2003-08-26
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 26, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-(Lost words) at the request of the applicant to be tabled to our second
meeting of September? (Regarding Reliable Racing)
MR. HILTON-We will re-notice, re-notify.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to open up the public hearing or not?
MR. HILTON-I would say no. They’ve requested it be moved, and we’re going to probably re-
notice everyone.
MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Subdivision No. 15-2003 for Jean Hoffman and Subdivision 11-
2003 for William Taft will not be heard tonight. Because there seems to be an issue with
noticing. We are going to re-advertise those meetings and they will be heard in the September
16 meeting. Right?
th
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. First item.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2003 SARATOGA WEST END DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER:
DELWYN MULDER, RONALD NEWELL ZONE: C1-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEN (10) 3,000 SQ. FT. SELF-
STORAGE UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHTING, AND LANDSCAPING.
SELF-STORAGE UNITS IN THE CI-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. NEW INFO. RECEIVED. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-37 LOT SIZE: 4.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
020
TOM JARRETT & JEFF O’TRUBA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on May 20 has been left open.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t have anything really to add. There was an issue or a concern from
the Planning Board previously about Karner blue. New York State DEC has issued a letter
stating that they found no lupine or any species on the property. The applicant has updated the
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
landscaping plan in the southwest corner to provide additional buffering for the property to the
west, and lighting specs have been provided. I really don’t have anything additional to add at
this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers, Trent Martin of the same
firm, and Jeff O’Truba representing Saratoga West End. As George read off, we’ve addressed
your prior comments by providing details on signage in the front of the site with a low wattage
flood light, an additional fence along the west side of the driveway to shield the entering
headlights from the neighbor to the west, and we’ve beefed up the landscaping to the west, the
west side of the driveway by replacing the pin oaks with additional spruce. We’ve also
investigated the Karner blue and there were no, there’s no habitat on this site. With that having
been said, I’ll entertain any further questions from the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-Come back to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had, I can’t remember if I had raised it last time
or not, was the hours that the lights would be on.
MR. JARRETT-The main lights for the storage units are on motion detectors. So they’ll be on
only as people are on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The sign light, it’s a 24 hour facility. So right now the sign light is proposed for
24 hours. That’s in the front of the site and it’s aimed north directly into the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'TRUBA-If I may bring up a point. Jeff O’Truba, Saratoga West End Development. I’d
like to bring up a point. It’s a 50 watt light. We’re not proposing any high wattage light here.
It’s just a minimal amount of light, and it would face the sign and shoot towards the sign and
towards the facility. It won’t be shooting left or right of the entrance way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'TRUBA-So we can minimize the reflection on the neighbors.
MR. HUNSINGER-In looking at the site plan itself, you’re showing a fence that would go along
the perimeter of the property, and on the site plan it shows that that would be inside the
wooded area, and I was just curious as to how you were proposing to build the fence without
disturbing the vegetation.
MR. JARRETT-That is misleading because that’s, the canopy of the tree is hanging over, but it’s
not, it shouldn’t be shown that way really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-The fence will be actually constructed on the facility side of the tree trunks, and
the canopy of the trees will still hang over the fence somewhat, but that’s misleading the way it
was shown on there. Probably should clarify that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any further questions.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-The plans where you’ve got 6/12, that’s the most recent one, or there’s a?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-My question is, where exactly is the fence going, and what design did you
choose?
MR. JARRETT-The new fence, the one for shielding the headlights?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-That fence is going along the west side of the driveway, very close to Corinth
Road. It starts nominally 15 feet from the right of way and it extends 50 feet further to the
north. It’s a 50 foot long fence.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that fence is going to be on the Corinth Road?
MR. JARRETT-It runs north/south. It’s designed to shield headlights, as people enter the site,
shield them from the neighbor to the west. That was a comment the Board brought up last time
as a concern.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Right, but is it on this plan, or did I just?
MR. JARRETT-It’s on C-2, which I believe you have.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have C-1, C-3, C-4. Yes, I do. It was folded when I folded it up. All
right.
MR. JARRETT-At the last meeting we discussed a fence versus landscaping, and we provided
both.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, basically, it’s where that, is it west of all the Colorado Blue Spruces?
MR. JARRETT-It’s actually, it’s between the low growing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see it. Wood fence, set back from road 15 feet. So, all right, so it’s in
between the landscaping.
MR. JARRETT-It’s between the low growing and the higher growing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. All right. I missed that on the plan. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-While we’re on that subject, we wish to correct something on the detail. We’ve
got it shown as a four foot high fence, and we intended it to be six foot. So we’ll correct that,
and we’ll make that part of the record.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, there was a bunch of, there was a sheet with different fence styles.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We showed that as a cut for the privacy fences. There’s a color cut that was
submitted to you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right, but where is that going?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. JARRETT-That is the privacy fence. It’s just going to be six foot high.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the one that, here? No, that’s the lighting fence. That’s what I
didn’t understand. Okay. All right. I understand. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go through my own notes. It’s pretty short. I could see why you’d
want a waiver on the four to one ratio based on your lighting. I think we ought to grant that.
You can’t get much lower than your average is going to be right now. The chain link fence all
the way around, that seems fine. Now that slider that’s going to be part of that privacy fence, is
that going to be locked? Are you going to have a locking capability on that slider?
MR. O'TRUBA-Yes, absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-The Karner blue issue, I think, is relatively clear, based on the applicant’s letter.
Now is this application for Phase I only or are we looking at all three phases here?
MR. JARRETT-We’re applying for all three phases. We’ll build as economic conditions dictate.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re looking at an entire site plan, including Phase I and Phase II?
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I guess there’s a Phase III in there.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. The last two buildings.
MR. VOLLARO-The last two buildings, and that’s really all I had, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pretty
straightforward application as far as I’m concerned.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Back to the fence that Cathy was referring to, I think her original question was,
which one was it going to be, and since we’re shown four, one is X’d out.
MR. JARRETT-Well, the bottom rail fence is X’d out.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Because that would not be a privacy. I mean, I don’t care, myself, I just
didn’t know if you had one specifically in mind or it’s going to be one of those three.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we left it up to the owners, and they didn’t choose. So it may be down to
us, here tonight.
MR. STROUGH-Now, because of the location of that fence, are you going to have to get a
variance for that, because that’s in a kind of funny location. It’s towards the road. I don’t know
if you’d call that front yard, side yard. I don’t know what you would call it.
MR. JARRETT-When we initially investigated that, we did not think so. I guess we better.
MR. STROUGH-Just because of the funny placement, and I know sometimes the Zoning Board
has been particular, and, you know, even though we approve site plans with the fence, we
thought it was a good idea, they disapproved it. Now the fence that’s going to be part of the
gateway, it’s not identified as chain link, but is that what it’s going to be?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s part of the privacy fence, John. That’s the way I read it. That’s part
of the privacy fence, and the privacy fence, that shows the slider right there, but this is the
privacy fence with the slider.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s my question. Is that going to be the fence, one of these, then? Is
that what you’re saying, what Bob says?
MR. JARRETT-To answer your question, it is constructed the same way. It is constructed as a
privacy fence.
MR. STROUGH-So it’ll be one of these, whatever one. It’ll be the same fence that we used to
block the headlights as we view the front entrance of the thing. Okay. So all the fences, even
the chain link fence, all the way around, are going to be six foot, then?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And lighting at night, I like your idea of having the main lights be on motion
detectors, as Chris was asking and you responded. Now you said your main lights, are those
the pole lights, as opposed to the wall mounted?
MR. O'TRUBA-What we proposed were, I believe, wall pack lights.
