2003-05-22 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 22, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN NO. 28-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD MILNE ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 25 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A WOODEN AND STONE WALKWAY. CONSRUCTION INVOLVING HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 35-2003 TAX
MAP NO. 289.18-1-22/41-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
DONALD MILNE, PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-There is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-2003, Donald Milne, Meeting Date: May 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 28-2003
APPLICANT: Donald Milne is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to allow the construction of a
wooden and stone walkway. The proposed action requires Site Plan review and approval from
the Planning Board in order to allow hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a shoreline.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 25 Fitzgerald Rd., on Glen Lake.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has
submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form with the site plan application.
PARCEL HISTORY: The applicant has also applied for an Area Variance (AV 35-2003) seeking
relief from the shoreline and side yard setbacks of the WR-1A zone. Previous parcel history
includes AV 96-1996 (resolved 10/23/96) , setback relief for a 236 sq. ft. gazebo and covered
walkway.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a wooden walkway, which
would be attached to the existing deck approximately 18 ft. from the western property line. The
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
wooden stairway would be above grade and would be anchored to the ground through a series
of concrete columns. The wooden walkway is shown as connecting to a concrete walkway
running from the front of the house toward the shoreline. Another brick walkway is proposed
to extend from the existing house down toward the shoreline at the east side of the property.
The applicant has indicated that the amount of new hard surfacing will be approximately 191.5
sq. ft.
STAFF COMMENTS: This application qualifies as an expedited review item.
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
Staff recommends some form of Stormwater Management be included in the applicant’s Site
Plan. Pitching the proposed paved walkways to drain away from Glen Lake and/or including
an earth berm to intercept water allowing it to infiltrate into the ground before reaching the lake
should be considered as potential stormwater management for this site.”
MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, I know this application is presented as an Expedited Review item.
However, we do have three pieces of written comment that we’ll need to read into the record.
The applicant’s proposal includes a covered walk, or pardon me, a wooden walkway and some
hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline of Glen Lake. The applicant has requested
waivers from stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, and
the only concern that Staff has is possibly including some form of stormwater management,
possibly pitching the proposed walkway, concrete walkway, such to maybe infiltrate water
before it reaches the lake or some kind of berming or something to assist in stormwater
management. Other than that, we don’t really have any concerns at this time. That’s all we
had.
MR. RINGER-Okay. You said you had some comments, letters you mean, that you had
received?
MR. HILTON-Yes, three.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll do that during the public hearing. Anyone here from the applicant?
MR. MILNE-My name is Donald Milne. I’m the applicant. What we’re simply asking for was
approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in terms of variance for shoreline setback. We’re
asking for some wooden stairs that go down off a deck, down to the shoreline, to improve
safety and egress to the lake. Currently there’s a very steep path, very difficult path to use
there. The impact should be minimal, because I don’t know if any of you visited the site.
MR. RINGER-We were all at the site, Mr. Milne.
MR. MILNE-Okay. There’s a large border of trees between my property and the adjacent
property, and I think that property owner has sent a letter of support for the project. In
addition, there is a stone concrete wall under construction that will help with stormwater
management, and has heavy stone behind it, and there’s drainage in it. We’re also planning
that at the bottom of the stairs to put some type of grading and drainage across there. So it’s
going to be a vast improvement over what you have now, because it’s just gravel and dirt.
Underneath the deck, the existing deck, we have pea gravel, and that is also very good for
drainage because even in the wintertime there’s no snow or ice on that, and the water just goes
right down through it, and percolates into the ground. So I don’t think that should be a
concern.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Did you have an opportunity to see Staff’s notes regarding the
stormwater, their concerns? They were somewhat minor.
MR. MILNE-Actually I didn’t before tonight.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, would you mind reading them again, George, just your comments
on the bottom.
MR. HILTON-Specifically I’ve just said that Staff recommends some form of stormwater
management be included in the applicant’s site plan. Pitching the proposed paved walkways to
drain away from the lake or including an earth berm to intercept water before it reaches the lake
should be considered as potential stormwater management for this site, and just to echo the
Chairman’s comments, I think they’re minor concerns, but, you know, just some provision of
stormwater management, such as you’ve described, I think would benefit this application.
MR. STROUGH-You said the walkway, pitch it towards the grass?
MR. RINGER-Versus the lake.
MR. STROUGH-Slightly, like one percent grade?
MR. MILNE-Well, what’s going to happen is it’s coming down, there’s going to be stone
retaining walls on either side of it, and it curves down toward that right of way which goes
across the front. Where it’s going to come out, we’re going to, even though it is a right of way,
and we’re not obstructing that right of way in any way, because I know one person has written
a letter, is concerned about not blocking the right of way, and if you notice on the plans, the
plans do not extend out into the right of way. It stops prior to the right of way, but we are
going to put some grass across there.
MR. STROUGH-You know what I’m saying. Normally when you put your walkway in, you’re
going to put a level on to make sure it’s level.
MR. MILNE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Even though it curves.
MR. MILNE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-All Staff is saying is just pitch it a little bit so that it drains towards, has a
tendency to drain towards the grass.
MR. MILNE-Okay. Most of that walkway is going to be underneath the deck portion, and that
will drain onto that pea gravel that’s there, no matter which way it’s pitched, okay, until you get
to the second set of steps, and that I could pitch the other way, but either way, you’re going
down toward the lake, so it will, water that hits that concrete will drain down toward the lake,
which is why I was planning on putting a grate and a small seepage pit right at the base.
MR. RINGER-That would work.
MR. HILTON-That works.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that works.
MR. MILNE-That’s even better, I think, than what we were anticipating.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you show that on your plans?
MR. MILNE-I did not show that on my plans.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-We may make that a condition of the approval, then, that you will be installing
that.
MR. MILNE-That’s fine with me.
MR. RINGER-Anything else to add? Any comments from the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Just a comment for the Staff, since this is expedited review, you get into the site
development data sheet, and there’s a couple of Staff items in there that you might want to
correct. It’s the total square footage for the total nonpermeable should be 4895.5, as opposed to
4259.5, and the percent nonpermeable, instead of 22%, should be 25%.
MR. HILTON-Well, you know, thank you for the clarification. Certainly I think if you’re going
to condition any kind of updated drawings, you may wish to include that kind of a condition as
well.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how are we handling this as expedited review? Are we going to use this
as regular, in other words, will we do the resolution for this?
MR. HILTON-I suppose you can, and you can amend it as you see fit.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re really taking it out of the expedited review channel when we do
that, I believe.
MR. HILTON-I guess you could possibly say that, but, I mean, there’s some public comment to
consider, and you’ve had some discussions.
MR. RINGER-And we can add it in to the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-Anyone else? Okay. We have a public hearing. So I’ll open the public hearing.
We’ll start with the letters that you have.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HILTON-Okay. Letter dated 21 of May from Margaret Kane, I believe the name is. “Dear
st
Town of Queensbury Planning Board: I am a neighbor of Donald Milne, and I have no
objections to his plans for the construction of a stone and wooden walkway at 25 Fitzgerald
Road. Site Plan 20-2003 Yours truly, Margaret Aileen W. Kane” The second is a faxed memo
from Dr. and Mrs. Kim, it states “We have no objections to the projects proposed by Mr. Donald
Milne.” And when they say projects, they’re referencing the variances as well as the site plan.
Thirdly, there’s a letter from Chic and Hal Rathbun, I believe the name is, “Dear Ms.
LaBombard: This is in response to the above Public Hearing Notice regarding an application
submitted by Donald A. Milne for property located at 25 Fitzgerald Road. The following are
our issues and concerns: That the project proposed by Mr. Milne for the “construction of a
wooden and stone walkway…involving hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline…” in no
way is detrimental to or negatively affects the Lake; Our legal road, right-of-way, to our
property is across and over the Milne property, bordering the Lake shore in front of the Milne
house: That road has been used and in existence since approximately the year 1879. Deed
dated December 3, 1919 and recorded December 11, 1919 between Brown and Davis states:
“….Also granting unto the parties of the second part, the right-of-way for themselves, their
tenants, servants, agents, heirs and assigns of the property above described, or any part thereof,
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
over and across the premises now owned by the parties of the first part and also premises now
owned by Russell and Connors, which as been traveled as a road for forty years or more, to the
highway….” Deed dated September 14, 1926 and recorded October 5, 1926 between Davis and
Pike states: “…Together with a right of way for ingress and egress over and across the property
of the party of the first part bordering on the lake shore…” Deed dated June 5, 1970 and
recorded June 8, 1970 between Pike and Rathbun states: “….Together with a right of way for
ingress and egress over and across…” We need to have the assurances by this Board that the
proposed construction will, in no way at any time, affect our legal road, right-of-way in an
injurious manner. The follow, e.g., but not limited to: Altering the road Narrowing
Destroying or degrading surface Creating a blockage Producing any restrictions of passage,
more than already existing Overhead obstructions We trust that our concerns will be given full
consideration prior to a decision by the Board and would appreciate receiving notification of
said decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Chic and Hal Rathbun”
And that’s all we have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anyone from the public wish to address this?
RAYMOND ERB
MR. ERB-My name is Raymond Erb. I live at 19 Fitzgerald Road. I am a neighbor of Don’s, and
I find in no way is there going to be a problem with that right of way, or seeing it from another
property. Because the trees are too high and it blocks it out. I am very much for it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Mr. Milne, please. The one question in the letter was the right of way. Your
assurances that the?
MR. MILNE-Yes. This project in no way impedes the right of way that exists there.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board members? Then we’ll do a SEQRA
on this, Unlisted. John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 28-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DONALD MILNE, 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
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
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 22 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Bob, you’re working on a resolution?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2003 DONALD MILNE, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Site Plan No. 28-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Donald Milne
SEQRA Type: Unlisted one: WR-1A
Location: 25 Fitzgerald Road
Applicant proposes the construction of a wooden and stone walkway. Construction involving
hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Site Plan Review and approval from the
Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 35-2003
Tax Map No. 289.18-1-22 / 41-1-7
Lot size: 0.45 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/16/03, and
5/22 Staff Notes
5/15 Notice of Public Hearing
5/7 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in
the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such
and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited
review and,
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board
members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and,
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be in compliance with the required SEQRA
regulations, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that
WHEREAS, the following conditions of approval have been discussed and agreed upon;
1. Application approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with
the following conditions:
a. The drawing will show drywell or drywells at the base of stairs to contain
drainage that may drain into the lake.
b. The waiver requested for Stormwater Management, Grading, Lighting
and Landscaping Plan are approved.
c. The project will not interfere with the established right of way as shown
on the drawing supplied by the applicant, Mr. Milne.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, sir.
MR. MILNE-Thank you very much, and I also want to extend my thanks to Staff. George
Hilton and both Bruce Frank have been very helpful in enabling me to meet the requirements
that were necessary, and I want to thank them for that.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. They really do a good job working with the applicants. Before
we do the next item on the agenda, I just wanted to, we have the Wal-Mart on tonight, and there
may be some people here for the Wal-Mart, and it will be on. However, the only action that we
will be taking on the Wal-Mart tonight will be for the Planning Board to become the lead agency
for the SEQRA. There is a public hearing scheduled, and we will open the public hearing, and
we will take public comment if the public wishes to speak. However, the plans that have been
submitted are probably going to be changed, and Wal-Mart is going to be addressing a lot of
issues later on, and we have a separate meeting scheduled for the Wal-Mart application. So
everyone here that wants to be here for Wal-Mart is certainly welcome to stay. It may be late by
the time we get to it, and I just want everyone to understand that we will not be taking any
action on it, and you’re probably not going to get a heck of a lot of information because a lot of
stuff may be changed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Are you going to schedule another meeting for that?
MR. RINGER-We will have a meeting, either for Wal-Mart by itself or Wal-Mart being a
primary item on the agenda for that night, with a few items that may not be. We’ll give you the
date for that meeting right now. George? Tentatively the second.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-So any concerns that are brought up, it’s not going to be addressed?
That’s going to be a separate meeting?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-And will we be notified about that? This was supposed to be on the
Board of Appeals the last time. They took it off. And now you’re going to change it again?
MR. HILTON-Well, the Zoning Board last night, you know, I think the plan all along was to,
again, for the SEQRA process that has to happen, they’re not going to be able to act on it until
June, and the same thing applies here. I believe the applicant has a presentation to make
tonight, and the public hearing has been opened. Public comment, as the Chairman said, will
be accepted, but just to inform the public that no action will be taken tonight. All that will take
place at an unspecified date in June, meeting in June. There will be a notice. Whether it’s a
notice to property owners or something in the paper, notice will go out to the public informing
you of when that meeting will be.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I think both of you have, not intentionally omitted one vital additional
fact, and that is that the public hearing will not be closed this evening. The public hearing will
remain open, so that although anyone who wishes to speak tonight can certainly wait around
and do so, not only will the Planning Board not be making any decisions on this project tonight,
but the public hearing will be continued to the next meeting that Mr. Ringer is talking about,
and anyone who wishes to speak at that meeting will have full and ample opportunity to do so.
MR. RINGER-The reason I brought it up now is because I’m sure it may be late by the time we
get to it, and I just didn’t want to have everyone sit through this find that we’re not going to be
able to accomplish a great deal, and everyone will have an opportunity to speak and say what
they want to say.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-This is the big issue. Will we be able to address this?
MR. RINGER-Address Wal-Mart?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-The Wal-Mart issue. Can we address this at a public hearing? I mean,
are we going to set another hearing for this?
MR. RINGER-Yes. That’s what Counsel just told you, that there will be another meeting,
primarily where Wal-Mart will be the biggest item. It may be the only item on the agenda, and
we’ll invite the public to come in, and I’m sure you’re going to get a lot of publicity on this, and
there’ll be articles in the newspaper on it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-So tonight is really not a sense to sit here and listen for it, is what you’re
saying?
MR. RINGER-If that’s your choice, but you probably aren’t going to gain a heck of a lot out of it,
and that’s why I’m announcing it now for those people who wish to leave will leave. There’ll
be no action taken on Wal-Mart tonight whatsoever, other than lead agency status.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my thinking on that, Mr. Chairman, is that if they do have an
opportunity for a public hearing, then the next time Wal-Mart comes before us, they’ll have had
an opportunity to respond to that in some manner, to some of the concerns tonight.
MR. RINGER-Right. They certainly can. The public hearing, everyone’s welcome to stay, and
you’ll be able to ask questions. However, we aren’t going to have a lot of information because
there’s so many things that still have to be addressed, and everyone.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m just concerned, if I go home tonight, and you guys are meeting on
Wal-Mart at ten o’clock tonight, and I’m asleep in bed, that you’re going to make a decision
without me having a say.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-No action will be taken. No action will be taken on Wal-Mart tonight.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No matter what.
MR. RINGER-No matter what, there’ll be no action taken, other than lead agency status for the
Planning Board.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-And at a reasonable time I’m going to be allowed to come here and say
something?
MR. RINGER-Absolutely. That’s guaranteed.
MRS. OLSON-Is Wal-Mart here tonight, any representative of Wal-Mart?
MR. RINGER-Wal-Mart is here tonight and they will be giving a presentation.
MRS. OLSON-And they’ll be giving a presentation.
MR. RINGER-Right, and there’ll be a public hearing opened, and people who want to speak
may speak.
MRS. OLSON-Why can’t they wait for their presentation until the public hearing? Some things
are lost in between when you have two meetings.
MR. RINGER-You’re absolutely right, ma’am and hindsight is great, and we had scheduled this
meeting, and then some of the Planning Board members and the Chairman got to thinking, you
know, this is a big issue, this Wal-Mart is a big issue. There’s going to be a tremendous amount
of questions, a lot of changes. To try to squeeze it into this meeting tonight with all the other
things, we thought it would be better to have one meeting for Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart people
were already on their way when all these things were decided. So they wanted an opportunity
to let the Planning Board know what their plans are, okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-So that’s your plan is you’re going to schedule just one meeting for Wal-
Mart.
MR. RINGER-It might not be one meeting. I’m sorry. There’ll be one meeting that will be
strictly for Wal-Mart. We may not give them approval on that night, but there’ll be one meeting
and the public will be invited to discuss all their concerns and all their questions about the Wal-
Mart Superstore, and that will be in June, and I thought we had decided it was the second
meeting in June, but obviously we didn’t decide it was going to be the second meeting in June.
MR. HILTON-No. We’re working on our June agenda, and I think you were correct when you
said that it would either be a meeting by itself or with a light agenda and Wal-Mart would be
the main focus, but again, public hearing is open this evening, and as Mr. Schachner stated, it
will be left open.
MR. RINGER-Right. I just wanted to give everybody the opportunity to know what was
happening, and if somebody wanted to stay, they’re welcome to stay, but to understand that
there’ll be no decisions made tonight. Okay. So, moving on from that, we’ll go to the next item
on the agenda.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Yes, sir, thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
SITE PLAN NO. 24-94 SEQRA TYPE II MODIFICATION TCT FEDERAL CREDIT
AGENT: DAVID STOCKMAN ZONE: PO LOCATION: 9 HUNTERBROOK LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSED 10’ X 40’ ADDITION TO FRONT OF EXISTING BUILDING.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-2003 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
DAVID STOCKMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-Public hearing is not required for a modification.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-94, Modification, TCT Federal Credit, Meeting Date: May 22,
2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 24 – 1994 (modification)
APPLICANT: TCT Federal Credit is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval for a modification to a previously
approved Site Plan in order to construct a 10 ft. x 40 ft. building addition to an existing credit
union.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 9 Hunter Brook Lane.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office.
SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is a SEQRA Type II action. No further action is
required.
PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board originally approved Site Plan 24-1994 on June 28, 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 10 ft. x 40 ft. addition to the
existing TCT Credit Union building on Hunter Brook Lane. The new addition would be
constructed on the front of the building. The applicant has indicated that new plantings will be
placed in front of the new addition. The applicant has applied for relief from the ZBA in order
to allow a front yard setback of less than 30 ft.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
By itself, the construction of 400 sq. ft. of additional space at this site is a minor addition to the
site, which should not have any adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The
applicant has indicated that new plantings will be placed at the east end of the new building
addition. The species, size and number of new plantings around the proposed addition should
be identified on the Site Plan.
Is any new lighting proposed at this location?
After visiting the site it appears that a parking area has recently been added to the rear of the
site, prior to the hearing of this site plan application, and is not reflected on the applicant’s site
plan. In addition, another area of impervious surface was found on site, which is currently
being used for vehicle parking. This parking area is not shown on the applicant’s site plan as
well. Both of these parking areas should be included on the Site Plan impervious surfaces and
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
the impervious surfaces accounted for in the site development data sheet of the Site Plan
application.
Staff is concerned that these parking areas that have not been accounted for on the site plan,
may have been constructed over the septic field and distribution box for this property.
Additionally, these parking areas may require an Area Variance from the ZBA, as the number
of parking spaces in use at this location exceed 20% of the parking requirement for this use.
A 10 ft. landscaped buffer is required between any buildings, or parking at this location and the
multi-family residential property to the west of this site.”
MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. As mentioned, the applicant proposes an approximately 400 sq. ft.
addition to an existing credit union building and several waivers have been requested,
stormwater management, grading lighting and landscaping. The addition itself seems rather
minor. The main concern, after visiting the site, appears to be a new paved parking area that
appears to have recently been constructed, if you will, and Staff has some concerns, primarily
that this may have been constructed over an existing septic system, but issues such as
encroaching into a required buffer zone and potentially exceeding the 20% over the parking
requirement may apply to this parking lot expansion, but again, our main concern on this recent
parking lot expansion that you could see if you go to the site is that it may actually be on top of
their on site septic system, but again, as for the addition itself, the 400 sq. ft. addition, it seems
rather minor and Staff has no concerns about that. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here for the applicant?
MR. STOCKMAN-Hi. I’m David Stockman. I’m the contractor on the job.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about your project?
MR. STOCKMAN-Yes. We’re proposing a 10 foot by 40 foot addition across the front of the
building. TCT has grown tremendously since ’94, and thus they need more office space, more
lobby space. Right now the lobby is fairly cramped, and on any given afternoon it’s hard to
maneuver the customers around in there. So the proposed addition is intended to increase the
lobby space and also add two office spaces for loan officers. That’s basically what they want.
MR. RINGER-Staff’s comments about parking spaces that have been added, I suppose you
wouldn’t have information on that.
MR. STOCKMAN-That’s been brought up. I got the letter so I talked to Marianne the manager
at TCT, and she said it was done a few years ago. Are you referring to the crushed stone in the
back?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, it appears to me to be a recent addition, the crushed stone, the
actual like black gravel or whatever it is, and, you know.
MR. STOCKMAN-I think it’s like that blue stone with dust. She was telling me it was done like
three years ago. Like I said, business increased. They added employees. They are actually
somewhat of a training facility for the other TCT locations, and what was happening is they
were starting to park on the grass, on the lawn, and in the wintertime that became a problem.
So they added this crushed stone. Obviously they didn’t seek any approval.
MR. HILTON-Again, our main issue is just the parking on the septic system. With the
compaction of soil, if the system’s under there, I mean, that was the main concern that we had.
MR. STOCKMAN-Right.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Do you know if the system is under the?
MR. STOCKMAN-I have no idea. From what I understand, the tank and the distribution box
are closer the building. They’re not under the area, and then the leach field runs out in that
direction.
MR. RINGER-Bob, you had a comment?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t locate the septic tank on any of these drawings.
So I don’t think anybody in this room, absence of drawing, knows exactly where it is.
MR. STOCKMAN-It’s there.
MR. METIVIER-It’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-I see it. Yes, I do see it on the big drawing. Yes, I did mark it.
MR. RINGER-That’s the original drawing that goes back when it was approved. The new
parking spaces are, where are the new parking spaces you’re talking about, George, in reference
to this?
MR. HILTON-Well, behind the building, on that drawing that you have, just to the south, or left
of that parking behind the building, there’s.
MR. STOCKMAN-Directly behind the building is where the.
MR. HILTON-And, you know, if it’s been there for three years, that’s fine. I think the 20% rule
probably wouldn’t apply in the buffer standards, but again, just the concern that there’s parking
taking place on top of the leach fields was our primary concern.
MR. RINGER-So you want to move forward? We can move forward?
MR. HILTON-You can.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Comments from the Board? It’s expedited, so we’ll just, general comments
anyone?
MR. VOLLARO-I have a comment on the drawing itself. There isn’t any stamp on this drawing
at all. No engineering stamp. It looks like a very formal piece of paper to me, but there’s no
engineering stamp on it at all, anywhere.
MR. RINGER-This is the old drawing, right, Bob? ’94, or the original site plan approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s, that may be true, but this is before us tonight, for an approval,
and I don’t see any stamp on here at all. When you look at a drawing like this, you’ve got to
take, you’ve got to try to believe that this drawing is drawn to engineering standards and it was
put up by a professional. So I don’t see anything on here at all to indicate that, and that’s before
us tonight as a submitted drawing.
MR. RINGER-Well, I think that they really, I don’t know why we got this. This is what they
were submitting, and they threw this in, and sometimes they get themselves in trouble by
giving us more than we wanted. A lot of times we’ll take just this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, we’re assuming that the septic tank is where it says it is on this
drawing, but there’s no certification, the drawing’s not stamped to that effect. So I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-Your comments are appreciated. Any other comments from the?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SANFORD-Well, it is going to be pretty close to the road. I mean, it’s not going to have the
30 feet required setback. Right?
MR. STOCKMAN-We got approval for that last night.
MR. RINGER-They got ZBA on that. They have the variance, then, George?
MR. HILTON-Yes. Last night they received a variance.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. STROUGH-Just, is that the north elevation or the south elevation?
MR. STOCKMAN-North.
MR. STROUGH-Were you looking north?
MR. STOCKMAN-No. That would be the south elevation, then.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR STOCKMAN-That’s looking at it from the parking area.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So south. That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering how we’re going to handle Staff’s comments at the end
here? George, you put these in, and they could be significant if the septic tank is really over?
MR. HILTON-And I agree with what you’re saying. I have no way of verifying it, but based on
the drawing that was in front of me, it just appeared that it could be potentially an issue. We’re
still concerned. We certainly don’t want to have cars parking on septic fields, and such.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I agree.
MR. RINGER-Well, our options are that we can table it until we find out, or approve it with
what we have. What is the Board’s desire?
MR. VOLLARO-My desire would be to table it until we have assurance that the septic tank is
where it is. Because if George says that, on a site visit, he saw that it was paved over or stoned
over, and parking cars would park on it, it would be nice to know.
MR. STOCKMAN-Can I jump in here? If that is an issue, could that be a separate application
made by TCT for, you know, putting that parking lot in or anything, because to me that really
doesn’t have anything to do with the addition on the front of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s an all encompassing submittal, and that.
MR. STOCKMAN-I just thought I’d ask.
MR. STROUGH-Did we get a landscaping plan?
MR. RINGER-No, I think that was one of the waivers.
MR. STOCKMAN-That was one of the waivers.
MR. VOLLARO-They have a waiver for landscaping that I guess we would approve.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-George, how do you feel about that?
MR. HILTON-Well, it’s certainly not as important, but I just want to address the landscaping
comment, that we were just seeking, and the applicant stated that they were going to relocate
the shrubs and we were just seeking, or suggesting that a new site plan, or with the final site
plan those plants, those shrubs be identified. I, you know, as far as the septic issue, I don’t
know what to say. I don’t know how to really advise the Board, but just upon seeing the site,
and seeing the plan in front of me, you know, I have concern that there could be parking. If the
applicant can somehow provide this information, whether now or at a later date, that indicates
that they’re not parking over that, I think we’d be satisfied.
MR. RINGER-You mean?
MR. HILTON-Parking over the septic field, that is.
MR. RINGER-Well, all right. Let’s go back to, poll the Board on whether they want to table it or
approve it with stipulations.
MR. METIVIER-If we can approve it with a stipulation, why don’t we do that? I mean, that
makes sense.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’d like to, I mean, we have a pretty full plate every time we get together.
I would just as soon try to get it off our plate.
