes care of that question. Now, on SP-3, which is the drawing that’s up on
the board there, I took a look at the two elevations, and I, you know, I’ll get my drawing up a little bit closer
here, because there’s no room for these size drawings on these desks. There’s two elevations here, 377, down
here, and 378, right at the septics themselves.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And 377 it looks, just about where the D Box is. I assume that’s a D Box there in both
cases?
MR. JONES-Yes, Distribution Box.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I’m just wondering, in that one foot, it looks like my calculations show that
there would be enough pitch there, but I just want you to confirm that.
MR. JONES-Yes. We’re actually working with a.
MR. VOLLARO-How much do you have per inch?
MR. JONES-On the absorption trenches I believe it’s a 16 per foot. On the main pipe itself it’s either eighth
or a quarter. I’m not sure. We’re working with Environmental Design Partnership out of Clifton Park who’s
actually doing the septic for this.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to make sure, because there’s no, you know, there’s no effluent pump
associated with this.
MR. JONES-No.
MR. VOLLARO-This is all gravity fed.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you want to make sure that when that gets into that D Box, that there’s enough flow to
hit all the laterals.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m concerned about. Do you agree with that?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Septic Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Septic Bob is right. Now, what criteria did you pick up out of the new zoning law, or the
new Zoning Ordinance, really, to develop the parking numbers?
MR. JONES-Well, we realize, I believe, that the zoning is one, or two per unit.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I used dwelling units as the source.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-As far as parking was concerned, and it’s two per dwelling unit, except in NU, UR, PO, and
MR, where there’s a requirement for 1.5 per dwelling unit now. What zone is this?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. JONES-This is SR-1A.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s two.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, two per dwelling unit, and you have eight units.
MR. JONES-We have seven parking spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve got seven parking spaces.
MR. JONES-Right. Well, we have eight bedrooms, two units, seven parking spaces. We realize that we have
more parking than what is allowed, or what is required, and the rationale for that is because we have some
on-site staff who assist with the four residents in each side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, Staff is there 24/7, right?
MR. JONES-Yes, and we anticipate visitors parking, that type of thing as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s, essentially, the justification for being somewhat over?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s a big deal.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many Staff members would be on-site at any given time, per shift?
MR. GOUGE-It depends on the shift, but probably the busiest times would be four staff, maybe five.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. JONES-Yes, and we also have the overlap of the staff coming and going, too.
MR. GOUGE-And they do have, all are actively involved with their families of origins. So they’ll be going
home some, and their families will certainly be visiting some there as well.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that about winds it up for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-My issues just dealt with the stormwater which I believe have been addressed. So I’m all set
for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I was just going to ask about staff, but obviously that was addressed as well. I, certainly,
have no problems with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-One quick question on SP-1. On the north side of the property, Mr. Jones, I’m a little bit
confused as to what is the property line of, that’s labeled as Burke property? Because there’s a property line
that runs, it appears, through the Burke property. Do you see on the north side it says, right next to where it
says Lands of Burke?
MR. JONES-Yes, that came off of the overall survey, and I assume they were using that as a tie line. That is
not a property line for us. The property line for us is, you see the row of plantings? It’s just to the right of
that. It’s the north 743315, 275 feet. That is the property line, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and what is the need for the turnaround?
MR. JONES-A function of the facility. People coming and going. We have some individuals who are picked
up in the small handicap buses. We wouldn’t be parking them on-site, but we want to be able to bring them
in, turn them around, and head them back out.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just wondered if you need more parking than what you have. You said you might
have five staff, visitors, and then there’s shift changes where staff’s going to be parked there and staff’s going
to be coming. So, I mean, do you have enough parking?
MR. JONES-Well, we originally felt that we really could utilize 10 spaces. When we presented this to the
DDSO, they wanted us to provide four, which was in the requirements of the basic Zoning Ordinance. We
kind of compromised on seven, and this is one of the issues that they were talking about. They thought that
we were spending money on pavement, when we should be spending it on program, but as far as we’re
concerned, we need that space to be able to support the program. With the driving loop and everything else,
I mean, if we have a little bit of overlap, we do have the ability where we have the pull over there next to the
drop off walk. I mean, if we need to park a car there for a period of time, we can do that. So we have a little
bit of flexibility in that regard.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you mean, as a pull over, you mean between what’s labeled as the drive and the
sidewalk?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-What is that material? I couldn’t tell from the legend.
MR. JONES-It’s basically, what we’re trying to do, we’ve indicated some stripes on here, but we want to stay
away from parchment stripes if we can, to keep it residential. So we’re probably going to do just some very
brief delineation. We need a handicap spot, but we want to try and stay away from striping the parking lot.
We want to keep it as residential as possible. If we need to stripe something, we’ll do it, but we would really
like not to have to.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s pavement then?
MR. JONES-Yes, it is. It’s blacktop.
MR. STROUGH-And what’s the width of the driveway, then?
MR. JONES-Twenty-four feet.
MR. STROUGH-So, with people parking there, others that are parked in the normal parking area should be
able to back out quite easily.
MR. JONES-Yes. They can still back out and turn around if they have to.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So that can act like a temporary reserve.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, the septic systems, they’re both Labeled Septic System A and Septic System
A.
MR. JONES-They’re identical, as you can tell. No, it should be A and B.
MR. STROUGH-And B would be the eastern one?
MR. JONES-If you would like, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t say this Board doesn’t review drawings.
MR. JONES-That’s true.
MR. STROUGH-The wall mounted lamp, wattage details.
MR. JONES-Is that on SP-3, John?
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to, yes, it’s on SP-3, and you gave us a photograph and description of the fixtures
you’re using, if I don’t have you mixed up with some other, yes, right here, Fixture A, Pole for Fixture A,
Fixture B. All right. Well, let’s work on this a minute. First of all, Fixture C, the fixture says the maximum
allowed is 60 watts. You have 70 on SP-3.
MR. JONES-Yes, it’s actually lamp quantity of two, maximum of sixty. Which means that we’re going to be
lamping it or basically putting it down. We were looking to use a fluorescent fixture which would bring it
down from that. So it would actually have the fluorescent bulbs in it which would basically entail 70 watts. I
believe. It’s actually a two bulb fixture, John.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, Fixture B, let’s work on Fixture B. I might come back to that.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So we get focused. Fixture B, and I’m on SP-3.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. STROUGH-All right. This is Fixture B, and on the drawings on SP-3, it says it’s recessed, but that’s a
surface mount fixture.
MR. JONES-It should be a surface mount. This is correct. That should say surface on there.
MR. STROUGH-So your soffits are going to be surface mount?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And we should also put, because the fixture calls for a 60 watt maximum, we should change
this, on the plans, to 60 watts?
MR. JONES-No, it can have up to two bulbs at 60 watt. See lamp quantity, right above that?
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. JONES-And we’re lamping it down to something in the neighborhood of 70 watts total.
MR. STROUGH-So that would be a 35 watt light.
MR. JONES-Yes, we’re going with fluorescent.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, fluorescent.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That gets that all cleared up. I see the prices on these fixtures. Maybe you ought to
go to Lowe’s or something.
MR. JONES-Those are list prices.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, on my notes, the detail of the infiltration trenches don’t show them lined with
the geo-textile filter fabric, as I usually see in infiltration trenches. I’m just wondering if that was an
oversight?
MR. JONES-Well, it’s right on there. It says filter fabric all around.
MR. LAPPER-Right in the center of the map.
MR. JONES-Yes. What we’re basically doing is putting the filter fabric under the top one foot of that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. My oversight. All right. The one thing I didn’t see when I went through the lighting
was I didn’t see any, or not much, in the sense of exterior lighting in the back of the residence.
MR. JONES-I believe there were two or three fixtures along the walk. If you look at the lighting plan, you’ll
see two located along what would be the west wall, and there’s one on either corner toward the parking lot as
well.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I saw those, but what I saw was practically no lighting in the southern part or the rear
part of the building, and I just wondered if, for security reasons, if you wouldn’t want an option to have some
lighting back there, should you need it, because you don’t have anything back there now.
MR. JONES-No, we don’t.
MR. STROUGH-Just a suggestion. I don’t know what these agencies are going to make you do, either.
MR. JONES-Well, they didn’t want us to do any.
MR. STROUGH-Really?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. JONES-Really.
MR. LAPPER-Designed with fiscal in mind.
MR. STROUGH-New York State, I thought we designed everything for the safety of the people. All right.
MR. LAPPER-Not when the State’s paying.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I had an additional, I know Bob brought up this concern about driveway
runoff, and I caught most of what Bob had to say, and I understand that you are, especially in the parking
area, you’re pitching that north so that it does drain into the drainage ditch, but I wondered also, but I didn’t
see any notations, even on the plans that you gave, maybe it’s there, and it might be just another oversight on
my behalf. I didn’t see any notations in the general parking area where the driveway’s going to be pitched
towards the drainage ditch.
MR. JONES-If you look at the revised one, which is, I believe, the one.
MR. STROUGH-I’m looking at it, underneath.
MR. JONES-Underneath. Okay. The grades have been tipped. They’ve been raised on the upper portion
toward the north, which is going to pitch that from the edge of the curb along the edge of the walk to the
north toward the drainage swale, or toward the infiltration trench, and then on the loop itself, the northern
most part of the loop is the high elevation, and if you look across going toward, diagonally toward the bottom
side of the sheet, we’re dropping a foot there, probably in about 50 feet. So we have roughly a 12 inch pitch
in roughly 50 feet across that drive. So we’ve got the high portion to the north side, pitching it back toward
the south side.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay, well, I see that. I was just wondering if it might be better if, you know, with the
lamppost in the middle of that loop, and I see you have a drainage ditch all the way around your loop. I just
don’t know why the high part of that driveway is not in the center, and have it all pitch toward the outside.
You just told me the general pitch of it, but I also don’t know why, in addition, you have the high in the
center pitched toward your filtration trenches on the outside, or is that what you plan?
MR. JONES-Basically, what we’re trying to do, we realize that there’s, during certain times of the year, there’s
going to be runoff coming down the bank from the north side, even the area that’s currently vegetated. It’s
going to be flowing toward the drive. So we’re going to collect runoff coming down from that. We’re trying
to collect general runoff from the pavement areas as well, and if you look at the building itself, we’ve tried to
site the building as low as possible. So we’re depressing it in the ground so that we do not have to do
handicap ramps. So, basically grade around that building is roughly 12 inches lower than the finished floor,
and if you look at the grade at the corner of the buildings, we’ve picked it up enough so that we’ve got pitch
coming back toward the drive, but we’ve got to maintain enough pitch, and if we pull that contour toward the
center, we’re afraid that we’re going to make it too high in the center. So we’re trying to keep it as flat as
possible so that we do not have water sheeting back against the building. So we’ve got the building picked up
enough to be able to sheet and bring it to the back side.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just wondering, too, if, talking about the sheeting, I’m just worried that, as it
comes down the driveway, that it might pick a favorite spot in that drainage ditch and overwhelm it.
MR. JONES-The drainage ditch itself, the infiltration trench on the site, is about four times what we need for
the infiltration of the runoff for the developed areas.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, I heard you, before, saying that DDSO kind of looks after the financial
concerns and the operational budget, but what does the OMRDD do?
MR. GOUGE-The same thing. The State agency is Office of Mental Retardation and Development
Disabilities, and they’re divided into catchment areas. Each one’s called a DSO, so, Developmental Service
Office. So that’s the regional area that’s responsible for us, and we work with them and they, in turn, work
with the State.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. GOUGE-The central office.
MR. STROUGH-And I take it as well as looking at financial matters, they kind of look at the design of the
program, too?
MR. GOUGE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, architectural?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. GOUGE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And you do plan on combining the two parcels, and one other thing, on program intent.
The men’s are listed as, the men’s bathrooms, of which there’s going to be one and three quarters, are
handicapped. Are the female bathrooms going to be handicapped?
MR. JONES-Technically, all toilet facilities in each building are handicap accessible. The men’s side, the male
side of the facility, we basically have four individuals in wheelchairs. So we have provided more wheelchair
space for that. In reference to the woman’s side, we have one of the two bathrooms that is set up as a
handicap bathroom, and it has all of the wheelchair clearances. The other one is a little bit less, but we still
have grab bars and that type of thing. So people with general disabilities can still use them, but technically all
four are handicap accessible.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because in your program intent you listed the men’s as handicapped and you didn’t
list the women.
MR. JONES-Yes. There was a reason for that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right.
MR. JONES-At that point.
MR. STROUGH-And are you going to have to bring fill in at all?
MR. JONES-No. We’re cutting enough from the north side, and the excavation, the building basically has a
full basement for mechanical systems. We’re putting all of the heating systems and that type of thing in the
basement. So we’ve got enough excavated earth to be able to spill all of the borrow on site.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that is a drainage trench going on the outside perimeter?
MR. JONES-Yes, under the eaves areas of the building.
MR. STROUGH-The chevrons show the flow of the?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m finished. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? I’d ask you to come up and identify your
name and address when you come up to the mic, please. Do you have a letter you want to read first, Cathy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-We received a letter tonight. We’ll read that into the record, first.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. This letter is addressed to the Planning Board. “Gentlemen:”
MR. MAC EWAN-And Ladies.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it doesn’t say that, but it does say Catherine LaBombard, Secretary, at the top.
“First, as a matter of record, 38 of the recipients of your notice are property owner members of the Dixon
Heights Homeowners Association Phase I, being specifically property owners on Old Mill Lane and North
Court, Queensbury, New York. In the brief period since receipt of your notice, it has been impossible to
determine a consensus of the entire membership as to all issues and concerns. However, the views expressed
herein represent some issues raised by the leadership on behalf of its members. It is uncertain to us whether
this notice represents a genuine invitation for input, or is a courtesy or protocol merely to inform local
residents of a matter already determined and approved. Since the proposed entrance to the site is directly
opposite the entrance to Old Mill Lane from Dixon Road, and also provides direct access to North Court, it
is our group of homeowners that will be most directly impacted by the consequences of this development. A
delegation of our leadership sought, and were graciously granted, an opportunity for a brief examination of
the plans open to public review. As a consequence of our intimate knowledge of the area in question and
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
what was observed in a casual observation of the plans, we respectfully raise the following issues of
environmental impact and public safety. Issue Number One: Public Health, the watershed reservoir,
Halfway Brook, adjacent wetlands and the spring adjacent to site may be at risk. A review of the plan
indicated that two proposed sewage disposal leach fields have been arbitrarily located on an elevation
approximate to the ground level of the structure, and at a point between the structure and the identified
spring and wetlands. The plan indicates a minimum setback of 200 feet from the identified spring which
normally, perhaps, would be adequate. In this instance, however, the leach field appears to sit on a bluff with
a significant drop in elevation to the ground level of the spring and wetlands. Prudence suggests there is a
potential hazard of contamination either by migration of effluent or natural storm drainage. It is
recommended a further review be undertaken to better ensure against contamination. Issue Number Two:
Public safety and traffic on Dixon Road. There is considerable difference between randomly observing traffic
and living under “every day” traffic conditions. Dixon Road is a busy thoroughfare at all times of the day and
night. It is that “short cut” traveling to and from the City via Dixon Road and Aviation Road. Few cars
travel less than the maximum speed of 35 miles per hour? And many hurriedly exceed it. For vehicles
traveling westbound on Dixon Road, the stop sign at Old Forge Road and the incline thereafter are natural
reasons for drivers to accelerate to the speed limit. At the top of the rise, approaching Old Mill Lane
intersection with Dixon Road, and now also the proposed IRA resident’s driveway, sight distance is
significantly restricted. It is because of the limited sight distance that entry onto Old Mill Lane has been
restricted to “one way” in. Likewise, vehicles traveling east bound on Dixon Road are similarly effected by
the hill and the curvature of Dixon Road at such point. Such restricted sight distance for turning or
approaching vehicles, coupled with speed, can logically be expected to adversely impact the safety of vehicles
entering and leaving both locations. From the parking slots provided in the site plan, it is suggested
numerous vehicles would be entering or leaving the site daily, and in this case from both lanes of traffic off
Dixon Road, adding to our concern for our residents and their safety and their access to their home on Old
Mill Lane and North Court. We feel it appropriate to remind the Board that sight distance was an existing
concern addressed when Old Mill Lane was restricted to ingress only. This is a legitimate safety concern.