MR. JARRETT-We asked for a waiver to provide only the wall pack. If we have to provide
lighting to meet Town standards, we have to have pole mounted lamps, or a vast number of
lamps to do it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well that’s fine with me. The lighting, the lower is better.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Eaves mounted wall packs.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t have a problem, and I like the idea of it being on a motion detector as
well, but my question was, which ones, it’s called the main light, not the wall packs, or yes the
wall packs?
MR. O'TRUBA-Yes, the wall packs would be the main lights.
MR. STROUGH-And the pole lights as well? Would they all go on with?
MR. JARRETT-There are no pole mounted lights. In the waiver request, there are no pole
mounted lights.
MR. STROUGH-No pole mounted lights?
MR. JARRETT-No, strictly on the buildings, strictly on the eaves of the buildings.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, I like that, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, isn’t there two pole lights on the driveway?
MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry. Yes, within the site, you’re right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So there are pole lights?
MR. JARRETT-Out on the entrance road, correct. I was misunderstanding your question.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-While we’re on the idea of lighting, your sign lighting, is that going to be
downcast or up cast?
MR. JARRETT-That sign lighting is an up cast light in the landscaping, and it’s facing due
north.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, that’s what I’ve noticed over here. We’ve got a new office that went
in over there, and it’s brand new, and they’ve got the up cast lights, and it’s really bright, and it
lights up the whole sky. Downcast lights to light up just the sign seems to make more sense. If
you have lighting up on top downcast, do you know what I’m talking about?
MR. JARRETT-I think the low wattage will correct that, but if you prefer downcast lighting,
we’ll.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d the Planning Board members, when they leave tonight, to look at that
sign out there, and where they have up cast.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I like downcast lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d like to make a decision on this application before we leave here
tonight.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll go with downcast if that’s.
MR. STROUGH-I think the downcast would be a better idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Unless of course you wanted to take a break and do field trip later on or
something.
MR. JARRETT-I’d just as soon not wait until dark.
MR. O'TRUBA-Downcast lighting isn’t a problem.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. O'TRUBA-This particular lighting fixture that we have here can be mounted on top of the
sign to be shown down at it instead of into the landscaping up. So it has both capabilities.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Great. Good. Nice landscaping. The maples, the spruces, the burning
bush. I like the combination. It seems to provide something for all seasons.
MR. JARRETT-Compliment, Trent, he did it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I took a look at, this is commercial industrial zoning, and I took a look
at some of the uses that could be here, adult use, asphalt plant, lumber yard, cement
manufacturing, chemical plant, fuel supply depot, heavy equipment service, junk yard, railroad
repair, that’s a likely one, sand, gravel, mining. In other words, if you consider all the potential
uses that could be at this site, this seems to be a rather minimal impact, to me, at least in my
thinking now, and so that’s my list, because Chris, Cathy and Bob and the rest have asked the
other questions. So thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any else you gentlemen wanted to add?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the
public hearing. I’ll open up the public hearing on this application. Do either of you gentlemen
want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRANK USHER
MR. USHER-My name’s Frank Usher. I live at 461 Corinth Road, which is on the corner of
Pinello, directly across the road from where these gentlemen want to put this thing. I just want
to let you know I am opposed to it, to start with, naturally. I stated that the last time you had a
meeting, and I think Mrs. LaBombard stated that anything that could be put on the Corinth
Road would be a help because it’s the Corinth Road. I think what’s happened since I’ve lived
there, you did say it, and anyway, and I take offense to it, and I think there’s nothing wrong
with the Corinth Road, other than the reason the Planning Board and the other people that were
on it previous to you who let everybody go in there. When I moved there, it was just
residential. It’s changed. Now I’m completely surrounded with business, a trailer park that
you let go in there, that’s an awful mess, and, you know, a motorcycle shop on the other side
one time, and as far as business, the whole thing has been changed now. It’s not residential
anymore. Is this true? Apparently that’s what’s happened.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the zone is now, Commercial Industrial zone.
MR. USHER-Can you tell me exactly when that did change?
MR. STROUGH-Probably with the new zoning. I don’t know what it was before either.
MR. USHER-Because it was residential all the way up to where, beyond the pole line, when I
moved there. I’ve been there 45 years.
MR. STROUGH-2000 the change came?
MR. HILTON-2002 the most recent changes were adopted. This particular property is zoned
Commercial Industrial, and to the west of VanDusen Road, along Corinth Road, is SR-1A. On
the south side of Corinth Road we show it as being SR-20. So they’re residential as to travel to
the west, but as you travel to the east, it gets more, you know, like this property is Commercial
Industrial, and they’re also, I believe, Light Industrial zoning to the east.
MR. STROUGH-So is this the, as far as commercial zoning, is this the furthest west of any of it?
MR. HILTON-It appears to me, with the small little vicinity map I have in here, as I said
VanDusen Road east.
MR. MAC EWAN-What was your question, John?
MR. STROUGH-Is there more commercially zoned property west of here, or is this the last of
the commercial zoning?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, beyond that would be the old West Mountain tractor sales facility, and if
you went all the way up Corinth Road, on the bend, just before you got to the horse stables,
there’s a commercial lot in there that’s part of the Hudson Pointe PUD.
MR. STROUGH-So there is some more.
MR. MAC EWAN-One, way up the road, probably another mile, mile and a half up the road.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Usher?
MR. USHER-Yes. The other thing I can’t really understand is why these gentlemen selected this
piece of property for this, when you’ve got all the opening throughout Queensbury. You’ve got
down on the Carey Road there, which is industrial, the whole thing down there. Why they
would pick a plot between two homes to put this thing, it’s beyond me, that’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something that the developer chose.
MR. USHER-Yes. It just seems to me that he could find someplace else to put it, that’s all. You
were talking about the signs and the lighting and this and that. Could you tell me where the
sign, is the sign going to be out by the road? Is the sign going to be back? Are they going to
leave any of the tree line there?
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got a map up there on the Board, but the sign is.
MR. USHER-It’s right on the Corinth Road?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just off the Corinth Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-It probably sits off the Corinth Road right of way maybe 15 feet or so,
estimated.
MR. USHER-The road itself that’s going in there, where is that in reference to Pinello Road? Is
it directly across?
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be east of Pinello Road. East of Pinello Road, probably just an
estimate, maybe, probably 50, no.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d say about 30, the entrance way?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-About 50.
MR. USHER-Fifty feet east?
MR. MAC EWAN-East, toward the City, toward the Northway.
MR. USHER-Yes, okay. I was just wondering, that’s all. No, I don’t really have anything more
to say. I guess, it’s just that I do object to going there to start with. That’s all. That’s the only
reason I came out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you for your comments. Did you want to speak?
PAUL BAIRD
MR. BAIRD-I think I said enough the last time. I guess, if this is going in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. BAIRD-Paul Baird, 462 Corinth Road, right next door to what’s going in. If this does go in,
which it probably will, more than likely, but the only thing that my wife was worried about is
and where the sign was going and how big is it going to be, and how it’s lighted, so forth, and
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
she wanted to know, why they started digging on Tuesday a.m. before we came the last time,
they told us for testing the soil, I guess, something like that, but, whatever.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be true. That’s what they were doing it for.
MR. BAIRD-Okay, and then how soon they’ll blacktop it, and fence so the dirt doesn’t go in the
pool. Like a guy was mowing today and the dirt was going in, but anyway, things like that
she’s worried about, and like I know, I understand what you’re saying, that you could get other
people in there that aren’t so desirable or whatever. So, well, another thing that I can’t
understand is is there any big trucks going in here, per se?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask them that question, but I don’t think the facility is, I mean, there
may be something like a U-haul truck or something like that.