MR. SEGULJIC-What would the stipulations be? I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-Well, the stipulations the way George described them would be that before the
building permit was issued, the applicant would have to provide to Staff that the parking, the
gravel parking spaces they had put in were not on the septic system, and if they were, they
would be taken out.
MR. SEGULJIC-Locate the septic system. Locate the additional parking, and over the septic, no
parking.
MR. RINGER-No parking, they’d have to be taken out. Before a building permit was issued.
MR. HILTON-I was just going to say, as part of the building permit, if there’s some kind of
signoff from the Director of Building and Codes, as to.
MR. RINGER-John, how would you feel on that?
MR. STROUGH-I could live with that.
MR. RINGER-Bob, are you okay?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go along with that. The landscape buffer, that 10 foot buffer also has to be
addressed, George. That was your last comment on your Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Well, that’s if this parking area was recently constructed. If it’s something that’s
been there for a few years, then the buffer standards that are in the current Zoning Ordinance
probably would not apply, and this would be pre-existing to those landscaping or buffering
requirements. I don’t think we’d have an issue with that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Who wants to make up, amend a motion to include that. You understand
that before you get a permit, that’s going to have to be addressed in the record.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STOCKMAN-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-94 MODIFICATION FOR TCT FEDERAL
CREDIT, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 24-94 Applicant/Property Owner: TCT Federal Credit
SEQRA Type II Agent: David Stockman
Zone: PO
MODIFICATION Location: 9 Hunterbrook Lane
Applicant proposed 10’ x 40’ addition to front of existing building.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-3
Lot size: 0.58 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: Not required for modification
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 5/16/03, and
5/22 Staff Notes
5/15 Notice of Public Hearing
5/7 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for modification, 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 for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with
the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Landscape waiver has been granted.
2. Prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant will demonstrate that no parking would
be located over the existing septic system or leach field.
3. 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:
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 5/22/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. STOCKMAN-Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I re-address the Wal-Mart issue for just a
minute. We were going to have a public hearing for that because it was such an extensive thing.
Is there not a sense of tabling the Wal-Mart issue, so that everybody is here to hear the Wal-
Mart presentation? I mean, table Wal-Mart for another day, at this other public hearing you’re
talking about?
MR. RINGER-Would you repeat that? I’m sorry.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could we not table Wal-Mart tonight, not listen to them at all, until the
presentation when they have a public hearing all themselves, and the Planning Board. If it’s ten
o’clock, they’re going to present it. We’re not going to be here to hear it. We’ll have more of a
playing field, a level playing field.
MR. RINGER-First of all, you can certainly be here to hear it, and the public hearing will be
open and you can have comments. The only reason that I brought that up in the beginning was
because we weren’t taking any action and the presentation they’re going to make tonight they’ll
be remaking with more information, more data to present to us, and I just didn’t think that you
would get a great deal out of staying since no action was going to be taken and what they’re
going to tell us tonight will be basically the same things that we’re going to hear at the next
meeting only with a lot of the recommendations and stuff that Staff has made, our engineering
has made, the DOT has made, to them. Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. I’ve just got to be certain about that. Okay. So this will be
addressed again?
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, and some of the issues that, noise is going to be addressed at the next
meeting with them, internal circulation for the parking lot’s going to be addressed,
interconnection with Flower Drum Song.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s not going to be addressed tonight?
MR. RINGER-None of those will be addressed. These are things that we’ve asked Wal-Mart to
do.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Truck traffic will not be addressed tonight?
MR. RINGER-Truck traffic is one of the issues that we’ve asked them, it won’t be addressed
tonight, but they’re going to come back and address those issues, reduction in parking is
another, landscaping, reduce lighting, transit stops, bus stops.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-You’re not going to address those issues tonight?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-No.
MRS. OLSON-So it’s not possible to cancel out Wal-Mart’s presentation tonight?
MR. RINGER-No. I mean, they’re here. They came up. You’re welcome to stay and listen.
That’s what I’m saying. You’re welcome to stay and listen. I probably shouldn’t have brought
it up but I certainly didn’t want somebody to be here and all of a sudden it’s eleven o’clock and
you say, why did I stay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-But those major issues?
MR. RINGER-All those will be addressed and the public will get an opportunity to speak on
them.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-We’ll have the minutes and we’ll have a guarantee?
MR. RINGER-You’ll have everything, yes, sir.
MR. STROUGH-But what I said before is it gives Wal-Mart an opportunity to respond to you, if
you do stay, and address your concerns, when we do have the major meeting with Wal-Mart,
maybe at that time they will have addressed your concerns. It will give them the opportunity,
between now and then, to do so.
DANIEL OLSON
MR. OLSON-My neighbor, Mr. Roberts, has made a good point. We came here tonight
prepared to, based on the notice we got of the public hearing, we came here prepared to hear a
proposal from Wal-Mart to you people what their plans were and what they wanted to do. I
didn’t think that we were going to come here so they could tell you what they want to do, we
wouldn’t be aware of it, and then have another meeting. It’s like a meeting that the public is cut
out of.
MR. RINGER-Danny, I only suggested to the people that we’re not going to take any action on
it. You’re more than welcome to stay. It’s just probably going to be late. I was thinking really
of the public and having to stay and listen.
MR. OLSON-Let’s go through the steps here. As a resident who lives the closest to any part of
the Wal-Mart development, and other people that live within, I think it’s 500 feet, you notify the
people 500 or 1,000 feet, because it’s a commercial business. Will we have made available to us
a good copy, a transcript of tonight’s meeting with them? You take minutes.
MR. RINGER-Danny, you can stay for the meeting tonight. Stay and listen.
MR. OLSON-But you’re not really going to care what we say or our concerns.
MR. RINGER-Well, we always care what the public says, and you just may, you know, I don’t
know how much benefit you’re going to get out of it. That’s all I was trying to let you guys
know.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-And that’s my concern and that’s what I brought up. Because you’ve
already sat there and said this was going to be late. You already know this is a major concern.
This is a big project. Okay. Now, if we’re going to talk about these issues, and you already said
it’s going to be late, why can’t you make this earlier, more available to the public, where we’re
not staying here until 10:30, 10 o’clock. Why can’t we just table this Wal-Mart and make a
meeting for Wal-Mart without them having anything to say at all, and then we have more of a
level playing field. I get up at five o’clock in the morning to go to work. I don’t need to stay
here until eleven o’clock to listen to Wal-Mart and then sit there and have it tabled. Why can’t
this be made more readily available to the public? Ten o’clock is not readily available.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-The time was scheduled, and they’re going to be heard. If you want to stay,
you’re welcome to stay. If you want, the public hearing will be open, you’re welcome to talk. I
was looking out for you, believe it or not. You will have the same opportunity tonight that you
would have next week, or next month. Mark, did you have a comment?
MR. SCHACHNER-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Is there anything else before we continue? I mean, I don’t want to spend a
whole lot of time now on it because we are going to have Wal-Mart before us tonight. So if you
people want to stay, you’re more than welcome to. I don’t want you to get the idea that we
didn’t want you here or anything like that.
MR. OLSON-It’s disappointing, though, the way that the whole thing has been scheduled,
when you’ve got a full agenda to begin with. This is a major project.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, and we recognize that, and that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing.
MR. OLSON-A major project with major problems. Major problems that exist today.
MR. RINGER-We recognize that this is a major problem.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 FINAL STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ALBERT OUDEKERK & HOWARD TOOMEY
ET. AL AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY
RD. OPPOSITE MAID MARION WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF
AN APPROXIMATELY 62 AC. LOT INTO 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 289.12-
1-8, 9, 10/48-3-51.5, 49.1, 51.4 LOT SIZE: 51.45 AC., 41.07 AC., 5.08 AC. SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-Public hearing was opened on March 18.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2003, Final Stage, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date:
May 22, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 2-2003 (Final Stage)
APPLICANT: Richard Schermerhorn is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant is seeking final stage subdivision approval in order to create
21 single-family residential lots, and one proposed open space lot.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Bay Rd., opposite Maid Marion
Way.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is listed as SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant
previously submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the Preliminary subdivision
application.
PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board granted a preliminary subdivision approval for this
application on March 18, 2003.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is final subdivision approval to create 22 lots (21
residential lots and one proposed open space lot) located to the east of Bay Rd., opposite Maid
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
Marion Way. The Planning Board granted a preliminary subdivision approval for this
application on March 18, 2003.
The proposed subdivision is being presented to the Planning Board as a cluster subdivision.
Residential lots in the subdivision are proposed to range in size from .54 acres to approximately
1.57. The proposed open space parcel is shown as approximately 33.11 acres.
STAFF COMMENTS: The subdivision plat that has been submitted has been updated to show
landscaping on Lot 8 and Lot 9 as conditioned by the Planning Board as part of the preliminary
approval. The drainage easement required on Lot 14 and Lot 15 has also been added to the
subdivision plat.
The applicant should clarify their plans regarding the proposed open space. As part of any
subdivision approval, Staff recommends the following conditions concerning the proposed
open space parcel:
No future development or future subdivision of the proposed open space parcel will
-
take place
Language shall be added to the deed for Lot 19 indicating no future subdivision or
-
development will occur on Lot 19.
The final subdivision proposes the interconnection of the proposed Cherry Tree Circle with
Berry Patch Drive. The applicant should coordinate and receive approval from the Town of
Queensbury Highway Superintendent regarding the future connection to this existing cul-de-
sac.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. RINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This is the final phase of a subdivision that was before you previously. The
applicant has submitted an updated plan showing the requested or required landscaping on Lot
8 and 9, the drainage easement on Lot 14 and 15. Staff would just ask the applicant to clarify
their plans regarding the proposed open space lot, and recommends the two conditions
contained on our Staff comments concerning this open space parcel. Any comments from C.T.
Male should be addressed, and actually we have today received signoff from C.T. Male, and
that’s all we have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Rich Schermerhorn,
on behalf of Rich Schermerhorn. As you just heard, we did receive the final signoff letter on
C.T. Male. As far as we know, the only issue to be discussed is the open space parcel, unless
there are, obviously, if there are other issues that the Board would like us to discuss, I have a
letter that we received today from the Land Conservancy expressing their interest in the parcel.
What we envision was that there would be condition that we could convey the open space
parcel to either the Land Conservancy or the Recreation Committee. They’ve also expressed
interest in the parcel, but not in writing. The only issue that we’d like to discuss, which the
Land Conservancy has asked us to raise, is their thought is that this parcel could be used for
either open space or recreation. So they would not want it to be that it could never be
developed. It would have to be forever wild, and my thought is that if it’s going to go to either
recreation or the Land Conservancy, if they wanted to do anything, they would have to come
back before the Board anyway. So I’m not sure that you need that protection, that it would
have to be forever wild, and just in terms of the density calculations for the subdivision, we
don’t need, for the cluster, we’re not using this parcel for the density. There’s enough density
within all the lots, because some are larger than an acre and some are smaller. So this lot
doesn’t have to be restricted from development in order to justify the cluster. So we’re only
raising that issue because the Land Conservancy has asked us to raise it. That if they take it,
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
that they may, in the future, want to do something interesting with the parcel, and they’d like
to leave that flexible, subject to your approval in the future.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. RINGER-Questions from the Board?
MR. LAPPER-I will submit the letter from the Land Conservancy that says that they’re
interested.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-I have a question.
MR. RINGER-We’ll start with you, Richard.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks. What are the options that are available? You know, you go up
north and there’s a lot of State land, and you kind of, first of all, I have an idea as to what you
can and cannot do on State land, but, you know, Rich is making a really great effort, lately, with
a lot of his projects, in designating these open space areas, and I, for one, am very appreciative
for that, and I think this is another great opportunity, but obviously if it’s owned by any one
individual, there’s certain liability issues if the public was to utilize it. So what I was
wondering, what would be the other options that might be available where a property owner
wouldn’t have liability, but that it might not be either the rec or a conservation organization?
You know, there’s a lot of needs that perhaps neither one of those two entities would satisfy.
Are there other alternatives?
MR. LAPPER-Well, some that come to mind, across the street is the subdivision that we did for
The Michaels Group a few years ago that had about 80 acres of, or is that the whole parcel, the
open space that went into the homeowners association?
MR. NACE-Surrey Field.
MR. LAPPER-Surrey Field, yes. I don’t remember how large the open space parcel was, but
there we formed a homeowners association so that it is in private ownership, but it was
restricted from development. So, in terms of liability issues, it would be covered by the
homeowners association insurance, but there it wouldn’t be open to the public. It would be for
their members to use for passive recreation. So that’s one alternative. Another alternative is
that Rich could keep owning it, but then it would be in private hands and you could mark it No
Trespass, but I don’t think that addresses your issues about some public use.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m just thinking out loud a little bit. I mean, it just occurred to me,
when, if you go to San Francisco, for instance, they have areas where in a congested city people
can take their dogs and walk their dogs and what have you, and if you have a couple of dogs,
you want to walk your dogs around here, and we have all this space, it’s difficult to find places
where they’re welcome, and so I mean, again, you know, I think your efforts are fine, but
sometimes if it’s designated forever wild, there’s a lot of restrictions associated with how the
public can utilize that land. So I was just throwing it out. I don’t have a recommendation, but.
MR. LAPPER-I think this issue, what I understand, the way it’s been discussed at the Land
Conservancy meetings, is that they really, they think that this, because of it’s location in this
part of Town, proximity to the population, that it could be utilized either for recreation area or
some sort of a passive open space parcel, but at this point, that’s going to be up to them rather
than to Rich, because it would be their project.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Richard?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. RINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just have one quick question. Does S-1 have to be updated to show it as a
Final subdivision, as opposed to Preliminary?
MR. NACE-I’m sorry, updated to show what now?
MR. METIVIER-It shows Preliminary.
MR. NACE-For Final, yes, we will, when we’re ready to file it. Yes, when it’s approved as Final
it will be.
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing else.
MR. RINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGUJLIC-The proposed open space, how would one get access to that?
MR. NACE-There’s an access. Off of Road B there’s a 50 foot access.
MR. SEGUJLIC-Okay. So that’s what’s marked on the map.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Whoever owns it, that would be the access.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also, there’s going to be a gravel road from Cherry Tree Circle to the
retention basin?
MR. NACE-Well, just an access, a place where somebody could drive to maintain that detention
basin. It won’t necessarily be a gravel road.
MR. SEGUJLIC-Okay. So that’s going to allow access to the detention basin that the Town’s
going to take over.
MR. NACE-Yes, but that’ll be just an easement on private property, on the two lots that are
there. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the Town would maintain that basin?
MR. NACE-It’s available to the Town, yes. It will be. There is a maintenance easement around
the basin, and along that property line that will be granted to the Town for maintenance.
MR. SEGULJIC-What if the Town doesn’t want to take the?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s pretty typical when the Town takes a road that they want to have the
drainage easements and the right to maintain, if it’s necessary. That was in response to a C.T.
Male comment that they wanted to make sure that that access was available.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then one of my concerns is really the view sheds in this area.
Because this is where you start looking up to be able to see the mountains, but everything is
going to be behind, relatively speaking.
MR. NACE-That’s, well, this is all well down, you look down off of Bay Road into most of this
property. That’s correct.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SEGUJLIC-Okay. So it’s going to have a, I have trouble visualizing it, but it should be
minimal.
MR. NACE-Most of it is over the ridge. There are a couple of houses short of the ridge, in that
little depression before the ridge, but most of the development is the far side of that open ridge
that runs down through the property. So, yes, it will be hidden.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. RINGER-That’s it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. RINGER-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess C.T. Male, their letter kind of takes away the confusion from the
last stuff that they talked to you about, the 13 and 14 and so on in this memo.
MR. NACE-The mis-numbering? Yes. Somehow I went past Number 12 and didn’t address it.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. With respect to Mr. Steves’ letter, and in conjunction with what we just
discussed a few minutes ago on Staff’s statement about no future development or further
subdivision, I would go along with putting Staff’s comments into this final approval, because it
certainly protects the Town, supposing the Land Conservancy says, well, no, there’s no
commitment in Mr. Steves’ letter, really, and if he did come in to do something with this land,
under the title of Land Conservancy, I’m sure it would be almost a, you know, a blanket
approval by the Planning Board to do that kind of thing, but I’m trying to protect that piece of
property from future development, because I think Staff has a very good point, in wanting to
inject that language into this resolution, and anybody that wants to come along, whether it’s the
Conservancy or whether it’s our own Rec Commission or anything else, to do something with
that, then, you know, it could easily be done, but there’s no commitment on either part of the
Rec Commission or the Conservancy to do such, and I think we should really have that
protection in there. That’s my feeling.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I was just seeking some softer language to make them happy, just to say,
even to acknowledge that, you know, just that you’re not restricting it to be forever wild, but to
say, to acknowledge that there might be open space or recreational uses, but that it would have
to be subject to your approval.
MR. VOLLARO-When I read that, I did not envision that this piece of property would be
forever wild. When the Staff used the words, no future subdivision or development, my mind,
at least, clicked into new housing. In other words, continuing to develop that parcel, and I
don’t see any indications here where that should be kept forever wild. Those words don’t even
jump off the page at me, at least.
MR. NACE-Well, even the issue of future subdivision, it’s maybe hypothetical, but let’s say this
parcel is able to be put together with some other adjacent lands, and between the Rec
Commission and the Land Conservancy they decide that a portion of that combined parcel,
then, is available for the Rec Commission to do active recreation, and they want to subdivide it
so part of it’s owned by the Land Conservancy and part of it’s owned by the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-But that should be almost a given.
MR. NACE-Well, obviously, it would have to come back here, but if you say no future
subdivision in the deed, that would preclude what I’m talking about.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-That sounds to me like it would be handled, or could be handled, as part of a
merger, not necessarily a subdivision, and what you could do up front is just not merge this, the
portion that you wanted to use for some active recreation, assuming this scenario comes about,
just manipulate the lot lines as part of a merger that would exclude this portion, I think.
MR. VOLLARO-That would certainly work.
MR. SANFORD-Can I chime in here just for a minute, Bob? I mean, one of the concerns I have
is, I mean, we don’t question, you know, a not for profit organization’s intentions, and I think
that, on the other hand, you know, not for profit organizations every once in a while have a
need for capital, and if we just blindly allow the ownership to pass there without any kind of
conditions or restrictions, it may very well be that they may justify a tradeoff. Well, we’ll take
this piece of property that we own, develop it, sell it, you know, make some money on it, and
then do other good elsewhere, and I’m not so sure that I’m, you know, comfortable in leaving it
that way. I would feel better if we identified some kind of restrictions as to what the future use
could be. Is that where you were going with this?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and so, you know, because quite often what they’ll do is they’ll prioritize
what they think are valuable open space areas, and then they’ll do tradeoffs because, you know,
any organization has cash flow needs.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. RINGER-Mark, have you got any recommendations on how that could be worded?
MR. SCHACHNER-Let’s clarify what the goal is, and then I do think some appropriate wording
would be necessary.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you work on that wording while we continue?
MR. SCHACHNER-I need to hear more about the goal.
MR. STROUGH-The goal is to not have Lot 19 developed in a commercial manner, but only in a
public (lost word).
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I guess what I’m asking is what would be allowed?
MR. STROUGH-Recreation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Active or passive recreation.
MR. SCHACHNER-George and I were just talking about this. Often, forever wild or “forever
wild” or “open space” is often meant to allow for passive recreation activities which is usually,
yes, there can be trails. There can be hiking. There can be cross country skiing, there can be
running, but not generally equipment, but some people have in mind by recreational activities
playground apparatus. Some people have in mind, I mean, that’s why I ask. If you can tell me
more about your goal, I can try to help with some wording.
MR. RINGER-I would think that passive and recreation, no motorized vehicles. We’d probably
want that in there.
MR. SCHACHNER-Any recreational apparatus, no buildings, no construction, no structure, no
apparatus.
MR. SANFORD-I’d be happy with that, passive.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. LAPPER-I think they’re thinking, the Recreation Committee’s thinking that they’d like the
ability to do active, even though they’re certainly not committing to that, active or passive
recreation.
MR. HILTON-Just to clarify here also, you know, I’ve spoken with the Recreation Department,
the head of the Department, and just to clarify. No petition, if you will, has been presented to
the Rec Commission, offering this land. I just want to clarify that. Because I’ve heard talk about
them wanting the land.
MR. VOLLARO-See, there is no commitment by either the Land Conservancy or the Rec
Commission to do this, and that’s why I think the language that you put in temporarily
preserves no development of that land. It certainly doesn’t say anything here about forever
wild. The words don’t say anything about that.
MR. SCHACHNER-So maybe for now no development.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that would be appropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-And then if at some point, no development, period, and then if at some
point somebody seeks some sort of passive recreational use or something like that, come back to
the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the way I’d like to handle it.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments? Any other comments on this, Bob? John?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, let’s see if, we’ve come to some agreements, and we’ve agreed
to try and dissuade construction vehicles from accessing this from the already developed
neighborhood. That we’re going to access this from Bay Road. That’s a prior agreement. That
we won’t make the road connection until the very last part of the road and we have to make the
road connection, and most of the heavy work is done.
MR. VOLLARO-John, what are you referring to, the Fieldview South Road, the new cul de sac?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m referring to what we’ve already had in discussions. They’ve
agreed, in the past, and I’m just vocalizing this agreement, that construction vehicles, during the
heavy construction period of that, will use the Bay Road access, and will not access from
Fieldview South, and that the connection to Fieldview South, or whatever that road is going
east and west.
MR. VOLLARO-Fieldview South.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the only thing that’s identified, the road. It’s a road with a cul de
sac.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-It’s Berry Patch Drive.
MR. STROUGH-Berry Patch Drive. All right. So they won’t connect to Berry Patch Drive until
they absolutely have to and after most of the heavy construction work is done. So that’s what
they’ve agreed to.
MR. VOLLARO-That was in our preliminary review, was it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and it was in previous discussions.
MR. LAPPER-That’s road construction, but not house construction.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, and I think as far as the house construction, once we have the road in, I
think it’s only reasonable that they’re going to use the Bay Road access, I mean, as a matter of
commonsense, but, I mean, if the public felt better about having some kind of a stipulation
saying otherwise, I mean, I don’t see where that’s a big deal, but, also I appreciate you
addressing my concerns and bringing the houses on 16, 15, 14, and 13 up to a level that I’m
more comfortable with, as far a putting the driveways in and things like that. I appreciate that.
While I’m looking at that section, the drainage maintenance easement, when you say typical,
Tom, on Lots 15 and 14, now, I’m just assuming that the deed’s going to say that the owners of
the property will not be allowed to change that stormwater structure in any shape, form or
manner. Now who’s going to be responsible for maintaining it?
MR. NACE-It will be the Town.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-It’s the normal outfall from any Town road.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Does the Town have to agree to maintain that, or is that just implicit?
MR. LAPPER-It’s part of the road dedication process, you dedicate it with an easement.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Let me just clarify. Because if the Town accepts the road, which the Town
is not obligated to do.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-But if the Town accepts the road, then that obligation generally goes along
with that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t know that. All right. Okay, and I see that you’ve put some
landscaping, some vegetation in, then, to address some of the neighbor’s concerns on Lots 8, 9,
and 10. Now, how can we protect that vegetation from being removed by the property owners,
so that it remains as a vegetative barrier? Do you know what I’m referring to, Tom? The extra
white pines that we’ve added there on eight, nine and ten, and because I believe that addressed
prior neighbor’s concerns.
MR. NACE-Yes, from the public hearing, that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And then my question is, how do we assure, and ensure, that that vegetation
remains?
MR. LAPPER-If you want us to put a deed restriction and no clearing area, we can do that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I think that’s where we’re going to have to go with that. Okay, just so
that, that’s fine with me, and.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we talking about putting a no cut zone in there, is that what we’re talking
about?
MR. STROUGH-In this area right here.
MR. LAPPER-Just where those new trees would be.
MR. STROUGH-And also, at least the part of the hedge, the hedge that’s on the eastern side of
your proposal here and it’s running north and south, the hedge that Cherry Tree Circle’s going
to connect with, now, the neighbors have asked that that hedge remain and not be touched. So I
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
think we’re going to have to kind of do the same thing. Most of that hedge is already in the
setback. Could we just add language that that also become a no cut zone on those properties,
and that be included in the deeds where the existing hedge is?
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only other thing that I had is I just wanted to ask Rich if this was
standard procedure. All right. So typically we stone the basement floors, we elevate them, we
bring fill in. We put drainage tiles in, we put sump pumps as backups. We try and gravity feed
lines to daylight, if and when possible. So the homes that are constructed certainly won’t have
those problems, I’m talking about water problems. Is that your standard building procedure,
Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, with soils that we have. As discussed at the last meeting, it is
typical with the soil conditions that we have on some of the lots that, yes, we do stone
underneath the basement floors, around the footings, drainage tile, we also try and daylight the
drainage tile when possible. That way it alleviates having a sump pump running, although we
do still put the sump pump in for backup, but that is correct.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a good idea. I mean, that’s a great plan. I don’t know if the Board feels
strongly about conditioning this application, putting that in, but I just thought I’d.
MR. RINGER-I don’t really think we should get into the construction of this stuff, John.
MR. STROUGH-I was iffy about that, too, Larry, but I just thought I’d mention it again, and
Rich is, I think, pretty good about that kind of stuff. All right. Well, you said no to the
boulevard entrance, and I think I have to agree with you on that. It seems to work better, not
being a boulevard. I love boulevard entrances, but it just doesn’t work there. Okay. The only
thing is, C.T. Male gave you a write up, Tom, in reference to Items 11 and 12. What did you
agree to with 11 and 12? Eleven was the access to the detention basin between Lots 14 and 15
should be more conducive to vehicular traffic.
MR. NACE-Yes. On 11 we ended up moving the, there’s a little swale that runs down along the
property line. I moved that to one side, made the easement a little bit wider so that there is
room on the other side, away from the swale, to access the detention pond area, and on 12,
there’s that little stub road that provides access to Lot 20. We had not addressed drainage off
that little piece of stub road, and since we don’t know, we think that that will probably in the
future be extended, and we don’t have a definite plan for how drainage will be handled there.