Issue Number Three: Multiple residency occupancy. At this point, we are not qualified, by detailed
knowledge of your regulations, to challenge the Town’s application of its zoning limitations for this area. We
do, however, challenge the obvious conclusion that the Board sanctions so material a deviation from the
character of the current neighborhood, that is being one family, mostly owner occupied homes by
introduction of a unit and development of this size and type. In terms of occupancy, we found the plan to
only indicate “four male bedrooms”, and “four female bedrooms”. Perhaps to some this suggests a
maximum of eight individuals, whereas the more likely possibility would well be 16 or more individuals plus
supervision, which is surely not in keeping with the neighborhood. With 4.7 acres under construction, there
is ample room for further expansion in the future, far beyond what is presently under consideration. This
could rightly impact both the visual impression of the neighborhood and existing property values. We expect
you to be fair to the applicant, however, we also expect a slightly higher degree of “fairness” to those who
already reside here. We shall have a delegation in attendance at the hearing. However, our leadership have
deemed wiser to address some of these concerns in writing, hoping they would, thereby, quietly contribute to
your serious consideration of these and other issues. We would welcome any comments. If the Board should
wish to pursue this further directly with the Association, it is suggested contact be made with Mrs. Michael
Arlene Atamanchuk who is the President, 9 Old Mill Lane, Queensbury, NY, or call”, the number is here.
“Respectfully Submitted, The Dixon Heights Homeowners Association, Inc.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that signed by an officer of the, the homeowners, or whatever?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is no signature, as far as Mrs. Atamanchuk, but if she would like to put her
signature on it, that would be fine, be appreciated.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there were three issues here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone want to come up and address the Board with concerns?
Comments?
TOM BURKE
MR. BURKE-Good evening.
JUNE BURKE
MRS. BURKE-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MRS. BURKE-We have a letter, too, since I’m not very good at extemporaneous speaking. My name is June
Burke, and I’d like to introduce my husband, Tom. We live at 226 Dixon Road which is the property directly
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
adjacent to that property being developed. We’ve lived at 226 Dixon Road since 1978. If it’s all right with
you, I’ll just go down what we had to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MRS. BURKE-Members of the Queensbury Town Planning Board: We have been invited to attend meetings
of the Planning Board regarding development of the properties surrounding us since 1985. We have attended
all these meetings with one principle goal in mind, and that is being the sole, single family residence in an area
continually being developed only as multi-family dwellings. Over the years, we voiced our concerns, been
listened to with respect, and when possible supported by various Planning Boards, and for that we’ve always
been grateful. Tonight, we are here not only to express our disappointment in this unrealized goal, because
we will most likely, in the end, be the only single family residence in our neighborhood, but also to raise some
serious concerns about the duplex that is being built beside us. After looking at the plans, we’ve been left to
wonder if the conceptual process of this duplex layout took us into consideration at all. Not in our back yard.
That’s a figurative phrase, often used by opponents of various types of developments. In our case, it could
be used as a literal statement. Our house is 21 feet from our front property line, and situated on the southern
side of the property, even though we own 1.4 something acres. We are in clustered, the living area on the
south side. This means that the proposed area of concentrated activity for the duplex and our concentrated
activity center, that’s our southern side and back yard, are right next to each other. While ours includes our
house, an above ground pool, picnic bench and barbecue, the duplex area encompasses a driveway, a parking
lot, six lights or so on the building, lights in the parking lot, probably entering and exiting of residents, Staff
and visitors, deliveries and other comings and goings 24 hours a day. This activity center is being placed mere
feet from us on a parcel that’s over four acres. So, we propose the following, and my husband Tom, who’s
better at maps than I am, is going to just explain this.
MR. BURKE-What we’d like to do is we would like to propose the following. We would like, if you could
consider, respectfully, to remove the area of concentrated activity from our side of our back yard. We also
propose that you remove all lighting from our immediate back yard. That area is also heavily lit. I’m an
amateur astronomer and that’s going to kill my night sky. Increase the proposed distance from springs of
your septic systems by 60 to 180 feet. Remove the impact of your driveway on Old Mill Lane. Improve
visual access and egress from the property. Improve the land use by duplex by moving it closer to us at 226
Dixon Road by up to 20 more feet. Whereas the four outside points of the main structure will not move one
inch. Become, we also propose it become a much friendlier impact on the neighbors, and how we propose, I
have a map on how we propose to do that, but basically if you take the main structure with the four corners,
divide it in half, draw an imaginary line down the middle, everything on the left half swings to the right,
everything on the right swings to the left, which means is, what I’m asking is I want the septic systems. To
me, that’s a buffer, and put the driveway on the other side, thus protecting our whole back yard. That way
you don’t change the plan much, but you also swing the road away from our neighbors to the east of us. I’d
like to hand out a copy of this letter to each of you, and a plan. The plan I traced directly from Van Dusen.
If you open up the big drawing and take a look at that, what we’ve done is try not to change the original
occupant’s plan at all. I am not an architect, but this seemed to make an awful lot of sense to me. If you look
at the drawing, you can see that our house on the property line is missing from this view, but the house is
right here. We’re 20 feet from the road. Our pool is in front of this shed by a good 20 to 25 feet. This is our
area of activity, and what you have right here is all the comings and goings, the lights and activity, and this is
really scaring us. It’s going to make our own personal center of activity very difficult, and this friendlier
impact on all the neighbors proposal, what it does is it swings the area of activity away. We don’t want to
stop the process. We don’t want to stop the developer from being able to develop their lands, but with
minimal impact on us, because we are, in fact, the neighbor that they will impact the most. They border our
property.
MRS. BURKE-Are there any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
TOM STAPLETON
MR. STAPLETON-My name is Tom Stapleton. I live at 28 Fairwood Drive, and I’m in Dixon Heights
Phase III. I just wrote a note down as far as the, they mentioned the sidewalk going from the development to
Dixon Road, and as far as a safety feature, they mentioned sidewalks to drop off people, and I don’t think it
would be a very good safe issue, as far as that goes. That was one of my concerns, and the other concern was
the parking issue. It didn’t seem, and they brought up that point, as far as not enough parking for the
development. So, that’s about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MIKE ATAMANCHUK
MR. ATAMANCHUK-I’m Mike Atamanchuk. I’ve lived on Old Mill Lane for 15 years now, and the impact
as far as traffic is concerned, coming and going out of that development from where it’s located right now is
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
smack center in front of Old Mill Lane. The traffic that’s generated back and forth during the course of the
day, especially morning and afternoon when school let’s out, somebody’s going to get killed, whether it be a
handicap bus that pulls in there or what, I have no idea, but like Mr. Burke said, if it was moved down, traffic
is not controlled on Dixon Road and Old Mill Lane, as far as I’m concerned. 50, 55, I’ve clocked them as
high as 60 coming up from Old Forge Road. Who is going to control the traffic that’s coming in and out of
this development? Can that be answered? That is a big concern. Somebody’s going to get killed there. If
you take, like he said, coming off Old Forge Road, you literally pick up your speed, not from 35 or 45, you go
50, 55, and by the time you hit Fairwood Drive, you’re doing 55 and 60, and I’ve seen, every now and then,
the Sheriff’s car parked there. I have never seen anybody get a ticket there yet, and the speed limit is pitiful.
My wife is handicap, and when I come up from Old Forge Road up through Old Mill Lane, I can’t make a
turn one, two, three, because the slope is like this here. So, I have to slow down, and a car is right on my
back side, and I’m doing 35 and 40. So I hope that like Mr. Burke said, and discussed, that the entrance
would be moved down slightly towards Old Forge Road. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Any takers? All right. We’ll leave the public hearing open for
the time being. I think good points were raised.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, in general, we’d like to point out that this is a very low traffic generator, and that the
safest location for the driveway would be creating a four way intersection right across the street, rather than
slightly staggering it. That location was picked by the project designer because of sight distances, that that
was the best location for it. The septic system location was picked because of the topography and the
proximity to the wetlands, and, fortunately, the neighbors have a whole series of 12 foot tall trees on the edge
of their property, which we’re adding to, which create a buffer.
MR. JONES-Basically, in trying to flip the house, as has been suggest, the new entrance drive does not
become safer as you move it downhill. The ideal location for it is across from Old Mill Lane to create,
basically, a four way intersection. The speed limit on Dixon Road we have no control over, unfortunately,
but we certainly feel that it is the safest location. In our preliminary meeting with Craig Brown from Planning
and Zoning, that’s what we had basically agreed to do, based upon his suggestion. In flipping the house,
basically it impacts a larger or greater amount of area, because now we’re talking about doing additional
grading not only to be able to maintain the driveway area that we’re talking about, but also because now the
grades at the driveway entrance become steeper. The actual elevation of Dixon Road starts to fall off fairly
steeply there. There’s also a guardrail that comes up, and we were attempting to pick the best spot to go
through that without modifying the guardrail. To put the septic systems on the north side of the house is not
going to work. That’s the high side of the property, and we do not want to get into a situation where we’re
pumping septic either through a grinder pump or whatever. It is not a good situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-What other suggestions do you have to lessen the impact to the neighboring property?
MR. JONES-Well, basically the contour change from our finished floor to the elevation at the top of that
slope is approximately six feet. They have a row of arborvitae cedar in there right now that have got to be 10
feet tall, but basically we’ve supplemented that with additional planting, and any traffic that comes in there,
the headlights are heading into the embankment. They’re not shining up into their property. Basically, we’re
on a tier elevation at least six to seven feet below the elevation of their property. So I do not think that
there’s an impact to what’s going on there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tell me about this spring. I’m interested about that.
MR. JONES-The spring?
MR. MAC EWAN-The spring.
MR. JONES-There’s two springs that have been identified on the property. When we initially started doing
research on the property, we were in contact with the City watershed. We got a copy of their regulation.
Originally, the regulations for the setback was 100 feet. They have since revised those to minimum of 200,
and we are in excess of those minimums.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get back to the neighboring property for a second. What can we do to increase the
buffer between this property and their property?
MR. JONES-We could add some additional plantings if the Board deemed that that was something that
would be reasonable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you clearing your property right to the property line?
MR. JONES-We’re leaving a buffer of trees and then planting a row or I believe it’s arborvitaes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How wide’s your row of trees you’re going to leave?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. JONES-It’s probably five feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there any way of putting the parking spots on the other side, towards the south
side? Still have the drive coming in, but instead of the parking spots adjacent to their property, or at least
have a few over on the other side.
MR. JONES-What we’re looking to try and do is have the drop off on the side by the porch because of the
people in the wheelchairs. We feel that it’s in their best interest to be able to drop them off and bring them
directly into the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I mean the seven parking spots, Richard, the seven that border his.
MR. LAPPER-Maybe that’s not clear.
MR. JONES-Yes. Whether we have the parking there or the drive, we’re still going to clear the same amount
of property, and the parking spots, if they were to flip toward the house, would start to infringe upon the
front entry into the house itself.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but the entry isn’t facing Dixon Road. The entry is facing north.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s why, why couldn’t you take some of those parking spots and put them on
the north side, or the Dixon Road side of the building, over in that part?
MR. JONES-I don’t think we’ve got enough, just in separation from there to our residence and still keeping
them on the property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the reason you can’t move everything 30 or so feet south is because of the
proximity to the springs?
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, could those springs, could that be diverted, the water coming out of those
springs, in any way?
MR. JONES-They’re natural springs. They’re feeding the stream that runs along the actual property line
along the southwest side of the property. It actually defines the property line in that area.
MR. STROUGH-That one pole lamp that’s centered in the parking spaces?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It stands about, roughly six foot.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And we’re talking about a bank of three feet in height before it gets to the Burke’s property.
Could you put in Ballard lighting instead, let’s say three foot bollard lighting?
MR. JONES-We could do that along the parking area.
MR. STROUGH-And that would lower the lighting.
MR. JONES-Yes, we could go with a three foot bollard base.
MR. STROUGH-You could even put two bollards?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that would wash the driveway?
MR. JONES-Yes, which is what our intent is anyway. That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would be a good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thinking along the lines of a fence as well.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. JONES-This isn’t the architectural front yard is it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but I’m sensitive to their concerns.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re going to be washed with lights at night, and you do have a shift that may start at
11 at night, even in the wintertime, if you have a 3 o’clock in the afternoon, getting out at 11, you’re going to
have wash of lights out there, with cars.
MR. LAPPER-We’d have to start it at the corner of the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Like at 140 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking the property line.
MR. LAPPER-It couldn’t go to the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not looking at starting at the road. We’re looking at a run of about 140 feet.
MR. JONES-Starting from?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-From the property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-From about where you’ve delineated on your drawing where the hedgerow, in that
vicinity.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a 12 inch pipe running right toward the parking lot, right there.
MR. JONES-Right at the corner of the drive, is that what you’re talking about?
MR. VOLLARO-Right, from there over to almost a tangent to where the turnaround is, 140 feet.
MR. LAPPER-That would require the same variance that we, not that we can’t ask for it, but that would
require the same variance that we asked for last night from the Zoning Board because it’s in front of the front
of the house, the architectural front yard.
MR. VOLLARO-Actually, the front of this house is facing Dixon, isn’t it?
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. LAPPER-No. The front door faces north.
MR. JONES-Yes. The front door of the house is actually on the center of the north façade facing the
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it there, but the nominal front of the house, as you described it up here for a
narrow aspect is facing Dixon. Is that correct?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know whether.
MR. LAPPER-We can agree to put a fence in from the front of the house heading backward. Anything in
front of the house would require, would be subject to a variance from the Zoning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean from the front of the house backwards?
MR. JONES-Well, the problem we ran into at the main center was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Show me on the site plan. Show me on the site plan up there, would you, please.
MR. LAPPER-The front of the house here represents the 12 by 10 front yard. We could run a fence this
way, but anything towards Dixon would require a variance (lost words) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
If you draw a line where my pen is, everything on top of the pen would require a variance because it’s what
the Town considers the architectural front yard, but we could go, everything from the pen down we could
provide a fence, so it would be starting roughly in the middle of that hedgerow, but to go between the middle
of that hedgerow and Dixon Road would require a variance.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-So you require a variance for about 60 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we could agree to apply for a variance, if that’s what this Board wants, but we can’t
condition it on having it granted.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I understand that. I’m just one, but I’m inclined to want to see you take that route,
and, you know, should we approve this thing based on that condition, as being part of the approval, we’ll
make sure the ZBA gets the minutes of this meeting so they can understand what our thought process was
for this. I mean, while you want to have a residential setting with this property, there is a certain flair of
commercialism to it, and lessen the impact that we’re going to have on the neighbors up there by doing these
subtle little changes we’re doing, I think, is going to greatly make the project more appealing to the
neighborhood. Toning down the lighting, creating that additional buffer. I agree with your position on not
being able to mirror the building because of the restrictions that you have with the site itself. That’s
understandable. One of the other comments that one of the public, the speakers made was regarding the
sidewalk. What is the need to have a sidewalk go to Dixon Road? If they’re handicapped, and a bus is going
to come in and pick them at the door, why would you need a sidewalk out to the road? If you’re looking to
appease DSO by saving them some money, not having to run a sidewalk.
MR. GOUGE-I did talk to our staff subsequent to that. I mean, I don’t really see, we want the people in
wheelchairs to be able, in nice weather, to be outside and there’s sidewalks going around the perimeter of the
house.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would hope, in nice weather, that you wouldn’t want people in wheelchairs out by
Dixon Road, and from that aspect, you’ve got sidewalks going around the building.
MR. GOUGE-I didn’t get a chance to finish. I don’t really see a need for this sidewalk to go out to Dixon.
It doesn’t really, in case of an emergency or whatever, there is black top going out there, not that I could
foresee that. So I don’t really have a problem getting rid of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-What was the original intent of the sidewalk?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sir, could we ask you to hold off on that, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What were your plantings, the more plantings that you were going to, did you just
propose those, Richard, new plantings? Would they be butting up against that hedgerow of arborvitaes that’s
already there?
MR. STROUGH-I think that’s the upright Yews. It’s on SP-2.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I missed it somehow.