MR. BAIRD-Well, to my mind, where that telephone pole is, it doesn’t seem a right place to put
a road in. It may be, maybe I’m all wrong, but it just doesn’t seem to me it’s possible to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-The road is about 30 foot off the utility pole.
MR. BAIRD-That’s about all I’ve got. Not much else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BAIRD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone else want to comment? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you gentlemen want to come back up. Specifically I guess two comments
that Mr. Baird made was relative to the fence between his parcel. I mean, we’re talking that
stockade style fence, similar to what you’ve shown in your photographs, correct?
MR. O’TRUBA-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any plans for paving the roadways, putting a service road in there?
Or is it going to be crushed stone or what?
MR. JARRETT-We proposed, I’m trying to recall, I think we proposed crushed stone on the
whole.
MR. MARTIN-We’re paving the service road into the gateway, and after the gateway, it’ll be a
crushed stone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and as far as truck traffic Mr. Baird was also asking about.
MR. JARRETT-It’s not designed for large trucks. We may, as you say, see U-hauls at times, and
that type of thing, but it’s not designed for very large trucks. It’s not designed for semi’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone wouldn’t bring in a North American Van Line or something like
that? I’m thinking of radiuses in there.
MR. JARRETT-They’d have a tough time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. JARRETT-No.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions Board members wanted to ask at this time.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I came across C.T. Male’s list and I’m just wondering if all those things.
MR. JARRETT-We have a letter signoff from them June I believe. Yes, it’s all been addressed.
Would you concur, George?
MR. HILTON-Yes. We do have a signoff letter.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we had that signoff letter at the last meeting.
MR. HILTON-I’m not sure. You may have. It may have come the day after or something, but
we do have it. Yes.
MR. RINGER-One more question Mr. Baird had was how soon you planned on blacktopping
and bringing in that crushed stone, timeframe used, the dust and stuff going into, did you have
a timeframe on that?
MR. JARRETT-Have you thought about construction time?
MR. O’TRUBA-I would guess it would be after the pool season this year.
MR. JARRETT-I think stabilization of the soil is going to be important, whether we pave it or
not, because it could be very dusty without any stabilization. I think the stone may help.
MR. RINGER-Right. Bringing the stone in is going to create more dust.
MR. JARRETT-Exactly, but if we build the road base as we go in and dump as we build in to the
site, we can minimize that dust.
MR. RINGER-When you’re looking at Phase II and Phase III, the time to expand that would be a
time where it wouldn’t affect him. We can’t put that in the conditions, probably, but it’s
something for you to consider.
MR. O'TRUBA-The intensity of the project actually is back beyond, I think what was it, 300 feet
from the road, actually, where the property, actually the major property use is.
MR. JARRETT-Would you build that access road going in, stabilize it with stone so you
minimize that dust?
MR. O'TRUBA-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Stipulate to that as a.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’d like to just make a comment to Mr. Usher. I probably should
have just, I just don’t want him to leave, maybe, you probably misinterpreted what I said.
Maybe I didn’t say it clearly enough. It did seem like a very offensive comment, and I certainly
don’t want you to leave thinking that it was. I guess what I was thinking of, and it wasn’t until
I went, and even though I travel up Corinth Road every day, I see mostly the industrial part of
it, commercial part of it, and I don’t really, I guess all these years I’ve been more tuned in to, or
tuned out of the homes along Corinth Road, and I’ve been more tuned in to the businesses on
the road, and it wasn’t until after the last meeting that it dawned on me that this was basically
the line where Corinth Road goes from commercial to residential, and I guess the first time we
went over this that hadn’t registered yet. So I can see where you’re coming from, definitely,
and I guess the comment that I made was because I was thinking along the lines, well, this
seems like a relatively harmless type of business that could be something with more of an
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
impact, something that’s a little dirtier, and the people that were putting this in seemed to want
to make their site nice and aesthetic, with the fence and the plantings. So I thought, well, this is
a nice thing to have another nice business, but again, I don’t want you to think I was offensive
because it didn’t really hit that that was basically on the border where the industrial turns to
more residential.
MR. USHER-The point I was trying to make was I was there before any of the streets were.
Each year it gets more and more and more. What are you going to do.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Folks, I don’t want to get into a dialogue going back and forth here, because I
have closed the public hearing, and we do record our meetings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’re right, and you asked, and I just felt like I wanted to make
that clear, and I understand where you’re coming from.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, anything else?
MR. HILTON-No. Nothing at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SARATOGA WEST END DEVELOPMENT, 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
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about a motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Tom, is there anywhere on the notation that the main lighting will be
motion detector activated? I just can’t find it.
MR. JARRETT-We stated it at that last meeting. I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-Well, stating it and having it on the plans.
MR. JARRETT-I thought we put it on, but I don’t know as I can. Well, we’ll stipulate to it now
and add it to the plan if we can’t find it.
MR. STROUGH-The other issue was the style of fence. If the Board has a preference. We’ve got
two privacy with lattice and one privacy with (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-I think if it’s a draw, let them pick it.
MR. MAC EWAN-As long as it’s selected out of one of the four that were submitted.
MR. VOLLARO-One of those four, six feet high, that’s good enough. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the other issue, the way I see it, is approving it in phases or all together.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s been submitted as one application, and I think I asked the question
about whether we were viewing Phase II and III as part of Phase I, and the applicant stated that
this, that they’ve submitted a complete application, and the build out will occur as the
economics prevail.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a large enough project that I would see that you would have to do a
phasing unless it was stretched out over a number of years.
MR. HILTON-The only concern I guess I would have at this time is the clearing more than
anything. If you go in and you clear the entire site and put the gravel down, which I think the
plan indicates that they’re only going to clear.
MR. JARRETT-Now we show on, one of these plans we show that the clearing will only occur
as the buildings are constructed.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll leave the trees on the remainder of the site, until those new buildings are
added.
MR. HILTON-That would be my only concern. If you have a lot sitting out there and just
gravel, but like you just mentioned, you have indicated you’re not going to do that. So that’s
probably my main concern.
MR. VOLLARO-So just to clear up, we are approving this as Phase I, II, and III. Is that correct?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-These are the only issues that I see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Revise C-2, Drawing C-2, to indicate a six foot high fence in lieu of the four
foot high fence as shown on the plat.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve got all fencing six foot. The fence will be one of the four types of
the post master works styles that was offered.
MR. MAC EWAN-And granting a waiver on the lighting ratios.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Specifying a downcast light on the sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that the access road will be paved.
MR. VOLLARO-And John wanted motion detectors added to the drawing.
MR. RINGER-I think he said the entrance road is going to be paved only 30 feet and then it’s
going to be gravel.
MR. JARRETT-Right to the entrance it will be paved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right to the locking gate entrance, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I think I’ve got it. Do you want me to do it, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2003 SARATOGA WEST END
DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry
Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 21-2003 Applicant: Saratoga West End Development
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Delwyn Mulder, Ronald Newell
Zone: CI-1A
Location: Corinth Road
Applicant proposes the construction of ten (10) 3,000 sq. ft. self-storage units with associated
parking, lighting and landscaping. Self-Storage units in the CI-1A zone require Site Plan
Review and approval from the Planning Board.