We did them in a temporary fashion. I say temporary. It can be permanent, but it will have to
be removed when it’s extended. We’ve put a big infiltration bed at the end of the road, that the
drainage can go into.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So there’s nothing really to 12 we can do now, but Number 11 will be
on the final submitted site plans?
MR. NACE-Yes. Both of them, 12 is already also on the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. I guess that does it over here. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I wasn’t here on the 25 when this came up before at the last meeting.
th
Preliminary, I believe Craig did close the public hearing on this, on Preliminary after approval
we probably would.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s been issued, Preliminary. It’s now on for Final.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-It’s on for Final, and that’s why I say the public hearing Craig probably closed the
public hearing.
MR. HILTON-I believe he did.
MR. SCHACHNER-On Preliminary. It had to be closed in order for Preliminary to be issued.
MR. RINGER-But we don’t open the public, we had this discussion a couple, three months ago,
and there’s no public hearing on Final.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can. You don’t have to.
MR. RINGER-Okay. What I think I’ll do, I will, I can open the public hearing without, you
know, that’s okay to do that, Mark? Just to be sure that there’s no further comments. So I will
open the public hearing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Has it been noticed for public hearing?
MR. RINGER-I don’t think so.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then you don’t have a public hearing to open. If you want to ask if
anybody present would like to comment, you can do that, but it’s not technically a public
hearing.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I think I will do that, then. I just want to make sure that we give
everybody an opportunity here. I got burnt once on this, and I don’t want to get burnt again.
So is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this project before we move
to the final approvals?
CINDY HURLEY
MRS. HURLEY-My name is Cindy Hurley. I live at 25 Berry Patch Drive. We first made our
plea for not having the road, and I think that really is a gone thing, that they’re going to connect
to the cul de sac, and I appreciate that they’re going to do that at the end of the construction
cycle. I’m happy with that, but I did want to make a concern that we are very concerned about
drainage. Since the last meeting that we had, which was in March, five basement in our
development flooded, and when I mean flooded, it’s three or four inches of water on
everybody’s floor. I have a sump pump and my basement is still flooded. So I just want to say
that it’s a major concern for us, with the houses going in, if we’re going to have more problems
with drainage, is there anything that we’re going to have to go back on and I don’t want the
people building a new house to have the same problem we’re having.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Cindy, what I can say is the engineers for the applicant have reviewed the
stormwater, and our engineers from the Town have reviewed their work, and both have signed
off, or our engineer has signed off on the work that the applicant’s engineer has, it’s going to
work. That’s the only assurances I can give you. I can’t guarantee everything, but the engineers
reports, the information we have, is that it’s going to work. Okay.
MRS. HURLEY-Okay, and the road that they’ve put in that connects to our cul de sac, I brought
this up, that we do have a natural like drain ditch that’s running kind of, it’s in the middle of
the hedge row. There is a ditch there that needs to remain there. If they go to look at it now, it’s
dry, because it’s clay, and when it’s dry it’s very dry, and when it’s wet, it’s very wet, but that
gets very wet when stuff goes through, and we need to make sure that that drainage is still
there, or that’s going to back up into my property.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll try to get the applicant to answer that for you. Anything else, Cindy?
MRS. HURLEY-No, that’s it. Thank you very much.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. METIVIER-Cindy, I’d like to ask something, if you don’t mind. Sometimes, and this
happened once before when we moved on Meadowbrook Road, when they put houses in,
they’re bringing fill around the houses. Sometimes that fill actually acts like a sponge, and a
comment was made to us prior to the houses being built, the road had terrible problems.
Everybody had wet basements, and since those houses were put in, they actually absorb so
much of the groundwater around that it will almost, and it’s not a guarantee, but take away
some of the water that’s going to seep down, because you guys live so low, and the house is
going to be up so high, that it actually could almost be beneficial to you, if the development is
done correctly, where the fill will absorb a lot of the water that you are experiencing now.
MRS. HURLEY-I hope so.
MR. METIVIER-Well, no, you know, it’s possible. A lot of times people think that, you know,
you put in foundations and that’s less permeable surface, but actually they’re replacing some of
the dirt around there with sand. It could actually benefit you. So you might even see
differences there.
MRS. HURLEY-I think our problem is right now is the clay, and it’s usually like when the snow,
when we had so much snow, and it melts so fast, that the clay just can’t absorb it.
MR. RINGER-Well, the engineers have looked at it, and signed off on it, and hopefully, you
know, it’s going to work for you, and in many cases as Tony just, sometimes we have these new
subdivisions and developments in and they do improve the drainage because of the detention
ponds and so forth that they build. So, hopefully got some of your answer, and we’ll get the
other answer for you on your last question. Okay?
MRS. HURLEY-Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Come back, please. Tom, she
had that one question. Can you give some reassurances on that, please.
MR. NACE-Sure. I don’t know that there’s, there may be a low spot in the hedge row at that
point. There’s not, that I could ever tell, a defined ditch line along the hedge row that runs for
any significant difference. The hedge row is really a little bit of a high point, separating the two
subdivisions, and I think if you can look at the topo, there is just a little bit of a ditch line that
shows as a “V” along the existing development side of the hedge row, for a short distance, but it
really doesn’t pick up drainage from any distance away. All of our subdivision is designed so
the drainage collects into the center and runs down Road A and then on out through this
drainage easement to the detention pond. So any drainage from development of this adjacent
property is kept on the adjacent property and doesn’t have a chance to cross the hedge row.
Any drainage that is, any low spot along that hedge row will be picked up in the drainage
system with our new road. Our new road is a little bit low going through there. So that will
collect any drainage.
MR. VOLLARO-I was going to say, any ditch that’s in there would be eventually covered over
by the extension of Cherry Tree Circle.
MR. NACE-Well, it won’t really be covered. It’ll be, we’re in a little bit of cut there, and any low
spot will be picked up.
MR. STROUGH-So what you’re saying is the drainage actually goes toward you from the cul de
sac.
MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And then into the detention pond.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So it will be picked up that way.
MR. NACE-We’ll be picking up anything that’s coming along that hedge row.
MR. RINGER-And it will improve their situation.
MR. NACE-It could improve it somewhat. I won’t go far as telling you, this is a little bit of a
different situation, and Rich is right. Building the houses correctly and putting in good
basement foundation drainage and giving it all a place to connect and get out is the primary
importance. It’s a clay soil. It tends to be a bathtub around any foundation, and collects any
runoff and snow melt in that bathtub. It doesn’t, the water doesn’t move very fast at all through
the existing clay soils. It’s a little bit different from the conditions now on Meadowbrook Road,
because Meadowbrook Road is high groundwater. It moves fairly rapidly to a more permeable
soil, and you’re right in that condition. Additional fill does tend to soak up the rainwater that
occurs.
MR. RINGER-Thanks, Tom. Did you have something you wanted to add?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just going to say, the ability to daylight out I guess is mostly along
Cherry Tree Circle where you can get out to the road, Rich?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Daylighting into the back lots may be a little difficult problem, and daylighting
is a good way to lower the impedance to that water so it gets out.
MR. NACE-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Okay. We did a SEQRA on the
preliminary. So now we’re ready for the motion, and we’ve got a couple of conditions, I think,
and I’ll ask Bob and John. We’re going to take about five minutes, or can you do it in three?
Can you do it in three? Okay. Five. We’ll take a five minute break while they make out their
resolution. John, would you, before you read the resolution, read your conditions, and then
we’ll just read the resolution, it shouldn’t take too long to just read the conditions.
MR. STROUGH-All right. In addition to what Staff has prepared, the Planning Board offers the
following conditions, that all road construction vehicles shall enter off of Bay Road during the
construction of Cherry Tree Circle, and the final connection to the cul de sac will not be made
until near the end of the construction of Cherry Tree Circle, and the second one is a no cut zone
will be added to the deeds of Lots Eight, Nine and Ten, identified by the proposed landscaping
on Site Plan S-2 dated February 15, 2003. The final submitted plan will be in accord with all
prior agreements with C.T. Male, and there will be no future development or future subdivision
of the proposed open space parcel labeled as Lot 19, and a no cut zone will be added to the
deeds of Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 to preserve the existing tree hedge row, with the exception of the
road cut. Well, that wouldn’t be in the deeds anyway.
MR. RINGER-That’s it? Anything else?
MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, just a quick question. How did you treat, how do you treat Lot 19
again?
MR. STROUGH-Lot 19 I said that there will be no future development or future subdivision of
the proposed open space parcel labeled as Lot 19.
MR. SANFORD-No future development. Okay.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-So what does that mean, exactly? What if someone wants to put a ballpark in
there?
MR. STROUGH-Then they come back to us.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The way we talked about that was no development, nothing.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions then? All right. John, the only question I had on your
condition two, the connection won’t be made until near the end of Cherry Tree Road is
constructed, near the end, can we put something more definitive in there?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s an excellent point.
MR. RINGER-Instead of near the end.
MR. SCHACHNER-Especially because I didn’t know if you meant time wise or place wise.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we had trouble with that, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we make it until the completion of. That’s simplified.
MR. RINGER-We’re not road builders. So I don’t know if that’s feasible, but is that something
that’s feasible, if we put a condition in that you can’t connect until you’ve completed Cherry
Tree?
MR. NACE-Well, your road construction has to take a sequence. I mean, you’ve got to do the
clearing and grubbing, and then you’ve got to do the sub base and then the paving.
MR. RINGER-Tom, can you help us, then? I’m not asking you to make our resolution, but since
we’re not an expert on road construction.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what we’re trying to do here, basically, is deter vehicles from entering the
residential neighborhood that are construction vehicles. So I mean, another way of doing this
might be to put up some kind of a barrier.
MR. NACE-That’s right. We could certainly put up a barrier across the end there.
MR. STROUGH-Just to keep the vehicles out of the residential area.
MR. NACE-We could put up a barrier right around that end of the existing cul de sac and
simply state that for each stage of the construction, that would be the last area.
MR. RINGER-All right. That sounds good. Can you get that quickly?
MR. NACE-Of the road construction, yes, for each stage of road construction. For each stage of
road construction, the connection would be the last portion done.
MR. VOLLARO-To me, that way you’ve described it there would be an ideal way to put it.
MR. STROUGH-All right. A temporary barrier will be placed at the end of the proposed Cherry
Tree Circle.
MR. NACE-The end of the existing cul de sac.
MR. STROUGH-You’re ahead of me.
MR. NACE-Okay. One end’s the same as the other. I’m sorry.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-A temporary barrier will be placed at the end of the proposed Cherry Tree
Circle, adjacent to the cul de sac, until the major part of the, until road construction is complete.
MR. RINGER-All right. Will you make you motion, then.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by:
Subdivision No. 2-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn
FINAL STAGE Property Owner: Albert Oudekerk & Howard Toomey et.
Al.
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
Zone: SR-1A
Location: East side Bay Rd. opposite Maid Marion Way
Applicant proposes the subdivision of an approximately 62 ac. lot into 22 residential lots.
Tax Map No. 289.12-1-8, 9, 10 / 48-3-51.5, 49.1, 51.4
Lot size: 51.45 ac., 41.07 ac., and 5.08 ac.
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: March 18, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/16/03 and
5/22 Staff Notes
5/22 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/7 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
March 18, 2003; 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
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. A temporary barrier will be placed at the end of the proposed Cherry Tree Circle Road,
adjacent to the cul-de-sac, until construction of the road has been completed.
2. A No Cut Zone will be added to the deeds of Lots 8, 9 and 10, identified by the proposed
landscaping in Site Plan S-2 dated February 15, 2003.
3. The final submitted plans will be in accordance with all prior agreements with C. T.
Male
4. There will be no future development or future subdivision of the proposed open space
parcel labeled as Lot 19,
5. Additional condition is a No Cut Zone will be added to the deeds of Lots 10, 11, 12 and
13 to preserve the existing tree hedgerow.
6. Recreation Fees in the amount of $11,000.00 for 22 lots are applicable to this subdivision.
7. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
8. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, just a comment for you, Mr. Chairman, is, at the end of this, I know it’s
going to be a late night, but we ought to add the Lake George Park Commission request for
Lead Agency, which we were going to re-visit tonight. Remember? So I don’t know if Staff did
follow through on it.
MR. HILTON-Yes, we did, and I’ll have some comment.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn’t forget about it.
MR. HILTON-Yes, we had talked about it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thanks, Richard.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL
& PAMELA VALENTE AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER, P.E. ZONE: PO LOCATION:
BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.05 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX. TAX MAP NO.
296.11-1-21 LOT SIZE: 14.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
CHARLIE SCUDDER & DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-Public hearings, November 19, 2002, December 19, 2002, March 25, 2003.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. In response to the most recent tabling for this application the applicant
has submitted some revised information that I’ve listed in Staff notes. Just a few quick
highlights. The newly revised stormwater management information has been forwarded to C.T.
Male for their review and comment. The applicant has submitted a revised subdivision
alternate layout, if you will, that reduces the number of lots from 15 to 10. The applicant has
also indicated that this design is probably not feasible. Should the Planning Board choose to
approve the original 15 lot configuration, the subdivision should be designed in order to
provide shared driveways between properties, with access ways located behind buildings, as
called for in the Bay Road design guidelines. Any proposed sewer district extension such as the
one submitted is subject to review and approval by the Town Wastewater Department as well
as the Town Board. The applicant has revised the Full EAF, as required by the Board, in terms
of parking, traffic counts and depth to groundwater information. The Planning Board tabling of
March 25 asked for a deed or association contract language for stormwater management
th
facilities, and as of this moment, we can’t find any such language. We did have the Town
Wastewater Superintendent, who was here, to speak to stormwater issues, and I don’t
necessarily see him. Well, maybe I’ll go track him down, and he’s here to address or try to
address and answer your questions, or anyone’s questions concerning wastewater.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I was going to start with Mike, but if Mike’s outside, Bob, would you
check and see?
MR. HILTON-But that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The applicant take the table now. I’d like to hear from Mike first, Mike
Shaw, first, but he’s not going to be at the table. He’s going to be up representing the Town.
Apparently Mike has left. George, Mike apparently isn’t, do you want to handle that
wastewater thing? Or I can go to the other items and see if Mike comes back in.
MR. HILTON-Well, let me just, I think I’m probably going to go try to look for him, but I did
provide a letter from Chris Round, a memo this evening, and it does kind of describe our
requirements for.
MR. RINGER-Now, this was not sent to the applicant because it didn’t apply to the applicant
specifically.
MR. HILTON-It’s a general comment.
MR. RINGER-So the applicant had no idea what the Board, members of the Board are looking at
up here.
MR. HILTON-Well, yes, that’s true, and just to summarize, it’s just a general statement as to
how approvals, any approval by the Planning Board is usually held or what’s required, in terms
of wastewater, and I guess, again, just to reiterate my comment that any proposed extension, as
the one submitted by the applicant, requires Town Board and quite possibly, or most definitely
Wastewater Department approval. Coordination of that and when that occurs, again, it remains
to be seen, but I think there has to be some kind of provision or understanding that some
wastewater treatment will be provided with any application that’s approved.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m going to give my copy, if it’s all right with you, to the applicant, and
just so you will have, if any Board members refer to this tonight, you’ll have an idea of what
they’re talking about. Okay, and we’re going to hold off on the wastewater, just in case Mike
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
comes back. So we’ll start off with the other items on the, on your proposal here. The last time
you were here, in March, when I wasn’t here, we tabled it, and we tabled it for a number of
reasons, okay, and I’ve got the tabling resolution in front of me now, because there’s several of
them, 10 to be exact, and to stay focused and moving along, I thought we’d do each one of the
items that it was tabled for, and then hopefully we’ll hit them all. Does that sound good? The
first item for the tabling was to have C.T. Male review the depth of Pond Number Four, with
respect to gravity sewer line passing under the pond. George, do you know if that was?
MR. VOLLARO-His new proposal takes that away all together.
MR. RINGER-You mean the new design?
MR. VOLLARO-The new design.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, then let’s start with the design first, and then we’ll come back to the
other, okay. I still want to stay focused.
MR. VOLLARO-Larry, if you get on this Fairfield Professional Park and start off with their new
concepts, I think that’ll help you a lot.
MR. RINGER-I just want to stay focused, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’ll tend to focus you.
MR. RINGER-Well, let’s go right with the new design. That was Item Number Nine. The
Planning Board strongly feels that the applicant should reconsider the currently submitted
subdivision layout. The Board desires to see an alternate subdivision layout. Would you
discuss that. You’ve given it to us. You’ve also put a letter and we want you to discuss it.
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-I’m Dan Valente, President of Valente Homes, also developer of the Fairfield
Professional Park. Yes, we submitted an alternate, potentially alternate plan, that was
requested by the Board. We did, what we submitted I tried to keep the parcels, or the lot sizes
in relation to what I had previously subdivided the lots into, as far as size went, and seeing how
with that design I would lose five lots, and also add an addition 700 lineal feet of road, it was
just going to drive my costs, you know, economically it’s just not feasible to develop the land in
that manner. I wouldn’t be able to sell the lots.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So you’re saying, we asked you to come up with an alternate plan. You
did. However, that plan is not feasible for you and is not really, you couldn’t do it. Because
economically it wouldn’t be feasible?
MR. VALENTE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Any questions from the Board on that issue?
MR. VALENTE-I know Mr. Strough will be upset with me.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know what I was.
MR. RINGER-All right. John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-You’ll start with me.
MR. RINGER-Only on the issue of the alternate plan.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Now, there’s your alternate plan, and I realize there are fewer lots, but they’re
bigger, and they’re also more interesting in the way of dimensionally speaking. If you see Lot
10, right dead center, I could just see it now, a gazebo, a fountain, strolling sidewalk going
through two lots, manicured lawn.
MR. RINGER-The applicant has said, he’s presented this plan to us, he’s not interested in
pursuing that plan. So our only question to him is he’s said no on the plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now you’re said and done, I’m going to continue.
MR. VALENTE-I would like to make one other comment, though.
MR. STROUGH-Well, wait a minute. That would be a masterpiece showcase. This would be
the professional office of the area. I mean, can you imagine that in the middle, a common area.
I mean, they’d be knocking down your doors and paying you $100,000 a lot if you had
something nice like that.
MR. VALENTE-It would be a lot more than that on those, on that design.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m trying to suggest here is that the cookie cutter style that you’ve
got, you probably will, you’ll get a minimum amount of money for the lots. It’s bland and
plain.
MR. VALENTE-The other reason why I prefer the other style is due to, I have much more
flexibility. To be quite honest with you, most people are probably not going to buy just one lot.
There may be a multitude of lots sold and the configuration could change drastically. Now, if
you look at the Bay Road corridor, for each design, there’s three lots facing Bay Road, regardless
of the design. They each, from Bay Road they will look identical, from the front of Bay Road, as
far as, you have three lots in the original design and you have three lots in the alternate design.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just trying to give it a shot. It could be a masterpiece.
MR. VALENTE-I know. It’ll be nice regardless.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the other ones I’m a little bit concerned. You’re right. You can combine
lots, but what I’m wondering is some of those lots are so small, and, you know, professional
office you’re going to need a large parking area, fairly large. Right? And I’m wondering
whether some of those smaller lots might be a permeability problem.
MR. VALENTE-Well, obviously we have to do site plan. So, you know, that’s definitely, we’ll
be looking at that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. RINGER-John, are you finished with the alternate?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m finished with the alternate plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob, please.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask a simple question. Is this plan submitted for our
consideration, or is it off the table?
MR. VALENTE-I can’t, yes, no, it’s not feasible for me.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s off the table, essentially. We’re not considering this plan?
MR. VALENTE-No.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just, you know, you look at your original plan and you’re looking at quarter
acre lots? I mean, is that right? Or is my math wrong?
MR. VALENTE-They’re all well over the minimum, you know, size that is required.
MR. METIVIER-There just has to be some kind of middle ground, you know, between, I do like
your alternate plan. I mean, I think you did a great job with it. It’s exactly, I think, what we
were looking for, and John is, you know, right, in that, you know, it could be a very attractive
development here, but to look at the other one and just, I mean, the lots are so small, and I can
just see it just one, you know, office after another, and you look up your hill and all you see are
just roofs, roofs, roofs all the way up. It just, you know, we’re trying to do so much with Bay
Road, and this just isn’t going to be the answer. So there’s got to be some kind of happy
medium between the two.
MR. VALENTE-All those lots are all a half an acre or larger. The smallest ones are over a half
an acre, and like I said, I don’t know, somebody may want to come across and buy the whole
side. I don’t know.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, but the problem is, is that if they don’t, they don’t have to, and you’re
right, they might want to buy the whole side, but if we approve it like this, then it could be 15
different. So all I’m saying is that there’s got to be some kind of happy medium between the
two. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t understand how the road has increased that
much from your first plan to the alternate plan. Is it just the loop?
MR. VALENTE-Yes, it’s about another 700 feet of road.
MR. METIVIER-Is that a significant cost or is it that associated with the fact that you lost five
lots?
MR. VALENTE-Roughly, $70,000, $80,000, just in the condition of road, then you’ve got to take
the five lots I’d lose out of that potential sale.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, do you feel as though, regardless of the size, you can get the same
amount of, you know, same price for each lot regardless of whether or not it’s an acre versus a
half acre?
MR. VALENTE-Say that again?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m saying, you know, when you market these, are you convinced you
could get, you couldn’t get anymore for an acre versus a half acre?
MR. VALENTE-Well, if you take a lot that’s going to be $100,000 and you put it at $150,000, it’s
hard to market it. You’re going to push a lot of people out of that. That’s a big difference, or a
lot that’s $60,000 to $100,000. Somebody may purchase it at $60,000, but they may not at
$100,000. I don’t know. I’m just throwing out figures. I don’t, you know, I don’t necessarily
know.
MR. METIVIER-I know exactly what you’re saying. I understand exactly what you’re saying.
MR. VALENTE-I’m boxed in. I have, you know, a road in front of me, a road on the side. I
definitely have obviously a connecting road. I mentioned it before.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. METIVIER-We’re looking for some kind of creativity, and the first plan we said from the
beginning just wasn’t creative. It’s certainly the most, the best use for you, but with everything
we’ve been trying to do with Bay Road, it just doesn’t seem like the answer. I mean, if there
was a way to make the alternate plan work for you, it certainly would work for me.
MR. RINGER-Richard, anything on the alternate plan?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, I really don’t think this was what we had in mind when we asked
you to look at and reconsider for you to reconsider and come back and say I’ve reconsidered,
here’s something to look at but I’m not going to do it. I think what we were looking for is for
you to come in with an alternative that you would be willing to work with us on, and we could
look at it, and here’s some of your concerns and maybe come up with something that’s, that
works, that’s viable, but instead, I mean, you could have come in with one lot, and you could
have said, here’s my plan, but, you know, it just doesn’t work out very well. So I don’t, I’m a
little bit disappointed in how you responded to what I think was the task that the Planning
Board asked you to perform.
MR. VALENTE-And in retrospect I would like to go backwards and say we’ve been in
Preliminary for quite some time and it should have been made more clear at Sketch, I felt, you
know, I didn’t feel the timing was proper, and I don’t want to offend the Board, but we’ve done
a lot of work as far as design, and have put a lot of time and money into this, and that’s not the
only reason why I want to stay with, obviously, I’ve stated my reasons, but I feel it’s a little
untimely.
MR. SANFORD-We have a different recollection. I’m an alternate member, but I’ve actually
been involved, I think, with every one of the meetings on this application and I think from the
beginning we expressed our dissatisfaction with the layout, and it was only after a number of
meetings that we actually requested, in a rather strong sense, that you prepare an alternate plan,
but I think the intention of the Board has been pretty straight and clear right from the
beginning.
MR. RINGER-Anymore comments on the alternate plan? Okay. We asked you to present an
alternate plan. You presented an alternate plan. You did what we asked you to do. Let’s go
back to the beginning of, whether we accept this plan or not, you know, he did what we asked
him to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Essentially he did, but he’s withdrawn it, Larry. I’m not sure where I stand on
that.
MR. RINGER-We asked him to present an alternate plan, which we’re entitled to do on,
according to the Code, and he did that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s submitted it but he’s withdrawn it. Now, I don’t know where I stand on
that.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think he withdrew it. He said he submitted his plan and he said it’s not
going to work for him. Economically, it’s not feasible for him.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I asked him the question, is it off the table, and he said yes, Mr.
Chairman. That’s why I asked the question.
MR. SCHACHNER-What’s your question, Larry?
MR. RINGER-The question is, we asked him, in tabling this resolution, to submit an alternate
plan. The applicant submitted an alternate plan. However, he doesn’t feel it’s economically
feasible to do that plan, as he presented it to the Board, but he doesn’t want to have it included
as part of the site plan.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. RINGER-So has he complied with our request to submit an alternate plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, let’s back up a step. My understanding, and correct me if I’m
wrong, I know I’ve been present at at least some of the meetings when this application has been
reviewed, but not necessarily all, was that, I’m not sure if you asked for an alternate plan.
MR. RINGER-I’ll read it for you if you like.
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The tabling, the Planning Board also strongly feels that the applicant
should reconsider the currently submitted subdivision layout. The Board desires to see an
alternate subdivision layout.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay.
MR. RINGER-That’s how we tabled it.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right, and I’m not sure, and there doesn’t have to be a right answer to
what I’m about to say. I’m not sure if, in doing that, the majority of you, or all of you, however
many of you voted for that proposition as part of the tabling, wanted to see a new and different
plan to the exclusion of the previously initially supplied plan, or as you often do, if you wanted
to see an alternate plan just to see if there was another way, possibly, of going about a
commercial subdivision of the property, to evaluate one plan against the other. I can’t speak for
you, and I don’t know what you were thinking when you asked for that additional information
to be supplied. Obviously the applicant has at least complied with the letter of your request, by
preparing and submitting an alternate plan. You don’t have the right, as a Planning Board, to
force an applicant, I think you all know this, to say, I’m going with Plan B if the applicant
doesn’t want to go to Plan B, nor does the applicant have any guarantee that you’ll approve
Plan A if an applicant stays with Plan A, but I think what I’m hearing now is an alternate plan
has been submitted, that you can at least utilize for comparative purposes, but the applicant I
think has made pretty clear to you that that is not “on the table”, meaning he’s, the applicant is
not seeking your or approval, or denial, but certainly not your approval of the alternate plan. Is
that a fair statement, applicant?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Dennis Phillips, and speaking for the applicant, that is a safe,
fair statement.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, I hope I’m helping. I don’t know if I’m answering your question
clearly, Larry, but I think the answer is, yes, the applicant has submitted an alternate plan, but
it’s not part of the application in the sense of it’s not something that the applicant’s willing to
have you consider as the proposal for you to review and rule on.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and the reason I asked you that is because we’ve got a list of tabling, and I
want to go down the list and make sure everything we’ve asked for the applicant has done.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay.