MR. JONES-Yes. If you look on SP-2, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I know where the fence line’s going, but where are the new plantings going?
You said you were going to do more plantings.
MR. JONES-If you look on our Drawing SP-2?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. JONES-You’ll see 20 upright Yews that are running down alongside our property line.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right, and they’re, they’re already there. They’re 10 feet tall.
MR. JONES-No, no, no, no. The dark ones on the other side are already there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m looking at, but I don’t see them drawn on here. That’s why I don’t know.
MR. JONES-On SP-2?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. Sorry. Yes. There we go. Gotcha. It does help to look at the right
map. Yes, I’ve got you, and you’re going to put upright Yews, and those are those, they’re kind of like this
with cone shape?
MR. JONES-Yes.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. JONES-Yes. In the new zoning it talks about the fence height in the front yard not exceeding four feet.
MR. LAPPER-So we could do it without a variance as long as it’s a four foot fence. You didn’t speak about
how high a fence you wanted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, let me tell you, you know what we did in our back yard. We did a fence where
we started out with four feet and then went up and where the back line was we went up to the six feet. In
other words, it kind of scalloped it, kind of nicely. So if you could start out with the four foot, and then when
you get past the 60 foot mark, then bring it up, and you could gradually bring it up. There’s some nice
fencing out there that makes it look nice.
MR. JONES-I guess part of it would be where we locate it in relation to the property line. If we start to put
it up closer to the property line, it’s already going to be two feet higher than our roadway, which, with two
foot of elevation and four foot high fence would be, technically, a six foot high barricade, because it’s going
to be two foot, at least two foot higher than the elevation of our garage.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see what you’re saying. So four foot would give you the same coverage, and legally
you could bring it up to the property line, if it’s four feet.
MR. JONES-According to this we can.
MR. STROUGH-So what would you do, basically, are you proposing to bring the fence approximately where
it shows those 20 upright Yews, and then plant the Yews south of the fence?
MR. JONES-We could do that, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking a four foot high fence without having to have a variance? Is that what
you’re saying?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re going to pursue, if we follow through on this, you’re going to pursue the
variance for the first run of 60 feet out by the road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you won’t need to.
MR. LAPPER-In the new Code as long as it’s a four foot fence, we wouldn’t need a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the first 60 feet.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And then what elevation in height are you going for the fence?
MR. LAPPER-Dick is suggesting that four foot is probably enough because it’s two feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer you go at least five after that 60 foot run.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the elevation.
MR. MAC EWAN-I am. I’m thinking of that.
MR. STROUGH-Where the loop is, compared to where the upright Yews are, at least four foot drop there,
already. There’s a four foot drop before it gets even down to the driveway. So if you add a fence, that’s
going to be eight foot of visual blockage.
MR. JONES-As you’re coming back on the property, it’s falling this way as well, and it’s still holding
elevation on the Burke’s property but we’re falling off this way. So the fence, basically, is continuing to gain
in height, based upon our elevation. So even though it’s a four foot fence on our property, as you get toward
the loop, it becomes an eight foot fence. It’s going to be eight foot above our elevation at our driveway.
Toward the front it’s going to be the four foot fence plus almost three. So it’s going to be six to seven feet
starting in the front corner, and then it’s going to be at least eight feet in elevation above our drive. So four
foot should be sufficient.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And so what would the actual length of that fence be?
MR. VOLLARO-160 feet.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Robert.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you, Robert.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what kind of fence would this be?
MR. VOLLARO-It would look like a stockade fence, I would assume.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. JONES-If that’s what you wish.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what do you have on the other property now, the fence that’s out back? That’s a
stockade, isn’t it?
MR. JONES-Yes. That’s an expensive stockade fence. Yes, it is a stockade.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s a nice looking one.
MR. JONES-Yes, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-I see somebody shaking his head that program is going to get hit, here. Is that what you’re
problem is?
MR. MAC EWAN-Hey, look at the bright side. We’re getting rid of a sidewalk and putting up a fence. So
it’s an even wash.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sidewalks are expensive, though, that concrete and leveling.
MR. JONES-Well, if we put up a stockade fence, do you still want us to do the planting on our side of the
stockade? Because there’s their row of.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would enhance the way that the old driveway looked to have the planting on the
south side of that fence.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. It would soften the look.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would soften it a lot, like it does up at the other building up on Aviation.
MR. MAC EWAN-The School, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing is cheap. Cut back on those light fixtures.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, pay less for those light fixtures.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a lot of money for those things.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Anything you guys wanted to
add?
MR. METIVIER-I guess if you could just comment to the, someone pointed out there could be a maximum
of 16 people in the house? Is there anything to that?
MR. GOUGE-No. There’ll be four young men on one side of the house and four young women on the
other side, and that’s all that there ever will be, and there will be no other structures or development in terms
of other houses on that property, obviously.
MR. VOLLARO-I was going to propose a condition that no further development be done on the 4.57 acres.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there was somebody who had a concern out there that there would be more houses
built on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, you know, with eight residents, four staff, and visitors, there will, at times, be
more than sixteen in that house.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but they’re not residents.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, no, not living there, no. Is there going to be time limit, I mean, can visitors come
all night long?
MR. GOUGE-I wouldn’t foresee comings and goings at nighttime at all. We have told the parents of these
young adults that they are welcome to come anytime they want, you know, but I doubt that they would be
coming in the middle of the night or anything of that nature.
MR. LAPPER-It’s hard to agree on a condition on that just because if somebody got sick and they needed to
see their parents.
MR. GOUGE-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was talking about parties.
MR. METIVIER-Craig, I think it would be in our best interest to, you know, we’re putting up a fence for the
Burkes, and are we sure they even want a fence? I know that Mrs. Burke had another comment she wanted
to raise, so can we give her a chance to speak before we do anything?
MR. VOLLARO-She was asking to comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions for these guys from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-No, just a couple of comments. There was some concern about the septic system, but, you
know, that has to be approved by New York State Department of Health.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Then other people were concerned about traffic numbers, and I think, for the most part,
the eight people, and that would be the maximum that are there, don’t drive around much at all.
MR. JONES-They don’t drive.
MR. STROUGH-And so you’ve got four staff members that work on shifts. So you just don’t have a lot of
traffic going in and out of there, period, and then there was concern about stormwater, and you can just
verify this, but from what I see, all the stormwater stays on site.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So those two issues are, I can’t see as being issues.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks for setting the record straight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Burke, did you want to come back up?
MRS. BURKE-Thank you for the suggestion for a fence. I don’t know how to explain this. I’ve walked all
over that property for years, prior to, I mean, it was open field when we first moved there, but that doesn’t
mean anything. Elevation changes. It changes with a shovel. It changes with a backhoe. It changes with a
footprint, and if a fence is going to be put up, rather than have it based on such a shifting baseline, can the
elevation of the floor, the height of the fence, be based on a definitive height, say six feet? So if the elevation,
because that land over there, it’s soft. It’s made up of organic debris, 25, maybe 65, 70 years or organic debris
because our house was built from parts of the Chapman house that was there. So that’s elevation. So if
you’re going to request a fence for us, can it be something blocked in place and not on a bed of sand?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It would have to be posted in the ground.
MRS. BURKE-I mean, they’re saying, well, it’s four feet here and five feet there, we’ve changed elevation in
an afternoon.
MR. MAC EWAN-What we have in mind for the fence is a consistent elevation along your property line.
The grading that they are going to do on this site won’t start right at the property line, because they’re going
to be back five feet. Isn’t that what you said, a buffer of five feet? So their grading is going to start five feet
off your property line and taper back down to the site where the house is going to be. So your area, where
we’re proposing the fence along the property line is not going to change. It’s virgin area that won’t even have
a shovel put into it. Do you understand that?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. BURKE-That is good. I think that does answer your question. No shovels will touch the property line,
per se.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you might be thinking of the ground settling.
MRS. BURKE-No. I guess I’m thinking of the fact when they put the duplex in next door, that, you know,
we’re sandwiched, now, between two buildings that face us. I had to go out and stop the bulldozer or
backhoe from knocking trees down off my property, because that’s how close they came, well, they came
over the property line. So I guess what I’m worried about is, is you say they’re going to put up a fence. I
know property lines are blurry when you’re building. I just want it to be definite, a six foot high fence. If the
elevation is at two, the fence is four. If the elevation is one, the fence now has to be five, in writing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what you’re saying, and I think what we’re trying to achieve here.
MRS. BURKE-Because we already found out from 1985, they didn’t put that in the resolution in writing.
See.
MR. LAPPER-Are you asking that the fence goes up before construction starts?
MRS. BURKE-No, just that whatever the Planning Board and Prospect School agree upon, that it be put in
writing and not based upon the dirt, that it be a definite height.
MR. MAC EWAN-It will be.
MRS. BURKE-Regardless of what dirt they had hoped would be there when they finished. That’s all I’m
asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we can do that.
MRS. BURKE-Thank you. You understood me, and that’s not always done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Last shot.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-Could I ask another question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Come right on up to the microphone.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-Is this gentlemen here with the Prospect School?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he is.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-Does he have anything to do with the group home that’s on Jerome Avenue?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, but that’s not subject to anything we do that.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-I understand that very well. What I’m trying to get to is it going to be in disarray like
that group home is, or are they going to maintain this one in accordance with the development that’s there
now?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask the question.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-I’d appreciate it.
MR. GOUGE-You have my word.
MR. ATAMANCHUK-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
THOMAS MADISON
MR. MADISON-My name is Thomas Madison and I live at 20 Tiffany, that’s in Phase II of Dixon Heights.
I haven’t seen the plan, but what was the reason that we were going to put the sidewalk in? Was it so that the
people could, from this development could walk out there, or the people in wheelchairs? Because if you take
it out, if you remove that sidewalk, they are not going to be able to walk on Dixon Road. I’m sure you’re all
aware of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. The residents of the home, to our understanding, are all handicapped, most of
them are in wheelchairs. So there’s no reason for them to want to be out on Dixon Road to begin with.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MADISON-What was the main reason that they incorporated the sidewalk?
MR. MAC EWAN-I have no idea. We’ll ask the question. We’ll get them back up here and get them to
answer it on the record.
MR. MADISON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA on this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, put it on the record about the reference to Jerome Avenue home and this home,
any relationship between Prospect and Jerome Avenue home?
MR. GOUGE-No, there’s no relationship whatsoever.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and who’s going to maintain the maintenance on this home, as far as long term
building maintenance and stuff like that?
MR. GOUGE-Prospect Child & Family Center is responsible for that and will keep it in excellent repair.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The sidewalk. Why was the sidewalk originally designed to go to Dixon Road?
MR. JONES-Well, it was our understanding that Glens Falls Transit had a bus loop, and I’m not sure where
the drop offs are. I believe I’ve seen them dropping people off at the end of the drives going into the units
on the opposite side of the street, and we felt that if that was going to occur, that they would come on to the
sidewalk. They could certainly walk in the driveway. They do it on the other side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 26-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, 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
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
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 23 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I’ll do right now is take a five minute recess and John, Cathy, and Bob get
together and draft an amendment to the prepared resolution, or the conditions we want.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2002 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 26-2002 Applicant: Prospect Child & Family Center
Type II Property Owner:
United Cerebral Palsy Assoc. of the Tri-Co., Inc.
Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates
Zone: SR-1A
Location: Dixon Road
Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,780 sq. ft. Individual Residence Alternative (IRA) duplex
residence. Duplex in a SR zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: SP 2-88
Tax Map No. 93-1-1.5, 1.6
Lot size: 2.60 ac., 1.97 ac.
Section: 179-4-010, Table 1
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02:
5/23 Staff Notes
5/23 Planning Board from Thomas & June Burke
5/21 C. LaBombard from Mrs. Arlene Atamanchuk, Pres., Dixon Hts. HOA
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002; 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, 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
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject
to the following conditions:
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
1. That up to three, three foot bollard lights to be installed on the northern parking lot area,
and
2. That a four foot high stockade fence be installed, the same installed that has been used in the
Prospect School on Aviation Road, and this would be installed approximately one foot south
of the property line and following the property line, and it will end where it is tangent to the
furthest extent of the western part of the loop. The fence will start at the approximate
location of the first upright Yew shown on Plan SP-2, and
3. A row of upright Yews shown on SP-2 will be planted just south of the fence, and
4. The sidewalk extension to Dixon Road from the drop off parking area be eliminated,
and
5. There will no further development on the 4.57 acre parcel, and
6. The two parcels will be consolidated into one, and
7. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 5/23/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED T &
R, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: HC-MOD
LOCATION: LAFAYETTE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.29
ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.25 ACRES AND 1.04 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE:
SB 4-2002 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-20.1 LOT SIZE: 2.29 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISON
REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, RICH SCHERMERHORN, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2002, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, T & R, LLC, Meeting Date: May
23, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.29 acre parcel into two lots of 1.25 ac and 1.04 ac.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The proposed lot lay out appears to be a logical division of the property. Both proposed lots
have ample road frontage and appear to be conducive to future development.
Topography: The proposed lots contain a gentle slope from back to front and from left to right.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: Municipal water and sewer lines run along Lafayette Street in front of the parcels.
Drainage: There appears to be a storm sewer system in the area. Confirmation to utilize this system should be
investigated.
Lot sizes: Lots of 1.25 ac and 1.04 acres meet the minimum area requirements and, as such, the lots would
appear to be developable.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
Future development: The development of lot 2A is planned in the immediate future. An Auto service facility is
planned for the site. Interconnection is planned to connect with lot 1 and lot 2B. The “possible future
entrance” does not exactly line up with the Auto use site plan, however, it does not appear as though the
proposed site plan location will hinder development of lot 2B
State Environmental Quality Review Act: A Short Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted by the
applicant.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 4-2002 resolved 2/26/02: Two lot commercial subdivision
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision appears to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The lots
appear to be “developable” as they have sufficient road frontage, access and all major utilities and
infrastructure components are available.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-Yes, a couple of things. One, it’s listed on the agenda, and I believe in a couple of places, such a
as the draft resolution as HC-Mod for the zone. It should be listed as HC-Int. Because auto service uses
aren’t allowed in HC-Moderate, and the Zoning Administrator did put that into the Staff notes as HC-
Intensive, but I wanted to clarify that. So any resolution you may make, you should make sure that it states
the zone HC-Intensive. That’s one item. The second, I just wanted to make a note that the applicant has
received their demolition permits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace and Rich Schermerhorn. The
subdivision is on first, and that is to facilitate the development of the Warren Tire site plan, which is on next.
This is essentially the same use and building that you saw for Warren Tire on Quaker Road. Rich was able to
acquire this property, and Warren Tire liked it for their site. So that’s why we’re before you. We needed to
wait until the zoning changed, as Marilyn said. This is now an approved use in the HC-Intensive zone. It
used to be that automotive service and repair work wasn’t and we think this is a good location in Town for
this use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to go through the subdivision? Is there anything you want to add?
MR. NACE-No. No need to respond to comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I had no comments at all on my sheet on the subdivision at all. I think it’s, you know,
pretty straightforward. The answer is no comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No comment.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-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, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I’m just trying to figure out, I think I’m seeing
unlisted actions. Notwithstanding that it would be more appropriate to do one SEQRA review for the site
plan and the subdivision, and I see a short form EAF that references the two lot subdivision. I’m assuming
there’s another EAF that references the site plan? And remember that SEQRA mandates that you look at the
potential environmental impacts of the entire action, and the entire action here is really both the subdivision
and the sit plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you want us to handle it? Do you want us to look at the site plan as well?
MR. SCHACHNER-You can look at site plan now, if you want, and then come back, without acting on
subdivision yet, and then do SEQRA on both or just do SEQRA review right now on both the site plan and
the subdivision. However you want to handle that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s roll right into the site plan. It makes sense.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can, but there’s going to be comments on, in other words, we haven’t even
looked at the site plan, well, I have. I understand what it is, but there won’t be any interaction on the Board
on the site plan at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why not?