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 308.15-1-37
Lot size: 4.22 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 20, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/22/03, and
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
8/26 Staff Notes [Memo]
8/19 Notice of Public Hearing
8/6 Meeting Notice
7/15 New Info received
7/14 Mr. MacEwan from K. O’Brien, DEC
6/20 Jarrett-Martin from G. Hilton
6/19 K. O’Brien, DEC from Jarrett-Martin
6/19 CT Male Sign-Off received 8/26/03
5/20 Planning Board resolution, Tabled
5/20 Staff Notes
5/20 Jarrett-Martin responses to CT Male eng. comments & staff notes
5/14 Warren Co. Planning
5/13 Notice of Public Hearing
5/12 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 Water Dept. comments
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 20, 2003 and August 26, 2003, 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 Agency 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:
1. On Plan C-2 all fencing will be noted as six foot, and the privacy fence and the entry fence
will be one of the four styles, it’ll be Post Master Works as submitted by the applicant.
2. A notation will be added to C-3 that the main lighting will be motion detector activated.
3. We grant the lighting ratio waiver.
4. The entrance road will be paved from Corinth Road to the locking gate.
5. Sign lighting will be downcast.
Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 SEQR TYPE: Y. OZBAY, USA GAS AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING GAS STATION W/REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF
SERVICE GAS STATION/CONVENIENT MART WITH NEW GAS ISLANDS AND
CANOPIES. GASOLINE STATIONS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. RESOLUTION SEEKING
LA STATUS: 7/15/03 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LA STATUS: 8/19/03 SEQR &
SP REVIEW: 8/19/03 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03
TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32, 31 LOT SIZE: 0.14 AC., 0.20 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020, 030
RICHARD JONES & PAUL HUMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing on July 22 was left open.
nd
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-I don’t really have anything new to add. We have a letter from Soil and Water.
We have revised plans, which I hope you’ve received, and I think we’re ready to go tonight
with the SEQRA determination, and this item has been scheduled to appear before the Zoning
Board tomorrow evening, and we will have this back before you again in September for final
action. That’s all I have at this time, if you have any questions. Otherwise, we’re all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we want to do the SEQRA tonight, the SEQRA determination, and we’ll
move it on to the ZBA to get the variance and come back and see us. Okay. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. Richard Jones, agent for the owner. Paul Human from Valley
Equipment. Basically we’ve addressed the concerns and comments and put everything together
in one package for the Planning Board. We have the final signoff from C.T. Male Associates. In
our discussions with Jim Houston from C.T. Male Associates, we did agree to change the flat
valve that we had on the catch basin to a gate valve. He felt that would be a more positive
method of protecting the contamination flow into the drywell. As I had indicated to him, the
flat valve was a preference of Warren County Soil and Water, but they really, they don’t care if
it’s a gate valve or a flat valve. So we’re agreeing to the gate valve at this point. I think
basically we’ve addressed all of the comments, both from Staff and the review engineer for the
Town, and I’d be happy to answer any specific questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-In an effort maybe just to move this thing along tonight, let’s keep questions
relative to SEQRA, and any details we need to still work out with the site plan, architecture,
landscaping, so on and so forth we’ll wait on that a couple of weeks. Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-I have nothing. Just the signoff from C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The same.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to try and stick with your direction, Mr. Chairman.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll keep you on a tight rein.
MR. VOLLARO-I thank you, sir. What I’d really like to describe, I think the last time we met,
we talked about somewhat intruding that 30.5%. Now that’s right on the edge of that
permeability requirement. That would be something that I would consider in the SEQRA.
Right now you’re at 30.5 permeable.
MR. JONES-We’re actually at 31.9 now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re moving up.
MR. JONES-We’re moving up.
MR. VOLLARO-And how did you achieve that? Just quick.
MR. JONES-Well, originally we had parking spaces all along that east property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay.
MR. JONES-And as you can see, we’ve taken out three and replaced it with green area. We’ve
reduced the square footage requirements for the parking based upon the mechanical and the
storage space that’s in the building, proposed in the building usage.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. JONES-We then went to the interior of the exterior walls for our measurements, and we
were able to actually reduce the parking. I think we started at 13, and I think we’re down at 10
or 11 now. So we were able to pick up some additional green space.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we are getting beyond that marginal 30.5?
MR. JONES-Yes, we are.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what my real concern was there. Now, I’d like to just start to describe
the sheet flows in the east, just so, I think I’ve got this. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll go and give
you my take on this, and you tell me where we’re going. We’re at the north entrance, and
across of that is a slotted drain.
MR. JONES-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that slotted drain takes on water, and it feeds it through this
flapper valve or gate valve, and it gets into both of these 8 inch diameter drywells. So that’s,
because I’m looking for protection of the brook mostly, in my own mind, in terms of SEQRA.
So that’s a major change to the site.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how you’re arriving at that. Right?
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m happy with the design there. It looks good to me. Okay. Then
there’s a change, I guess, and that also gets into the SEQRA thing, and that’s to confirm that
between SP-2 of 8/8 and 8/20, there’s a change to the deep drywell. In other words, you’ve
raised that inlet pipe from the 8/8 drawing up to the 8/20 drawing. The inlet pipe on the five
foot deep drywell has now been raised to the top, as opposed to what it was before on the
bottom. Is that correct?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. JONES-That’s correct. When we started out, Warren County Water and Sewer really didn’t
have a preference. We were looking at bringing it into the bottom. They would prefer to bring
it in to the top so that we have a the full depth of the drywell to work with.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So basically 8/20 brings that to that point, the 8/20 design raises that up?
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see where the difference between the flapper and a gate.
MR. JONES-Yes. We provided that information.
MR. VOLLARO-Traffic wise, as far as SEQRA is concerned, I think traffic is something we’re
going to talk about at site plan, Mr. Chairman, is that correct, or do you want to get into?
MR. MAC EWAN-It could be part of SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have comments on it, and I don’t, I’m not hard over either one
way or another, but I’ll give you my comments on traffic. Let’s see. On the curb cut on
Glenwood Avenue, I would prefer to see, there’s an in and an out there. Ingress/egress. Would
prefer to see the egress with a right turn only onto the light on US 9, as opposed to trying to
make a left turn against all that traffic that comes up northbound on Glenwood Avenue. It’s a
tough left. I’ve tried that left a couple of times. And that’s just a comment, really, and we can
talk about that. I don’t know how this impinges on SEQRA, but I think that it makes it a very
hard left turn, and I would prefer a right turn there only. I’m in agreement with the one way. I
know Mr. Strough is not, but I think looking at this and watching it carefully, maybe some
people will try to sneak through that one way and get out, but I think that for traffic that’s
coming northbound on 9, that one way is appropriate. I also see one of the tougher operations
is, again, the curb cut to the north, with that egress trying to go south on US 9, it’s got to cross
traffic there, and that’s going to be.
MR. RINGER-It can’t. There’s no left turn there, Bob.
MR. JONES-Yes, there’s no left turn.
MR. RINGER-The only way they can do it is to come out onto Glenwood.
MR. JONES-We’ve already done the signage. We’re forcing everybody.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ve already done the signage there. So there’s no left turn there.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t see that. Okay, and that was really all I had in there. A site
plan issue is the trees. Mr. Strough, I’m sure, will take care of the tree problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-When we get to site plan review, Mr. Chairman, is what I’m trying to say, and
that’s really all I have, that concerns, and I have no problem with this, with respect to SEQRA,
by the way. That’s me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? John?
MR. STROUGH-My main concern was the stormwater, and I thought we were going to get
some kind of written evaluation of the stormwater that included, or at least updated, I know
that you submitted this, Mr. Jones.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. JONES-Yes, there is an updated one with that. Somewhere, you should have an updated, it
should say revised on it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve got one June 13, 2003.