MR. RINGER-Whether the applicant is happy with the way he’s done it or not is irrelevant.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and in that respect the applicant has submitted an alternate plan at
least for you to evaluate for comparative purposes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, one quick question, though, Mark. If it’s not feasible going into the
meeting, does it constitute an alternate plan? In other words, an alternate plan denotes, I mean
to me, at least, that it’s a viable alternative or that it’s potentially a viable alternative, if in fact,
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
the way this is being represented is we’ve given you an alternate plan that, under no
circumstances are we willing to consider, in my definition it’s not a plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I understand what you’re saying. I can’t quarrel with you, but I
think that’s what you have. I think you have an alternate plan that the applicant is saying, but
I’m not willing to put this forward as an application.
MR. SANFORD-That’s not a plan, to me.
MR. VALENTE-I would also like to state that we also had submitted prior other designs for the
road, which wasn’t to the satisfaction of the Highway Superintendent, which is why we stayed
away from that design. This is not just the only alternate design we had submitted. We had
looked at that, and the Town’s Highway Department didn’t like that. So, you know, it’s not like
I haven’t been trying, folks. I think I’ve put some effort into this.
MR. RINGER-Did you not reduce the number of driveways, too, from the original plan? I
mean, there’s been so many meetings on this. It seems like you’ve made dual entrances now for
some of the.
MR. VALENTE-We shared driveways.
MR. RINGER-Shared driveways.
MR. VALENTE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-So that was a change from your original.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, original originally, yes, I believe.
MR. RINGER-That we had asked for.
MR. VALENTE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s go back now to Item One of the tabling, and now we can go back to
the original thing, and Item One was to have C.T. Male review the depth of Pond Number Four
with respects to the gravity sewer line passing under the pond. Did C.T. Male do that and?
MR. HILTON-We did forward the tabling resolution that you’re reading from to C.T. Male. I
think that in their letter of May 16, they have, under the heading motion number, outlined, or
th
numbered each one, and that they had no comments. They listed no comment. If they had a
comment, they’d provide it, but just to let you know we did forward the resolution to them, and
they have reviewed it, and their answer is provided in their May 16 letter.
th
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m reading from the May 16, and “This approach eliminates the
th
retention pond and the possible…”. So it looks like they have answered that.
MR. HILTON-To me.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-What really happened here is that they’ve made a fundamental engineering
change to this program, fundamental, in my words, from an engineering point of view, is a
major change to the way they’ve done this, and therefore the comments in the tabling motion no
longer apply, because they have an entirely different stormwater plan here, that completely
obviates what they had in the first design, totally.
MR. RINGER-Which, did C.T. Male look at that?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they say that. The revised plans employ the use of grass swales in lieu of
retention basins. This approach eliminates the retention pond and the possible conflict
identified in the motion, and that’s because of the fundamental engineering change. Mr.
Scudder, am I correct with that?
MR. SCUDDER-Sure, and you know the reason.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do.
MR. RINGER-Does it answer the reason for the tabling, on Item One?
MR. HILTON-I can only read from their letter that says the re-submittal package consisted of
revised plan Sheets One and Seven from April 2003, and the engineering report dated April 14
th
. They’ve gone through that. They’ve gone through the previous motion, and these are their
comments, besides that, I can’t.
MR. RINGER-Bob, you had your comment on that. Did anybody else have comments on that
Item Two?
MR. VOLLARO-Item One and Two no longer pertain to the submittal design.
MR. RINGER-But they were reviewed by C.T. Male and he has, on Item One anyway, and Item
Two, apparently said okay. I would guess from this, from reading his response. Now if
someone disagrees with that.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, I don’t. Effectively he said okay because it doesn’t apply any longer.
That design is off the table, totally. That whole swale idea that they had before is gone and
what they’ve come up now with a grass swale in lieu of retention basins, and that’s a
completely and fundamental engineering change to this design.
MR. RINGER-Does it require another stormwater management report to be reviewed by?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So then the way I look at it they have complied with our request.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why are you saying that, Bob? Why are you saying it doesn’t require a review?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, because they’ve already, if you go to C.T. Male’s One and Two, to our
comments, it says the revised plans employ the use of grass swales in lieu of retention basins.
This approach eliminates the retention pond and the possible conflict identified in the motion.
Removes what the motion says for them to look at, because the engineering has changed on it,
totally.
MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t say that the grass swales would work, though.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they say, you know, the only thing he says about the grass swales is, on
the second page, the specific dimensions of the swale should be shown and the proposed
grading should be reflective of these dimensions, but that’s the only comment that he makes on
the grass swales. He doesn’t say they won’t work.
MR. RINGER-And if we have difficulty with that, we can ask C.T. Male to comment on, that the
changes are satisfactory in the stormwater. Okay. Let’s go to Question Two is the same as
Question One, and the same comments, I think, would apply, unless someone has, I’ll read, you
haven’t got this in front of you. So I’ll read these to you. Item Two was, have C.T. Male check
the depth of Pond Number Four with respects to the depth to groundwater, and that’s why Bob
had said it was the same thing. Okay. Tabling reason number three, delineate the drainpipe on
Pond Three P with all the necessary infall. Have you done that, Mr. Scudder?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCUDDER-We’ve eliminated the Pond.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The ponds are gone.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So that takes care of tabling item number three. Tabling item number
four, correct Full Environmental Assessment Form on Page 3 A8 and BG.
MR. VOLLARO-That was done. They’ve submitted a correction page.
MR. RINGER-You’ve done that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I just want to make sure we go down, I mean, Dan, you mentioned how
many times you’ve been here, and I can think, The Great Escape hasn’t been here that many
times. So, I want to make sure we cover everything, and if you walk away from here and the
public walks away from here, you know we’ve done a thorough and satisfied everything and
any questions you have. All right. Five, Staff will send a letter to DEC in reference to the
application of a 50 foot buffer versus the traditional 100 foot buffer. How did we make out?
MR. HILTON-Yes. We did send such a letter to Ken Cogate, New York State DEC. I have not
spoken to him. I do not have a response from him. Let me back up and state that the letter was
signed by Craig MacEwan, Chairman of the Planning Board, and it was drafted by Planning
Staff, sent in his name. I guess, from Staff’s standpoint, I can only say that the applicant has
applied for a New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit. The wetlands have been
delineated and have been indicated on the plat. Ultimately, it’s up to their review and
discretion. New York State DEC, previous to this letter that went from Mr. MacEwan indicated
in a letter that they felt the 50 feet would provide adequate protection. Beyond that, we have
had no recent comment from DEC on the 50 foot proposal as opposed to the 100 foot traditional
buffer that’s required.
MR. RINGER-Any approval, if any that may come about, could be conditioned on DEC
approving, getting a formal approval.
MR. HILTON-Absolutely, and they’ve actually started the paperwork and the process of
applying for the New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, could I comment on this?
MR. RINGER-Certainly, jump in any time.
MR. SCUDDER-I’ve had about six or eight conversations with Ken Cogate or left messages for
him in his voice mailbox, and he has told me that his response to Mr. MacEwan’s letter will be
contained in the setback distance allowed in the permit, but he hasn’t had a chance to get his
paperwork done because he’s been very busy with the whole host of enterprises. Now, I tried
to get George Hilton to talk to Ken Cogate, tried to get them together on the telephone so that
he could speak more authoritatively, but it just didn’t work out. They just couldn’t get together.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know where we’re headed on this tonight, but if we did, for whatever, get
to a conclusion, that we would make that a condition.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I feel sure it’s going to be 50 feet from DEC.
MR. PHILLIPS-And if we did achieve approval tonight, we certainly would be agreeable to a
condition that says that it is contingent upon a 50 foot setback with respect to that issue.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Scudder, I forgot to ask you to identify yourself. So just
for the record, please identify yourself.
MR. SCUDDER-For the record, Charlie Scudder. I’m a professional engineer representing Dan
Valente.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, and I’m sorry that I didn’t ask you that to begin with.
MR. SCHACHNER-Before you leave that point, I just want to see if I’m understanding the
applicant’s attorney’s view. Mr. Phillips said, I think, something to the effect of, if he can
achieve, if they can achieve approval tonight they have no objection to the condition of a 50 foot
setback. Would I be fair in stating that, or would it be fair to ask you, would you be equally
comfortable consenting to a condition that you would have whatever setback DEC imposes in
its permit, whatever amount that was?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-I would think so.
MR. PHILLIPS-We would consent to whatever the DEC permit requires us to do.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you have no choice, but it may or may not be 50 feet.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-I believe Mr. Scudder believes it’ll be 50 feet, but we don’t know that.
MR. SCUDDER-You don’t know it because you don’t have the paperwork.
MR. SCHACHNER-For whatever reason, we don’t know the amount. I think you should
understand the applicant’s position to be that they believe they’re going to get a DEC permit.
They believe that DEC permit will have some setback requirement in it and that the applicant
has no problem with this Board conditioning any approval on meeting whatever setback that is.
MR. SCUDDER-Exactly.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mark. Item number six of the tabling resolution, if the easements
have not been settled from the HOA to Valente, they shall be indicated on any new plot. You
haven’t come up with any new plot, but.
MR. PHILLIPS-Let me answer that question. I have submitted a letter to the Board tonight
dated May 22, 2003, this letter is written to me by Martin Auffredou, who is the attorney for the
Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association, and in his last sentence on Page Two of that
letter he says I understand that you will be presenting this letter to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board this evening, and I have done that.
MR. RINGER-Excuse me, sir. George, did we get a copy of it?
MR. HILTON-I believe you did.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I just can’t find mine, but we’ve got a copy of it. I’m sorry to interrupt
you. Go ahead.
MR. PHILLIPS-Basically, Valente is in the same position as the Queensbury Baybridge
Homeowners Association with respect to the sewage in this area, and it may be common
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
knowledge to the Planning Board, based on a letter submitted to the Planning Board by Mr.
Schermerhorn, that he is required by the Town Board to prepare a transportation corporation
that will provide sewage to the Valente lands and the Queensbury lands. I think that’s
consistent with the memorandum from Chris Round that I just read that you had submitted to
you dated May 21, 2003. As Mr. Schermerhorn designs that sewage plan through his
transportation corporation, basically, he has two choices as to where he goes, one choice is
Walker Lane. The other choice is the easement that is made available to him by Baybridge and
by Valente. At one point, that easement was a joint easement between Baybridge and the Town
of Queensbury, based on another plan at a different point in time, and that plan, of course, was
abandoned by the Town of Queensbury. Upon the abandonment by the Town of Queensbury,
of that plan, Town of Queensbury conveyed its one undivided one half interest in the easements
a back to Valente. So as it stands now, the easements are owned one half by Queensbury
Baybridge, one half by Valente. This letter indicates that the Queensbury Baybridge
Homeowners Association will consent to the relocation of the easement into the proposed road
area as shown on this plan, and because Queensbury Baybridge has not seen any plan yet from
Mr. Schermerhorn, and because Valente has not yet seen any plan from Mr. Schermerhorn, of
course any approval we have tonight would be contingent upon Mr. Schermerhorn fulfilling his
obligation to the Town of Queensbury and to Valente and to the Queensbury Baybridge
Homeowners Association, and those bodies all approving the plan, and I think that Mr.
Auffredou has articulated that in his letter where he says QBHOA will agree to the relocated
easement on the Valente property provided that the Transportation Corporation proposed by
Schermerhorn Construction, is presented, reviewed and accepted by your client, QBHOA, and
the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. So, we would make our request for a preliminary
approval tonight contingent upon the sewage all being agreeable to those three parties, and,
that being the case, Queensbury Baybridge has agreed to relocate the easements so they would
fall within the roadway that’s proposed on this plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m at a loss on this, Mark. We would be concerned, from a Planning
Board standpoint, with any approvals that may be given, that before any construction or site
plan or whatever, that a sewer arrangement or district or whatever you would want to call it,
would be in place.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s a fair statement.
MR. RINGER-As for the mechanics of it, are we, as a Planning Board, involved in that or
responsible for that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but the applicant, so far, is only seeking
Preliminary approval. Right?
MR. RINGER-Preliminary approval.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the stage we’re at. I think I would generally agree with your
statement, Larry, that as a Planning Board you obviously have not only a right but an obligation
to make sure that sewage disposal is properly taken care of. You don’t have to get involved in
the specific, nitty gritty details of it if you’re talking about, if you’re not talking about on site
septic systems, which I take it we’re not talking about here, and you’re talking about, in one
fashion or another, hooking up to the municipal system as I understand, either directly, through
some sort of municipal sewer district extension, or indirectly but still hooking up to the
municipal system, but indirectly through a private transportation corporation. Those seem to
be the two ways, those are the only two ways to do it, and if you as a Board, I hope I’m
answering your question, you as a Board don’t need, I don’t think, to get involved in the nitty
gritty of how that transpires, so long as you condition any approval on that no construction will
occur, no building permits will be issued, or maybe not even final approval will happen, until
and unless somebody can demonstrate that those hookups are going to happen.
MR. RINGER-I think you answered our question, but Bob apparently has something to add, or
additional question.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at their sewage proposal. The written proposal that they’ve
presented to this Board for review, and it says in there, an eight inch gravity sewer collection
system will drain to an on-site pumping station, consistent with the plan for the central
Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District Extension Number Seven, approved by the Town of
Queensbury Board, and then we propose to pump to the nearest gravity manhole on Walker
Lane. Neither of those two statements are valid. In checking with the Town Clerk, I find out
that Extension Number Seven, that was pertaining to Baybridge at the time it was written, is no
longer a valid sewer extension. That’s what Mr. Shaw was here to discuss.
MR. SCHACHNER-Is no longer, or was never approved?
MR. VOLLARO-Is no longer. In other words, it was approved at one time, and because it was
never acted upon, it was considered null and void.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. PHILLIPS-I’d like to respond to that before it becomes an issue. As this Board knows, the
sewage on Bay Road has been in a great state of flux, and it has changed between April 1 of
st
this year and April 11 of this year, and today. On behalf of the applicant, we withdraw that
th
submittal as part of this application, and, in lieu thereof, we’re asking that the approval be
contingent upon the sewage plan that is required to be agreed to by the Town of Queensbury,
the QBHOA, and Valente. So, we are withdrawing any previous plan, because that’s outdated
by virtue of the lifecycle of this application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the paragraph that states in here that Mr. Auffredou wrote is the
paragraph that’s really the operative paragraph that talks about, will agree to the relocation of
the easement provided the Transportation Corporation proposed by Schermerhorn
Construction is presented, reviewed and accepted by your client, QBHOA, and the Town
Board?
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the operative sentence, I think, in here.
MR. PHILLIPS-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing that I have, I guess, in question, in my own mind, and I’ll
question it now, that says that, further that the relocation of the easement is acceptable to the
Transportation Corporation and does not result in any engineering or design problems. Until
the metes and bounds of that new deed are described, and it’s set into the proposed road, I
think the Transportation Corporation has no idea what they will be encountering in terms of
engineering, or design problems with the new location.
MR. RINGER-Mark has a comment.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, but I guess my lawyer comment would be, so what. I think the
applicant is saying, I mean, if the Transportation Corporation doesn’t have the information,
then the Transportation Corporation won’t agree, and then the relocation of the easement won’t
be acceptable, and then they won’t be able to do anything.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, no, there may be another alternate. The Transportation Corporation may
say, due to the fact that we have no (lost word) engineering data, we may need to get financed
in order to get to that point.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Mark, you’re saying.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m saying that, and any number of other things could happen, but until
and unless all, what is the number, four parties, until and unless all four parties have reached
agreement on the manner of the sewage disposal, if you issue an approval, it won’t get anybody
anywhere in the ground, in the real life sense, until and unless those four parties. If those
parties don’t reach agreement, then you have some paper, and that’s all you have.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think I’ve got it. I mean, the operative paragraph is there, in that letter
from Mr. Auffredou, and I’m happy with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the applicant is standing behind it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Let’s go to item seven. Applicant will submit a deed or Association contract
language for stormwater management facilities. This language will be reviewed by the Town
Attorney. Done?
MR. VOLLARO-No, we don’t have it.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you also don’t have a Town Attorney. You have Town Counsel.
MR. RINGER-Town Counsel.
MR. PHILLIPS-In response to that, I know that the stormwater plan was changed, and I have
discussed this with the engineer and with Dan Valente, and we, and we were listening to this
conversation earlier tonight as well, as part of this plan, as you know, there is a proposed road
that would become a Town road, and with respect to the stormwater aspects of that road, that
certainly will have to be acceptable to the Town Highway Department. In addition to that, Mr.
Valente will agree to impose covenants and restrictions in the individual deeds for the lots,
whereby the stormwater areas will be respected, whereby there will be no development in those
stormwater areas, and there will be an obligation that would be enforceable by the Town to
require the stormwater areas to be maintained and repaired, and I would propose that as a
condition of approval that we put together deed language for approval by the Town Counsel,
and we would ask that our approval be based on that condition as well. I think we could work
that language out so it’s acceptable.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That works for me, too. Any questions on that from any Board members?
Counsel?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s fine. I mean, if you head in that direction, we have no trouble
with that.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t want to say attorney. Okay. Item number eight, C.T. Male will be
directed to take a close look at Lot Five to assure that Lot Five stormwater runoff is not directed
towards Walker Lane properties to the west.
MR. HILTON-Again, the tabling motion was forwarded to them, along with the most recent
submittal. Their comments are contained in the May 16 letter. Beyond that, I can’t.
th
MR. RINGER-It will not affect Walker Lane. So I think they’ve complied with, or we’ve gotten
an answer to that. Okay. We’re getting there. Item number nine, which we’ve done. This is
the alternate plan, and we’ve discussed it. Anybody want discuss that anymore?
MR. VOLLARO-I really don’t think there’s anything to discuss on the alternate plan.
MR. RINGER-I just wanted to make sure we have the opportunity.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SANFORD-I think, the way I see Larry’s kind of moving this, is he’s going through a
checklist and he’s saying, you know, have they answered the tabling motion, and on this I just
think that, you know, maybe the Board should be polled. I don’t consider that the applicant
has, in fact, presented an alternate plan when they present a diagram that they’re not willing to
consider, and so I would like to know how the other Board members weigh in on that, before
any kind of a resolution starts to be crafted.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t know if we’re even going to get to a resolution tonight. I’m going
through this item by item to make sure we cover everything. I don’t know if it’s up to us on
item nine. Again, I need Counsel’s help on this. Item Nine is the question of the alternate
design.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I was going to ask a question. I mean, and maybe you’re not all of
like mind on this, and there are six of you here and I’m not sure how many were here on the
date of the tabling, but was the request for an alternate plan made because you wanted to
evaluate it to compare it, an alternate plan, or some alternatives for comparative purposes, or
was the request for an alternate plan made because, for lack of a better way to put it, you
weren’t crazy about the plan as proposed and you wanted to see something different that the
applicant would propose?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Schachner, I made that motion for tabling, and it was made in light of your
last statement, that we were not happy with the original.
MR. SCHACHNER-That latter.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-I know Rich is going to say the latter.
MR. SANFORD-The latter.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I guess what I’m going to say is, you can ask an applicant to
produce an alternate plan, you can say to an applicant, we don’t like your plan. We would
prefer that you come to us with another plan that you are prepared to stand behind and actually
propose, but you can’t force an applicant to do that. If an applicant wants to say, look, this is
my plan. I’ve given you alternative A, B, C, D, E or no alternatives, but this is my plan, then the
applicant has the right to seek your review and approval or disapproval of that plan, and that’s
an applicant’s risk, and if you have grounds to disapprove, you know, you can disapprove.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you, that’s fine.
MR. PHILLIPS-And if I could just add something to that, and I’m the Johnny come lately to the
scene here, but I discussed that issue with Dan Valente, and when that alternative plan was
prepared, I believe it was prepared with Mr. Strough in mind, in the sense of, what would Mr.
Strough’s ideal plan be if such a thing existed, and I think that the plan that was designed
reflected those ideas to a degree, but then when the arithmetic was done, unfortunately that
alternate plan, in light of the cost of this property, not only the acquisition cost of this property,
which was very substantial, but also the development cost of this property, that alternative plan
turned out not to be economically feasible, and so I would say that there was a good faith effort
here to put pencil to paper to see what it would look like, but then, when the numbers were run,
unfortunately it just didn’t work, and so I think that’s important for the Board to consider,
because a lot of work went into that alternate plan, but anyway, the numbers just didn’t work
on it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions on that? Okay. We’ve gone through the ten items that we
tabled this for, or the last item, excuse me, was the application is not tabled to a specific date.
Should the application need to be re-advertised, it would be at the applicant’s expense. That
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
was the last item on the tabling. The public hearing was left open. So it’s still there. Do you
have anything to add, or want to add, before I continue the public hearing?
MR. VALENTE-I would just like to reiterate again, you know, if the alternate design was
feasible, by all means, that’s where I would be. We’ve looked at a number of different plans.
This isn’t the only alternate plan that we had set before you. There’s only so much you can do
with a piece at some time. We’re pretty limited. I feel I’ve done all I could do.
MR. RINGER-Yes, sir?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have some prepared questions that I wanted to ask before you
open the public hearing.
MR. RINGER-Before I continue the public hearing? Okay. I’m glad you mentioned, you know,
Bob, I didn’t mean to bypass anybody. I wanted to make sure we hit the tabling. Go ahead,
Mr. Phillips, and then, Bob, I’ll certainly come back to you. Okay? Mr. Phillips?
MR. HILTON-Just a quick comment from Staff here. I’ve heard what the applicant was saying
about the alternate plan, and again, I just want to repeat my comments that if the alternate plan
isn’t feasible, the Board’s going to be considering the original plan, consolidation of driveways,
interconnection of parking areas, minimizing curb cuts. That’s a way to kind of get what we’re
looking for, in terms of the Bay Road design guidelines. That’s the kind of information we’d
kind of direct you or have you look for, and keep that in mind, as it’s called for in the Zoning
Ordinance.
MR. RINGER-This has been a long time, as I recall, after the first meeting we had asked for that,
and our second presentation came back with those shared driveways and stuff. The original
plan did not have that, and I forget, it’s been so many times, and some of the meetings I was
away on, but it seems like they did reduce the number of driveways. Dan, you can probably tell
me the number, for some of the Board members who weren’t here.
MR. VALENTE-Well, we showed, you know, a consolidation of two lots instead of two curb
cuts having one where they shared the entrance. Again, thinking about potential down the
road, if somebody purchases two lots, then the shared driveway could move down, and you
would be eliminating even an additional curb cut. That’s, if I had a crystal ball, you know, I
could tell you, but unfortunately we don’t have that.
MR. RINGER-I think we do understand that.
MR. HILTON-But our comment is just that the Bay Road design guidelines are in place. There
are specific recommendations, and we’re just directing the Board to consider those in
consideration of the application.
MR. RINGER-I just want to say that the Board did, in the early, early meetings, and the
applicant did make changes into ingress and egress and shared driveways.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to stay with that comment for a minute and go to the proposed
drawing, the one that the applicant is wanting to go with, and on driveways, if you notice in 767
feet, there are seven curb cuts on Walker Lane within that distance.
MR. RINGER-Seven of the applicant’s, or seven in total?
MR. VOLLARO-No. There are three of the applicant’s and four opposing the applicants.
MR. RINGER-These are residential units?
MR. VOLLARO-No, these are commercial units. Doctor, dentist type of thing in there.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. You had some questions, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I guess I’ll go through them as I’ve written them down. You went to
the Institute of Engineers, Mr. Scudder, and took a look at their trip analysis, and they come up
with, based on this plan, they came up with 440 true trips ends. This is something that you
proposed in that, and what you proposed was to go down to possibly 150 trip ends, that would
have been a 292 trip end reduction or 66% from the ITE recommendation.
MR. RINGER-Bob, I don’t know what a trip end, so would you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, trip ends are what Mr. Scudder uses in his language, in terms of
describing the amount of traffic in and out of.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Trips. I thought you were in something else.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. Trip ends, in traffic wise, and I’m just wondering what the basis was
for almost a 66% reduction, and then you went down to, instead of 150, you said or 242, which
is a 55% reduction from the Institute of Traffic Engineers study, and I’m trying to gather in my
mind what the basis for that reduction is.
MR. SCUDDER-Where did you get your figures?
MR. VOLLARO-I got my figures from a letter that you had written, and I’ll try to resurrect it
here in a moment. It could be in your.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. There are two sets of criteria in the ITE standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and this comes out of your Fairfield Professional Park proposal.
MR. SCUDDER-Right. I have it before me. I wrote it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay, but there are two ways to look at this business of trip ends per hour, and
the first bullet describes one method, and the second bullet describes the other method.
MR. VOLLARO-But the first bullet is the Institute of Traffic Engineers criteria.
MR. SCUDDER-And so is the other one.
MR. VOLLARO-They both come from ITE?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir. I didn’t dream that stuff up, and so they’re two different sets of criteria
for evaluating these trip ends, the density of trip ends if you like, and one is based on the
number of employees in an average office employing ten people, and the other is based on some
other criterion having to do with the experience, I guess, in some places, in some types of office
complexes, but there is also commentary in the standards, and it’s some time since I’ve looked
at those, I might say, but there is commentary to the effect that many of the office parks are not,
could I say rural, office parks, but are in densely populated cities, for example, and the office
buildings are not one or two story buildings, perhaps, but maybe ten story buildings, that type
of thing. So what I did was to take the two extremes and come down, I didn’t come down in the
middle, but I came down at 200, where one of the criteria produced 150 trip ends, and the other
442 trip ends, but it seemed to me that the criterion that uses the number of people in an office
building should get more weight. That’s how I arrived at it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t realize that the two bullets were really coincident with the ITE
manual. I thought that the second bullet was something that you were trying to rationalize
against ITE’s directives.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCUDDER-They’re both in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I’d like, Bob gave no indication that you dreamed those figures up, and that
comment I don’t think was.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I didn’t mean to be flippant.