MR. NACE-I think Mark is suggesting actually review the site plan, do the comments, do the public hearing
on the site plan, then review SEQRA for both.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s one of the options I just suggested, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-One way or another, remember that SEQRA mandates that you look at the proposed,
the potential impacts of the entire action, not individual component steps of it. So here the entire action, as I
understand it, is a subdivision, which will result in, if you’re the applicant hopefully will result in, site plan
approval of a proposed commercial facility. What I’m saying is that SEQRA mandates that you look at the
potential environmental impacts of all those steps together in one action.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. So, therefore, I would propose that we do, open up site plan now to
discuss the site plan and discuss the subdivision so we’ve got them both in our heads, and then go to SEQRA
knowledgeably.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Dive into the site plan.
MR. LAPPER-We agree with Mark’s analysis, as well.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED T & R, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: JAMES MILLER ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: LAFAYETTE STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING LUMBERYARD BUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6,313 SQ. FT. WARREN TIRE STORE AND ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK. AUTO SERVICE USE IN HC-INT ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-2002, SB 7-2002 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-20.1 LOT
SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, RICH SCHERMERHORN, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-2002, T & R LLC, Meeting Date: May 23, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant has removed existing lumberyard buildings and construction of a new 6,313 sf Warren Tire Store
and associated site work.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Auto service uses are allowable uses within the HC-Intensive zoning district. No relief has been
requested for any of the provisions thereof.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed development does not appear to present significant adverse impacts to the burden on
supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed development, with a single access point onto Lafayette and interconnections to both
adjoining parcels, should prove to be no detriment in this area.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed development appears to be consistent with the character of this surrounding
neighborhood. Consideration may be given to the untreated stormwater discharge from this site
directly into a collection system, which, apparently, discharges into Halfway Brook.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The location of the building allows for traffic flow on all sides. The lighting plan appears to limit the
lighted areas to the site, with the exception of the lighting near the access drive on Lafayette. No building
elevations were submitted with the project plans. Staff recommends submission and review of the same
prior to approval. No sign is proposed, however, there appears to be a suitable area to the left of the
access drive on Lafayette.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance
and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The proposed traffic patterns and access aisles appear to be adequate. The project plan offers several
additional parking spaces in the rear, which seem inaccessible. Is the plan to utilize this area for
vehicle storage? How will the spaces be used when “double parked”?
3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Apparently, the anticipated customer parking will occur along Lafayette and customers will enter the
building on the same side.
4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
The plans depict elbows for grease trap; however, the detail sheets do not represent the same
information. An aggressive program to address stormwater quality and a formal maintenance plan
are suggested for this site.
5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site is serviced by municipal water and a municipal sewer connection is shown.
6. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of
dead or deceased plants.
The project site is surrounded by fairly intense commercial development. The proposed landscaping
appears to be adequate for this development.
7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
With significant road frontage and adjacent interconnection, the proposal offers adequate fire lanes.
Queensbury Central Firehouse is approximately 500 away on Lafayette.
8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
See CT Male comments.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 4-2002 resolved 2/26/02: Two lot commercial subdivision
Subdivision 7-2002 Public Hearing 5/23/02
Staff comments:
To date, no responses to CT Male comments have been received. Careful consideration should be given to
the stormwater discharge from this site. The use, by nature, may present an inordinate amount of pollutants
in the stormwater. Cars on the site for repair may be leaking oils, anti-freeze, gasoline or any of several other
fluids. The plan appears to collect all of this stormwater and discharge it directly into the existing system,
which ultimately ends up in Halfway Brook. Grease traps are proposed but not detailed. With no onsite
treatment of this water, alternative pollutant separation methods should be considered.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. NACE-Do you want to have Staff comments first on the site plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments, for the site plan, please.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, on site plan. Okay. Two C.T. Male comments have been received since these Staff notes
were delivered earlier. There were also some other notes in reference to building elevations were not
submitted with project plans. Staff recommends submission and review of the same prior to approval, and
then once again, an aggressive program to address stormwater quality and a formal maintenance plan are
suggested for this site. We also have with us this evening Jim Houston, to my right, from C.T. Male. I
believe he and Jim Edwards of C.T. Male reviewed both of these particular applications, and I believe that’s
everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you want to chime in?
MR. HOUSTON-I reviewed the site plan but not the subdivision, just to clarify that. One step further, I did
have a comment letter dated May 16 and yesterday, May 22, I received a faxed letter of response from
thnd
Tom Nace, indicating the responses to each of my comments.
MR. NACE-It was from Jim Miller.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. I had a follow-up call from Tom Nace to make sure that I’d received the
letter, and I have had a chance to review that, and basically it addresses a lot of the concerns that were raised
in my letter of May 16. Speaking to the issue that was raised about the water quality, there is a revision from
th
the original submittal that shows a more detailed oil/water separator inside the building, and the details have
not been added to the plans. We do have an eight and a half by eleven sketch of that and everything is in the
right direction, but it has to be added to the plan, and the outside, there is an elbow and treatment on the
catch basins that would trap oils and what not and would offer some protection of the receiving stream, more
so than just the catch basin that would let any oils and greases that get into they system just run out. So there
has been measures proposed to address water quality.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the elevation, it’s the identical elevation of what the Board approved for Quaker
Road. It’s the same building.
MR. MAC EWAN-How come we didn’t get it?
MR. LAPPER-No, you approved it about six months ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but that’s another site plan. How come it wasn’t included in this application? I
do remember there were a lot of comments relative to colors and stuff like that, as well, architecturally. We’re
talking the Quaker Road site, right?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The other one was colored. I saved it, but it’s home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead, Tom.
MR. NACE-We would stipulate to whatever conditions were put on.
MR. LAPPER-Last time.
MR. NACE-As far as colors of the last approval. Okay. I think Jim Houston covered what I was going to
say pretty well on the stormwater issues. In reality, the parking lot for an automotive repair shop doesn’t
really generate any more oils and grease than a typical parking lot for Stewarts or a shopping center or
whatever. What we did, to address the issue initially, we did include an oil/water separator inside the
building. We’ve added details to that to require baffles and hood discharge on it. We also hooded the
discharge of all the outside catch basins, which we think is more than sufficient. All the other responses we
had made to Jim Houston’s questions, I’ll be glad to go over them one by one if you would like, or if you
have any particular questions I’ll answer, but we have made those changes and they will be on the final plans
that are submitted for signature.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. NACE-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask, what does it mean on that note on the attachment, there’s a little note
there I haven’t noticed before. It says note per Mike Shaw. Is this something that Mike Shaw got into?
MR. NACE-That he had requested. We had shown a, just we had labeled as an oil/water separator. We
hadn’t specified the details of an internal baffle or the hooded outlets, which are standard for an oil/water
separator.
MR. VOLLARO-I just hadn’t seen anything from Mr. Shaw in my packet. So I was just wondering what that.
MR. NACE-He had called me with comments, and I had gone back and forth with him a couple of times.
We had also, one of his concerns is that when he looked at the manhole that we originally proposed
connecting the sanitary sewer to, it turns out that it’s a very deep manhole. So the inlet had to be a drop
internal inlet. There was also a drop internal inlet on the opposite side so he determined there wasn’t room
for two. So we re-routed the sewer connection to utilize one of the existing laterals on the adjacent property
and he has approved that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Getting into the drainage thing, I guess you’ve identified that there definitely is a
storm sewer in the area, based on what I see on the drawings. You managed to tie into that pretty well.
MR. NACE-Correct.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t have a problem with that. Under future development, I guess I have to ask Staff
for a clarification of that statement under future development. It says the development of Lot 2A is planned
in the immediate future. An auto service facility is planned for the site. Interconnection is planned to
connect the site with Lot 1 and 2B.
MR. LAPPER-There’s the third lot where there’s no plan now for development that Rich is hoping to
develop it in the near future.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I’m trying to find Lot 1.
MRS. RYBA-Lot 1 was approved in February.
MR. LAPPER-One was the first lot on Glen Street.
MR. NACE-The old store.
MR. VOLLARO-Is One the existing building?
MR. NACE-Yes. What is now Buy Low’s.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ve got that. Okay. I’ve got that down.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? While he’s looking that up. Let me ask you just a quick general
question, in regards to tying in to the existing storm system, how does that fit with the ordinance where
you’re supposed to keep stormwater on your site? I’m curious relative to this with this eventually dumping
into Halfway Brook.
MR. NACE-Okay. The Ordinance says that your post-development runoff cannot exceed your pre-
development conditions. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. The existing site is completely paved. Everything that falls on the existing site runs into
that storm sewer okay. We’re taking the site and making it more than 30% permeable. So a lot of the, some
of the stormwater now will infiltrate and we’re also providing detention to the rear of the site, which will slow
down some of the runoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why wouldn’t you want to keep it all on the site?
MR. NACE-Why wouldn’t we want to keep it all on site? It depends. I mean, some places you can do that.
Some you can’t. If the soils aren’t appropriate for it, it’s not advisable to try. You mean through infiltration I
presume? Yes. This site is really not, the subsurface conditions aren’t appropriate for infiltration.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s almost a non-permeable site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to talk about parking. The required parking to the Code, for the current Code, is
18, and you’ve proposed 38 spaces, and I’m just looking at the accessibility of, let’s get to the north side of
this site plan here, up where those parking spaces are up there. If all of those parking spaces happen to be
occupied, how does one get to the back 10?
MR. NACE-Those are spaces for storage of cars during the repair process, okay.
MR. LAPPER-Not for the public.
MR. NACE-Yes, it’s not for public. Public parking will be out front. You drop your car off and do it out
front. They fix it. They take it out back and wait for you to come get it. When you come to get it, if there’s
somebody blocking you in they can move the car because they have the keys for the car that’s blocking you
in.
MR. VOLLARO-So all 24 spaces back there are for that purpose. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. NACE-More or less, yes. Some of them may be employees.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, knowing the characteristics of this site and how much concrete is laying down that
place and how impervious that site probably is, I would guess that that’s, I would go along with those extra
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
spaces. Usually what we try to do is minimize, not minimize, but not get carried away with this parking and
try to provide some green space instead of, but in this case, I think I would say that.
MR. NACE-Well, also the fact that our additional parking, it’s not a normal situation where the additional
spaces require an access aisle as well, which means additional paving. So the amount of actual paving per
parking space is minimized.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, in this particular instance, trying to minimize parking isn’t going to get you most
permeable ground.
MR. NACE-This is what the applicant knows he needs, based on his experience.
MR. VOLLARO-His experience in the other place, yes.
MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question of Mr. Houston who hasn’t been here very
often? He has some things he might want to discuss or add. Should he wait until after you’re finished talking
with the Planning Board members or chime in any time he wants?
MR. MAC EWAN-He can chime in any time he wants.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to have one more question, I think, and that’s on Catch Basin No. 2, that’s
up in the middle of that parcel, lot, the parking spaces we just talked about. There’s also a grease trap in
there. Now, where is the grease coming from for that grease trap?
MR. NACE-That’s one of Staff’s concerns. Just off the parking.
MR. LAPPER-That was added to address Staff’s concerns.
MR. NACE-It’s really not a grease trap. It’s an elbow that will tend to keep a small amount of grease
skimmed on the surface in the catch basins instead of going down the pipe. It’s not a full scale grease trap, so
to speak.
MR. VOLLARO-Basically, I think it’s a pretty nice layout. I like the way the two are connected, the
connected driveways. That makes a lot of sense. It looks like the traffic flow would be real good coming in
and off Lafayette. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if people would come in to the existing building and just peel
right through here and try to come down, though. That’s another thing I’m just thinking about.
MR. NACE-Well, the main office is in the front, and people really want to park near the office.
MR. VOLLARO-Hopefully they try to hit the front of the building, right, I get you. Other than that, I
thought it was a pretty good site. I didn’t have any other questions, I don’t believe, that weren’t covered in
Mr. Houston’s letter and in the response. So, if his letter’s been covered by the response, I’m pretty happy
with that, and I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HOUSTON-All right. Just a follow-up on my letter. Item Number Seven in my letter had talked about
who will own and maintain the storm drain across the subject property, and I had asked are easements
required along the pipe route to allow the Town of Queensbury to maintain the pipes, and that would only be
necessary if there was Town property, in my mind that had to be drained across this site. I thought there
would be off site properties, because there’s a 36 inch diameter pipe, and usually that would drain more than
just one or two parcels, but Mr. Nace has indicated that it only drains, this is in the response that I received
yesterday, it only drains a couple of the local lots. As a matter of fact, four private lots, and does not drain
any Town owned roads or properties. I just want to make sure that if it did do that, then we’d have some
easement or the Town should be interested in getting access easements onto that property to maintain that
drainage, but that did not appear to be the case, and in the response it indicates utility easements could be
granted to each of the three lots being created by the subdivision of the Moore’s site, if the Town so desires,
and I guess, from my standpoint, it’s not critical to me if it’s not draining any Town property but it’s just
something that did require an action or a response from the Town.
MR. SEGULJIC-So within the building, the drain within the building is going to be equipped with an
oil/water separator?
MR. NACE-Right. That’s a regular, to accept the floor drainage. That’s a requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then, with regards to the note, the elbow or grease trap, could you just clarify that for
me?
MR. NACE-Okay. For the outside catch basins?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. NACE-Okay. It’s just, instead of terminating at an open end, where it comes in to the catch basin, the
drainage pipe would have a down turned elbow on it. So that when the basin fills up with water, the bottom
of the elbow is below the invert of the pipe, so there’ll be standing water in there, and any skim of oil or
grease will float on the water above where it can get into the pipe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because one of my concerns would be not so much the grease but sediment, and I
think that would take off the sediment, also.
MR. NACE-There’ll be a sump in the catch basin, below the bottom of the elbow there’ll be a foot of still
water.
MR. SEGULJIC-And those will be cleaned out periodically?
MR. NACE-They should be, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because with Halfway Brook and the sediment buildup, which I think is a much bigger
concern.
MR. LAPPER-Warren Tire is an existing use in the Town, and they know about, Wayne Kellogg, who’s one
of the owners, was explaining how, they understand, they clean out, periodically, the oil separator that they
have inside, so it’s not a problem for them to agree to clean out the one outside. They’re just a responsible
landowner, and they have been doing it, and they can do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall with the last application, they have a regular service that comes in on a regular
routine. Pumping them out at all their locations.
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right. Yes.
MR. HOUSTON-It’s critical to note, with the design as proposed, is that if they don’t clean it out, it will
flood into their parking lot and cause hardship to them before anybody else.
MR. LAPPER-They’ll take care of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will oil changes be conducted on site?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then the waste oil tank, where is that going to be located? Inside the site? Okay. You
explained my question about the infiltration (lost words) on the Quaker Road site you were going to do (lost
words). You’re going to remove the sediment periodically from the sumps, and of course what the building’s
going to look like and the elevations and things of that nature.
MR. NACE-Okay. Do you have those plans, do you want to discuss it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I brought the elevations. These are the exact elevations. I know this is a
different application, but this is the exact elevations from the Quaker Road site. The only thing I don’t have
on me is the colored ones, but nothing has changed from the approval from six months ago on the Quaker
Road site.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a John Strough design, by the way. That’s not yours, John?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting caught up in semantics here. Okay. Keep moving. Marilyn, do you have
the site plan number for that previous one with you?
MRS. RYBA-Yes, I do. If you’ll give me a minute, I’ll check.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All I’m looking for is the number.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because that was caught up in the last one? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. METIVIER-I was just going to assume that you were going to take the other location and basically
move it, and in my eyes what you’re doing is you’re moving it to a much better location, and cleaning up a
pretty sore site right now. So, as far as, I mean, if I’m on track, then that’s a good thing.
MR. NACE-I think the site already looks better. I went by it last night, and it’s an improvement.
MR. METIVIER-Well, yes. I mean, yes, it does look a lot better than it did.
MR. LAPPER-Those buildings didn’t win any awards.
MR. METIVIER-No, that was the past. This is now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I agree with Tony. It’s a much better location, and the architecture will be fine there.
The only thing that bothers me is the stormwater. That stormwater, correct me if I’m wrong, flows directly
untreated right into Halfway Brook.
MR. NACE-It flows into one of the by-passes at Hovey Pond, okay, but that’s what happens now for all of
the site acreage, because it’s all paved. It all gets to those inlets and goes down through the pipes to Hovey.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and 20 years ago that worked, but I don’t agree with that principle in today’s
standards, and I wish I had brought it. It’s just a lot to do, but Soil & Water, Warren County, Marilyn, you
might help me here. They have a, Halfway Brook watershed stormwater standards.