MR. JONES-There’s a revised one.
MR. STROUGH-Did you get the revised stormwater report?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking. I’ve got June 13. I don’t see a revised stormwater report yet, but
th
that doesn’t mean it’s not in here, John. Give me a second. The paper chase is on. Hold on a
minute.
MR. JONES-It was submitted with my letter to C.T. Male. The first letter, I think it was August
8. It was part of that submission to C.T. Male, the revised stormwater.
th
MR. STROUGH-Well, I can even overlook that, because we’ve got some of the most focused
eyes in the whole county, that being Jim Lieberman, looking at this project. So I feel
comfortable with having him look at that, and if he says he likes the stormwater, then it’s got to
be pretty good, even though I don’t have that written report update that you’re talking about.
It’s not going to hang me up. It’s just something we mentioned, and I would have liked to have
seen, but it’s not going to hang me up.
MR. JONES-We do have a final signoff from C.T. Male on the stormwater and everything. I
don’t know if you have that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. The only issue was that valve, and I guess you’re willing to go with the
gate valve.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And Jim Lieberman says he doesn’t care one way or the other. So, no, as far as
the other potential SEQRA issues, it’s an existing site. It’s zoned HC. I love the idea put
forward by Marilyn VanDyke, but I think it’s a little late.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know.
MR. VOLLARO-The Town would have to buy the property, if we wanted to put that kind of a
thing there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Well, I didn’t realize that was a gateway into the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Things change. We went from bow and arrows to something else.
MR. JONES-From Glens Falls.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-From Glens Falls. Yes. That direction.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the foot candles, lighting would be an issue, I think a SEQRA issue, but in
this case, it’s certainly lower. We have here a 23.8 average and a 17.9 foot candle average,
compared to the Cumberland Farms of 28. So I think we’re better, and I think we’re in good
shape here. So, as far as SEQRA issues, I think I feel pretty comfortable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-If John’s happy, I’m happy.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MS. RADNER-Craig, before you go to public hearing, in light of having Marilyn’s letter in the
file, I think it would be a good idea to have the applicant just briefly address the historical use
of the site and the fact that this is a re-use, not a disturbing of new land.
MR. JONES-I don’t even know what letter you’re referring to.
MS. RADNER-That’s not good.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was a good letter. It would interest you.
MR. VOLLARO-My wife has asked me to keep it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. I’m keeping it, too.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s if I can find it, Cathy. I always say yes to her.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was just reading it. I don’t know where I put it, but you’re right. It’s a
good letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Here it is, Office of the Town Historian. I’ve got to keep that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a great letter.
MR. VOLLARO-It would have been a great idea for the Town to buy that and put a historical
building. That would have been really neat.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, you know, I think that that’s an idea, but we could do it somewhere
else, have a little visitor’s interpretative center.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Jeffrey Caliper had a trading post right there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know, but.
MS. RADNER-My concern would be the first paragraph, that you could just briefly let us know
if you know of anything on the site that’s of historical or archeological significance.
MR. JONES-Not that we’re aware of, and we really haven’t done any on-site excavation.
MS. RADNER-And how long has the site been used as a gas station?
MR. JONES-I would say 30 years anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-A minimum of 30 years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a date of 1960 on the site plan. Forty-three years.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, this is an unusual twist, because usually when I do SEQRA, I close the
public hearing, but in this case, because we’re going to continue this application in another
month, I want to leave the public hearing open and do the SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean do the SEQRA and leave the public hearing open.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I said. Okay with you?
MS. RADNER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because typically close the public hearing to do SEQRA, but because this is
an unusual twist in things.
MS. RADNER-It still has to go to the Zoning Board and it has to come back here, then, if they
get their variances.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. That’s why I want to leave the public hearing open.
MS. RADNER-Your other choice is to open a new public hearing on the issues of site plan
review.
MR. MAC EWAN-That means re-advertising. What’s your preference?
MR. VOLLARO-Leave the public hearing open. I don’t think you want to re-advertise this.
MR. HILTON-No. If you can leave it open and do the SEQRA, or complete the SEQRA, that’s
fine. I would just leave it open.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “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. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological historic or other natural or
cultural resources or community or neighborhood character”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats or threatened or endangered species”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“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. HUNSINGER-No.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in
one through five”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
cause the establishment of a CEA?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 37-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
Y. OZBAY, USA Gas, 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
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck tomorrow night. We’ll table this application to what meeting date
do you want to do this, the second meeting of September?
MR. RINGER-We may have three meetings now.
MR. HILTON-Well, we had this one planned anyway for site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have three or four, I can guarantee you that.
MR. HILTON-Well, three definitely. Because of Wal-Mart. Why don’t we say the first meeting
of September.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we did the Taft and Hoffman on the first. That’s why I don’t want to
load that up.
MR. HILTON-No, I know, and we’ve got other items for September that it’s not as large an
agenda as you would think. I don’t think we’re going to load it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Agenda control, remember. All right. We’ll table it to our first meeting in
September.
MR. JONES-Are there any issues that we need to address before the next meeting?
MR. STROUGH-Well, one, the 24 foot back up area that you need in parking area I think is
something that, it either needs a variance on or, the Code says, and even Craig addressed it in
his letter, as to what’s parking and what’s not. He referred to the 25 foot wide drive aisle, and
before I even read that letter I saw that might be an issue.
MR. HILTON-I don’t want to speak for the Zoning Administrator, but, I mean, we’ve talked
about this, and I think, Dick, you’ve spoken with Craig about it, the fact that they are existing
spaces, I think, or have been used in the past as existing parking spaces.
MR. STROUGH-Might be grandfathered?
MR. HILTON-May be grandfathered, and not, you know, if it were a brand new site and they
were putting new parking spaces in, certainly you’d need that 24 foot drive aisle.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you noticed the same thing, then?
MR. HILTON-Absolutely. We’ve already talked about it. If you’d like, I can, between now and
then, have Craig address that issue as well, Craig Brown, that is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues? I guess not. Thank you. Okay. Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2003 SKETCH PLAN STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WESTERN
RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: WESTERN RESERVE & THEODORE RAWSON
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST
MT. RD., SOUTH OF POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION
OF A 34.535 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 13 LOTS – 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 MULTI-
FAMILY W/18 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 TAX
MAP NO. 300-1-19, 20/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 34.8 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing is not scheduled for Sketch.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-We have a re-submittal, as the applicant has presented it, for a new submission or
updated submission, if you will, for Western Reserve on West Mountain Road. We, Staff, have
deemed this to be a new application. It is now being presented as a cluster with a new cul de
sac, additional single family lots, but clustered, built on which would appear to be a Town road.