MR. RINGER-Okay, well, I just wanted to, Bob’s questions are legitimate, and hopefully.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, his point is well taken, because I do state ITE criteria in the first bullet. I
don’t do it in the second bullet.
MR. RINGER-Well, I just wanted to comment that Bob’s questions are valid, and.
MR. SCUDDER-I know they are.
MR. RINGER-And he didn’t indicate that you dreamed them up, and, Bob, go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go down through my notes, and this may not be an appropriate,
in light of recent discussions that we’ve had here, may not be an appropriate comment, but I
was wondering, why is there a different wetland setback? For example, on Sheet One of Seven,
you have the 50 foot setback. This is what we just talked about a little bit ago, but when you
propose your alternate plan, your setback is 75 feet. I didn’t understand the rationale behind
the departure from the setbacks, in the second plan. If you look at your alternate plan, you’ll
see that you’ve clearly delineated a 75 foot wetland setback in here throughout the plan.
MR. SCUDDER-I think that inconsistency is an error on our part. It should have been 50 feet in
both cases.
MR. VOLLARO-It should have been 50 in both? Okay. Just a question that I had. Okay. I just
mentioned a little bit ago that the alternate plan eliminates the three curb cuts on Walker Lane,
which I was happy to see, opposite the four curb cuts on the north side of Walker, which would
give you three curb cuts in this, in the proposed plan, and four curb cuts opposing them which
would be seven curb cuts in 767 feet. I don’t know whether that’s just not good planning
practice at all in my opinion.
MR. VALENTE-Mr. Vollaro, obviously you lived up Walker Lane for quite some time. There’s
a substantial amount of curb cuts further up, naturally, a lot more, a lot denser than that, quite
honestly.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so, not in 767 feet. This is pretty tight right here. Between the end
of your property and the entrance to Bay Road, you’ve got essentially seven curb cuts in there,
four opposing yours. I just think that’s tight. It’s my opinion that that’s fairly tight. Now, on
Drawings One and Two, Mr. Scudder, it’s kind of interesting, and maybe you’ve got a reason
and a rationale behind this, and you probably do, but in Drawing One and Two, your notes, in
the drawing notes, professional office notes, on the right hand side of Drawing One of Seven,
you talk about the shoreline and wetland setbacks at 75 feet, and yet on the drawing you show
them at 50. Is that an inconsistency, or is there a reason for the 75 in the notes versus the 50
stated on the plan?
MR. SCUDDER-I think it got by us, because it should be 50 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-If I may, I just want to clarify, the 75 is a Town of Queensbury requirement,
building setback in this zone, that it be, construction be 75 feet back.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How does that vary, George, from the wetlands requirement from the
Department of Environmental Conservation? Which is the governing setback here?
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, you have your Town setbacks, which any construction would
require, will require a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands permit. You also have the
requirement from the State, New York State DEC that anything within the 100 foot regulated
area requires that New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit. I know it sounds
confusing and overlapping, and it is, but 75 feet is the Town setback, building setback for this
zone. It’s a 100 foot setback as far as New York State DEC is concerned, and anything within
those setbacks, within that 100 foot setback, requires a New York State DEC Freshwater
Wetlands permit. Again, I think the applicant is, and I don’t want to speak for the applicant,
but I’m not sure if they’re intent with the 75 feet is to identify the Town requirement, but again,
you have to understand that there are two different agencies, the Town and the State, and they
have differing requirements.
MR. SCHACHNER-You have to comply with everything. No one supercedes another.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think the statement, Mr. Schachner, that you made to their Counsel
was that they would accept any setback that DEC proposed in their wetlands permit.
MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t say proposed. I said imposed.
MR. VOLLARO-Imposed.
MR. SCHACHNER-They have no choice. I mean, they weren’t making any great concessions,
nor was I asking them to. What we’re really saying is, they need a DEC permit. They
acknowledge that. They acknowledge that a DEC permit’s going to have some setback
limitation or requirement. They acknowledge that, and all they’re saying is that whatever it is
they’ll have to comply with.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll take my own worst case analysis, if you want to say that, if DEC
reverts back to their traditional 100 foot setback, then this plan would be severely altered, in my
opinion.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s probably right, and again, I hope this isn’t coming out wrong. I’m
not criticizing the applicant when I say they’re not being gracious. They’re just being practical.
They’re saying they understand that they have to meet not only the Town requirements, but
DEC requirements as well, and obviously one of the DEC requirements will likely be a setback,
and whatever that setback is, if it’s in their DEC permit, they’ll have to meet it.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as it’s a condition of whatever we do here, and they thoroughly
understand that, I’m happy.
MR. SCHACHNER-And just, you know, we’ve talked about this a lot of times, and I’m not
going to belabor the point, but remember, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a condition of
what you do here or not, because they have to comply with it anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I’m just trying to get it, all of this in my own mind, so that I
understand what we’re dealing with here. My next question I guess is it may be a drawing
inconsistency or there may be a reason, that would have to go back to Mr. Scudder on, Sheet
Number Five of Seven, which is your water and sewer profile sheet, and I’m really referring
there to the inverts of Station 00, in the bottom profiles of the water and sewage, you’ve set the
inverts at 304, and in the above one for the sewer profile, you’ve got that same station set at 309.
Is that just an error, or is there a reason for that on the drawing?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. PHILLIPS-I have one comment, is this no longer applicable because of what we have
indicated relative to the sewage that would be provided by others?
MR. VOLLARO-No. This is the profile along the proposed road within the subdivision that’s
being applied for. So, essentially what they’ve done, Mr. Phillips is laid in on the drawing a
proposed routing for the 10 foot wide easement for the sewer easement. They’ve laid that in,
without having metes and bounds to be able to do that. They haven’t met, in my opinion, they
still have to get that agreement, but if they get the agreement to do what they’ve said they’re
going to do, and it follows this line on this road, the internal road, then these sewer profiles talk
to the internal road and not the connection itself. They’re saying if we get approval to do it, this
is the way we’re going to lay in that line, and we’re going to have a manhole, an invert of 304,
and then they’ve got an invert of 309. I think it’s just an error myself, personally. I think where
they’re going to set it is at 304. I’d like Mr. Scudder to answer that question.
MR. PHILLIPS-And I think that actually the engineering of that, under the plan as it’s proposed
now, will be engineering done by the Transportation Corporation. I understand that the
Transportation Corporation will own the infrastructure that goes in here.
MR. RINGER-You build it, then in turn deed it over to us.
MR. PHILLIPS-Well, I think that Mr. Schermerhorn builds it and then ultimately gets turned
over to.
MR. RINGER-We’re talking a road.
MR. VOLLARO-No. We’re talking this service road. This is Bay Road out here. Mr.
Schermerhorn would be bringing a line in along here. Mr. Schermerhorn would be bringing his
line in from the Bay Road, through the subdivision, up to the Baybridge property line.
MR. PHILLIPS-I think that we have to make it clear that, until the agreement is in place, relative
to the sewage for this area, that we’re withdrawing our previous design on the sewage.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that Five of Seven no longer reflects the actual settings for manholes,
etc., along that road?
MR. PHILLIPS-If you’re not doing it, is the answer to that yes? I mean, if you don’t know
where that’s going to be, how can you design it? You answer that question.
MR. SCUDDER-Your question.
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, the way you put the question I guess is I don’t.
MR. PHILLIPS-We’ve indicated before that as far as the sewage is concerned, that is going, we
are withdrawing anything that we have previously submitted, relative to the sewage, because
for that, for us, that is an unknown right now, and we will not know that until the agreement
has been reached among Queensbury, Baybridge, Valente and Mr. Schermerhorn. So we would
withdraw this aspect of the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a fair statement, since Mr. Schermerhorn has no idea of what
problems he may encounter in running that line. So these depths may be set at different levels.
I agree with that. I think we’ve talked about, okay, the easement, we’ve talked about that, and
the deed supplied was for an expansion of the sewer district, not for stormwater. Okay. The
stormwater thing was taken care of. There’ll be language created there, and I think that I am
finished, with my review, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Before I do go back to the public hearing, we’re all going to get an opportunity to
speak again, but does anyone have any questions before I? Okay. Then the public hearing is
opened. Is anyone from the public here to talk about this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-All right. The next item, any other questions from the Board? Then we’re going
to get into a SEQRA next.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m still confused about the stormwater.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, how is the stormwater, what is the proposed plan for stormwater
drainage? You have grassy open channels, and I’m not sure where the water’s going to be
discharged from those.
MR. SCUDDER-The water is going to discharge, Mr. Seguljic, from the open channels at three
points, two in to the roadside ditch on Bay Road, two into the brook on the west side of the
project, and two directly into the wetland, after treatment in the grassy channels. You have to
understand that the grassy channels are, this is a procedure that’s outlined in the so called blue
book put out by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I don’t know if
you’re familiar with it, but it deals with all these methods of treating stormwater, and we’ve
had to go from using retention basins to the use of shallow grassy channels because of the depth
of groundwater and the inability of soil here to absorb water.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. In one you essentially show an underground pipe.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s an alternate. There are two ways. One is a dry swale and one is a wet
swale, and in this case, we’ve consulted with C.T. Male about this particular matter, and we
have come to a common ground in that the wet swale is what we’re going to have to use, and in
the revised plan, the dry swale is taken off the drawing.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m confused by that last comment.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we show two types of cross sections, do we not?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m looking at Sheet Six of Seven.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, and aren’t there two cross sections there and two plans there for two types
of swales?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. One of those is taken from the drawing because we’ve concluded that
we have to go with a wet swale type of.
MR. SEGULJIC-The wet swale’s the one with the pipe?
MR. SCUDDER-No, the wet swale’s the one without the pipe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Or the one on top then. Okay. All right.
MR. SCUDDER-And the final plan will not have that confusion.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be collected within the swales and then discharged to another
swale on Bay Road, one to the west of the site you said.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then there’s a stream to the west of the site. Okay.
MR. METIVIER-The condition you just talked about, is that current, as the land is now, as far as
runoff discharge and all that?
MR. SCUDDER-Would you please repeat that?
MR. METIVIER-The conditions you just talked about, the fact that with the conditions, the
water, that basically has nowhere to go.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, right now, in the pre-development situation, which is what exists there
now, you have essentially an open field.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. SCUDDER-That slopes to the south at about two percent, and all the runoff is either, some
to either side, one side being the stream and one side being the roadside ditch, and the balance
of it goes into the wetland to the south.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. SCUDDER-Now, after development, the design you’re looking at is a post-development
design. Which will handle the incremental runoff, the increased runoff, after development.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-From roofs, roads, and so forth.
MR. SANFORD-But I think maybe what the point here is that it looks like you had to revise
your plan because it’s damn wet, and so what I’m just thinking out loud it seems maybe it’s too
ambitious to have 15 developed sites, and maybe the infeasible alternate plan of having only ten
might actually help your stormwater design.
MR. RINGER-What I think you’re getting into is C.T. Male has signed off on the stormwater.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m a little confused on that. I think they responded to the old one and
said that the ponds and what have you aren’t an issue here because they’re going to do
something different. I’m not sure to what extent they reviewed this new process of dealing
with stormwater, and I think that’s what Tom was trying to get at a little bit.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s the question I had. Has C.T. Male looked at this?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They have?
MR. SANFORD-And provided something in writing?
MR. RINGER-These plans are dated in December, I believe. I don’t know. This is in April ’03?
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-Yes, the only information I can provide on that is that the May 16 letter from
th
C.T. Male states the information they had reviewed. I can only assume, and I can’t speak for
C.T. Male, that they reviewed the April 2003 submission.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if you take a look at that letter, George, you’re jumping to some
deductive reasoning here and conclusions. They’re basically saying, you know, we’re not as
concerned now about, we’re not concerned about retention basins because they’re not using
that approach. It doesn’t say that they looked at the alternative and find it totally acceptable, at
least it doesn’t expressly state that.
MR. HILTON-Right, and I’m not trying to say what they had looked at, I guess, in what level of
detail, but I’m just going by what the letter says, that they have received this information.
That’s all I’m trying to say. How much they’ve looked at it and what level of review they’ve
done on it, I can’t question. I’m just saying that we, based on their information in this May 16
th
letter, we have made this information available to them. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I know, but I mean, basically, you know, we’ve asked them a question,
and the applicant’s come back and said, we’re withdrawing the question entirely, and they’re
saying, okay, since you’re withdrawing it or changing it, then it’s no longer applicable.
MR. HILTON-And if you’re uncomfortable and you want clarification, I mean, certainly the
Board can seek clarification.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I think in the Miscellaneous section of the
C.T. Male comments dated May 16, 2003, they say due to the shallow depths of groundwater
observed in the test pits, it appears that the wet swale alternative will be more appropriate for
this site than the dry swale alternative. So I think they, in some way, they’ve examined the wet
swale, and then they go on to say, on the next page, the specific dimensions of the swale should
be shown and the proposed grading should be reflective of those dimensions. There they do
make a comment on, and I think that comment is made against the wet swale. Would you agree
with that?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I would think that when we submit something to C.T. Male, as we have done in
the past, they review the plans in its entirety and then give their comments, and if there’s
problems with that, then they make the notations, in their response to us.
MR. VOLLARO-I think their miscellaneous comments really are reflective of the fact that they
did look at this.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you.
MR. PHILLIPS-And we certainly would make any approval that we have contingent upon
either clarified signoff or final signoff from C.T. Male on the stormwater issue.
MR. RINGER-Well, Tom, you were, that’s it on?
MR. SEGULJIC-All set.
MR. RINGER-Anything else? Staff?
MR. HILTON-And I don’t know if you’re at this point, but should you be ready to do the
SEQRA.
MR. RINGER-I’m getting ready to do the SEQRA.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-Okay. We have a letter in the file from February 10, 2003, New York State DEC,
Rich Spiedel, wrote a letter to me, because the applicant has submitted their New York State
DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit, at the same time as this application, this letter has asked, it’s
from the DEC again, and they’ve asked that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, once you
have sufficient information to begin SEQRA, coordinate for Lead Agency for review of both
projects, in terms of SEQRA review and the letter goes on to state that they will agree to the
Planning Board as Lead Agency. So I guess before, and Mark correct me if I’m wrong, before
any SEQRA review is done tonight, or started this evening, I think you would need to pass a
resolution designating yourself as Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQRA review for this
application, and for the New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit application.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a DEC Wetlands application before us?
MR. HILTON-It’s contained in the file. The application has been made.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you presume we already have that information, and in fact it’s the
same information (lost words).
MR. RINGER-So how simple is it just to say that, will you help us through this, Mark, give us a
suggestion and then I’ll have Tom read back your suggestion as a resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no magic to it. You can have just a one line resolution that the
Queensbury Planning Board accepts designation of SEQRA Lead Agency Status.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you make that motion, please.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS THE
DESIGNATION AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEQRA FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 10-
2002 DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, George?
MR. HILTON-No, not unless you have some other questions that need to be answered. That’s
all I wanted to clarify.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to give, one more time on the Board. Any other questions before we go
into SEQRA?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no other questions concerning the SEQRA, Mr. Chairman. I do have a
question concerning a possible motion for this resolution, that I don’t want to have to make this
motion for the resolution, you know, right off the cuff here. There’s so many considerations.
MR. RINGER-If we get through SEQRA on this, my plans, and I’ll review it with Counsel, is to
not make a resolution tonight. I think Counsel has told us in the past we don’t have to make a
resolution for approval or denial the night of the meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I agree.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-And I would think that this is one of those cases where we might want to have a
period of time to make a resolution. Mark, how do you feel about that? I mean, does it sound
reasonable?
MR. SCHACHNER-Perfectly reasonable. In fact, despite the pressure that you sometimes feel
subject to, by law, you have up to 62 days after the close of public hearing to make any decision
about anything.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, that’s, you know, I just feel that we should do that, and, Bob, you
know, you were thinking along the same lines that I was. So, let’s start the SEQRA process.
John, if you would. This is Long Form or Short Form?
MR. VOLLARO-This is a Long Form.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. RINGER-Before you start, anything else from the applicant before we start the SEQRA?
You don’t have to speak, but I want to give you a last shot.
MR. PHILLIPS-I have just one other comment, and the comment is what’s not on the map as
opposed to what is on the map, but I think that, as you know, just south of this property, is a
wetland area, which is also owned by Dan Valente, and the wetland area is actually a
contiguous part of this land, and it adds up to, I think about 10 acres altogether. That is a 10
acre piece of land that in all likelihood will never be developed. In all likelihood, it will remain
as green space, on Bay Road, because of it’s designation as wetland. So I think that in
connection with this development that we’re proposing here, I think that the Board could take
notice of the fact that there are about 10 acres just south of this property, owned by Valente, that
will not be developed in all likelihood, and will add to the open space of the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. RINGER-For what it’s worth, your comments are there. It’s wetland. It probably couldn’t
be developed anyway. We appreciate your comments, though. Anything else?
MR. SANFORD-Well, no, I have a question on that. Again, are you suggesting that the
applicant is prepared to deed it over?
MR. VALENTE-At some point I will definitely look at that, and I want to present that either to
the Town or whoever would be interested in that parcel, and there actually is a fair amount of
land in there that is usable, as, you know, whether it become a recreation park.
MR. SANFORD-So your attorney’s comment wasn’t 100% accurate, then, as stated, because
there is usable land there, and he was saying.
MR. VALENTE-It’s usable. It’s not usable as a development, you know, as I look at it, versus
the Town may look at it.
MR. RINGER-It’s not included in the application, and we appreciate your comments, Mr.
Phillips, and let’s go on with the SEQRA.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. We’re going to do a SEQRA Long Form, Part II, for Subdivision
Number 10-2002, applicants Daniel & Pamela Valente. “IMPACT ON LAND Will the proposed
action result in a physical change to the project site?”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, examples that, will this be a small to moderate impact?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Before you get to, will it be a small to moderate impact, you have to identify
an impact.
MR. STROUGH-That’s right. I’m sorry. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-But you said yes, Bob? Describe the impact.
MR. STROUGH-All right. The first example, “Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15
foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet.”
MR. VOLLARO-In some cases it’s designated at 1.5 to 3, I believe, in the applicant’s.
MR. STROUGH-Will it be a small to moderate impact?
MR. SCHACHNER-I take it the yes is applying to that bullet item?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think it’s yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Go ahead, you’re right. Now you have to characterize the
magnitude.
MR. STROUGH-You’re right. I should have clarified that there was a consensus.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s okay, and now you’re right. Go to the magnitude of that impact.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Will it be a small to moderate impact, potentially large impact. I guess
that’s the first thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate.
MR. RINGER-It’s no more than any other development in that area of Town.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess you have to characterize it as small to moderate because I think using
slabs and so on it can be built on. So small to moderate is probably the right characterization for
the answer.
MR. STROUGH-All right, and that’s all we have to do for there. I’ll go on to the next item. We
don’t have to explain the mitigation for small to moderate.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s exactly right. Very good.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of
existing ground surface.”
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the answer to that. He has supplied, I believe, and I don’t have it
in front of me, tonight, but I think Mr. Scudder has filled out that form, and in that form he
states what the depth to bedrock is. Is that correct? I believe you do.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I don’t know the depth to bedrock, but I know that we dug test holes that
were eight feet to ten feet deep, and we didn’t hit bedrock, but we did hit water.
MR. RINGER-So, no, I would guess.
MR. STROUGH-Not to our knowledge.
MR. VOLLARO-To the knowledge of the Board and the knowledge of the applicant, he doesn’t
know where the bedrock is, and neither do we. So being able to answer that question is
difficult.
MR. SCUDDER-No, there’s a qualifier there. It says exposed bedrock, or generally.
MR. VOLLARO-Or generally within three feet. So we don’t know what that is, do we? I mean,
I don’t.
MR. SCUDDER-I think the answer is no. I don’t think there’s bedrock within three feet
anywhere.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I think no is the answer, John.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HILTON-Just to give my two cents, based on the applicant’s Long Form, the answer to this
question was provided is greater than 12 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Greater than 12.
MR. STROUGH-Should we learn different, it would re-open SEQRA?
MR. SCHACHNER-If you consider it a material mistake, error or misrepresentation, it could re-
open SEQRA. I’m not even sure how that would arise, but there is a Long Form Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, as there has to be submitted, it was signed by the applicant, and it says
greater than 12 feet. I’m a little disturbed or concerned that now the panel of applicants are
saying, or applicant and representatives are saying they don’t know what the depth to bedrock
is. There is a signed document from the applicant, signed by the applicant, saying greater than
12 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying.
MR. SCHACHNER-Treat that for what it’s worth.
MR. SCUDDER-In order for us to know, wouldn’t we have to dig down until we hit bedrock?
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Let me see if I can be pretty clear about this. You all are the
applicant and the applicant’s representatives and you’ve submitted a document that the
applicant has signed, and on that document somebody, in their handwriting, put that the depth
bedrock is greater than 12 feet. You can ask me questions about what you might need to do to
find that out, but I don’t think that’s appropriate.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think I feel pretty safe in saying that most of it, if it’s down there, it
probably exceeds three feet.
MR. RINGER-I would say no.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. “Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.”
MR. RINGER-Just like any subdivision, you don’t know until they sell the lot.
MR. STROUGH-Well, there would be construction, probably, for more than a year, but that
would be, I think, is that a consensus?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s probably more than a year, but I think you’ve got mitigation.
MR. STROUGH-A small to moderate impact?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. “Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction in a designated floodway”
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t know if it’s a designated floodway yet. I don’t believe that it is a
designated floodway, but, you know, it was never characterized as a designated floodway, to
my knowledge.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think DEC would have spoken up if it was a designated floodway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the answer is no.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Any other impacts, then? All right. So the question is, “Will the
proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? We answered yes. The examples
they gave us did not identify anything greater than a small to moderate impact. So I guess we
can move on.
MR. SCHACHNER-Even if you did you could move on. I wasn’t sure why you were rehashing
it. Once you get to the end, whether they’re small to moderates or potentially large, you move
on to the next question. Only when you’ve done all 20 questions do you then sort of recap.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. “IMPACT ON WATER Will the proposed action affect any water body
designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
ECL)”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?”
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. STROUGH-Is the consensus no?
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-The consensus is no.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Let me give you the examples. “Proposed Action would change flood water
flows.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-Any other impacts?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then you can’t answer the question yes. If you can’t identify any impact,
then the answer has to be no.
MR. SCHACHNER-Go back and ask the question again, John.
MR. STROUGH-Question Six. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff?”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve got two choices, to identify an impact or.
MR. STROUGH-The next category is “IMPACT ON AIR Will proposed action affect air
quality?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect
the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. STROUGH-“IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS Will Proposed Action
impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA)
established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-The only one that we said that had a small to moderate impact was the impact
on land. I believe we said yes, but I don’t see any category. Maybe we should re-do that one.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, there were several. There were a couple.
MR. STROUGH-Well, one and six, but we went back and re-did it.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, Number One, I’m saying, you did identify several potential impacts,
and you characterized them as small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-So do we have to do anything more there?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think so.
MR. SCHACHNER-Unless I missed something, the only potential environmental impacts you
identified throughout the exercise were small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then it’s appropriate to move on to make your determination.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2002, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro :
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE, 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
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
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 22 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay. The next item now is moving on to either approve or deny, and Counsel,
you’re going to have to help me with this, because I think, I can ask for a motion, you can walk
me through it. All right.
MR. VOLLARO-I think a motion to approve means that we’re going to accept the proposed
design.
MR. RINGER-That would be correct. A motion to approve would accept the application.
MR. VOLLARO-I for one member of this Board cannot make that approval. I just want you to
know that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s not a problem. We’ve got to move on.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that begs the question, do we want to entertain a motion to deny?
MR. RINGER-You can entertain a motion to deny.
MR. SANFORD-Do you want to work on that, Bob, see how that goes?
MR. RINGER-If you’re going to make a motion, you’ve got to get a second, and.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in any motion we make this evening, we don’t necessarily have to write
that.
MR. RINGER-We don’t have to write it up.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have to make that decision. According to Mark, we’ve got 62 days to
do something.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not according to me. It’s according to New York State legislature.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in your interpretation of the New York State legislature.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Not my interpretation. It’s crystal clear, black and white. You have 62 days
after close of public hearing in which to make a decision.
MR. VOLLARO-And I, for one, would like to be, would not like to have to do it tonight.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s fine. All I’m asking the Board, does anyone on the Board want to
make a motion? A motion. I don’t care if it’s a motion to approve or a motion to deny.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll make a motion to deny subdivision no. 10-2002, applicant Dan and Pamela
Valente, Preliminary Stage, because of unacceptable plan design.
MR. RINGER-We’ve got a motion, for what reasons?
MR. SANFORD-Unacceptable plan design.
MR. RINGER-In regards to what?
MR. SANFORD-The layout of the proposed buildings.
MR. RINGER-What doesn’t it conform with? I mean, we’ve got a Code that says they can have
so many lots on the acreage that they’ve got. I mean, I think you’ve got to be more specific.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think that’s going to pass.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a motion. I’m asking him to define his motion a little bit more. If
you don’t want to, you don’t have to, but I would need a second to his motion anyway.
MR. SCHACHNER-And then have a discussion.
MR. RINGER-And then I can.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll withdraw it.
MR. RINGER-You’ll withdraw the motion. Okay. Do I have any other motions for denial or
approval?