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And I don’t think, and I didn’t bring the book with me. I don’t think that this stormwater
plan would meet their standards. In other words, as it comes before the Planning Board, we have an
opportunity to improve things, better than what they were. This was okay 20 years ago. I’d like to see the
stormwater on site. You’ve got a lot of property here. You’ve got the catch basin in the back. You could do
sheet flow right to that catch basin. I know you say the soils are a problem, but, Tom, I’ve seen you work
with worse.
MR. NACE-No. The only thing that could be worse than here is clay. The site, historically, was a saw mill.
There’s a lot of miscellaneous fill, rubble. It’s tightly compacted. The groundwater’s high. I’ve looked at the
site before for purposes of development on this site and on the adjacent sites, and one of the problems is the
subsurface conditions, and there’s really no way to put this, effectively put the water back into the ground.
We will be improving what exists now by a significant amount.
MR. STROUGH-Well, again, then we’re going to run into the same thing with Lot Three. Lot Three’s going
to make use of these stormwater drains, and again, I try and keep, I like to see on-site drainage. If the site
can’t hold the drainage, then maybe the site’s not good for development.
MR. NACE-John, I’m one of the biggest proponents of infiltration around here. In fact, I’ve dealt with other
engineers down toward Colonie, and other parts, where infiltration doesn’t work as well, and have had long
hard arguments with them about point discharge versus infiltration, but this is one of those sites where it’s
just not appropriate.
MR. STROUGH-But then again, we don’t have the test pits, I haven’t seen any test pit data. I haven’t seen
any soil data. I haven’t seen any groundwater data. I don’t know where it’s mottling. I don’t know all that. I
mean, I assume that you’re right, and I respect your opinions, Tom, and I know that you’ve done a great job
with stormwater in the past. I still can’t get beyond, if we have an opportunity to take a good look at this
stormwater plan, and improve it, not only that, if we could keep it on site, then we wouldn’t have to worry
about the easements and the maintenance program or whatever else that this particular system might entail.
MR. NACE-Well, we’d still have to maintain that pipe across the site. Okay. Because there are upstream
inlets on that that have to be serviced, okay. So we can’t get rid of the pipe. The pipe’s going to be there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we can get rid of use of the pipe and reduce the use of the stormwater flow that’s
going directly into Halfway Brook untreated.
MR. NACE-We really can’t. I mean, you know, we have detained, we are using retainage at the back of the
site, where we can, but, you know, it’s, even if the soils were good, trying to get the drainage from up on the
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
front end of the site to some sort of device, infiltration device in the back of the site, we’d be too far in the
ground. We’d be sitting in groundwater with their infiltration devices.
MR. LAPPER-There is a stormwater system, and you put in the facility to separate the oil.
MR. NACE-Correct. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and that’s good, and I like the driveway interconnections, and I think the location’s
good and the building design’s fine. The only thing I can’t get beyond is.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the stormwater, I think you’re out in left field on this one, by yourself.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and I’ve been there before, and I can’t get past it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And, like I said, the only other thing that I had was, you’ve got 23 spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s got 38.
MR. NACE-Plus 14, yes, 37, 38.
MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-eight spaces.
MR. STROUGH-Where did I get 23?
MR. NACE-It says there are 23 actual parking spaces, plus the 14 staging, that are in the back.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re not counting the ones out in the back, John, as being parking spaces. They’re
reserved for maintenance, you know, cars that have been maintained and put out there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only reason why I mention that is 18 is required, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s a 28% increase over what’s required.
MR. LAPPER-They’re not parking spaces, John. The nature of this business is to service automobiles. So
that’s like product that’s being serviced. It’s just a storage area until people come and pick them up.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how many parking spaces are there?
MR. LAPPER-37 plus, 38.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s not count what you’re talking about. How many parking spaces are there?
MR. LAPPER-Twenty-four, if you don’t count the 14.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Twenty-four, eighteen, that’s almost a 30% increase.
MR. LAPPER-I guess our answer is that Warren Tire is an existing business in Town. They know the level
of business that they do, and that’s what they feel they need, so that cars aren’t parking on the street.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, that’s fine but, I have to follow the Town Code. The Town Code says, and it’s
reference to 179-4-040, Parking and Loading Regulations, and it’s on Page 49, Number 10, and it says, you
know “No use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified in this section”. So, I guess
you’ve got to get a variance.
MR. NACE-We didn’t write your Code.
MR. STROUGH-But that’s what it says.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I guess, John, to be truthful, I suppose we could have left that off and just
showed the required, but they were being honest and upfront we me saying how many spots that they would
like, rather than so many times applications are approved, people say they only need parking for 10 cars, then
you drive by and you’ll see 15, 20. Nobody really follows up unless there’s a problem, but we were just, they
were just being honest and upfront about, saying what they needed, and we figured we might as well show it,
so there’s not an issue in the future.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Well, it has nothing to do with, Rich, you and I. I mean, it’s the Code.
MR. LAPPER-But I guess I don’t think that these are parking spaces.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I don’t have a problem with the parking spaces. I’m just saying, this is what the
Town Code says. I can’t grant you something that I can’t grant you. The Zoning Board can.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Code doesn’t delineate between a storage space and a parking space, in the Code.
MR. LAPPER-The only thing unique about this is that it’s an automobile service use. So people aren’t
coming to park and shop and leave. They’re leaving a car there so that it can be serviced, and I think that
that’s just different than how a parking space functions.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you’d get that one swimming.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the number of parking spaces I don’t have a problem with. The Town Code has
a problem with it.
MR. VOLLARO-John, can I ask a question? Let’s have a little dialogue amongst the Board here for just a
second. Suppose they were to propose to take out the parking space delineations all together, take every
reference to parking out, all of those 24 spaces, remove it from the site plan and call it storage, automobile
storage area. Where would we be then?
MR. STROUGH-I’d say that you’re being deceiving.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. STROUGH-Cars are parking there. It’s a parking lot. You have parking spots.
MR. VOLLARO-It is now, the way, the way it looks now. See, what I’m trying to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s use that argument for every application that comes before us.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I think this is unique enough. Normally I’m with you on this, reduce parking to get
permeability to get green space and so on.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know where I was going.
MR. VOLLARO-I do know where you’re going, but on this lot, it’s like, come on. This lot is not, and I
know what you’re saying about the Code, and I’m trying to get, trying to say that if I eliminate this as a
parking space and call it an automobile storage area, then I’m not showing it as parking spaces.
MR. STROUGH-Well, fine, but the plans here, Bob, show it as a parking space. The applicant says they have
X number of spaces. I’m saying what the Town Code says. You can’t get around it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Suppose we talk about just deleting those 10 spaces in the back?
MR. STROUGH-And making a bigger detention basin and drawing more stormwater in that area, would
make me happier.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s Staff’s position on this?
MRS. RYBA-I can’t tell you because I’m not the Zoning Administrator. He wrote the Staff notes and I don’t
know what his position is.
MR. STROUGH-Page 49, Number 10.
MRS. RYBA-Yes. Legal Counsel and I are looking at it right now. I mean, the Code says what the Code
says. What kind of determination the Zoning Administrator made, I don’t know. It’s not reflected in the file.
MR. METIVIER-How many parking spots did we approve the last time?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Your last application, it was under a different Ordinance.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not a insignificant distinction. Understand that Mr. Strough’s correct that the
parking schemes set up in the new Zoning Ordinance are not only different in number, but it’s now set forth,
as he points out, as requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance. So, while Staff’s right that there could be a
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
Zoning Administrator determination here, it would seem to me, at first blush, that the Zoning
Administrator’s determination is likely to be, as Mr. Strough would indicate, that the Ordinance requires this
amount of parking, and there is, he’s correct, “he” being Mr. Strough, is correct that there is less, in light of
the way that the Ordinance has been revised, there’s less flexibility to the Planning Board to alter those
figures. Some of them are, in fact, requirements, and therefore, if the requirements are not met, and he’s
correct, that the applicant would have to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather not see you go that route. Why don’t we just eliminate those 10 in the back,
and then if you feel that you need to have those, then go to the ZBA and get a variance.
MR. NACE-Okay. How many would we actually be allowed in the Code? Does the Code allow, it’s two per
day plus two. How about for employees? Does it add employee parking onto that? I’m not that familiar
with the new Code yet.
MR. SCHACHNER-Two plus two for repair bays is all it says for auto body repair shop.
MR. NACE-It doesn’t say anything about additional for employees?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and for what it’s worth, on the schedule of parking, employees are mentioned
in other uses. So that would seem to not be an accidental, it’s not an oversight, in other words.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-To meet the Code the way you see it, John, how many are you looking for us to
delete?
MR. STROUGH-Well, according to what’s on the site plan, it says what’s allowed is 18.
MR. NACE-Plus 20%.
MR. STROUGH-Plus 20%. Anything exceeding 20% you’d have to get a variance for.
MR. NACE-So that would be 22 spaces.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So we have 35 now. We take 10 away.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, the other thing, we’re just sort of sitting here, Marilyn and I, sort of
trying to sort this out. Staff’s determination, and I think this would be our Zoning Administrator’s
determination, or characterization of their proposed use, is auto service, and the two different propose, or not
proposals, two different parking schedules. One is for auto body and repair shop. One is for automotive
sales and service. They’re not the same. Auto body repair shop is two plus two per repair bay. Automotive
sales and service is one per 200 square feet of floor area plus one per 600 square foot of service area. So
there is a classification issue here, that would have bearing on what the required number of parking spaces.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they don’t do auto body repair. So they fall into the second one.
MR. STROUGH-And they don’t do sales.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they do service. It says sales and service.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So I think, correct me if I’m wrong, John, but you were looking at auto body
repair shop, I thought you were.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not tied into anything. Auto body repair shop seems to be the more appropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-There seems to be some disagreement among the members, the Planning Board
members.
MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t do auto body repair work. That’s my understanding. Right?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there’s a slash between “body” and “repair”. So one would think that’s auto body
shop or auto repair shop.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As long as you put it in that frame of mind.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then there’s automotive sales and service.
MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t fit at all.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if it was sales and service, they’re allowed one per 200 square feet of floor area, plus
one per 600 square feet of service area.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, is there a slash between the “sales” and the “service”?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, the word “and” appears. Here, there is a definition of auto body/repair, both terms
are defined. Would you like me to read the definitions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Please.
MR. SCHACHNER-“Auto body/repair shop Any building, premises and/or lands in which or upon which
the primary use is a business which involves the service, maintenance or repair of automobiles, and other
small vehicles under 2 ½ tons and motors, including the repair of the body or frame of an automobile,
including painting, straightening, sanding and welding, within an enclosed structure and in which the sale of
materials is clearly incidental to the primary use.” “Automotive sales and service”, a shorter definition, “Any
area of land, including structures thereon, that is used for the retail sale of motor vehicles and accessories
which may or may not include Auto Body/Repair Shop services.” So, hearing that, retail sale of motor
vehicles and accessories, versus, primary use involving service, maintenance or repair of automobiles.
MR. STROUGH-Then I guess it’s not a body repair shop.
MR. SCHACHNER-And, honestly, this is supposed to be a call for the Zoning Administrator.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what the Chairman said is that if we eliminate the spaces and if we have to go to the
Zoning Board, we’ll go to the Zoning Board and come back for additional spaces, and we’ll do it per Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d eliminate those 10, under the definition you read for auto repair and body repair,
the one where the two uses, does he meet the requirements, or is he still exceeding it for his parking area?
MR. VOLLARO-He still exceeds it.
MR. NACE-Excuse me. We’d have to eliminate 13 spaces.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thirteen total.
MR. NACE-There are 37 total there now. We’d have to be at 24, which would be eliminating 13.
MR. MAC EWAN-So eliminate the 10 in the back row there, the “storage area”, and you eliminate the three
next to the dumpster area. What are you talking, Rich, deleting the whole first row, all the way across? That’s
14 spots.
MR. STROUGH-Obviously, that agrees with what the Zoning Administrator determined before. Because
according to zoning, it says 18 is required.
MR. LAPPER-I just spoke to Wayne, and they feel that if they have too few spaces, they’re not going to have
a place to stockpile the cars. They know this from their experience in Queensbury, and all of their other
facilities in the Capital District. What we would propose is to reduce the number of spaces but to let them
pave what’s there now as just a wider drive aisle, so that if it’s needed, just to not create a problem where
there’s going to be cars in the road or cars on the grass. That doesn’t help. They know what they need. If
they don’t need it, they don’t use it, but there are going to be times when they need it.
MR. NACE-So we’ll eliminate the striping for all the 14 spaces adjacent to the dumpster.
MR. LAPPER-And we think it’s justifiable, based upon this unique where cars are there to be serviced, not to
shop.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the entire first row you want to get rid of?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-From the dumpster all the way to the property line.
MR. NACE-We’ll just eliminate the striping for that first row.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody feel about that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d go along with that. I’ll support that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What other issues do you have, Mr. Strough?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-No other issues. That solves the parking thing. They could move those parking spaces up
and make a bigger detention basin and do more stormwater flow in that direction, so that it gets treated.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re out in left field again.
MR. STROUGH-I just wish some members of the Planning Board, you know, I was at a meeting with
Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, and they were talking about how they wished the Planning
Board was more in tune with what they’re trying to do with the Halfway Brook watershed, and I said, I wish
they were, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be a great opportunity to have them do a workshop for us. Another time and
another place.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t disagree with Mr. Strough entirely, but what I’m wondering is if you eliminated that
pavement for those 10 parking spots that are on the drawing here, would it make a material difference, in
terms of on-site stormwater management?
MR. LAPPER-If the soil doesn’t allow infiltration, it’s not going to help. It’s just going to be cars parking on
the grass. It won’t look as nice.
MR. STROUGH-I add that we don’t have a data for an analysis of that. I mean, we have a representative
from C.T. Male. He doesn’t have the data to look at either so he can evaluate it.
MR. SANFORD-Would you care to comment on what we’re talking about here, with the, trying to keep it on
site?
MR. HOUSTON-It’s true. I haven’t seen any data about the soils, and it’s only been what Mr. Nace has said
about that soil. It is a relevant issue as far as whether it can be perked into the ground. By far, that would be
the best way to handle it, but there’s not any information to support or deny that.
MR. LAPPER-What we’ve, I’ve had a half dozen clients that have looked at this property over the last five
years, and we’ve always gone back to Tom’s analysis of the soil, that, over the years, there was sawdust and
wood that was just, this has been there for 100 years, and they just used this as an area when, first it was the
sawmill, and then it was the lumberyard, and there was just junk that was thrown out there, that was partially
biodegradable, and this has been borne out by soil borings over the years, and it’s very tightly compacted.
They had trucks driving over the whole time, and then it’s just, the character of the soil, as Tom has said. So
we’re not here trying to avoid doing an infiltration. It’s just, it won’t work. So we’re improving what’s there
now, because right now the whole thing is impermeable. It’ll look better by having grass, but in terms of,
with the high groundwater table as well, which you know by looking at along Bank Street where you’ve got
the wetlands that are right there, that’s really just feed away from where we are, that Tom can’t design
something, and that’s why we’re using the storm system that’s there, and creating some permeable area, but
it’s just not much.
MR. STROUGH-And two last thoughts for rebuttal. We don’t have a data to determine that by an
independent source, and, two, a lot of my Planning Board fellow members have not been exposed to what
Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Department is trying to do with the Halfway Brook watershed.
It would be nice if they would get some exposure to that, and that’s it. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Lot Three is owned by the same people?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-And what’s going to happen with Lot Three?
MR. LAPPER-It’s for lease or sale, and they’re waiting for a tenant or purchaser. We’ve done the
interconnection for the drive aisle, in anticipation of a future use, and they don’t have anybody at the
moment.
MR. SANFORD-It was your decision to make this subdivision. Certainly if Lot Three wasn’t subdivided
then you’d probably be able to have adequate on-site?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. NACE-You still can’t get it into the soil. I’ve looked at the soil from here, all the way over to Bank
Street, okay, and some places it’s good and compacted, like on this site because it’s been more intensely used.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
As you get over toward Bank Street, it’s 15 feet of detritus, the stomp slugs, bark, sawdust. It’s all loosely in
there, preserved by groundwater, because the groundwater is down about two and half to four feet.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So that wouldn’t make a material difference.