The multifamily portion has be relocated to the southeast corner of the site. In terms of where
to go from here, at the time of Preliminary, a density calculation will need to be done. This
time, as it is a cluster, you have to take into account easements, water bodies and slopes in
excess of 15%, as opposed to 25%. Again, we view this as a new application, given that it’s a
cluster now, where it wasn’t before. A complete redesign, the addition of a road that will most
likely be a Town road, again, those are our concerns should this proceed to Preliminary. That’s
all we have at this time.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper on behalf of the applicants. This change was done
because when we were here at the last meeting, the Board wanted a change in the plan to
reduce the number of curb cuts on West Mountain Road, and we had previously had six single
family lots with combined driveways, that there were previously three curb cuts for single
family and then the roadway went to the townhouse development. Now the mix has been
changed so that there are more single family lots, 12 rather than 6, and there are fewer
townhouse lots now, 18. The density is exactly the same. There are still 30 units, which is the
same as it was before, and in terms of what George just read, we had been asked by Staff last
time to do the density calculation based upon the cluster criteria. So we’ve already submitted
that. We’ll be happy to submit it again. I think it’s actually right on the plan, density
calculation. That’s not true. We’ve submitted it separately, that talked about the slopes and the
easements, etc., but in any case, it’s the same density, but in order to adhere to the Board’s
wishes to reduce the curb cuts, the project had to get flip flopped so that the road now goes to
the single family because the single family needed, obviously, driveways for the houses, and
those driveways are now off of what would be correctly a new Town road. Just to remind the
Board, this is a longstanding industrial site that the Hayes have spent a lot of time and money
partially cleaning up and this project would afford the site the opportunity to be cleaned up so
that it could be re-developed. The pond will still stay there, in its smaller fashion, as a visual
enhancement, and there are only two curb cuts on West Mountain Road now on what I believe
is about 900 feet approximately, which is far less than what the Code calls for, even on the
Travel Corridor or arterial.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, I was pleasantly surprised when I pulled this out and took a look at it
and saw that, I mean, I just like the fact that I had made the suggestion that maybe we could just
keep the buffer t there on West Mountain Road and then put everything in behind, so you
would hardly even know it’s even there, and it really shows that you guys are really trying, and
I think it looks fantastic. I guess my question is, these lots that the houses are on are about a
third of an acre.
MR. LAPPER-Approximately, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and just as far as drawing to scale here.
MR. LAPPER-It is drawn to scale.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So this is, if this is drawn to scale, this is really not bad at all. I
wish there were more people here. Take a look at like let’s just say, pick house number ten, on
Lot Number Ten, and if that house is drawn to scale, with the same relationship as one of those
rental units, there’s not that much difference in size, when you think about it. The house is a
little wider, or maybe, I mean, maybe the rental unit is one and a half times the size of the
house, as far as the amount of land that it’s taking up to, you know, to build it on. I think that’s
an excellent, it’s good.
MR. LAPPER-Actually, Cathy, I was wrong. These are more than a half acre. So these are
larger than a third of an acre.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, I was just looking like, the frontage is about 100 feet, and
they go back about, one inch is 50, so they go back about, they’re about 100 by 200, which is
20,000, yes, that’s right. That’s the little, almost close to a half an acre. Well, I think that’s great,
and the units aren’t huge and monstrous, compared to the size of the houses. The landscaping,
now these trees that are here, the trees that are on here, are those?
MR. LAPPER-A lot of the trees are existing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That’s what I’m saying. How do you know the ones that are
existing from the ones that aren’t?
MR. LAPPER-Only Tom Nace knows that, and he’s not here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Only Tom Nace knows that, but what I’m saying is at the end.
MR. LAPPER-There’s a substantial number along West Mountain Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but at the end, these are the trees that are going to be there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and certainly the landscaping plan can be beefed up.
MR. RINGER-This is only Sketch.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, this is only Sketch, but there are a lot of trees on the site.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that clustering effect is excellent, and I think where you have
those units located is excellent.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We actually walked out of here last time and said, hey, maybe with
some imagination we can come back and give the Board what they asked for.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is exactly what I had, it was in the back of my mind. It was
unbelievable. I think it’s wonderful. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have a couple of comments. I guess the first one I have is, I’m trying
to determine the zone itself, and the use of, really, what has been determined by the applicant to
be rental units, and this is this concern that was raised by one of the folks that came in, one of
the neighbors talking about having this as a commercial entity, and I’m still searching my mind
over that one. You know if people bought all of these townhouse units, everybody had,
purchased one unit and they owned it, then I could see that there was an arms length
relationship between the owner and a future renter, if they wanted to rent them out. A lot of
people rent those things out.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you need to be careful, and Cathi, jump in here any time, that
housing, apartment wise, townhouse wise, is not considered a commercial enterprise as such, as
we would think of a convenient store, landscaping business, or whatever.
MS. RADNER-That’s correct. This isn’t a hotel where it’s going to be a different person every
week. People are going to move in there and live there. If the owner of Unit 9 decides they
want to rent their house, it doesn’t change into a commercial entity just because suddenly Unit 9
is being rented instead of owner occupied.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but we understand that Unit 9 has a direct ownership. It’s not
owned by this entity Hayes and Hayes.
MR. LAPPER-But Unit 9 is a single family residence.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, with a deed.
MR. LAPPER-With a deed.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s ownership involved there.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-The rental units themselves are going to be owned by, let’s call it Hayes and
Hayes, whatever you want to call it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And Hayes and Hayes, as a corporation, will be in the rental business. That’s
the only thing that I had.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, it’s actually Western Reserve, LLC. They formed a Limited
Liability Company for the project.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine.
MR. LAPPER-But that is no different, Bob, that all the other townhouse projects in Town, and
the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that that’s a residential, that the type of use
is residential, as the Town Attorney is saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Has that determination been made?
MS. RADNER-Absolutely.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then that’s fine with me. As far as the areas of lupine are concerned,
I’ve already, in my mind, written off the Karner blue butterfly as having any impact on this site
whatsoever.
MR. LAPPER-Well, obviously we’ve avoided it, but I now, we have a study that we’ll submit to
you for next month that the LA Group has gone out, they were there for eight weeks. They
went twice a week, except when it was pouring rain. They have their field notes, and there
were no butterflies, but in any case, we’re staying away from it as you can see with the design.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s very gracious of you. After reading Kathy O’Brien’s letters, all of
them, and taking a look at what she said about this site, versus what she says about the power
lines, she’s concentrating in that area.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a significant area, and basically this can’t support a habitat.
MR. VOLLARO-And I looked at the, you know, the reconstruction of lupine areas and all of
that. No, the answer is I don’t see any Karner blue butterfly implications from this site at all, for
me, that’s for me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what about, I know, but I have a question first, but what about the
plan that was brought to us where we have three different case scenarios where this is, lupine is
there.
MR. RINGER-This is not an approved plan, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true.
MR. RINGER-The Town hasn’t acted on that yet.
MR. LAPPER-But either way, this site can’t support it, just two little patches.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’ve got a couple of other questions. The road leading in to the rental unit
is going to be private. In other words, this is not a Town maintenance issue.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-The other road is a Town maintenance issue.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because they need to have frontage.
MR. VOLLARO-We have private people on it.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-The way I look at it.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly right.
MR. VOLLARO-The Western Reserve LLC will be paying the freight on that, so the taxpayers
don’t get burdened by that road maintenance.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-It’s no more than a driveway.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, just a long driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-The pond itself, the dark areas on that pond, now, you know, there’s been a lot
of people that have come up here and talked about the depth of the pond, how high the water
rises, how bad it gets in the spring in high water. That’s something that when you get to site
plan, I would have, I’d like to see some pretty good data on that.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Tom Nace is obviously engineering it. The pond will be contained to the
dark line. Tom has come at the last meeting and spoken about the fact that that is groundwater
that was excavated to get sand to make concrete, and so that’s only groundwater, and the
reason why it gets bigger is because it’s not contained now, and it will be contained. So it was
very wide and very shallow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what he’s going to do swaling around for containing?
MR. LAPPER-I think they were talking about riprap and some stuff that would be done
attractively.
MR. VOLLARO-Now I know we’re going to raise the issue here tonight. The private road I
don’t think we can talk about boulevarding. I know that there’ll be a comment possibly on
boulevarding, but I, Larry Ringer had discussed, some time ago, that it looks like the fire
department’s not happy with our boulevard entrance.