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, it’s a Preliminary. It’s not a Final, and the issue, the main
overriding issue here, is the sewer situation.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s also the layout of the lots, John, in my opinion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, and I’ve said this from the very beginning. I was the first one
to say I wasn’t real happy with the layout of the lots, and I think that I like the alternate plan
better, but, you know, I don’t have any compelling legal reasons to force the applicant into their
alternate plan, and they do have some compelling arguments for the plan the way they like it.
The road is shorter. It gives them greater number of lots. I mean, I disagree with the applicant
that I think they’ll get their maximum value out of that, but that’s only an opinion, and that’s
hardly a weight for a denial. The way I see it is the overriding situation is to get this sewer
situation clarified, and I think that we’re going to lay that responsibility on the applicant before
they go before us for the Final. There are also some questions about the wetland setbacks that I
think need to be clarified. Is it 10 feet, 75 feet, 100 feet, whatever it’s going to be, and if the
Town says it’s 75 feet, that should also be shown on the plans, but all those things we can get
the applicant to do before they give us a final presentation.
MR. RINGER-Are you in a position to make a motion tonight?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, if I sit down and draw up something. I didn’t, you know.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll give you that five minutes, and if you’d work with Richard on that,
and we’ll take the five minutes.
MR. SANFORD-That’s okay. I don’t want to work with him on that.
MR. RINGER-All right. If you’d work with Tony on it, then, and you’ve got five minutes, and
we’ll be back in five minutes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, after discussing with other Planning Board members, we’re not going to
get a vote, because the overriding concern, at this time, there’s not going to be a vote, a motion
for approval or denial, at this time. I think it’s the consensus that the Board would like to see a
firm agreement between Baybridge, this application, Mr. Schermerhorn, and the Town. That
would make us feel more at ease, in coming up with a motion, and I’m assuming a motion in a
positive direction, but that’s me talking, but the consensus is that we would like to see a more
firm plan amongst those four parties, before we make a motion.
MR. RINGER-Did you run this by Counsel?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes and no. This is a little different than what I understood, and if I
misunderstood I apologize, but I thought what you were asking was could you suggest that the
applicant push forward on getting people to agree on the sewer disposal.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what I said.
MR. SCHACHNER-But what you said now was a formal agreement, and in my, Counsel’s,
mind, those are two very different things.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what we wanted was something substantial.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me explain why those are two very different things. As far as I
know, there’s not been anything other than the letter presented to indicate the likelihood of
potential agreement among the four parties on the sewer issue, as far as I know. The applicant,
I think it’s reasonable to ask the applicant to produce, for example, letters from the other two
parties to indicate the possibility of future agreement on this issue, but when you say now
formal agreement, I don’t think it’s reasonable to request the applicant.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t say formal. I said firmer.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you did. I heard you say formal. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it was firmer.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but I’m still troubled by that, because I’ll tell you, for example, as
Town Counsel, not only Planning Board Counsel, but as Town Counsel, if the Town Board
comes to me and says, we have an agreement proposed, we’re going to say, there’s no reason to
get into that agreement yet because the subdivision doesn’t even have Preliminary plat
approval yet. So you have a cart and horse problem here. I thought what you were asking was
you wanted to gain some additional comfort at the likelihood that these four parties are going
to be able to reach agreement on the sewage disposal issue.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve got a way with words, Mark. Yes, that’s what I was asking.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Well, that doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable request, and
maybe we’re saying the same thing in different words.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. You’ve got a better way with words.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ve got a question. I worry about 62 days. If nobody does anything for 62
days, it’s approved.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve got to vote. I’m telling you as your Counsel, you can ask the
applicant to gain additional comfort, but, to give information to you to gain additional comfort,
but I can’t emphasize to you more strongly our advice is, whether that happens or not within 62
days, take a vote within 62 days.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we’re going to have to.
MR. PHILLIPS-Could I intervene on this issue, Mr. Chairman?
MR. RINGER-You’re free to speak.
MR. PHILLIPS-This application has been before this Board for a very, very, very long period of
time, and on the issue of the sewers, that’s been before the Town Board for a very, very, very
long period of time, and it is my understanding that the proposal to the Town Board for a plan
is imminent. I’ve been told it’s been imminent for over a month, but nevertheless it’s imminent.
That, I think it’s reasonable to have a Preliminary approval contingent upon a sewage plan
because we have to have that anyway. We’re not asking for Final approval now. We’re not
asking for building permits now. All we want to do is be able to move forward with this project
on all fronts, and having Preliminary approval will clarify this land in addition for purposes of
how this sewage is going to be designed. So, we do have a cart before the horse type situation,
and so that’s why we think it’s very, very important that we have a decision from this Board
because this has been a long time coming, and as you know, this is my first appearance here,
and I’m probably a manifestation of an act of frustration by virtue of the fact that I’m here, and
so I think it would be unreasonable to hold up this plan for something that is not within our
control 100%. Maybe not even 25% at this point in time, and so we would ask Mr. Strough to
reconsider his thinking on that, in light of how long we’ve been here, how that’s going to be
negotiated, a negotiation with the Town Board, how we’re not asking for Final now. We’re not
asking for building permits now. We’re not asking for site plan review now. We still have a lot
of stuff ahead of us, but I think that, as long as we’re willing to make this contingent upon
solving the sewage issue, which we have to do anyway, you know, we think that that would be
reasonable.
MR. METIVIER-I think it’s unreasonable that from back in, I don’t know, November of last
year, we asked for an alternate plan, and we get one.
MR. RINGER-Tony, wait a minute.
MR. METIVIER-No, seriously. You know, that’s ridiculous. He says that it’s unreasonable to
us.
MR. RINGER-All right, but we can, they can say what they want to say, and we’re going to
make the decision up here.
MR. METIVIER-And I can say what I want to say.
MR. RINGER-We can make the decision up here, if we want to have a, approve a Preliminary or
deny a Preliminary or move this to another meeting to make a decision on the Preliminary, but
let’s not get into an argument with who did what. We’ve discussed all those things tonight.
The alternate plan was discussed. We’re not in that situation. We’re here in a situation, right
now, of Preliminary approval or denial, and that’s what we should be doing, and nothing more.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, could I make a suggestion that might help us out?
MR. RINGER-Okay.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-The timeframe that we have to do anything.
MR. RINGER-Is 62 days.
MR. VOLLARO-Is 62 days. The Transportation Corporation that’s being formed by Mr.
Schermerhorn is going to be going before the Town Board at X period of time. Can we say that,
if by the end of the 30 day period, since we have a 62 day window to work, the end of the 30
day period, if the Transportation Corporation is not formed within 30 days, defining the
relationship of that Transportation Corporation to Mr. Valente, to the Homeowners Association,
etc., if it’s not done by then, then we now have 32 days to make a decision as to what to do.
Now, I’d like to get something, a target set up, that says at the end of the 30 day period, because
if the Transportation Corporation is formed, then we have a basis for discussion.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I don’t even think we have to reference it that way. Why don’t we just
merely say that we will address this issue, the Preliminary Stage, not sooner than 30 days nor
later than 62 days.
MR. RINGER-We can do that. That would be a legal way to do this and still stay within the?
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, but I wouldn’t suggest that, because I don’t know why you say not
sooner than 30. What if tomorrow this whole thing falls into place and you want to address it
next.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, then not later than 62 days.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I don’t see a need for that to be in a motion because that’s what the law
says. So I don’t see the need to make a motion that says that.
MR. RINGER-So, all we can do is say we’ll take no action on this tonight.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Period, and we’ve got 62 days to make a decision, and that’s the way it’ll be.
MR. SCHACHNER-Legally, that’s perfectly acceptable.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I realize, Mr. Phillips, your comments, and this happens, I just counted,
your seventh meeting, and I understand your frustration, Dan, and Mr. Scudder. I feel
frustrated myself on many of the issues here. However, I think our Board has done a hard job
and looked at this, and we’re almost at the conclusion, and apparently you’re not going to get a
vote tonight, and I just think we’re going to leave it as it is, and we will address it one way or
the other before the 62 day period is up, and Mark, can I say that we will notify them when
we’re going to do that, so they’ll be here?
MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely, they should be here.
MR. RINGER-And you will be notified when the Board is going to take this up again and it will
be within the 62 timeframe.
MR. PHILLIPS-Could I make one comment before you?
MR. RINGER-One last comment.
MR. PHILLIPS-Before you have a definitive vote on this.
MR. RINGER-We’re not taking a vote. I already said, we’re going to move this.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. PHILLIPS-I know Mr. Schermerhorn is here tonight, and I don’t know him personally, but
I wouldn’t want to give him 62 more days before he makes his submittal to the Town Board,
and so I worry about the passage of time in that respect. The other thing I worry about is that,
you know, I think that you have an excellent Town Board, and I think that if you could defer to
the Town Board and basically have faith that the Town Board will do the right thing here,
because that is a Town Board issue, and it’s certainly related to a Planning Board issue, because,
you know, you have to be concerned about the public health, welfare and safety, but, to me, it’s
so easy for me to compartmentalize that as a Town Board issue and not a Planning Board issue,
particularly if we’re asking for Preliminary approval contingent upon what the Town Board
does, but, you know, the passage of time probably hurts everybody in this.
MR. RINGER-Mr. Phillips, I’ll say, personally, I agree with you 100%. I think we should pass
this thing at Preliminary tonight. You’re not going to get a vote from this Board tonight, and
my only reserve I have is to say there’ll be no action taken tonight, and we will notify you when
an action will be taken. There’s no way. You’ve heard the members of the Board. You’ve
heard the consensus. We’re not going to get it. I agree with you. My personal feeling is we
should have voted, okay. It doesn’t get me anywhere. It doesn’t get you anywhere. So that’s
where it’s going to be right now.
MR. VALENTE-Unfortunately my comment probably won’t get me anywhere either, but, you
know, and this is part of my frustration, when I see building permits issued before even sewer
infrastructure is in place, and that’s way ahead of where I am. I’m looking for a Preliminary
approval, and that’s part of my frustration.
MR. RINGER-Dan, and I agree with you. Personally, I agree with you, but you’re not going to
get it from the majority of the people on this Board tonight, and I’m not criticizing the Board or
anything. Everybody has their own opinions in the way it should be, and we thank you.
MR. VALENTE-I thank you.
MR. RINGER-You feel frustrated. I apologize, certainly, for that. The wheels turn slow I guess.
Thank you very much.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED BORK-POTENZA MILLER HILL
AGENT: DAVID CARR, LA GROUP ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: UPPER GLEN
STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PARKING AREA.
CHANGES IN USE THAT INCREASE REQUIRED PARKING BY MORE THAN 10 SPACES
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 33-91, SV 22-93, SV 35-99, UV 30-91, UV 62-90 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-51/72-7-2 LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRES SECTION:
179-4-020
CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARILYN POTENZA,
PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-2003, Bork-Potenza Miller Hill, Meeting Date: May 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 29-2003
APPLICANT: Bork-Potenza Miller Hill is the applicant for this request
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct 60 vehicle parking
spaces, site landscaping and stormwater management facilities
LOCATION: The subject property is on Route 9, just north of the Home Depot that is currently
under construction
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int. Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a
Short Environmental Assessment Form with the application.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found several previous Planning Board or
ZBA applications, most notably, UV 30-91 (resolved 4/24/1991) and SP 33-91 (resolved
7/16/1991) to allow an auto detailing and body shop.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site plan calls for site improvements that will result in 60
parking spaces (52 spaces in the rear of the building) along with new light fixtures and site
landscaping. The applicant proposes to install a series of catch basins to capture stormwater
and direct it to stormwater facilities on the Home Depot parcel to the east.
STAFF COMMENTS: The number of parking spaces that are shown on the site plan appears to
provide the required number of parking spaces for the businesses at this location.
After reviewing the applicant’s lighting plan, it is difficult to determine what light levels are
proposed and if any light will spill off onto adjacent properties. The fixtures that are proposed
do not seem to be full cut off fixtures.
Staff has forwarded this application to NYSDOT for their review and comment. Based on
NYSDOT comments, Staff believes the consolidation of driveways along Route 9 is probably not
advisable. However, redesigning the center access point in order to serve as an exit, right out
only, would most likely improve access at this location and safety at this location.
Staff also agrees with the NYSDOT comment regarding the continuation of sidewalks along
Route 9. Additionally, Staff recommends converting existing paved islands along Route 9 to
green space. Including street trees and/or plantings along the Route 9 road frontage, as
required in § 179-9-040 B, as well as continuing sidewalks along this section of Route 9 is
consistent with other commercial projects that have recently come be for the Planning Board.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. RINGER-George.
MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant’s site plan calls for site improvements resulting in 60
new parking spaces, along with new light fixtures, landscaping, stormwater management. A
few brief comments. After reviewing the lighting plan, it seems that the light levels in either
some kind of contour or grid pattern seem to be missing and therefore it’s difficult to determine
if any light will spill off onto adjacent properties. The fixtures that are proposed don’t seem to
be full cut off, just to state that the zoning regulations call for cut off fixtures, horizontal
directing light directly to the ground. Staff also agrees with the New York State DOT comment
regarding, pardon me, continuation of sidewalks up on Route 9. Staff also concurs with the
comment regarding leaving the middle access point open. However, we would suggest some
consideration for creating possibly a one way out on that exit only right out for that center
island, and again, to get back to the sidewalks along Route 9, Staff also recommends conversion
of paved islands to green space, street trees and plantings as required in Section 179-9-40B, and
again, we concur with the New York State DOT comment regarding continuation of sidewalks,
and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this application.
That’s all we have at this time.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson, professional
engineer for the LA Group representing the applicants, and I have with me.
MRS. POTENZA-Marilyn Potenza.
MR. WILKINSON-I’d like to take a few minutes and introduce the project, since it’s our first
time in front of the Board. The reason for coming before the Board is an expansion of an
existing parking lot greater than 10 spaces. It’s a site plan application, and all of the
improvements that are being proposed are to the rear of the existing Subway building up on
Miller Hill, and the project is now called Miller Hill Plaza. As you’re aware, the Home Depot is
to our east, and there’s a 22 foot retaining wall at the back edge of the property that has
guardrail and fencing, or will have if it doesn’t have it now, and this, the reason for the
expansion of the parking lot was when the wall was constructed, the existing parking that was
at the rear was basically blown away to actually get the construction of the wall in there, and as
part of renewing that parking areas, the applicant wanted to improve the parking and also
bring it up to Code for all the buildings that existed on the parcel at this time. The spaces do
meet the Code that are shown on here, and again, it’s re-building in an area with some
expansion that’s greater than 10 spaces. As far as the comments from C.T. Male, I believe,
George, you may have another letter from them that was faxed today.
MR. HILTON-Yes, we do.
MR. WILKINSON-That basically the one issue remaining was the snow removal issue.
MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, the Planning Board members should have that letter as well.
MR. VOLLARO-We do. At least I do.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And what we were proposing for this site is to use the green area above the
parking on both sides of the sidewalk entrance for snow storage. So that when the snow melted
and came across the parking lot and got into the storm drainage system that exists there, there
is, as I say, a storm drainage system that exists along parallel to the wall that was installed, and
that storm drain system was installed as part of the Home Depot project. There was a comment
in the C.T. Male letter about obtaining an easement from the adjoining owner. They were the
ones that actually constructed it on the site. So the easements in granting shouldn’t be an issue,
so that the water can be conveyed legally. The other issue, one of the other issue with easement
in the C.T. Male letter was the 10 foot easement that’s shown on this drawing for maintenance
replacement of the wall, the applicant is going to work with the adjoining owner to make sure,
by their engineer that designed the wall, that there’s adequate space back there that if
something happens that there will be adequate space to have that easement, and the documents
will be signed and drawn up. The comments in reference to the DOT along the frontage on
Route 9, just noting for our applicant’s sake the improvements that DOT and Staff is referencing
are all within the State right of way. All of the islands exist in the State right of way themselves.
So if we were to do that and currently we’re not proposing any changes in the front, other than
striping. If we were to do that, we’d have to go and obtain a DOT permit to actually complete
that work. We’re not opposed to it, but we just wanted to make note of that, that we weren’t
intending to do improvements in the front, but we will agree to extend the sidewalk along the
front and beautify the islands. We also agree that their, the middle entrance here, we would
agree to a right in, right out, not necessarily just a right out, and there is adequate space in there
for that. Most of the traffic that comes to this Plaza does utilize the existing larger entrance to
the south.
MR. RINGER-That’s because most of your customers come from the south?
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. WILKINSON-I would assume that.
MR. RINGER-I would assume that would be the only answer.
MR. WILKINSON-And also that’s the most visible part from the road, so that’s where you turn
first, because it’s the first access. There also was a question from C.T. Male on the grades of the
slope of the driveway, access driveway. We worked that out with them as well, as you can see
by the letter, mainly because we have to meet the grades at the wall. We can’t change that, and
we have to meet the grades up here. So there’s not much we can do.
MR. VOLLARO-What did you do about the 20 foot wide entrance at the top?
MR. WILKINSON-That’s been widened to 22, and it was a small discrepancy on the plans that
we’re only building from where the existing berm, asphalt berm is, just over the crest of the hill,
next to the existing building. From there down is where we’re actually constructing stuff. So
the way it exists in the front area is how it’s going to remain, and it exists as greater than 22 feet.
It’s just there was a line drawn on the plan that wasn’t the right radius, and we’ve corrected
that.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s going to be, that’s going to result in a change to L-2 I would suspect.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. Well, actually all the plan view sheets, because it reflects
through.
MR. RINGER-That’s it?
MR. WILKINSON-That’s all I have. I’d be willing to answer questions.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board, and I’ll start on that end.
MR. SANFORD-Just a couple of quick questions. We took a look at that site, and you
mentioned a fence. My only concern is safety, one of my concerns, is safety. That retaining
wall, I’d hate to see somebody fall, drop off of it. What do you plan on doing there?
MR. WILKINSON-The wall and the fence is actually part of the Home Depot project, and
they’re required, on top of the wall, to place both a guardrail and fence, chain link fence, six foot
high chain link fence.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And that will both be in place when they complete construction of the wall.
MR. SANFORD-The other thing is, you know, obviously you’re working with the site that you
have, but parking back there, it’s a pretty good walk to get up to the front of those buildings
that I assume people are going to be, you know, parking to utilize. Is there going to be any rear
entrances?
MRS. POTENZA-Yes. We plan on having entrances from the rear of the building into some of
the businesses.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MRS. POTENZA-And there is, as you, as you can notice, walk going up, so that it’ll be easier
than going up the driveway.
MR. SANFORD-Right. Yes. Okay, and I know you were talking about, you mentioned, I
missed it, I’m sorry, a right in or right out. So explain how that flow’s going to work, because I
know when I leave it’s very difficult, if I want, I’m trying to think of the directions, I guess head
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
south, I have to cross the lanes, and so what are you planning on doing in terms of entering and
exiting?
MR. WILKINSON-Again, this entrance to the south is going to remain as is, and that’s where
the left turn movement will be from, is from this lane.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a left and right in that one?
MR. WILKINSON-That is correct, the wider one. The middle one, we are agreeing to a right out
and a right in only.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s what we’re agreeing to tonight. So if you’re coming up the hill and
you miss this entrance, you can get in here, and if you want to go north on Route 9, you can go
out this entrance and go there. Again, the majority of the parking is in this corner, and in the
back. So most of the traffic will be in here anyway.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And this is not going to be very utilized to start with.
MR. SANFORD-So your handicapped parking is going to be in the front area which now, I
don’t know what it’s designated as, but in front of the Subway and what have you, that’s going
to be now for handicapped.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I don’t have any other questions.
MR. RINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. RINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks great, especially if you were to put some landscaping in front of the
buildings, which it sounds like you’re agreeing to do.
MR. WILKINSON-On the island spaces, yes, remove the asphalt and turn that green.
MR. SEGULJIC-That will look much better, and sidewalks across there also?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how about the lighting in the back? You have a lighting plan.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s the one thing I forgot to mention. We do have a lighting plan. We did
not submit the contoured lighting plan and we intend to submit that for, you know, to show
that we do meet the Code on that. The light fixtures that were chosen for this project are exact
match to the Home Depot, the same height, same fixtures, and we’re also using the cutoff
fixtures on this side. If there’s a designation on, I believe it’s L-2, the light fixture with the circle
around it means it’s the one that’s got the, it’s the directional, you can call it a number of things,
a directional, cutoff, what do they call it on this plan? What did you call it? Housing shield,
that’s what we determined it, but the idea is that it’s cutting off the light and directing it straight
downward. That’s the intent.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. My last comment would be, it looks like you’ve done a great job with
landscaping. Then you’re just going to end up with a guardrail and a chain link fence. You
don’t have anything with shrubbery along there? No? No room for it?
MR. WILKINSON-There’s not going to be much room. The curb is approximately, I would say
it’s about four feet from the wall. It’s enough so that there’s room in there to put the guardrail
and a fence, but with a guardrail and a fence, and then the curb, I don’t think there’s room in
there to do any shrubbery.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you get the landscaping out front, the whole thing will look very good.
MR. RINGER-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess my one question is the letter to Craig Brown, I guess, of April 15,
th
and it says please note the on-site septic system is in the process of being designed by Jarrett-
Martin Engineers and it will be added and submitted to the plans prior, for approval prior to
construction. This Board has an obligation to look at that, according to our Codes. One of the
things I think that was just brought up not too long ago, and it says that these are standards that
the Staff has given us, and I was surprised to see B in there, elated in one way, surprised in
another, and it says the use will be in conformance with Chapter 136 of the Sewage and Sewage
Disposal. I often mention Chapter 136 in here, and get a lot of blank stares up and down, but
I’m glad you put that in there, because I knew it was in there to begin with. So we do have an
obligation to look at that, and until that design is done, I don’t think we can.
MR. WILKINSON-It is completed, and I actually have a set of plans with me tonight. Would
you like to see them personally, or would you like me to submit them?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Board function.
MR. RINGER-You can bring them up and show them to Bob. Has Staff got a copy of these?
MR. WILKINSON-No, they didn’t ever get a copy. We, again, Jarrett-Martin Engineers are the
ones designing the septic system for this, and I only got a copy today. I don’t know when it
came to our office, I think it was approximately a week, ten days ago, and I assumed that they
submitted it to the Town. If they didn’t get it’s something we can submit to the Town for
processing.
MR. RINGER-Okay, well, Bob, you’d like to see it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we, as a Board, should.
MR. RINGER-Bob, I wouldn’t know what I was looking at if I saw it. If you want to see it, it’s
perfectly fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t need to see it. I think the Board needs to see it. The Board needs to
take a look at that as part of site plan review.
MR. RINGER-And he’s offering for you to look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-Not me.
MR. RINGER-Us to look at it. Would you like to see it?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take a look at it.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-Well, when you’re done, if you want to just forward it to me, and I can include it
in the file.
MR. RINGER-Definitely.
MR. SANFORD-What is it, Larry?
MR. RINGER-It’s the septic system that they’re putting in. It all has to be approved by the
Town anyway.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes. We won’t be able to get a permit until we.
MR. RINGER-Right. Absolutely. Look at it, if you’ve got questions.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got my questions already, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and, George, this is for George. You’ve got questions, Bob, on it, or
continuing?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Even though I understand the drawing, the problem that I have is if I do
a, if I may use the word, a light table exercise, since we don’t have the ability to bring all these
things up on the computer, the seepage pits that are being proposed in the parking lot.
MR. WILKINSON-They’re under the parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re under the parking lot.
MR. WILKINSON-Three out of the five, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether that’s acceptable or not. How do you get to these
seepage pits?
MR. WILKINSON-They have a manhole cover on them. Solid top.
MR. VOLLARO-Normally they don’t. Seepage pits are usually have their covers below.
MR. WILKINSON-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re much like septic tanks where.
MR. WILKINSON-But they’re usually also in the ground.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just don’t think it’s good practice to have a septic field underneath a
parking lot. That’s, you know, to me, I’ve got to take a look at exactly what it says in our Code
136, this is the first time I’ve had the occasion to be able to even talk about that Code without
getting comments from most members of this Board.
MR. WILKINSON-And you’re excited about that, I can tell.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the general rule is subsurface infiltration is not allowed under a parking
area.
MR. WILKINSON-Again, Jarrett-Martin Engineers designed the septic.
MR. RINGER-George, do you want to comment on that?
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-I guess I’m not as familiar with 136 either, but the only thing I would, well, not
suggest, but mention, is that you could make it subject to approval, which is required anyway,
from the Building and Codes Department, and if it’s not allowed, it’s not allowed.
MR. RINGER-Has Male had an opportunity to review that?
MR. WILKINSON-They did not specifically review the septic, to my knowledge.
MR. HILTON-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Actually, I would think we would want to be able to do it before we
would go forward with it. So, you’re probably going to have to, this is going to go back to
Male, okay.
MR. WILKINSON-The septic itself?
MR. RINGER-Well, the whole, we won’t approve the plan until we get the Male signoff on it. I
mean, I’m speaking for one. I mean, the Board may feel differently. We’ve still got a long way
to go here, but right now we, Male’s going to be looking at that, rather you’d get approval
subject to, you’ll get approval and then Male will have to sign off on it. That’s a possibility.
We’re in the early stages right now. So, Bob, have you got more questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess one of the only other questions I have, with the contoured
lighting plan, you should supply a four to one uniformity ratio to go along with that.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and other than that, the planting on the west side adjacent to Route 9,
are you planning on getting any sort of easement or permits for the planting?
MR. WILKINSON-If we’re going to do the improvements to the islands, a DOT permit will be
required because they’re entirely within rights of way.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s your position on that? How do you feel about doing that? I mean, are
we or aren’t we? You’d rather not, I suspect, from your hesitation, you’d rather not do it.
Right?
MR. WILKINSON-Well, I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, I believe that at one point in
time the applicant wanted to do it and was denied doing it by DOT, and now that they’re
coming in with the application, I’ve got a different, a letter now from DOT that says they want
them to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, welcome to the bureaucracy, that’s all I’ve got to say about that
one.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I really don’t. I think Mr. Strough will cover the.
MR. RINGER-Richard had a comment.
MR. SANFORD-Just one clarification. I mean, I can’t see how a leach field could work very well
under pavement, but is this a situation where it’ll flow into, basically.