MR. NACE-No, no, it would not.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Just so I understand the site layout, you’re only having one in and out, right, on
Lafayette Street?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-The piece of property where there’s the existing building now, is that resolve what’s going
to happen with that?
MR. LAPPER-We were before you a few months ago.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-In fact, that’s under construction right now.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-If you went by in the last day or two, they’re cutting out the asphalt and putting in the little
island, and creating the site work there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m not sure what the consensus of the Board is. I do share some of Mr. Strough’s
concerns about Halfway Brook. On the other hand, I have no reason to dispute your point, which is that the.
MR. NACE-I would have been glad to bring the data. I just never thought it was going to be an issue. We
are improving the amount of stormwater runoff. We’re creating some pervious areas.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have no further questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I do have something I.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Robert, could I say something?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. I didn’t know that you were.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ve been waiting.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s okay. Well, I think you’ve done a heck of a job with the landscaping, and
putting in the grass in the back, and with the connector driveway from the carpet center and with the ingress
and egress on the north side of the property, which is kind of opposite the funeral home. It’s certainly an
improvement to what’s there, and as far as the parking goes, I think we have to follow the Code, but I know
exactly the way you feel, and, to me, it’s not really parking. It’s just putting the vehicles there. To me, parking
is for customers that come in. that’s parking. To me, it would have been storage, but I think you’ve resolved
it, and we can get around it that way, which is good. As far as the stormwater goes, what you have proposed
is a lot better than what’s there right now, and I didn’t see Mr. Houston, our engineer, getting too riled about
what has been going on tonight. So I’m wishing you all the luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve just got one statement to make. This is, in terms of the Town itself, and I know
where John is coming from, and I’m coming from the same place, but you’ve got to put some perspective
into this thing and some common sense. This particular piece, which is an infinitesimal portion of the entire
Town of Queensbury, just doesn’t have any other solution other than this solution, and to do anything else is
to spend horrendous amounts of money to try to keep this stuff on site. So there is really no other practical
solution than what you’ve come up with. I’m sympathetic to you, John, I really am.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we didn’t get an independent analysis of what alternatives there could be, and, too,
Bob, you’re the first one to say, we’ve got to look at this cumulatively. We can’t look at this one little project,
approve it, next project, approve it, and before you know it we’ve got a mess.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s any degree of segmentation here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m suggesting to you is Lot Three and etc., etc. I think you’ve got to start
doing something about cleaning up the stormwater going into Halfway Brook, as the projects come before us.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think this project’s making an effort to do that, considering the restrictions of the land
that they have and the availability that they have to control the stormwater is going to be a significant
improvement over what’s there now. Conversely, you’re the only one who’s aware of whatever the watershed
quality is that the Warren County Soil wants. The other six of us aren’t aware of. So it would be a good
opportunity, down the road, maybe next month or July, to have somebody from Warren County come in and
do a dog and pony show for us.
MR. STROUGH-And what you’re eliminating here is we haven’t had an independent look at alternatives.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re the only one out there who’s uncomfortable with it. I’m getting the distinct sense
that the other six of us are comfortable with the responses we’ve gotten and we’re ready to move forward on
it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, do as you may.
MR. MAC EWAN-We usually do. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff?
Applicants?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, how do you want to work this, as far as the other public hearing still being open on
the subdivision? This is unique.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not really.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t come across very often for us.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can, if you want, you generally like to have input from public prior to your SEQRA
determinations. You did open the public hearing on the subdivision. You’ve now opened the public hearing
on the Site Plan. I didn’t see anybody looking to speak at the hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-No takers.
MR. SCHACHNER-In which case you could close both public hearings, if you want to do your SEQRA
review. After your SEQRA review, if you issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration, you would then be prepared
to rule on the subdivision request, prior to the site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Any takers? I’ll close the public hearing for the subdivision, 7-2002.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing for the site plan.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Understand, again, that with SEQRA, Environmental Assessment Form should be
amended. They’re both Short Forms, it would take 30 seconds to amend, but it should be amended by the
applicant so that the description of action is merged together, so that the Short Form for the subdivision says
two lot subdivision, or three lot, whatever it is, and the description of action for the other one says
commercial auto service, or whatever it is.
MR. LAPPER-Mark’s actually right. If we take the second one for the site plan, and just in the description
say the two lot subdivision and the site plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Verbiage.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. SCHACHNER-So that should actually physically occur, tonight, here, and then you should answer all
the questions that Cathy’s about to read, keeping in mind both the subdivision and the site plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should somebody say that before I?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessary.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s already on the record.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s on the record. I’ve said it, and they’re going to physically amend the Short Form
EAF Part I right now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So they’re doing it right now, so I can read it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, go ahead.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, they’ll be done doing this in less than 30 seconds.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid
waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, surface water flowing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then, if you say surface or water quality, then can we leave it like that or do
a mitigation explanation later?
MR. SCHACHNER-Either or both, but first what you need to do is, if you answer the question yes, you need
to just write it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s just one yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We only have one yes up here.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You only need one yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s the majority.
MR. SCHACHNER-What Mr. MacEwan means is that only one person has said yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that.
MR. SCHACHNER-So if that’s not a consensus of the majority, you don’t need to answer that question.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I always thought it didn’t matter. All right. I’m sorry, John, you’re in the
minority here.
MR. SCHACHNER-Is that the case, that it’s not the consensus of the majority that, it’s the majority opinion
that it’s a no?
MR. VOLLARO-Ask the Board each one.
MR. MAC EWAN-I heard a majority chime. No.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a
change in use or intensity of use land or other natural resources?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think it’s in line with Warren County’s watershed plan for Halfway Brook, though,
basin.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s on the record.
MR. STROUGH-That’s on the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The majority still said no.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 7-2002 & 20-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
T & R, LLC, 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 23 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-If someone would like to introduce a motion for Preliminary Stage for the subdivision.
Anybody.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2002 T & R, LLC,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by:
Subdivision No. 7-2002 Applicant: T & R, LLC
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
Type: Unlisted Zone: HC-MOD
Location: Lafayette Street
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.29 acre parcel into two lots of 1.25 acres and 1.04 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 4-2002
Tax Map No. 103-1-20.1
Lot size: 2.29 acres
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/24/02
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 5/17/02; and
5/23 Staff Notes
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002; 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, 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, that
We find the following:
The application for Preliminary is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution as it’s developed
by Staff with a comment that the zoning we’re dealing with is HC-Intensive.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-How about that additional detail of the oil and water separator.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on the site plan, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-How about for Final, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2002 T & R, LLC, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by:
Subdivision No. 7-2002 Applicant: T & R, LLC
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
Type: Unlisted Zone: HC-MOD
Location: Lafayette Street
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.29 acre parcel into two lots of 1.25 acres and 1.04 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 4-2002
Tax Map No. 103-1-20.1
Lot size: 2.29 acres
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/24/02
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 5/17/02; and
5/23 Staff Notes
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002; 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, 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, that
We find the following:
The application for Final is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution as it’s developed by
Staff with a comment that the zoning we’re dealing with is HC-Intensive.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-Site Plan. Do I hear a motion for Site Plan?
MRS. RYBA-Could I just add one thing, because I’m not sure that it’s in here, but you had mentioned having,
or the applicant had agreed that the colors and the elevations.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that site plan number?
MRS. RYBA-Okay. The site plan number that we’re dealing with right now is.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, the one that we approved on Quaker Road.
MRS. RYBA-That was 46-2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we say in our motion that the architectural design and colors with be identical to the
previously approved site plan, as identified in 46-2001, is that good enough?
MRS. RYBA-It should be.
MR. SCHACHNER-And ask for the applicant to consent to that on the record.
MR. LAPPER-We consent on the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just want to tie it in, because it was specific to colors and such.
MR. LAPPER-It’s the same building.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t hurt to get it in writing.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the parking thing, we’re going to take off the 14 in the front.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Are you doing the resolution?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve almost got it Yes. That’s the north, the back of the building on the north end?
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be the 14 parking spaces in the northern.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The northern end, back behind the building.
MR. LAPPER-The stripes will be eliminated.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to ask Mr. Houston a clarification, something about the elbows for the
grease traps?
MR. STROUGH-I asked that question.
MR. LAPPER-It’s on there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, should that be in this resolution? That was in the.
MR. HOUSTON-It pertains to the catch basins, not to the grease trap, per se. It pertains to the catch basins
out in the parking lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That’s already?
MR. NACE-Those are already on the site plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we did want a more detailed oil/water separator added to the plans.
MR. LAPPER-That was submitted. It just has to be incorporated on the plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It has to just be incorporated.
MR. LAPPER-It’s on a separate piece of paper now.
MR. HOUSTON-My fax, yesterday, had that in it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. HOUSTON-It has to be incorporated into the plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. All right. I’m ready to go. I hope I’ve got them all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2002 T & R, LLC, Introduced by Catherine
LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by:
Site Plan Review No. 20-2002 Applicant: T & R, LLC
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same
Agent: James Miller
Zone: HC-MOD
Location: Lafayette Street
Applicant proposes removal of existing lumberyard buildings and construction of a new 6,313 sq. ft. Warren
Tire Store and associated site work. Auto service use in HC-MOD zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
Cross Reference: SB 4-2002, SB 7-2002
Tax Map No. 103-1-20.1
Lot size: 1.25 acres
Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 5/1702:
5/23 Staff Notes
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
5/17 CT Male comments received
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/8 Warren Co. Planning
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002; 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, 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
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved as per resolution prepared by Staff with a comment that the zone
we’re dealing with is HC-Intensive and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The striping will be eliminated on the 14 parking areas on the northern end of the building,
and
2. The architectural design and colors will remain the same as the Site Plan No. 46-2001 that
was submitted last year, and
3. To make sure that the more detailed oil/water separator will be incorporated into the plans
as Mr. Houston, our engineer, has said, detail to be put on the site plan, and
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 5/23/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Build it. Good luck to you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE: UNLISTED GREEN
MT. DEV. GROUP, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. AGENT:
STUART MESSINGER/MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: PO & RR-3 LOCATION:
ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF CHURCH OF THE KING PROPERTY (685 BAY RD.)
OPPOSITE ACC NORTH ENTRANCE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 28.736
ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 20.157 AC., 3.724 AC. & 4.855 AC. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 36-2002, SP 25-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15 LOT SIZE: 28.736
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
STUART MESSINGER & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2002, Preliminary & Final Stage, Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc., Meeting
Date: May 23, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision to be derived
from a consolidated parcel. The project review for preliminary plat is based on submittal materials consisting
of: - Letter from Chazen Engineering dated April 24, 2002; - Preliminary Plat Subdivision application; -
Subdivision Consolidated Plan and Lease Parcel Plan, dated 2/23/02 at a scale of 1 in. = 50 ft.; - Long Form
EAF; - Site Plans Sheets C-1, SP-1 through SP-5, PP-1, SD-1 through SD-4, and accompanying reports
(wastewater, stormwater water supply, joint DEC/ACOE permit application) Please refer to your long form
EAF and Site Plan Sheets and reports included with your site plan application for this project. Please note
that a revised DEC/ACOE permit application with a cover letter dated May 3, 2002 has been received, and is
included with your staff notes. A sketch plan waiver has been requested. Study of Plat: Topography: The
land proposed for subdivision consists of undulating terrain and wetlands with some moderate slopes of
between 5-15 percent. Elevation changes 35 +/- ft. from low to high points. See the Wastewater
Management Report revised April 23, 2002, and C.T. Male comments of May 16, 2002. Density: Non-
buildable areas of the un-subdivided parcel include 5.06 acres of wetlands, and 1.04 acres of road right-of-way
for a total of 7.0 acres undevelopable land. This means that a total of 16.14 acres developable land is available
in the 23.14 acres in the PO zone. The PO zone requires 20,000 sq. ft. plus 5,000 sq. ft. per unit so that 13.54
acres of developable land is required. The overall density requirement for this project can be met. Streets and
Roads: The access drive will be a private road. Town road standards still apply per § 183-23. The Adirondack
Community College (ACC) north access is offset by just 20 ft. from the entrance proposed by this
development. Refer to C.T. Male comments of May 16, 2002. Chazen submitted a traffic report in the
application that addresses traffic numbers. Lot arrangement: Access to Lots 2 & 3 have been requested
through a variance application AV-02-36 for an easement. Access to Lot 3 from Blind Rock Road is shown
on the plan. As a practical matter the topographical changes present a challenge to accommodate access from
that point. Grading and Erosion Control: A retaining wall will be needed along the entry drive. See C.T. Male
comments of May 16, 2002 for this and other questions related to grading. Water Supply: Anticipated average
daily demand is projected at 7,048 GPD, with peak demand at 61,072 GPD. The applicant proposes to
connect to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. See the Water Supply Report revised April 23, 2002.
Also refer to the attached memorandum from Ralph VanDusen, Queensbury Water Dept., dated May 16,
2002. Sewage Disposal: Due to topographical and sols constraints septic system deign and installation must be
done carefully. Chazen Companies engineers have addressed questions presented by Town engineering rview
consultants C.T. Male (see Chazen letter dated May 15, 2002). C.T. Male is expected to respond further to
Chazen comments and drawings. The County Planning Board has recommended that the applicant work
with the Town to connect to the Town sewer district. As discussed during the concept plan review that took
place last month, there are a number of factors upon which a connection depends. A connection to Town
sewers is a long term consideration. Drainage: Old Mid Brook traverses the site from north to south along
the eastern portion of the property. It also flows in a north to south direction. Please refer to the Chazen
letter of May 15, 2002 for responses to questions raised by staff about drainage details, in addition to
responses to the C.T. Male letter of March 29, 2002. An internal memorandum from the Chazen Companies,
dated April 24, 2002, also addresses drainage/septic issues from the neighboring Church of the King. See
also the C.T. Male letter of May 16, 2002. Lot sizes: Lot 1 is to be 5.536 acres, Lot 2 is to be 3.724 acres, and
Lot 3 is to be 15.754 acres. Placement of Utilities: A utility easement for Lots 1 & 2 to Lot 3 will be required.
Future development: Lots 1 & 2 are to be developed with a total of 114 housing units in a multi-family,
apartment complex for over age 55 persons. Some communal living facilities will be available. Lot 3 will
contain the on-site community septic systems for Lots 1 & 2. State Environmental Quality Review Act: The
project is considered a Type I action since over 100 housing units are involved in the Site Plan Review. Type
I status requires a coordinated review among involved agencies. The Planning Board has requested Lead
Agency Status. Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The proposed subdivision is located in Neighborhood 8
as per the Town of Queensbury 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP indicates that this
area should be developed as a Town Center, and that it has a mix of office buildings along the road and
multi-family uses back further from the road. The CLUP also notes that assurance of sewer service for
residential uses should be obtained. See attached recommendations in the CLUP. The recent update to the
Zoning Ordinance does allow multi-family development in this zone. Density requirements for development
are the same whether or not private or public sewage and/or water is available. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Lot 296.7-1-15 of 20.157 acres and Lot 289.19-1-15 of 4.855
acres are to be consolidated into a single parcel of 25.012 acres. Of this acreage, 23.14 acres is in the PO
zone, and 1.87 acres is in the RR-3 zone. A variance application AV-36-2002 has been submitted for access
by easement since Lot 2 does not have frontage on a public road, and Lot 3 access is difficult to provide.
Staff comments: 1. Please note that this application will be re-advertised to address that it has Type I
SEQRA status, and will reflect an accurate description of the project. 2. A sketch plan waiver should be
granted. 3. The density information will need to be shown on the final subdivision plat. 4. The Planning
Board may wish to consider having the Town consulting engineers inspect the installation of this septic
system and make t his a condition with a note to be placed on the final plat. 5. A condition should be placed
on Lot 3 for no further development unless Town sewer connections are made and remediation is
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
satisfactory to accommodate development. 6. The question of impact on traffic due to the access offset
needs to be addressed more thoroughly to explain particular needs of senior drivers and traffic patterns
known and expected at ACC.”