MR. RINGER-No, the fire department’s not happy with boulevards. I mean, if we had our way,
we’d prefer not to have boulevards. It’s not up to us to tell you.
MR. LAPPER-We would look to the Planning Board to tell us what to do with the entrance.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can please some of the people some of the time, you can’t please all of
the people all of the time.
MR. RINGER-The problem with the fire companies is it makes the driveways narrower trying
to get in and out.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, when I go up to see Charlie Brush’s operation up here at the
Cedars, I drove in there, that’s a boulevard entrance there. It’s pretty narrow. I mean, looking
at a truck getting up there, it just looks difficult to negotiate. Maybe we’ve got very good
drivers. Maybe when Larry’s driving one of those trucks.
MR. RINGER-Larry doesn’t drive them, but one of the things that, you know, our drivers are
good drivers, and under normal circumstances, they’re just driving a truck, they do a good job,
but the sirens going off and they see smoke in the air, that acceleration gets there and you’re
making that turn, and we’ve taken a lot of those areas out. We’ve done damage to our truck, to
the tune of six, seven thousand dollars every time we hit one of those darn things. Fortunately,
we used to do that at Northway Plaza all the time before the Home Depot went in.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why we fixed that.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we fixed it now, but I think we put about $25,000 worth of damage on our
trucks just in that one Plaza.
MR. MAC EWAN-Off the record?
MR. RINGER-Off the record.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I have anything else. I think John’s going to attack that boulevard
thing a little bit, maybe we can talk about it a little more there, but other than that, I think it’s a
good, a much improved site plan than we had before. Much improved.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s start it off with that. We’ve already, we went with a boulevard
concept with these cul de sacs because the thinking was that.
MR. VOLLARO-Blockage.
MR. STROUGH-For emergency access purposes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I still support that concept.
MR. STROUGH-It was better.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I do, too.
MR. STROUGH-But there’s also an aesthetic reason, too. I mean, if you look at Hudson Pointe,
I mean, I think that’s one of the nicest looking neighborhoods in Queensbury, and part of the
reason is because of the entrance. You’re overwhelmed with that entrance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You are.
MR. STROUGH-You could have a crappy house and it still would look great. So there is, I’m
torn, I mean, Larry, certainly.
MR. RINGER-I’m not saying don’t do it, John. I’m only saying, you cited several times the
emergency services wanting these things, and I’m just saying, don’t say emergency services
want these things. Emergency service doesn’t want them. If we want them, you know, fine, but
don’t use emergency services as the reason for putting them in.
MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that there is room to move the lots over, you know, the few
feet, to the south. So if the Board wants it, there’s room to accommodate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’ll have support on that idea.
MR. VOLLARO-Supposing we were to say we would limit the.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s not get bogged down in super details of the subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to give the applicant an opinion that I have, and maybe you do
150 to 200 foot of boulevard and then swing it into a regular road.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. LAPPER-That’s typical, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right.
MR. LAPPER-It looks nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s talk about the blue lupine. I mean, even though it seems to
be non-significant, as far as there’s no Karner blues on it.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re avoiding the lupine areas.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right, now, avoiding the lupine areas, I know that, well, one of the Hayes, I
can’t remember which one.
MR. LAPPER-Mickie.
MR. STROUGH-Put together a plan.
MR. LAPPER-A management plan.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and is that something that he’s going to run by Kathy O’Brien?
MR. LAPPER-He did. He submitted that to Kathy.
MR. STROUGH-And did she give him any feedback yet?
MR. LAPPER-That that was fine, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that plan’s going to be submitted to us as well?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it already has been, and we can resubmit that.
MR. STROUGH-And if she likes that plan, then it might be something that we could throw in
with our management plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just so we’re on the same page here, John, because this has a new application
number, everything’s new. So when you submit for your subdivision application, everything
new’s got to come along with it. We’re not going to go back to the previous application and
extract information out of that.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I understand that. I mean, from our perspective, it’s sort of morphed from
what it was into this, to address concerns of the Board, but if the Board wants the new
application, we will immediately resubmit, and we’ll resubmit all these documents, such as the
Long Form and the management plan, and the Karner blue report.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-And before I go on to my other two issues, I like this plan.
MR. LAPPER-Great.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I like this plan. Especially when you put it into the context of even maybe
we’re not supposed to, but the last two years of what we’ve seen here and there and all around,
I mean, I like this plan, but moving on, now do you think, I don’t know if I fully understood
you, Jon, but you don’t think that when you throw in the 15% slope there won’t be any
significant effect on the density calculations?
MR. LAPPER-No. We already took all that into account, because the Planning Staff treated us
as a cluster for that analysis last time. This is like 33 acres.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I don’t see that here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s last time. This is this time. This is new.
MR. LAPPER-But I’m saying that it’s the same piece of property, and the same 30 units. So the
density calculation, you take the 33 acres and you subtract the areas that have the more than
15% slope, or the area that has the City’s water line easement and the pond, and all that’s been
subtracted, and we still come up with 30.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. RINGER-But the last time we never did resolve the density issue with Staff. That was
going to be my first question.
MR. HILTON-Plus the last time, if I may, it was based on 25% slopes. It was never presented to
us as being in the production based on 15.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. HILTON-And even on this plan that you submitted, the notation says the area above 25%,
and I’m trying to make it clear that as a cluster, we’re going to be looking at 15 and above, as
opposed to 25 and above.
MR. LAPPER-Which actually is more favorable to the applicant.
MR. HILTON-We don’t know. We don’t have anything in front of us that calculates that.
MR. LAPPER-No, but I’m saying that if these are the areas that show up that are 25%, that’s
steeper than 15%.
MR. HILTON-Well, except, let me see if I can explain it. Before you were calculating anything
that had a slope of 25% or greater, and you were deducting that from the lot area, in addition to
other things, to calculate density.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. Okay. It’s the opposite.
MR. HILTON-Now you’re going lower, correct.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but in any case, I mean, we’ll submit the calculation, and if it turns out
there’s 29 units instead of 30, then, whatever it is, it is.
MR. HILTON-And just while we’re at it, talking about cluster, in my notes I’ve asked the
question, is there any provision for open space, and if so, is there any type of management
proposed.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the answer is that because the Hayes are going to continue to own the
townhouse part, which is all on the same parcel as the open space, it doesn’t have to go to a
homeowners association. It’s just a single family development, and they would continue to
own that, you know, and they could do some walking trails for the residents, that kind of thing,
cross country ski trails, but there’s not a proposal that it would be in any other kind of
ownership.
MR. HILTON-And again, typically with a cluster, the Subdivision Regulations and the Board I
think they’ve looked at clusters as one of the benefits is you’re getting decreased lot size or
increased density, if you will, and in return, there’s some benefit to the community, and again,
I’m just touching on, and asking the question.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it is open, this was the area, the Board made it clear last time that you didn’t
want us to develop the mountainside because of the visual impact, and that area is, we’re
staying away from. I mean, the area that’s being developed here is the same area. Instead of
putting the townhouses there, it’s where the single family lots are, but the whole area where it
starts to get steeper going up the mountain is going to remain undeveloped, and all of the
density is being used. So in terms of, it’s always going to be forever wild because there won’t
be any more density. So it is open space, and it’s a visual issue because that’s something you
can see, and in terms of ownership, usually the developer wants to get rid of it. So they don’t
have to pay taxes on it. In this case, the developer’s going to own the townhouse anyway. So
there’s no reason for them not to own the open space, unless the Board wants it to be some
other way, but.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, with the exception of trails, it’s not going to be developed.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And so you don’t mind making that notation on the plans either.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Passive recreation at most.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now are they going to show any, maybe at least a start of a trail, or
something around the pond or something? I know they have in the past.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We can do that.