MR. WILKINSON-A drywell.
MR. SANFORD-A drywell, which will then leach out, just from the drywell, not through?
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and so you’re saying with a manhole that would be a way in which it
could get pumped, or something along those lines?
MR. WILKINSON-If it failed. Correct.
MR. SANFORD-If it failed. Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And my interpretation of the design is that he has two tanks in series, one of
them being existing, I think it’s 1,000 gallons, again, you’ve got my plan now, and the other one
being 1250 gallons. So there’s two in series to make up all the storage that you need for all the
use in there, and it’s actually an overkill, looking at what the flows are.
MR. SANFORD-I have a house that’s built in the early 60’s, and that was the original system
that we had, two of those things have ultimately failed, but I’m more comfortable with that over
pavement than I would be any kind of a leach field. That’s all.
MR. WILKINSON-Okay.
MR. RINGER-All right. John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, still the problem is that the whole system is designed on infiltration and
what you get with the parking lot is compaction, and so that hinders infiltration, and I think
that’s the reason why they don’t (lost words).
MR. WILKINSON-And I believe that’s the reason why they went to seepage pits, because the
compaction for the parking lot is in the top one foot to eighteen inches, and the seepage pits are
below that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, nevertheless, isn’t there sewer along here?
MR. WILKINSON-Outside the district.
MR. STROUGH-Well, doesn’t sewer run along Route 9?
MR. WILKINSON-The property is outside the sewer district.
MR. STROUGH-Couldn’t you apply to be part of the sewer district? I mean, you may end up
going in that direction, should this.
MR. WILKINSON-If they can’t get something to work, I think they may end up going in that
direction, but I believe they can get something designed on the site that can work.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I would just think that as the owner and a commercial enterprise I’d feel
more at ease knowing I didn’t have those worries, but.
MR. WILKINSON-Well, the other obvious problem is access to a sewer. Yes, it’s along Route 9,
but it’s on the opposite side of Route 9, so you’ve got some major construction dollars to do
that, and if you want to go via the system that’s within the Home Depot site now, because that
has been extended, well, you’ve got some vertical problems and some access and easement
problems with that as well.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that may be the case, too, yes. Now, the only thing I found kind of
curious, and I’m a big Subway fan, but there’s only three parking spaces on the top lot.
MR. RINGER-Handicapped. That’s all handicapped.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-No, there’s three on the south side.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. There’s three here.
MR. STROUGH-So those are going to be filled up easy, because Subway’s popular. So I’m
going to have to park down in the lower parking lot now, and am I going to have to walk up the
stairway or something inside there, or how am I going to get to the Subway shop?
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to walk up stairs, one way or another.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, is there a stairway, Marilyn?
MRS. POTENZA-There will be a stairway to the north end of the building.
MR. STROUGH-I’d have to walk all the way up there?
MRS. POTENZA-Or you could go up as it has been, up the hillside right next to it.
MR. WILKINSON-Up here.
MR. STROUGH-You mean I can’t walk into the building?
MRS. POTENZA-There’s no back access to the Subway shop.
MR. STROUGH-Even in the winter I’m going to have to navigate that?
MRS. POTENZA-But then you can get two Subways and walk it off.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I guess that’s part of the plan. Well, it’s less than ideal.
MR. WILKINSON-There’s actually four, because there is a standard parking spot on the end.
So you’ve got one, two, three, and four.
MR. STROUGH-Well, make that a secret one just for me, then. No, I like, just to reinforce and
get a consensus here, I like the idea of landscaping the islands. I like the idea of the right in and
right out and the middle curb cut, everything that you’re willing to go along with. The
landscaping works fine. The septic system I have a question about. I guess we’ll have to get
expertise review of that.
MR. WILKINSON-Again, I want to make the statement that the septic system has to be
approved by the Building Department in order to get the permit to do it anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. WILKINSON-And I just want to make sure you guys.
MR. VOLLARO-But that doesn’t obviate the need for us to make that review.
MR. WILKINSON-I understand.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and you pretty much have addressed C.T. Male’s concerns, at this point,
and as they say, pending our review and acceptance of the revised plans, we’ll be prepared to
issue a signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see C.T. Male at least take a look at the septic design in
conformance with Chapter 136 of our Code for sewage and sewage disposal.
MR. STROUGH-Well, okay.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’m comfortable approving this contingent upon that. I mean, how are
you guys sizing this up?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I’m not comfortable with this.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’re a little premature on that, you know, that’s, when we get down to the
final, if that’s, you know, we’ve got other things. We’ve got the public hearing we’ve got to go
through.
MR. WILKINSON-Are we required to do a public hearing for site plan?
MR. RINGER-Yes. It’s not a modification.
MR. STROUGH-Public hearing, yes.
MR. RINGER-We have a public hearing scheduled.
MR. WILKINSON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-But how do you propose to landscape the islands?
MR. WILKINSON-Well, as stated by George, we have to meet street trees. So there’s certain
requirements for that, based on your frontage, and then probably the sidewalk, and that’s going
to take up a majority of it, and then the rest is probably going to be grass.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you’re going to meet Town Code as close as you can, and give me
the configuration?
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And the only other comment I’d make on that is, once it goes in, it’s in the
State right of way. Who’s going to maintain it?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I assume you are.
MR. WILKINSON-It’s in the State right of way. It’s not on our property.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know that, but half my lawn’s in the State right of way, and I still mow it.
Usually it’s in your best interest.
MR. RINGER-Chances are, if you want your property to look, you’ve got to maintain it.
MR. WILKINSON-Of course you are, but it’s still within the State right of way. Just a comment.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone from the public wish
to speak on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-On the contoured lighting plan, are we just going to pass on that?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know. You’ve got comments on it. Speak.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d to see a contoured lighting plan.
MR. WILKINSON-The response that I made to C.T. Male is that we are intending to submit one.
So it could be contingent upon review.
MR. VOLLARO-But that falls in the same category, in my mind, as the sewer design, and this
Board’s obligated to look at all of those things before, I don’t know, you know, we could make
this thing contingent on a whole bunch of contingencies that we’d ask you to do, but I think if
we don’t look at those.
MR. RINGER-Well, if you don’t feel comfortable with it, it’s not a problem.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, what have we got other than, really, the sewage? We’re talking
about a parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking, I realize that, but if the Board wants to just say, okay, we’re not
interested in the four to one ratio for lighting.
MR. SANFORD-I think if you poll the Board here, I mean, you know, I would like to see the
Board polled, because I think probably the majority would feel comfortable with an approval
contingent upon C.T. Male’s signoff on the septic system, but I think you and John may be on
your own on this one.
MR. VOLLARO-John isn’t even with me on this. He hasn’t stated anything one way or another.
I’m standing here by myself on this one.
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to work out the number of trees I want.
MR. VOLLARO-So we would make this, in other words, the way you’d look at it, we would
approve this, subject to the following conditions, that a contoured lighting plan be submitted,
yes or no, that a four to one ratio be submitted, yes or no.
MR. RINGER-Let’s not go yes or no. Let’s go, if you do submit them, subject to review by C.T.
Male’s approval. I mean, I would add that, to any of those comments.
MR. WILKINSON-Because there is a lighting code, too, we have to make sure we meet the
lighting code.
MR. RINGER-So if the Board did, I would think that we would put that in the motion, Bob,
subject to C.T. Male’s review and approval.
MR. WILKINSON-And to repeat, that the fixtures and poles that are used on this property are
exactly the same ones that are used on Home Depot, 20 foot in height, same fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m standing alone here, but I feel that, looking at the drawings that I
did today, that this is essentially an incomplete submission, but we can, if the Board chooses,
they can vote that way. It’ll be approved with conditions concerning C.T. Male’s approval. I
don’t consider it a full application in my mind, a complete application.
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. WILKINSON-I appreciate your comment, Bob, but again, the biggest reason why we’re
here is because we’re expanding the existing parking lot that was demolished by the
construction of the wall more than 10 spaces, and quite frankly, they could have gone out and
actually done the pavement as part of the Home Depot thing and added a couple, three, four,
five, six more spaces and nobody would have been the wiser. We’re here because we’re
required to be here because we’re expanding by more than 10 spaces. It’s just a parking lot
expansion, and again, I do appreciate your concerns.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand where you’re coming from.
MR. RINGER-Anymore comments? Okay. Before we do the SEQRA on it, do we want to move
forward with conditions, C.T. Male?
MR. SANFORD-Well, the only condition I had, Bob has a couple of others. My only one was
C.T. Male signoff on the septic.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and the lighting would be one. How do you feel? I just want to get a
consensus if we want to move forward, and I think we do. So we’ll do a SEQRA.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. SEQRA Short Form, Part II, for Site Plan No. 29-2003,
applicant/property owner Bork/Potenza, Miller Hill.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 29-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BORK-POTENZA MILLER HILL, 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.
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now, the next part is the resolution for approval. If someone is so
inclined. We have a couple of conditions.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll take a stab at it, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2003 BORK-POTENZA MILLER HILL,
Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 29-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Bork-Potenza Miller Hill
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: David Carr, LA Group
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: Upper Glen Street
Applicant proposes the expansion of an existing parking area. Change in use that increase
required parking by more than 10 spaces requires Site Plan Review and approval from the
Planning Board.
Cross Reference: SP 33-91, SV 22-93, SV 35-99, UV 30-91, UV 62-90
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-51 / 72.-7-2
Lot size: 1.56 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 22, 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 5/16/03, and
5/22 Staff Notes
5/22 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/15 Notice of Public Hearing
5/14 Warren Co. Planning
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 Wastewater Dept. comments
5/5 NYS DOT 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 22, 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
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
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. The applicant will obtain C. T. Male sign-off on the septic system and the lighting plan
2. To include three (3) sugar maple trees, sidewalk and grass in accordance with Town
Code and in accordance with standards of NYS DOT.
3. 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 5/22/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-Did you want to include anything about landscaping the islands?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have it in mine.
MR. WILKINSON-I think we could show it on the final plan. I mean, we’ve got to anyway to
get it constructed.
MR. RINGER-I need a second on the motion as Rich presented it, or Rich can withdraw his
motion and we’ll start over.
MR. METIVIER-I will second that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now we’ll have some discussion on the motion, John, and bring up your
landscaping.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now my questions on the landscaping and the sidewalk, I mean, we’re
kind of open-ended here, and there are DOT restrictions. I mean, DOT’s not going to probably
allow any kind of tree there.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-They’re going to allow trees that’s not going to block traffic or hinder traffic in
any way.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And so I don’t know how to identify a tree and I don’t know where to place the
sidewalk. How should we leave that. George, do you have any ideas?
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. HILTON-There’s a couple of ways you can do this. First of all, you can suggest a number,
a species. You can do, you know, as much planting as you feel you’d like to, but then at the end
I would say subject to DOT review, and whatever they approve, DOT approves, they’re going
to have to sign off on it anyway.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, how about three sugar maples, okay, and they’ll include
sidewalks and sugar maples and grass, in accord with whatever DOT has to say.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard, would you like to amend your motion?
MR. SANFORD-I amend my motion to incorporate what Mr. Strough just said.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Thank you. You’re all set.
MRS. POTENZA-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you, sir.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 SEQRA TYPE I WAL-MART STORES PROPERTY OWNER:
WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ. ZONE:
HC-INT. LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
EXPANSION OF EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY CONSTRUCTING A 95,217 SQ. FT.
BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080.
CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32-92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, AV 11-93, SB 3-93,
SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36, 37
LOT SIZE: 11.19 AC., 6.46 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020
PETER HENCHKY & GERARD FITAMANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT
MR. STROUGH-There is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-2003, Wal-Mart Stores, Meeting Date: May 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 25-2003
APPLICANT: Wal-Mart Stores is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant is seeking site plan approval for a 95,217 sq. ft. addition to
the existing Wal-Mart on Route 9 for a total building square footage of 216,080. The applicant’s
plans also include new parking and loading areas, additional lighting and landscaping, as well
as consolidating some access drives.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Route 9 and Weeks Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: The requested action is a Type I SEQRA action. The applicant has submitted
a SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form. As the applicant has also applied to the ZBA for
an Area Variance associated with this project, the required SEQR will be a coordinated review
between the Planning Board and the ZBA. Most likely, the Planning Board will be lead agent for
purposes of conducting the SEQRA review.
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of prior Planning and Zoning activity for these properties
indicate many previous applications involving the applicant. SP 31-93 (resolved on 7/20/1993)
was the original site plan approval for Wal-Mart.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to demolish the former Ames store and
construct a new 95,217 sq. ft. addition to the existing Wal-Mart on Route 9. The site plan also
shows an expansion to the existing Wal-Mart building along with an expanded garden
center/canopy. An additional 4 bay loading area for trucks is planned for the northwest corner
of the site. Additional parking spaces are planned adjacent to the new loading area and to the
north of the new building expansion.
The site plan also shows the demolition and removal of the Queen Diner. The area where the
diner sits will be converted to new parking spaces. The curb cut on Route 9 in front of the
Queen Diner will be closed. New curbing and landscaping is proposed for this area between
the property line and the new parking area.
The plans also propose additional landscaping to be used throughout the site, along with
additional parking lot and building lighting. The applicant proposes to use light poles of 42 ft.
in height with 1000-watt bulbs in each light fixture.
The applicant has also submitted a traffic study and a stormwater management plan and report
as part of the site plan application.
The applicant has also submitted an Area Variance application in order to allow fewer parking
spaces than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the Area Variance, the
applicant is also seeking relief in order to exceed on-site impervious surfaces above the 70%
maximum listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to begin
the process of hearing the Area Variance requests at the meeting of May 21, 2003.
STAFF COMMENTS:
NOISE IMPACTS
Trucks idling during loading/unloading, landscaping and snowplowing are some sources of
noise produced at this location, which may have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant has provided additional landscaping along the west property line as well as
concrete walls around the proposed loading area in order to mitigate the noise impacts on the
residential properties to the west. Although additional landscaping along the west and south
property lines may reduce the noise impacts on the surrounding properties, Staff believes
reducing the number and amount of time trucks idle at this location would also be a beneficial
form of mitigation. The use of auxiliary power for trucks loading and unloading could allow
trucks to “plug in” in order to keep refrigeration units on without the noise and vehicle exhaust
associated with idling trucks. The potential relocation of proposed loading areas should also be
explored in order to provide a greater separation distance from surrounding residential
properties.
Better coordination of landscaping and snow removal activities at this location may also be
another noise mitigation measure that would reduce or limit the noises associated with these
activities at particularly sensitive times of the day.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has proposed new landscaping to be located along the west property line, in
some interior parking areas and along Route 9. The interior parking lot is required to be 10%
landscaped as required in § 179-8-040 D of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant must meet the
landscaping requirements for non-residential areas listed in § 179-8-040, unless granted a
waiver from the Planning Board.
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
Staff believes additional landscaping on the western and southern property lines in the form of
evergreen trees that could provide screening closer to the ground should be included in the
applicant’s landscaping plan.
A landscaped berm along Weeks Rd. (to the northeast of the proposed loading area) could
provide some screening of the parking and loading area from adjacent properties along the
north side of Weeks Rd.
Staff believes the addition of shade trees and shrubs along Route 9 that the applicant has
proposed will be an attractive addition to the Route 9 landscape. The proposed landscaping
along Route 9 is representative of what is outlined as a goal of the Upper Route 9 design
guidelines.
Staff has discussed adding three landscaped areas directly to the west of the Route 9 lot line
within the parking area, which would contain shrubs as well as evergreens to contrast the
deciduous street trees the applicant proposes to plant. In addition to the street landscaping and
interior parking lot landscaping that is proposed, Staff believes additional landscaping within
the parking area, but closer to the Route 9 frontage would provide interior landscaping required
by the Zoning Ordinance, while at the same time not negatively impacting snow removal efforts
within vehicular and pedestrian access areas closer to the building. Additional landscaped
areas would increase site permeability.
TRAFFIC
The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study that discusses traffic impacts the proposed
development may have on existing traffic surrounding this site. The conclusions of the
applicant’s traffic impact study state that the total number of trips entering and exiting this site
will be reduced from current levels as a result of the proposed development. It is reasonable to
believe that the majority of any traffic impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed
development would impact Route 9 more than Weeks Rd. The applicant has sent a copy of the
traffic impact study to New York State DOT (NYSDOT) for their review and comment. Any
comments from NYSDOT concerning the applicant’s traffic impact study should be addressed
during the Planning Board review of this application.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT / ON-SITE CIRCULATION
As part of the site plan the applicant proposes to eliminate the Queen Diner curb cut off of
Route 9. This area will be curbed and landscaped between the Route 9 right-of-way and the
parking area proposed where the Queen Diner currently sits. The applicant proposes to
eliminate an existing curb cut on Weeks Rd., leaving two access points to this site off of Weeks
Rd. and two access points off Route 9. Staff believes the proposed consolidation of access points
will a have a positive impact on vehicular access and safety in this area.
Planning Staff believes on-site circulation could be improved at this site. The on-site
intersection just to the west of the southerly drive on Route 9 is essentially a four way
intersection with lanes not aligned and meeting at angles other than 90 degrees. Staff believes
re-alignment of this intersection, as a three-way intersection located farther to the west within
the site could be a preferable redesign of this awkward intersection. The new alignment would
reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts by creating a three-way intersection with lanes
approaching the intersection from 90 degrees.
Staff also believes the creation of a drive aisle in the area to the west of the Queen Diner by
eliminating some parking spaces and a parking barrier would have a positive impact on traffic
circulation. Opening of a proposed traffic barrier planned for the area just to the west of the
existing Queen Diner as well as the removal of the three proposed parking spaces directly to the
north of this barrier; as well as the removal of approximately 6 parking spaces to the north of
this area would create an additional drive aisle which would help vehicles in this area enter and
exit the site more freely. As a result a drive aisle running north to south would be created that
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
could eventually be connected to the property to the north (Flower Drum Song) through access
easements for interconnection of site driveways and parking areas.
The site plan indicates 11 new parking spaces to be created just to the south and east of the
easterly curb cut off of Weeks Rd. Staff believes accessing these parking spaces could conflict
with traffic entering and exiting the site from this Weeks Rd. access point. The elimination of
these 11 spaces would create a clear drive aisle for traffic (including Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) Buses) entering and exiting the site from this location.
As previously mentioned, GGFT buses use this site as a regular bus stop, picking up and
dropping off passengers in the drive aisle in front of the existing store. GGFT has reviewed this
site plan and has indicated to Planning Staff that they would like the bus pick up/drop off area
to remain in front of the store, preferably in front of the store between the Weeks Rd. entrance
(easterly entrance) and the Route 9 exit (northerly access point). Planning Staff believes a safe
and effective way to accommodate the buses entering and exiting this site would be to create a
bus stop “bump out” approximately 10 ft. wide by 35 ft. long in the area at the far north end of
the store, on the north side of the drive aisle. The addition of some landscaping in this area
would be an attractive benefit to any bus loading area.
Pedestrian access
The applicant has proposed a sidewalk along Route 9 along with shade trees and low lying
landscaping. Staff believes providing a sidewalk along Route 9 will have a positive impact on
pedestrian circulation in this area. Areas to the north along Route 9 (Mt. Royal Plaza) and to the
south along Route 9 (Home Depot) have installed or are in the process of installing sidewalks
along this corridor. With hotel and restaurant uses directly to the east, north and south of this
site the proposed sidewalk will allow for better pedestrian access from surrounding areas to this
site. However, relocation of the proposed Route 9 sidewalk just off the applicant’s property to
the east would have provide a better opportunity to connect to any future sidewalks that may
be built on the properties directly to the north and south of Wal-Mart on the west side of Route
9. An added benefit would be the construction of the proposed sidewalk, and quite possible the
planting of proposed landscaping, outside of the 20 ft. permanent sanitary sewer easement
shown on the site plan.
Staff believes an additional sidewalk along Weeks Rd. would provide a beneficial pedestrian
link to this site from the multi-family residential areas located directly to the north and west of
this site.
PARKING
The site plan indicates 850 parking spaces will be provided on-site. Based on the proposed
building square footage, the parking ratio is approximately 3.9 parking spaces per 1000 square foot
of retail area. Staff has presented scenarios in the Access Management and Landscaping section of
this document that proposes the elimination of some parking spaces (approximately 57 parking
spaces). The removal of 57 parking spaces would provide a parking ratio of approximately 3.6 per
1000 sq. ft. of building area. A parking ratio of around 3.5 per 1000 sq. ft. of building area for this
site is a ratio that is acceptable to Staff. Staff believes a reduction of parking below Zoning
Ordinance requirements would not negatively impact this site and would have added access
management and landscaping/design.
Lighting
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that calls for additional pole mounted lighting. The
new poles are shown as being 42 ft. in height with 1000-watt bulbs. Proposed lighting levels
appear to exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for Commercial Parking Lots as well as
Building Exteriors. The proposed 42 ft. poles exceed the 20 ft. limit listed in the Zoning
Ordinance. In order to assess the impact of what is proposed, Staff recommends that the
85
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
applicant provide a comparison of what lighting levels currently exist, along with what is
proposed.
Cut sheets for the proposed pole mounted lights should be provided along with cut sheets for
any building mounted lighting, if any are proposed.
Building design / Route 9 Design Guidelines
This site is located in the Upper Route 9 Design Area. The design criteria listed in § 179-7-050
are applicable to this project.
Staff suggests the building façade be redesigned to include additional peaks toward the north
and south of the proposed building. Additional peaks would break up the un-interrupted
building face as called for in § 179-7-050 D (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff suggests any new
peaks be designed to provide a break in the proposed color scheme that will provide a break in
the use of grey split face block that is proposed for the entire east elevation.
Rooftop equipment should be screened from view as called for in § 179-7-050 C (1) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Stormwater Management
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report in support of this site
plan application. A copy of the plan and report has been submitted to CT Male for their review
and comment. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the Planning Board
review of this application.
Water and sanitary sewer service
This property is served by municipal water and sanitary sewer service. In both cases capacity
does not appear to be an issue. The Planning Board should address any comments from the
Water and Wastewater departments during the review of this application.
NYSDOT recommendations
A copy of the site plan and traffic impact study associated with this site plan application has
been provided to NYSDOT for their review and comment. NYSDOT has issued a letter
providing comments on landscaping, access management and traffic impacts for the Planning
Board’s consideration.
Miscellaneous
Currently there are two separate parcels that are part of this site plan. In order to reduce any
existing or future building non-conformities in relation to setbacks and other dimensional Zoning
Criteria, Staff suggests that the two lots be merged into one single parcel.
The site plan calls for an expansion of the garden center canopy. Does the applicant propose to
relocate outside seasonal storage and display into this re-designed garden canopy area?
It should also be noted that approval for the proposed signage that has been submitted as part
of the site plan will require a separate sign permit application. An area variance may be
required in order to allow the number of signs shown in the materials submitted with the site
plan.
As previously mentioned, a coordinated SEQR review between the Planning Board and ZBA
will occur due to the fact that this application is listed as a SEQRA Type I action and the
applicant has submitted an Area Variance application in support of this application. Upon
successfully passing a resolution seeking lead agency status for this project, the applicant will
86
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
be referred back to the ZBA in June for a hearing of the Area Variance. If the ZBA grants the
required relief, the applicant will then appear before the Planning Board for further review of
the site plan application. Staff believes it is possible to schedule the Area Variance hearing
before the ZBA for the first meeting in June, and schedule the continuation of the Planning
Board hearing of this application for the second regularly scheduled meeting in June.”
MR. RINGER-Okay. George, before we do your Staff notes, let’s do the resolution.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IS SEEKING LEAD AGENCY
STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 FOR WAL-
MART STORES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance application
for a proposed addition to the existing Wal-Mart facility, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined it necessary to
begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a
Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, The Planning Board of the Town of
Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and
authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other
potentially involved agencies of such intent.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-George, please.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Very quickly. I just want to kind of explain, there’s been speculation,
discussion about how this application will be heard in June. I kind of want to give some
reasoning as to why. The Planning Board just passed the resolution seeking Lead Agency. It is
our hope anyway that on May 28 the Zoning Board of Appeals will again visit this item,
th
consent to SEQRA Lead Agency that you’ve just requested at the regularly scheduled meeting
of June 17 the Planning Board, it’s our hope, will acknowledge Lead Agency and begin the
th
SEQRA review at that point. Potentially on June 18 the Zoning Board of Appeals could act on
th
the variances that are before them, and then somewhere at the end of June, June 26 is what
th
we’re tentatively, and I stress tentatively, striving for would be a Special Planning Board
meeting to continue and potentially act on the site plan that’s before you this evening. The
public hearing is open this evening. The applicant is obviously here to make a presentation.
Our Staff notes, we’ve touched on many issues, from noise impacts, landscaping, screening,
access management, traffic, on site circulation, parking, lighting, building design. I’m not going
to go through them word for word. I’m not going to repeat them verbatim, but we’ve had a
conference call with the applicant. We’ve communicated our concerns, the issues, I guess, with
87
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
the project. We’ve communicated some landscaping design, some internal circulation design
alternatives, some interconnection alternatives, some building elevations, some changes to the
peaks, and the façade in accordance with the Route 9 Design Guidelines. All those issues are
out on the table. C.T. Male has issued some correspondence saying that they’ve done a
preliminary review, not an exhaustive review, and as mentioned, this project will be before you
again in June, and so with that I turn it over to you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. HENCHKY-Good evening.
MR. RINGER-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. HENCHKY-Yes. Hi, my name is Peter Henchky. I’m a stand-in for Neal Madden from the
firm of Harter, Seacrest and Emery. Attorneys that are helping with the approval process for
Wal-Mart. With me tonight we’ve got two engineers from Langan Engineer and Environmental
Services. We’ve got Gerard Fitamant, to my right, and John Spears, over here. We’ve also got
B.J. Phillips from the Harry Butcher Architecture Firm, over here on the front end, and we just
introduced ourselves.