MRS. RYBA-You’re going to have to bear with me because I’ve got too much stuff to go through. Okay.
We have two items here, one of which is the subdivision for Green Mountain Development Group. They
applied for a preliminary plat application, and I still don’t have the right notes. I just have the site plan notes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have these? Is this what you’re looking for? Would you like them? Would you
pass those down to her.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Let’s see. The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision to be derived from a
consolidated parcel. My understanding is that this subdivision is because of a lease parcel plan that’s required
for their financing. There are additional notes in reference to where they stand regarding other permits. One
of the lots are, let’s see, well, actually the zoning is both Professional Office and there’s a very small portion
that’s RR-3. RR-3 doesn’t allow multi-family housing. However, that portion will not be developed. So the
development will occur in the PO zone which does allow multi-family housing. In that respect, the
advertising was incorrect when they advertised this as an adult assisted living facility. It’s actually an adult
independent living facility. It was also advertised as Unlisted. Actually, it’s a Type I SEQRA, and it was
advertised as a health related facility, which it is not. It’s a multi-family facility. You did get notes in
reference to that, and because of these items, or these discrepancies, it does have to be re-advertised. So my
understanding is you can proceed and review this, but because of the need to have it re-advertised, it will still
have to continue next month.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So how in-depth do you want to get?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not going to at all. This is maybe unique. I’m Michael O’Connor, for the purpose of
your record, I’ll state that I’m here for the applicant. The applicant’s principals themselves will probably
make most of the presentation. This is not the first time they’ve done one of these projects. They are
probably more intimately familiar with it than either myself or Mr. Mesinger, who are their consultants. So
I’ll turn it over to John Giebink, and he will make the presentation.
MR. GIEBINK-Thank you. My name’s John Giebink. I’m one of the owners of the Green Mountain
Development Group, along with Charlie Brush, and we have some wonderful consultants with us, who are
over here. This is our sixth senior housing project like this. We have several in Vermont. We have what is
known as The Pines Senior Living Community, which you see pictures of. The project over there to the
right, that is in South Burlington, Vermont. We also have a project called The Maples, which is in Rutland,
and another project in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, one outside of Lebanon, in between Lebanon and Hanover,
New Hampshire, and one under construction outside of Concord. This project will be known as The Cedars
Senior Living Community. It will include two buildings.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know maybe, I don’t want to steal your thunder here, but maybe in the interest of
the late hour that it’s getting to be, that this entire Board, if I’m not mistaken, heard your presentation when
we did it in the Supervisor’s Conference Room.
MR. GIEBINK-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what we could do is bring us up to speed with the changes that you made that we
suggested to you that night, and where we are at this point in the game.
MR. GIEBINK-Okay. I just thought, you know, I really sort of wanted to give a brief thing because of what
was noticed here about assisted living, which we are not, just to make sure that the Board is familiar with this
type of project, in that it is a moderate income project. This is not a subsidized rent project, like the Housing
Authority’s projects down in Glens Falls. This is not an assisted living kind of facility which charges $2,000
to $3,000 per month and provides for health and medical services and includes meals. This is a senior
oriented housing, 55 years plus age, will offer optional services, you know, significant community communal
areas, basically serving what is the largest segment of the senior population which really has very little options,
because they can’t get into subsidized housing, and they can’t afford the high price of assisted living housing.
So I just want to give you the context and the flavor of what this project is because it is fairly unique when we
come into communities. Most communities are very familiar with subsidized housing and are familiar with,
you know, higher priced assisted living, continuing care type communities. This is independent living. The
individual apartments have a small kitchen, living, dining, bathroom, bedroom, small storage, but in addition,
there are significant common areas. You see from the floor plan over there, which we did not have at the
previous meeting, sort of bring you up to date and provide you some more information, which is in your
package of plans. The lower level of the building, you know, includes a large library, living room, fireplaces, a
common dining/eating area type things. So we provide, you know, there was a significant square footage of
area within the building that people basically use, you know, what we see as residents in our other projects.
Yes, they have their own apartment, but really they feel the entire building is their home, and they come out
and they play cards and they sit in front of the fireplace and read books, you know, sit in the library, and it
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
becomes a real community. We really strive on using the name senior living community, because what we
strive to do in these projects is to get the seniors who live there to basically be a community. They sort of
look after each other, and they use the entire project, including the outside areas. From the plan also we’ve
shown basically more landscaping and new things from the last discussion we’ve had with you. As we
mentioned before, not shown on the previous plan, there’s like an outdoor gazebo. What the intent is, in
front of the Building Number One, which is the upper right hand building, there’s that sort of triangle green.
What we try to think of that is like the center village green type situation, in terms of the project, and so
there’s a gazebo there, walking paths to it. There’ll be some benches there, along the sidewalks, I mean, the
roadway is lined with a sidewalk. In addition, we’ve added, per the request of the Planning Board, a walking
path, which would be a paved path all the way out to Bay Road. So, basically, I mean, there’s, I couldn’t
come up with a total number of footage of sidewalks and walking paths, but it is very extensive, because,
again, this is a project where many people move in as independent mobile people, but they’re looking for a
place in which to age in place, and one of the theories and philosophies behind our type projects is to keep
people very active, mentally, physically, socially. So, you know, we have a social coordinator, you know, who
is on staff, who helps to facilitate things like a film club, gardening clubs, cooking clubs, all sorts of activities
that the residents partake, and a social coordinator will help to facilitate trips into Glens Falls, Saratoga, you
know, things that keep people active, mentally, physically, and that part which is a big part of the community,
not just, you know, it’s not a nursing home. It’s not an assisted living. It’s trying to keep people moving and
active, both inside the building and outside the building and around the entire property, which is one reason
why this property was selected is because when you walk out there, it’s a beautiful, natural area. We are
actually, out of the entire site, you know, disturbing very little of it. There are wetland areas which the only
wetland impact we have is on the small stream crossing coming into the project. The rest of the areas are
untouched, so keeping it in a very, very natural state throughout the project, both for the benefit of land and
for the benefit of the residents who will be there. The other couple of items that we’ve done, I mentioned
the walking path coming out to Bay Road. In addition, we talked about the entrance drive coming in. You
can see in the bottom right hand corner, just to orient yourselves, again, to the plans, that little bottom right
hand corner really moves up into the matched, up above there’s a matched line. If you’d like me to show, I
think everybody.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We all remember.
MR. GIEBINK-Right. That bottom right hand corner shifts up and goes out to Bay Road. As you can see
on the bottom side now, we’ve created, basically, a boulevard type entry drive in through there, and we will
now basically, you know, low landscaped, low flowering bushes coming back in down through the middle
there, along with some lighting which was on a lighting plan which was submitted, to basically make a very
nice boulevard type entry drive. The entry drive is a private road, part of the project, basically leading back in,
and then you cross the little stream crossing and come in, and the next thing you’ll see, you’ll see the end of
the building. We’ve given you actual pictures of what is built in South Burlington, basically a rendering with
the Cedars onto it. That is what the front of the building, the “L” shaped entry. It’s like a, it’s a large portico
share, which comes out of the building, white clapboard, green shutters, and again, from a land planning
standpoint, basically creating that village green kind of concept out in front, that people will actively use.
What we find in our other projects, some projects have a triangle. Some have a square, but a fairly large, well
landscaped area with walking paths and park benches and people, during nice days like today, will go out
there and sit and get up and walk around the site and come back into the building through another entry and
come into a common area and go down to the library. So there’s all sorts of activities that are contained on
the site. The one other thing we did, when we met with C.T. Male and Planning Staff last Monday, went
through their prior comments . Those had been addressed on plans. We did receive some new comments the
end of last week which Stuart has responded to, and, you know, the handouts relative to that. The one other
thing that we have the handouts also for is at the request of, I think, Robert, some soil borings. We did soil
borings at the building location, and we’ve sent those to our structural engineers, and we have the letter back
from them saying soils are perfectly fine for our building and structure out there, and we’ll submit those also.
So we’ve done a fair extensive amount of work to verify that where the buildings are located are suitable for
the buildings. We have increased the landscape and we have increased the walkways.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have the buildings now out there, did you have them flagged off or something,
the corners of them, that we could maybe go look at at site visits?
MR. GIEBINK-Actually Building Number One, since that’s the first building to be built, has soil boring
stakes, and they actually, the locations of those, show on the, one of the site plans, SP 1, 2, 3, 4. I think
there’s 11 soil borings that were taken around that, and that is staked with green flagging.
MR. MESINGER-Craig, very easy to access from the adjacent property (lost words) the road straight out the
back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll use the Town van, just in case it goes awry.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re only talking Phase I here.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. GIEBINK-No. Our application is, we don’t know where applying for Phase I came from, because our
application’s for what you see on the site plan, which is all of our plans, you know, and everything is for, we
are seeking approval for the project, which is two buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-Where did I get the idea it was only? It says applicant seeks approval for building Phase I
only, I guess on the Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-Yes, it does say that, and I think that’s because that was in the application.
MR. MESSIGNER-It’s not, though. If you look at the application letter it pretty clearly says that we’re
asking for two phases of the plan. Marilyn, you and I talked about that. I was very clear in saying to you that
we were applying for two phases when we talked.
MR. GIEBINK-We don’t think of it as, I mean, two phases in terms of timing, we certainly don’t think of it
as, it’s one cohesive project, in terms of what’s being built.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just concerned about what the Staff notes say, so that I know what we’re looking at.
That’s my only concern.
MR. GIEBINK-We want you to look at the entire project because that’s the plans and all of the information
and testimony that we’re supplying you with is for the entire project.
MR. VOLLARO-I see a Phase I and II.
MRS. RYBA-Right. The cover letter said it would be constructed in two phases, and I know that we had
talked about it, Stuart, and I questioned, you know, is it Phase I or Phase II, and you said Phase I when you
had a phone conversation, and I said are you sure about that. So I’m not sure what the.
MR. MESINGER-No, Marilyn, I very clearly said to you that it was both phases, and you said to me that it
was the Board’s practice, in some cases, to require building plans for both phases.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. MESSIGNER-And we submitted building plans for one phase. If the Board wants building plans for a
second phase, we’re more than happy to submit them, but the application letter and the plans, we’ll say again
tonight, is very clearly for both phases.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’re at a stage it doesn’t make any difference.
MR. MAC EWAN-It really doesn’t. If it’s the point we have to amend the application or something like that,
we can do that.
MR. GIEBINK-What I’d like to do is just take phasing out of it. It’s Building One and Building Two.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, except that Subdivision Regulations do discuss phasing. Maybe that’s where the
confusion lies.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something that can be sorted out.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think Subdivision Regulations, as to phasing, have to do with the single family homes
that you’re talking about, number of units. This is two apartment buildings.
MR. SCHACHNER-And how many lots of a subdivision?
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s three lots. I don’t think phasing, in your Subdivision Reg’s, apply to this project.
MR. SCHACHNER-For a three lot subdivision.
MR. O'CONNOR-I may be surprised, because I also am not totally familiar with our new Ordinance, but the
old Ordinance certainly didn’t, and, just so that there’s no question, too, the buildings are identical.
MR. GIEBINK-The buildings are identical except that one wing on a building is slightly shorter because it
goes from 62 units to 52 units, but the configuration and appearance of the building is virtually identical.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that the phasing issue is something that can be worked out. I think it’s a minor
problem, really.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, me, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-My question is that I don’t, I want to have an understanding that you’re satisfied with the
entire plans for Building One, and not, we don’t need to produce the plans for Building Two where it’s
identical, except it’s shorter.
MR. GIEBINK-We have supplied you with the elevation plans of Building Two, which Marilyn had asked
for.
MR. MAC EWAN-But do your plans, are your packets going to, for Building Two, include the landscaping
and everything associated with it?
MR. GIEBINK-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When you’re talking building plans, you’re talking floor layout?
MR. GIEBINK-Interior architectural, and we have supplied you with the building elevations for both
Building One and Two, and the floor plans for Building One.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What else have you got?
MR. MESINGER-Just a couple of technical items. John alluded to the fact that we met with C.T. Male.
Male had generated a letter to us, and at the time that they generated that letter, they hadn’t seen our revised
set of plans. So we put together a response that was really followed on the revised plans. Male, last
Thursday, gave us the second letter on the revised plans. I have with me tonight a response to that letter that
I’d like to give you to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have they seen it?
MR. MESINGER-They have not seen it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then give it to them only.
MR. MESINGER-How does that work in the Town then?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m directing it right now. I’m frustrated that stuff gets put on our table the night of a
meeting. You aren’t alone. It’s been happening all too often lately. So, I’m now directing things to go right
to the consultant or right to the Town Engineer, so that they have opportunity to review it. Then we’ll get
our copies.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. She already has the stamped soil borings. Just a couple of other, I would
characterize most of the Male comments as technical in nature. I think we’re at the stage of this project
where the consultants are working out the finer points of drainage and so forth. Just a couple of other
points. When we last saw you, we completed Phase I of archeology. We had, today, delivered the Phase IB
of archeology is finished. We did not find anything. So we’ve closed the book on that issue. We’re not
asking for a waiver on the total number of parking spaces. I wasn’t sure if that was clear. You’ll see on the
plan that we’re showing overflow parking in the back of the Phase II building, and we talked about the reason
for that, and I think that the Board was fairly amenable and understanding for that. Your package included a
memorandum discussing the technical issues involved with the separation from the sanitary sewer system to
the north on the Church property that I think several of the members had asked for, and as I think you’ll see,
we’re a good distance, both horizontally and vertically, from that system.
MR. MAC EWAN-If I could just chime in here for a second, Stu. Just for what it’s worth, I’m glad that
we’re really not advancing with this application tonight because this packet we got Tuesday night, and I’m
pretty sure that no one has had an opportunity to look at it.
MR. MESINGER-Understood, and then, and so, well, I think that’s what, technically, my final point was, and
maybe we’ll answer questions, but we want to review procedure from here. We, I think when we talked to
you in our last meeting, agreed that at this meeting we wouldn’t be asking for approvals. We’d want to try
and wrap up the technical review process and come back to you next month with a completed application
that C.T. Male has signed off on, and then hopefully that you folks can act on next month, and, that’s all I
have. You guys, at last week’s meeting, declared yourselves the Lead Agency for SEQRA, or your intent to
be Lead Agency. So we’ll also need to wrap that up at next meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-We already did that resolution to do that.
MR. MESINGER-Right. We saw a copy of it.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Last week, last month. Sometime. I guess what I’d ask fellow members to do is, if you
have questions, let’s kind of keep them brief, because I don’t want to get into a full, in-depth review of this
thing tonight, considering there’s still uncertainties with engineering and having to re-advertise to do the
SEQRA. On that note, I’ll start with Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only thing is the boulevard, entryway looks nice. The only question would be
about emergency vehicles. Is there adequate room for that, to get emergency vehicles down the road now?
MR. MESINGER-That was your reason that you guys wanted that one, in part.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Stu. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I had nothing at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll try and keep it brief. Just a few clarifications. One, Mr. Chairman, are we also
trying to discuss the subdivision?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, like I said, I don’t want to get into a lot of in-depth detail on this because we
have to re-advertise for SEQRA purposes, and that’s going to tie into the subdivision as well.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Well, I just needed clarification on a few basic things that I don’t think gets into too
much detail, but are we going to handle this, Mr. Schachner, the same way? We look at the subdivision, we
look at the project, just the same way we did with Warren Tire?
MR. SCHACHNER-If you mean in terms of SEQRA review, I sure hope you will.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Seeing as how that’s what the law requires.
MR. STROUGH-So, in other words, the subdivision will come, basically, after we finish looking at the
project?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sensing I’m not communicating this very effectively, but here’s what I’ve been trying
to say. SEQRA requires that you look at all the potential environmental impacts of the entire action, not just
individual component steps of the action. It doesn’t matter to me how you go about completing your
SEQRA review, so long as when you do so it’s, A, prior to making any formal decisions on either the
subdivision or site plan, and, B, it encompasses the potential environmental impacts of both steps,
subdivision and site plan.