MR. STROUGH-And that would be a further amenity for the clustering, but, you know, leaving
that open space, I like that, you know, I’ve said that all along.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And that addresses the last item. No, I’ve got one more item, and you should
know this, Jon, as well as anybody, because you’ve worked with Richie Schermerhorn on his
apartments, that having two parking spots per apartment doesn’t work out well. I mean, he’s
asked for more and we’ve given him more, and I’ve been to apartments where I can’t find
apartments where I can’t find a parking spot if I’m visiting somebody because there’s only two
parking spots per apartment, and a lot of people have got two cars. So, I don’t know if that’s.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s a good point, and I’ll look into that.
MR. VOLLARO-They have five here, it looks like, for each one.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s what I mean, I don’t know if there’s enough parking there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ll look at that.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s it. That’s my checklist.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I like it. I think it’s a great plan. I don’t know how, I mean, it is, it’s a great
plan. I really don’t know what to say, what else to say. I’m trying to think of what the
neighbors will say, but, you know, they argued that they don’t want the houses on the road,
and you accomplished exactly what we were looking for. So, you know.
MR. LAPPER-The record’s clear. Some of the neighbors just like it to stay completely
undeveloped.
MR. METIVIER-Well, yes, you know what, my philosophy on that is they could have bought
this, too.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think any neighbors said they wanted to keep it completely undeveloped.
MR. METIVIER-Well, one did.
MR. RINGER-Jon’s trying to put words in the public’s mouths. I don’t think anybody said they
wanted to keep it undeveloped. They wanted to stay within the zoning.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t have to go there.
MR. RINGER-Right.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. LAPPER-This is, my position is that this is totally within the zoning, and it’s been
redesigned to meet the Planning Board’s, to address the Planning Board’s issues.
MR. METIVIER-I guess my question would be, I mean, this is it? There’s nothing else that they
can do?
MR. LAPPER-No, this uses all the density. I mean, you know, alternatively, remember, this
could be 30 or so single family lots, where you’d be taking down most of the trees.
MR. METIVIER-Right. Even on the cul de sac there you couldn’t?
MR. LAPPER-This uses up all the density. There’s nothing else available.
MR. METIVIER-It’s a very nice plan.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s going to be a lot of open space.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was glad to see that you reduced the curb cuts. That was, you know,
obviously one of the biggest concerns. I was really hoping that you could get some sort of a
horseshoe shape, you know, road into the property, so that you would have more than one
means of egress. How long is the cul de sac? Is it over 1,000 feet?
MR. LAPPER-I think it’s approximately 1,000 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I couldn’t really tell without scaling it out.
MR. LAPPER-We looked at that alternative, and because of the pond, it just wasn’t feasible to, it
didn’t allow lots, you’d be building a lot more road than necessary, and there’s also an
argument that the single family and the multi family should be separated, just because they’re
different types of uses.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure.
MR. LAPPER-So we thought that this would get you the two entrances that you wanted, in a
way that kept these separated, with the pond as a visual barrier.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s something that, you know, I sort of have taken as my own pet peeve
is the, you know, long dead end roads that are greater than 1,000 feet. I understand, in this
particular case, that you’re restricted because of the pond and some other factors, and, you
know, I think you’ve done about the best you can with the site as it is. I had similar comments
as Staff on the public benefit of the cluster development, you know, and what would be the
public benefit, you know, whether it be passive recreation. I think it, I guess in my own mind,
in your cover letter you talked about maintaining the open vista of the mountainside and stuff,
and, you know, I think that’s good, but, you know, I’d like to see a little bit more. So maybe
some passive recreation would be appropriate.
MR. LAPPER-Passive recreation is certainly available, but that’s something that’s in the
Comprehensive Plan about maintaining the mountainside so that when you’re driving and
walking along in Town you don’t look up and see homes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, you know, I pulled out the regs on cluster
development to re-read them again, just to make sure that, you know, I had a clear
understanding of the intent. I think those were the only questions and comments that I had.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hunsinger, we just did a quick look at the, it’s over 1,000 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought it probably was.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-We get 1,024, up to the circle, and there’s another. So it’s over 1,000 feet. So
that means it’s got to get a variance, I think, for the, in excess of 1,000 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know, and it’s interesting, because, you know, the Code is pretty clear.
The Code is dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet, period, but we have granted
variances before.
MR. LAPPER-Is that a design guideline that the Board can waive, or does that require?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a waiver of subdivision, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can waive it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a variance requirement.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we’ve waived it just last month for Michaels.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was the one that voted against it.
MR. HILTON-I’m not even quite sure if it’s over 1,000. I think that would be something you’d
want to provide, but, yes, definitely the Board can waive.
MR. LAPPER-The issue with the location of the cul de sac is just because of where the pond is.
MR. HILTON-Yes. No, I realize that.
MR. LAPPER-But we’ll look at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I wanted to reiterate that because generally that would be my
position and feeling, but I think in this case, I think you’ve made an effort to comply without
sacrificing the pond.
MR. LAPPER-Great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-My concern in the beginning was the density ratio that Staff and you had gotten
together, and there still may be some things that you may have to do with Staff on the density. I
think the plan is better than the previous one submitted, and I’m anxious to hear what the
comments are going to be from the public, but I think for Sketch certainly you have the thing
here going for you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to do a site plan for the apartment portion of it?
MR. HILTON-Yes, you will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess my only comments are that I like the concept. I think it’s leaps
and bounds from where we’ve been in the past ahead of the game. I’d like to see some
architectural design for the apartment complex, colors, intensive landscaping plan. I guess the
only question I had relative to this plat itself is that rock outcropping that you’re showing up in
the higher elevations of the mountain the hatched area?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. NACE-Those are the slopes steeper than 25% that have to be taken out of the density
calculations.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the concept of the whole subdivision itself, I like it. I like the idea
that we’ve been discussing, the boulevard entrances. I guess that’s all I really had. I mean, I
think you need to get together with Staff with a pre-application meeting, make sure that you’ve
got your densities worked out, and everything the requirements for subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tom, what are those, on the left hand, the southern part of the site? They
look, there’s like five lines drawn on this?
MR. NACE-The septic fields for the apartments. It would be pumped from the apartments up
to those fields.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you designed this so that you have enough room, should that field fail,
you have more area, replacement area?
MR. NACE-Replacement. Actually, there’s replacements built in with each of those fields, yes.
Although I think Jim didn’t show them, lines dotted. Some of those should be dotted to show
replacement.
MR. LAPPER-Meaning that those are more fields than are needed. So those include the
replacement fields.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For the elevations, I’m just asking right now, those are, apartments are
two story?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are they planning to be high end homes?
MR. LAPPER-Probably relatively high end, in terms of the rentals that Mickie was talking
about, you know, $850 range I think.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’m saying about the homes.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, the homes. I thought you meant the townhouses. Yes, I would expect
that with the green space, forever wild in the back, that they’ll get pretty good dollars for these.
I can tell you that the houses that they’re building now in Queensbury are two and a quarter to
two fifty. So they’re nice homes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks guys.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll e-mail everybody with our tentative dates, so on and so forth. Anybody
who cannot be here in September, e-mail me as soon as possible, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, I won’t be here in September.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll need both alternates for the entire month of September.
MR. HILTON-Both alternates? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not here in September at all?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/26/03)
MR. VOLLARO-No.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
35