MR. STROUGH-See, the reason why I ask is the subdivision issue was listed first tonight, then the
preliminary stage was listed after the subdivision.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s typically how we list things because in theory, it makes logical sense, if
you take the SEQRA review out of it, it makes logical sense to look at a subdivision first, decide whether a
subdivision is going to be approved, how the lots are going to shake out, and then look at the proposed use in
a site plan. The problem is that the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act says quite explicitly,
don’t look at just the potential environmental impacts of the subdivision, and then separately look at the
potential environmental impacts of the site plan review. It says look at the potential environmental impacts
of the whole shooting match.
MR. STROUGH-So next time we get together we’re actually going to be doing the site plan. When we feel
satisfied, we’re done with that, then we’ll actually be going back to the subdivision after that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The next time we do this application will be the same procedure that I did for Warren
Tire.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Which is not, let’s make sure we’re not confusing each other, you’re not going to
decide on the site plan before you decide on the subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-No, it’s just like Warren Tire.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. You’re going to make the SEQRA determination.
MR. STROUGH-In other words, but I’m already, I’m all set to discuss subdivision, and really, I should be on
site plan, and then go subdivision and maybe after I get done we’re satisfied with site plan, or all at the same
time?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. SCHACHNER-From the standpoint of SEQRA review, all at the same time.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Just one question on that. It’s very possible to do the subdivision without any kind of a
follow-up site plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-So that’s a little inconsistent with saying you can’t do one and then do the other.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe so. You’re absolutely correct. It’s very common to do a subdivision and
have not the faintest idea what the proposed uses are going to be. When that happens, you don’t have a site
plan application pending, and you can look at only the potential environmental impacts of the subdivision,
recognizing that if it’s something that’s going to be utilized commercially, you’ll eventually do SEQRA review
on whatever it is that’s proposed, but when you have an application that’s proposing subdivision and site plan
review, and this is not gray area, cutting edge stuff here. This is real vanilla, you know, cast in stone type
stuff. When you have an application that’s proposing both to subdivide and to do something that requires
site plan approval, you look at it all together.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, on that note, I’d ask you to keep your questions brief. Please.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I’m just a little confused. I’m probably all by myself, but what is the subdivision?
I’ve got lines all over here. What are we asking? Can you clarify that? What is the subdivision, and where are
the properties lines, how many lots? I mean, I think we’re talking about three lots, but can you clarify that for
me?
MR. MESINGER-Do you have the subdivision plan out?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, right here.
MR. MESINGER-This is Lot One, labeled Lot One. This is Lot Two, labeled Lot Two, and Lot Three.
This is the subdivision line. So, one, two, three.
MR. STROUGH-It goes up and includes the road?
MR. MESINGER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And where does it go here?
MR. MESINGER-It goes right in here.
MR. STROUGH-It follows the watershed.
MR. MESINGER-And the property line.
MR. STROUGH-Then it goes up, cuts over, and it comes down. Okay. Now where’s Lot Two, Stu? All
right.
MR. MESINGER-And the balance is Lot Three.
MR. STROUGH-And the rest is Lot Three.
MR. MESINGER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-See, I couldn’t make heads or tails out of that, because you’ve got, what’s this line over
here? That’s the old lot line.
MR. MESINGER-No. This is an easement. There are cross easements across the parcels for utilities.
MR. STROUGH-See, this wasn’t as clear as a bell.
MR. MESINGER-I understand. This is an easement to allow the sewage disposal system from the two
buildings on the two lots, over to that lot.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and you don’t want me to ask too technical a question? I mean, this is a math thing.
I mean, we’ve got 5.06 acres of wetland, and we have 1.04 acres of road right of way. So that’s 5.06, and 1.04.
So that’s how many undevelopable acres?
MR. MESINGER-You add those two up and you get 6.10.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what I got, not the seven.
MR. MESINGER-Because you also have to take into account steep slopes.
MR. STROUGH-There’s no steep slopes. According to this, there are no steep slopes exceeding 25% grade.
MR. MESINGER-And I think there’s, I’ll check the math on it. Fair enough.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Check the math on that, and so, we’ve got Lot One and Lot Two. I just want to
make sure my figures are right because the total acreage is 25.01, but the Executive Summary says it’s 24.13,
and a letter from Joel Bianchi says it’s 20.16.
MR. MESINGER-The entire parcel is 25 acres.
MR. STROUGH-Most of the time, that’s what I’m running into.
MR. MESINGER-Right. Part of the property is zoned RR-3.
MR. STROUGH-And is that delineated on here how the zoning is, I mean, what (lost words)?
MR. MESINGER-Yes, basically it’s the back lot. There’s a separate tax lot that abuts Blind Rock.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s part of Lot Three.
MR. MESINGER-It’s part of Lot Three. It comes off the map. It’s not shown.
MR. STROUGH-Sometimes we get the delineation and it shows this is RR-3 and this is PO here.
MR. MESINGER-We can add the zoning line. It is on there?
MR. STROUGH-All right, and how many acres are you going to develop?
MR. MESINGER-There should be a density calculation on there, John.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well I see it, but it’s 13.54.
MR. MESINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Acres will be developed. Then I take a look at the number of acres on Lots One and Two
and I get 9.26. So, in other words, what it says to be developed isn’t going to fit on Lots One and Two, and I
don’t know if the septic and the access road accounts for that difference or not.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Zoning Administrator has determined that this would be looked at as one parcel,
notwithstanding the fact that we are applying for a subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m kind of looking at it as a subdivision and a project, as one big mix.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they’re going to the question of density.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just going to the question of making the figures jive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Re-look at all your numbers and make sure they’re right.
MR. MESINGER-We’ll do.
MR. STROUGH-And should I mention stuff now about what, Staff notes and stuff like that?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-No, save that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Save it.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. O'CONNOR-Craig, with all due respect, I know it’s late, but if there’s something that we need to get
some information on, if we could get it, we’d appreciate it.
MR. STROUGH-I think the last time we talked, we talked about exterior recreational opportunities, and we
talked about more than a gazebo, and I thought that you had mentioned a few other things. Maybe my
memory is just.
MR. GIEBINK-What I had mentioned were walking paths and sidewalks with places to sit and basically, you
know, passive outdoor recreation, and that’s what we have been showing is basically added in to the gazebo,
the walkways, which I had talked about. We had not specifically located on there the park benches that we
would put out there. If you would like those added to the plan, that’s fine. We’ve also put in the walking
path out to Bay Road, but that is the extent. There is no active outdoor recreation.
MR. STROUGH-No shuffleboard?
MR. GIEBINK-Like swimming pools or tennis courts, or anything like that. There are outside gardening
areas. If you would like us to locate where the garden areas would be.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, yes, yes. You were supposed to do that. Yes, you were.
MR. GIEBINK-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The garden area is a big plus. It sure would be nice to have shuffleboards. I’m all
done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just a quick, almost comical question, but have you ever been challenged, because you
mentioned you’re not a medical facility, but you are providing housing only to seniors. So, has any young
person ever wanted to live there and been denied and sued you for reverse discrimination of some sort?
MR. GIEBINK-We comply with the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act has two substandards of
which you can basically delegate your housing for specific age populations. One is there’s a 62 and older and
also a 55 year and older. There’s two specific classifications that we comply with that.
MR. SANFORD-So, what you’re doing is legal, then?
MR. GIEBINK-You’ve got it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks. That’s it.
MR. GIEBINK-I didn’t want to just give you the short answer, yes, we’re legal. I wanted to give you a little
background.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you have the funding, and this isn’t really relevant, but are you going to build
both buildings at the same time, or are you just going to build the first one?
MR. GIEBINK-We will build Building One, to begin with. We need to get the rent up of that, and then we
will proceed on to Building Two, but the site work part will basically be entirely, will be done entirely except
for the building pad area for Building Two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that phasing?
MRS. RYBA-That’s what I was just going to say is that that was my understanding of the situation, and what
I was trying to portray is that there is an issue, in terms of issuing a site plan permit, is that you have to do
your, get your building permit within one year.
MR. GIEBINK-We’ll apply for a building permit for Building Two.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But as far as funding that goes for this second building, is that contingent upon how
successful the first building is?
MR. GIEBINK-There is no contingency. It’s just a matter of us going out and working on that funding. We
can only do so much at one time.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-For our next meeting, I’d ask you to research that and give us a determination of what the
Town’s position on this phasing and how it works out, and the Town’s perspective with getting a permit and
not putting up a building and so on and so forth.
MRS. RYBA-Right. I do have a note to get a Zoning Administrator determination, because the Subdivision
Regulations refer to lots and dwelling units in terms of that type of phasing, and then the other aspect is, and
that’s why we had asked for the elevations for Building Two, was because the Zoning Administrator had told
me that, if you approve the entire site plan, then they have to get their building permit within one year, and
then if it’s not built within that period of time, my understanding is then it expires, and so I will get
clarification on all of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, if it turns out to be a determination that it’s a phasing thing, I don’t see that
being a big deal, that you come in for Phase II. If it turns out that way.
MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding, also, is that, we hope that we would be completed within the
timeframe you just went by, but my understanding is, also, that you are entitled to even, under our rules, to
automatically renew a building permit, one time.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not automatically.
MR. O'CONNOR-By custom, we’ve done that here, the building permit part.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. He has a right to seek that. It’s not automatic.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s an administrative action.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MR. BRUSH-And our problem is we’re going to spend a whole lot of money which applies to Phase II, in
Building One, that applies to Building Two. We don’t want to have to come back and have everybody say,
no, no, we’re not going to let you build Building Two, now, we changed our mind. We have to have
assurance that we can be able to go forward with both buildings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did I hear you say that, when you’re doing, constructing Building One, that you’re
going to be putting in the entire roadway?
MR. BRUSH-Yes. So we’re going to have a lot of money out there.
MR. GIEBINK-We will be constructing a, basically, 95% of the infrastructure for Building Number Two,
roadway, the water line, everything else is being put in for Building Two, also.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we just need to get clarification and we’ll go from there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And is that a, that connector between the two buildings, is that enclosed or is that just
a walkway, right there, that little, do you see what I’m talking about?
MR. GIEBINK-That’ll probably be roofed over.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s an outdoors thing. It’s not with a foundation or?
MR. GIEBINK-Well, it has to have a foundation to be able to have a roof over it. Yes.
MR. SANFORD-It won’t have walls, though?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It won’t have walls.
MR. GIEBINK-It’s just labeled covered walkway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just covered walkway, okay.
MR. MESINGER-Is there an issue with that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I was just curious how, if somebody had to go from one building to the other, is
there any way they could, those are doorways?
MR. GIEBINK-Those are doorways.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For emergencies.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. GIEBINK-So, yes, whether it’s some kind of sidewalk, we hadn’t really thought that through yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re asking me for my opinion, I’d rather see it left open with just a covered walkway.
Aesthetically, I think it would look more pleasing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I only have just one thing. I’d like to just make a comment to me on how the New York
State Housing Trust Fund Corporation, apparently they’re going to be listed as an involved agency for this
review. Now, what role do they play with respect to what you’re doing?
MR. MESINGER-They have a funding role in this property.
MR. VOLLARO-They have a funding role in this project.
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So, in line with your opening statement, I tried to keep what you were saying in mind
because I was going to ask you this question, and you said there are no subsidies to this.
MR. GIEBINK-As we talked about in the last meeting, this is a low-income housing, it’s a tax credit, housing
tax credit project. Those tax credits are administered in New York State by the Housing Trust Fund.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s they’re function. This has to do, basically, with tax credits, is that correct?
MR. GIEBINK-That’s correct. There’s tax credits and there’s home funding, and that’s why they provide
that.
MR. VOLLARO-So when you do your income taxes, you get tax credit for this, essentially?
MR. GIEBINK-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-My last question, and I’m not going to say anymore, I’d probably address this to Stu. I read
the engineering report pretty thoroughly on the difference in elevation between the septic system and this
particular project, and I understand the physics of how the Old Maid’s stream acts as an absolute barrier to
any effluent that would be perched, if you want to call that, on some elevation. Now I’m going to get back
on John Strough’s case and jump on his side of the fence on this, because it says that, and that natural barrier,
if any effluent come down, it’s carried away. It doesn’t cross that barrier. Physically it can’t. I understand the
physics there, but it does get, it could possibly get into the Old Maid’s Brook, and go on and go wherever the
Old Maid Brook goes, and I guess that goes to Halfway Brook. Is that correct, John?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where it goes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And there’s where, the kind of thing that John was talking about, about Warren County and
so on. There’s where we should be looking at that. We don’t want to put that kind of effluent into a Brook,
even though it forms a natural barrier and the effluent won’t jump over it.
MR. MESINGER-Yes. Remember the barrier is between that system and our retention pond. Remember
that that septic system isn’t our project.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but, you know, taking the broader view, and knowing that this project,
see, that system sitting up there before, I suppose it could leak down, but now I’m just questioning it even
more, the fact that, you know.
MR. MESINGER-Pretty good separation on those. I mean, I don’t really want to talk about their system or
defend their system, other than to say that, the one thing that we’ve pointed out is that there’s a heck of a
horizontal separation.
MR. VOLLARO-The big thing is the Brook is the physical barrier.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s based in physics, that you just can’t, that the effluent can’t get by that without
going down it. I mean, I understand that, but I’m just trying to, in my mind, try to understand what are we
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
doing there, and should we be looking at that in any way at all? I’m going to save all my questions. I’ve got
two pages of them here from today, but I won’t get into any of this.
MR. MESINGER-I’m concerned that we get those questions, though, because our goals was to try to come
back to you with a revised set of plans next month and ask you for approval. I don’t know how I’m going to
do that if I don’t get your questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a chance you take. I mean, I don’t mean to be facetious. It’s the chance that
anybody takes.
MR. MESINGER-But if you have them and we’re here, why not ask them?
MR. GIEBINK-We don’t have to respond to them, but at least we can write them down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, and the one reason why I don’t want to is, Number One, we’re going to re-advertise
this thing for SEQRA purposes, and based on that alone, I do not want to get into a heavy, involved review
of this thing, especially at 11 o’clock at night.
MR. O'CONNOR-Could we get a copy of the comments?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I could, there’s a couple here, I guess, that I have.
MR. MESINGER-I can call you in the morning, Bob.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you just gave our Town Engineer a whole set of responses tonight. There’s no
guarantee that you’re going to like his answers either.
MR. MESINGER-No, I know, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to try and get those, though, well before your next meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand, but you’re asking us to give a whole pile of questions, and we just got this
Tuesday night, and we haven’t had a chance to go through that.
MR. MESINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to fast-track this too much. I think it needs to have a review. It’s a pretty
good-sized project, and I think, in fairness to everybody, let’s review it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, the only thing I want to make clear is that it’s entirely up to the Board if
you want to continue and provide the applicant this information tonight or not, but, Mr. Vollaro, I want to
make sure it’s clear that you should not be meeting separately with the applicant to provide them with the
questions.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-My intent would be to have him give them to Staff and Staff give them to us.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-That was my intent. I would make a copy of these and give them to Marilyn.
MR. SCHACHNER-No problem.
MRS. RYBA-I would also like to note for the record, because I did have this conversation with Mr. Mesinger,
is that the final subdivision application has not been submitted either, and if that were to be reviewed for next
month, that needs to come in by next Wednesday.
MR. MESINGER-I think the schedule we had talked about was that we would submit to you, by next
Wednesday, the final subdivision application, and ask you to act on that in June, and that we would have you
act on the site plan in July, and so we would probably meet with you in June and get whatever other
comments you might have. Now, I don’t know what we’d have to do to get on the agenda, whether I have to
make a revised submittal.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want your subdivision, preliminary and final reviewed next month, yes, get all your
documentation by next Wednesday.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/23/02)
MR. MESINGER-But does that include all the site plan stuff, if I’m only asking you for approval?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because we’re going to do a joint SEQRA for both of these. So any information that
pertains to either project, or either application, yes, you need to submit all the stuff. Okay.
MR. MESINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, and we’ll see you next month. What we can do, and I will leave this up
to individual Board members, see, that’s not going to work either. No, let’s just go this route, the way we’re
going. Okay. All right. Good luck. Did you want to comment on this application tonight, ma’am?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-(Lost words) I really don’t want to comment at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We will be having another public hearing next month on this thing. Okay. Thank
you. As far as next month’s site visits, meeting dates and stuff, I’ll e-mail you. Okay. Meeting adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
63