MR. RINGER-Okay. What, you heard me talk earlier tonight. What we’re looking for tonight
mainly from, actually, I would have preferred that you didn’t even come tonight, but an
overview of your project and I will open a public hearing. So you may get some comments and
suggestions from the public. Your application is certainly going to be moved to another date,
after you’ve had an opportunity to go over all of the stuff that George just brought up. So the
floor is yours. If you’ll give us a view, we would appreciate it.
MR. HENCHKY-I just wanted to make one little note, clarification. On the SEQRA form, we
indicated two Area Variances, the parking and the permeability, and there’s going to be an
additional application for a variance for signage, which we have not yet submitted, but we will
be submitting within the near future. So we just wanted to highlight that. So for Page Eight of
the Long Form SEQRA form, there would be an additional indication that under the ZBA
approval would be also a variance for the signage. With that, I wanted to turn it over to Gerard
Fitamant, if that’s all right with the Board, for a short, brief overview of the project.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. FITAMANT-Yes. Good evening. Basically we have two lots, we have an existing Ames
Department store and we have the Wal-Mart. There are two lots, one is owned by National
Realty and one is owned by Wal-Mart. There’s an agreement that this is under contract and
eventually will be consolidated pending eventual approval, hopefully. Basically we have a 17
acre site, 17 and change. We have single family residential zoning to the south, multi-family
residential zoning to the west, and we have the Route 9 corridor along here, and we have Weeks
Road on this side. Presently, the Ames is vacant, as well as the diner that’s over here. It’s all
boarded up, and we’re looking to re-develop this project. Wal-Mart is interested in expanding
their existing store to about 216,000 square feet. In order to accomplish that, we’ve bumped out
the front of the building. This is their typical expansion, and this incorporates bumping out the
front to accommodate the vestibule, revised entrance there, and also an entrance to the grocery
section. This is zoned in a Highway Commercial Intensive, which allows for retail, and grocery.
As I mentioned, the re-development will require the demolition of the Ames, as well as the
demolition of the diner, and that will allow for additional parking in the diner footprint, and it
will also allow for additional parking on the side, where the Ames building, the footprint of the
Ames building had been. We’re looking for a waiver for lighting fixture heights. We have
lighting fixture heights proposed of 42 feet. We also have a waiver request for landscaping, the
percentage required I believe is 10%. We’re proposing about 3.8 to 4% landscaping instead.
The existing site is 14% pervious. We’re looking for, from the ZBA, a relief, a variance for that
14% actually, the requirement is that it be 30%. We’re looking for 14.8%. We intend to increase
the overall pervious of the site, and based on the re-development of the entire site, the existing
88
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
stormwater system, since we’ve not increased impervious, we expect that to be satisfactory.
We’re still, we need to respond to some of C.T. Male’s comments and provide the calculations
to support that. That’s the basics of the project. Circulation for trucks will continue along
around, back into the existing truck docks that are back here, and then we’ll also be adding
additional truck docks on the northern side, and they will exit through Weeks Road, as they do
today. If you’d like, I can go through a brief response to the review comments?
MR. RINGER-Since there are several of them, I really don’t want to get into that.
MR. FITAMANT-Okay.
MR. RINGER-The list that George started, the things that we’re going to be looking for are those
noise reductions, your address to that at the next meeting. Well, the list.
MR. FITAMANT-Well, if I could, I’d like to address some of the noise issues, because I know
that’s a concern of the residents, adjacent residents here.
MR. RINGER-I just don’t want to get too in-depth.
MR. FITAMANT-No, not too involved, I understand. There’s been some comments from the
Township that they’re looking for additional landscaping, which we’ll agree to provide the
additional landscaping in some of these areas, in fact we’ve shown it on these plans in our
initial submittal, and in fact we’ll be adding a little bit more as per the comments from the
Township. Regarding the Staff’s comments, on trucks and loading areas, we also plan to
mitigate any noise from the truck loading areas, by providing a concrete masonry wall to
enclose the truck loading areas, to seal them off along these areas here.
MR. RINGER-Would that be for all your deliveries or just your 18 wheelers? You’re going to be
getting beverage, bakery, produce, a lot of DSD stuff.
MR. FITAMANT-Well, that’s in the truck wells, and that’s where the deliveries.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and all your deliveries will come down into there. Okay. DSD won’t go
down there?
The daily deliveries won’t go in the truck wells.
MR. FITAMANT-They won’t?
MR. RINGER-Okay. Just a question. Keep going. I don’t want to, again, slow you down.
MR. FITAMANT-Okay. Some of the comments have been regarding the entrances and the
internal circulation, which, in some instances, we agree. In others we would prefer not to see a
direct route to the front of the building, but we certainly will incorporate many of the comments
that the Township has proposed. There’s some parking along here that Staff indicated a
preference that they be eliminated. We’d prefer to make that employee parking.
MR. RINGER-You didn’t say you were going to eliminate them. You just said you were going
to make it employee parking?
MR. FITAMANT-We would prefer to make that an employee parking.
MR. RINGER-As I remember Staff’s reasoning for eliminating that was the turning and stuff,
versus.
MR. HILTON-Well, we have concerns about vehicles backing in to that drive lane, and I think
they were, I believe C.T. Male also touched on that, those parking spaces as well.
89
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. I mean, we listen to our Staff and we listen to our engineers, and some of
the recommendations we kind of push forward. So, I would think that you would respect all of
them and do your best to.
MR. FITAMANT-Okay. Understood. The truck, the bus stop recommendation we will also
incorporate. Recommendation for pedestrian access we will also incorporate from Route 9, as
well as the sidewalk along the front of Route 9 and along Weeks Road. The buffer along Weeks
Road, the berm was a good suggestion, and we’ll certainly incorporate that into our revised
submission, and that’s about it, in general. There are more details that I’ll save for our next
presentation, but that’s generally it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I’m going to have our, you may have some questions
from our Board, and I would ask that we keep them brief and direct.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question, I guess.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start with you, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the interconnection with the Flower Drum area off Weeks Road there. Are
you going to have an interconnection with that? How are you going to interconnect with that
property to the north?
MR. HENCHKY-Well, we have no plans. That was a recommendation of Staff.
MR. RINGER-It’s a recommendation because most all the new applications that come before us,
we try to get interconnections, wherever possible.
MR. HENCHKY-I’m sure, we have no problem in presenting that as an option and negotiating
that with
the adjacent landowner, and.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’d like to see it on the plan, too.
MR. HENCHKY-Actually it would be up to them to agree to that.
MR. HILTON-From our standpoint, and per our Code, what we usually look for with an
applicant is just a, maybe an easement or some kind of language indicating if the future
connection will be possible. If, in fact, the Flower Drum Song, I guess, if they were willing to
construct or agree to some sort of physical interconnection right now, that’s something that can
be pursued, but as far as the site plan that’s in front of us, we’re just talking about a line on the
paper that says future connection.
MR. HENCHKY-If that’s the Board’s desire, then from our perspective, we have no problem in
providing that.
MR. RINGER-Okay, because we can’t force the Flower Drum Song.
MR. HENCHKY-Right.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but if you could talk to them, it would help us. Go ahead, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not going to get into much more detail.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Right, and that’s great. John? Briefly.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That northern entrance off of Route 9, that’s a tricky entrance, I mean,
especially when snow is piled up there. Only one car at a time can make a left hand turn to
enter your parking area. Many times this winter, I’ve had to wait there for the oncoming car
90
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
because snow piling is just so narrow and so close, it’s not working. Okay. I know you want to
keep it. I don’t know why. I don’t know what the reasoning is. Allowing a better access of
vehicles in closer to the store seems to make sense to me.
MR. FITAMANT-Straight through?
MR. STROUGH-Something like that, but what’s there now doesn’t work well.
MR. FITAMANT-The only negative aspect to that is that you end up putting all the circulation,
if you do that, and you carry the circulation to the front of the store, you’re putting all of the
turning and circulation right next to a pedestrian crosswalk. It’s not desirable, but we’ll look at
configurations that’ll clean that up.
MR. STROUGH-And, too, I’ll just join the consensus here, I believe it’s a consensus on the
Board, that I think the recommendations made by Staff are excellent, all the way down from top
to bottom. I mean, certainly we can move a little bit here and there, but, and one of the biggie’s,
and this is not going to be a surprise to anybody on this Board, is going to be the architectural
design, the way it looks up front, something unique, something dynamic, something more
unique to Queensbury and not just anywhere USA kind of Wal-Mart, that’s going to be a big
thing. I mean, Home Depot, for example, went through four phases before it got to an
acceptable design that Staff found acceptable, and we found acceptable. So you can jump right
on that and you can, I think, make this pretty easy for yourself, because, you know, I like the
idea of a Super Wal-Mart, but we’re going to have some residential issues, concerns, and Staff
concerns, and we’ll move forward, but with that said, I’ll just let it go on.
MR. HENCHKY-I agree with what you’ve said, your Staff comments, 99% of them I think are
fantastic, and we agree with them, and I’ll let the architect discuss the façade for a few
moments.
MR. RINGER-We’re not going to do that tonight.
MR. HENCHKY-We’re not going to do that tonight.
MR. RINGER-But just understand, we want to give you a feel for this Board and what they’re
looking for.
MR. HENCHKY-That’s it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s it. Thank you. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m interested in hearing how you’re going to do the construction phase
and how that’s going to unfold because of the adjoining neighborhoods and that kind of thing,
but nothing really at this time.
MR. RINGER-Is that it? Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing right now.
MR. RINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one general question. Why 22 foot?
MR. HENCHKY-Those are the existing light poles that are out there. We might re-fixture them
with different heads, but the heights will remain the same.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing.
91
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DANIEL OLSON
MR. OLSON-Good evening. My name is Daniel Olson. My wife Nancy Olson. We’re residents
of 29 Carlton Drive.
NANCY OLSON
MRS. OLSON-For 38 years.
MR. RINGER-So the applicant is right behind you?
MR. OLSON-Yes, 50 feet or less from the property line to the Garden Center, I might add. As
long as you’re on to that, you brought that up, that’s the same area that the delivery trucks now
use. The noise is a big problem. We expect it during the day, and we get it all day long, with
deliveries, but we don’t expect, at 11 o’clock at night until maybe three or four in the morning to
have deliveries coming in. Diesel trucks are left running. You’ve got diesel. This time of year
we have to shut our windows in our houses to keep the diesel fumes out. For some reason the
people that unload the trucks over there in the evening have a habit of dropping the wooden
pallets of the forklift trucks onto the steel beds of the tractor trailers or the trucks. It’s a lot of
noise, a lot of noise. Sweeping of the parking lot is a big problem. Big, noisy problem. Plowing
of snow is a problem. I realize they have to do this stuff when there’s not a lot of traffic in the
parking lot, but the sweeping usually starts around 11, or 12 o’clock, right, until.
MRS. OLSON-Or two or three, and goes until five-thirty.
MR. OLSON-Yes, until five or six in the morning. I think we called three times last week, three
different times we had to call to ask the manager to, to remind the manager they were making a
lot of noise outside, that we couldn’t sleep. The manager said, well, I just came off break or
something, I didn’t know about that. We’ll check on it. When the employees take their break,
they go out to the area by the Garden Center and then they take their large radios, radio
systems that they’re called out there, boom boxes, yes, or they bring their car over that has those
large microphones in it, the vibes and everything in it, and they crank up those, they crank
those radios right up good and loud at night. What we’re looking at is a lot of noise, a lot of
truck traffic, noise. They seem to be building things at night over there, and I don’t know what
they build. I’ve gone over. There seems to be construction going on at night in the gas, in the
garage area or the Garden Center area, where there’s a lot of pounding and a lot of construction.
I don’t know if they’re taking things apart or what they’re doing.
MR. RINGER-They’re open until midnight. Right?
MR. OLSON-I guess so. I try to get to bed before that.
MR. RINGER-Until 11, 11 o’clock, but you’re going to be a 24 hour operation.
MRS. OLSON-That’s right.
MR. OLSON-They’re 24 hours now. The maintenance and inside the store and stuff.
MR. RINGER-The maintenance.
MR. OLSON-Because this time of year, as you can hear over the loudspeaker, the PA systems,
when the prices are going to be dropped, or move this or that, or looking for Joe or Mary or
somebody’s got a phone call. A proposal, and I think this Board should really consider this, the
Town Board, if they get anything, the Zoning Board should. This is a major, a major
reconstruction, and if I can go over to the map for a minute, the neighbors that are concerned,
the residential areas, are in here, in this area here. The trucks now go through here. A real
92
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
problem was made originally when the Town granted the variances, it shortened up the buffer
zone from the existing 100 to 50 feet. It should have been extended from 100 feet to 200 feet.
That might be something you want to consider in the future with a development like this.
Zayres originally was in here, P & C food grocery stores were here, the original owners. We
were here. We were here when there were still trees. We never had a problem. Never had a
problem with Zayres or P & C. The trucks come down in here, in this area here, right through
here. I would like this Board to consider, as they look at this project, that the project should be
built and done so that all truck traffic and deliveries come in on Weeks Road. This is a Town
road. It’s acceptable. It’s a wide road. It’ll handle truck traffic. The residential properties are
over here. At least they’ve got a 50 or 60 foot roadway for a buffer. They’ve got a buffer in here
between the property and the road, and the rental properties are back in here, and back in here.
Weeks Road should be used for all deliveries, coming in and going out. This area up here,
which I think I know what they’re talking about, is a cement ramp they’re usually called like
this with a cover on. Now there was some discrepancy that all deliveries wouldn’t be going
into this area here. I believe, and would suggest to the Board, that you really look. There’s
going to be major construction that can be built into this project, that all deliveries come onto
Weeks Road, come into here, go into the covered garages, or loading areas, make their
deliveries, exit back out Weeks Road. Keep the traffic where the roads are, keep it away from
the buffer area and the buffer area around the building. That would cut down the noise in this
whole area here tremendously.
MR. RINGER-You can have the answers to all these questions at another time.
MR. OLSON-I believe, we’ve talked about the deliveries, and I want to take the time to point it
out on the layout and the plan to you. During the construction of the original Wal-Mart store,
when they demolished the building that was there, and then put it up, the worked in the
wintertime, and when they started the construction and jack hammering, they had to go down
quite deep along this end over here for the drainage that they put in, storm drainage, and the
construction of the building, the jack hammering and the construction, there affected our houses
in that area myself and a couple, well, three or four up the road from us and one to the other
side of us. We all live in the same area here, and we had cracks in our sheetrock from the
vibration, and how we had broken blocks in our cellar, cracked walls in our cellar. The molding
in the ceiling would separate from the walls. I had a lot of work that had to be done, all based
on the fact of the construction. I don’t want to have to be facing that again. I’ll be honest with
you. The windows vibrated so bad when the diggers were in there digging the ground and
breaking the frost, the windows in the house vibrated so bad they hit the insides of the storm
windows. You could see them and feel the going back and forth. They shake. That put a lot of
cracks in the sheetrock.
MRS. OLSON-May I add something? I had learned, and I don’t have any proof, but when I
took a Geology course at ACC, with Dr. Piper, he had said that a fault ran down through our
area. Maybe that’s why we had such damage done to our home. If there is a fault there, then
we’re looking at more damage.
MR. OLSON-The only other thing, I’d just like, I found in my notes here. They talked about
lighting and everything, and from what I dug out and could research at the Town Code for light
poles are 20 feet. I think those are 40 feet existing now.
MR. RINGER-They’re asking for 42, but none of this has been approved, Danny. These are
things they’ve asked for.
MR. OLSON-We want to get this on the table for you, though, some of the feelings and the
problems are the same as the applicant.
MR. RINGER-And you’ll get another opportunity to speak again.
MR. OLSON-Okay. I’m all done. Thank you.
93
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. RINGER-We appreciate it. You’ve waited all this time.
MRS. OLSON-Thank you. I’m sure there’s something I’ve forgotten, but we’ll be at the
forthcoming hearings.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, and we’ll look forward to it. I think you are going to be helped
because most of the truck traffic is now going to be on the Weeks Road, and that’s where the
loading docks are going to be, and so I think that’s going to relieve quite a bit for you. I don’t
want to discuss it with you, but I think you are going to be happy, happier with where the
trucks are going to be located.
MRS. OLSON-Well, no, because they’re still going to come in to the left there. They’re still
going to follow that, if they call come in off Weeks Road and nothing goes over that way. That’s
fine.
MR. RINGER-They will answer all your questions.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Danny?
MR. OLSON-Yes. We’re satisfied. Thank you. Thanks for your time.
MR. RINGER-Anyone else?
GEORGE GOETZ
MR. GOETZ-I have a handout.
MR. RINGER-George, are you going to read that whole thing? Noise is one of the things that
the Town has brought up that they have to address.
MR. GOETZ-This has nothing to do with noise, okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right.
MR. GOETZ-And please bear with me. I know it’s been a long night for you, and you have a
long ways to go on this. For the record, I’m George Goetz. I’m the President of Ray Supply,
and co-owner of the building and the property located right next to the Wal-Mart, and this is
Keith Fazol, Vice President of Ray Supply, and reviewing the Planning Board notes, it appears
that the applicant has submitted a traffic impact study that states the total number of trips
entering and exiting the site will be reduced from the current levels as a result of the proposed
development. How can this be? You know, 95,000 square ft. expansion, a grocery store, an
increase in the garden center, that’s going to create a huge amount of business. What is the cost
of this expansion?
MR. RINGER-George, address your questions to us, and we’ll get them answered.
MR. GOETZ-Okay. When you have an expansion like that, it takes a lot of extra business to pay
for it, probably a minimum of 30 to 40% more. To do that, it’s going to require a ton, a lot more
traffic, despite what is down in the notes. The increase in customers will result in a greater
traffic flow by our store (Ray Supply, Inc.). Their present traffic flow is already so heavy that it
affects the ability of our customers to enter and exit our property. We have been told that
customers often have to go elsewhere because they have so much difficulty in getting in and out
of our parking lot. There is also a safety issue due to a large number of accidents at the South
exit of Wal-Mart and Route 9. There are also accidents at both our exits and Route 9, but the
traffic flow remains the same, and the increase in Wal-Mart traffic is as great as anticipated, the
amount of accidents will increase, our business will decrease because our customers won’t be
able to get in or out of our parking lot particularly in December and in the summer, and also
during the winter during icy days. The distance between the Wal-Mart south exit and our
94
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
North exit is only 44 ft. I’d like to say we were there in 1956, and that’s at the East end of both
driveways. That doesn’t leave room for our customers to enter or leave. I believe that
Queensbury normally requires around 400 feet distance between commercial driveways for a
store with the same volume as Wal-Mart. They may say that there was already a pre-existing
exit when they went into their location but if my memory is correct, I believe the exit was
further north and certainly wasn’t as wide as the one in they now have. No matter what the
situation it was not designed for their kind of volume and the entrance should not infringe on
our property line. More important, however, there is a major safety issue now at this entrance.
What will the major increase in traffic do? How many more people will be injured from more
traffic accidents? We are not here to try to tell you what to do because we know that you will
do the right thing, and in looking at you today it’s obvious, you try to do the right thing. In my
opinion, or our opinion, there are some options that should be considered before any decisions
are made. 1. Add a traffic light to the Wal-Mart South Exit. A large percentage of customers
enter and leave Wal-Mart from this entrance. I don’t have any statistics, but it appears that
around 8 out of every 10 cars that enter and leave the Wal-Mart plaza go through their South
entrance. How do I know this? Every day when I try to enter Ray Supply parking lot I have to
wait so long I have plenty of time to watch vehicles entering and leaving through their South
entrance. The cars look like columns of ants entering and leaving an anthill non-stop. The only
difference is that the ants don’t have as many accidents. Yes, it is very difficult and dangerous
to enter our parking lot or the Wal-Mart lot particularly during December, the summer, or on
wet and snowy days. If you try to leave our parking lot from our North exit it is almost
impossible to turn left and head north on Route 9 or to enter our two entrances, when driving
south on Route 9. It is amazing how few cars use the Wal-Mart exit that has the light. If you
put in a traffic light, it must be accompanied by a sign that says no right hand turn on red. At
the present time no one stops at the existing stop sign unless South Bound traffic prevents it.
Even then people try to beat the traffic by not stopping at the stop sign. Some day someone is
going to get killed at this intersection unless something is done. Please don’t let Wal-Mart use
the cost or expense as an excuse. Whatever it is, it isn’t worth the loss of a life. 2. It appears
that the traffic light on the corner of Potter Road adequately takes care of Potter Rd., Weeks Rd.
and the North East entrance (Wal-Mart light). Maybe you could move the light down from
their North entrance to the South entrance if you don’t want to put in a new one. It might
improve the traffic flow of Route 9 and slow cars before they get to the congestion of the new
Home Depot Entrance. 3. Move the present South Exit further north or increase the size of the
so-called main entrance to two lanes in and two lanes out or close the south exit (Examples –
Hannaford, Lowe’s, K-Mart, Wilton Mall & Red Lobster mall) They have one main entrance
and exit, and then they leave through the secondary roads, in this case would be Weeks Road.
4. Turn the South exit, or entrance, whatever you call it, into a one-way entrance only. All cars
would have to exit out the main exit that has the light. You are probably already doing it but
we would suggest that an independent company be hired by the Town and paid for by Wal-
Mart to conduct a study of this traffic problem. We would expect this study to be made during
summer hours, Saturdays and other prime time hours. Ray Supply moved to our present
location in 1956 at a time when there wasn’t any problem with traffic. Over the years we have
seen Queensbury build up to where it is today. Until Wal-Mart went in behind us we didn’t
have a problem. I would like to point out that our problem is not from their competition. We
do very well competing against them with price and service when comparing equal quality
products. Our problem is from being suffocated by their traffic volume. After all of the years of
trying to be a good Queensbury citizen, we don’t deserve to be swallowed up by Wal-Mart and
innocent people shouldn’t be hurt because of a safety problem. There is a remedy to the
problem and we are confident that you will work it out, and that Wal-Mart will be a good
citizen and want to work it out, too.
MR. RINGER-Thanks, George.
MR. GOETZ-Thank you very much.
PAUL LING
95
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. LING-Hello. My name is Paul Ling. I’m with the Flower Drum Song, and this is John Ellis.
He’s my brother-in-law. I guess we’re just here to reiterate the concerns these people have said
before. I think there’s definitely going to be an increase in traffic. We’re right next to Weeks
Road, and with all the increased semi’s that are going to go in and out of there, to deliver
groceries to the new center, I think that there will be problems with maybe accidents. Because
Weeks Road is not very wide. We’ve been there for about 16, 17 years, and we’ve seen quite a
few accidents there already, you know, with all the apartments in the back.
JOHN ELLIS
MR. ELLIS-I’d like to say, when, in the wintertime, the carwash gets going, they have to put
cones out to regulate the cars going in. They’re backed up almost to Route 9, and to have trucks
going in and out of there is going to be ridiculous. Also, maybe you can eliminate that south
entrance and have just a major entrance right in the center, where maybe trucks can go off
somehow. You know, you can work it out, but I just want to bring up those items there.
There’s going to be a lot of traffic in that area. Right now, it’s hard for our customers to get out
onto Route 9 because here’s a lot of cars speeding up to make that light. They’re trying to make
it in time so they don’t have to stop, and that’s basically it.
MR. RINGER-Thank you.
MR. ELLIS-Okay.
(Problem with tape)
MR. HILTON-For the Planning Board, yes, we’re tentatively shooting for the first regular
meeting of June, June 17, where we will have this item back. Potentially the Planning Board
th
will acknowledge Lead Agency and begin the SEQRA review and continue the public hearing.
MR. RINGER-Tentatively the 17 is our next meeting.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Is there any possibility, George, that that meeting could be a meeting just for
Wal-Mart? Like the Chairman has requested, or is that a very light night?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think that’s what we’re either planning for a Wal-Mart by itself, or else a
very light schedule, a few items and then primarily this application.
MR. RINGER-Yes. The completeness review, we had a couple of expedited that we may put on
there, but we didn’t have a huge, huge schedule for June 17, a couple of expedited items that
th
should go quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you.
(Problems with tape)
MR. RINGER-Would you gentlemen like to speak? Entrances we should look at, traffic studies.
MR. FITAMANT-Yes, the trucks will continue to enter as they do today. Back in, continue here,
back in, and leave out Weeks Road.
MR. RINGER-Is that what they do now?
MR. FITAMANT-That’s what they do today. They unload here, and they had unloaded, yes,
the Ames has a loading dock right about there. So, about the same location.
MR. RINGER-Now, when the tractor trailers are waiting there, where are they going to be
parking. We hear all about the idling, the tractor trailers idling.
96
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
MR. FITAMANT-I don’t know what that’s about, but when the trucks come in, and they back
in, they don’t idle. What might be heard is the compressors on the refrigerated trucks. That
could be the sound. They shouldn’t be idling. There’s no need for that.
MR. RINGER-(Lost words) refrigerated trucks now, but when you go to the food center, you’re
going to have more refrigerated trucks than you might get now.
MR. FITAMANT-True.
MR. RINGER-You’ve heard the comments. Do you have anything else for us?
MR. FITAMANT-Actually, maybe the architect can show you the newest façade. He did add
some peaks to the.
MR. RINGER-If we do, we’re going to get into a discussion, and I really don’t want to get into a
discussion on it tonight.
MR. FITAMANT-Fine. We’ll provide that in our resubmission package.
MR. RINGER-Yes, Mrs. Olson?
MRS. OLSON-(Lost words) right in here we see big trucks, and they stop right here.
Automotive could be, and our house is along in here, and this is where we see them. They’re
there at night and they’re there during the day, and they must unload things. They idle. I
mean, that’s what we, the sound is emanating from them. So we call it an idling, and they also
stop here because they have to unload the flowers and the plants, and then we hear the beep,
beep of the forklifts, you know, moving them off the trucks, but any time during the day and at
night, you can see one or two trucks here, the great big trucks, the semi’s, whatever they’re
called, all right. So I wanted to explain that to you.
MR. RINGER-You’ve heard the comments. I’m sure you’ll have a bigger (lost words). Thank
you for coming in tonight, and the lateness, we apologize to you, and we also apologize to the
residents.
MR. FITAMANT-Thank you, Chairman.
MR. HENCHKY-Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-You’re welcome. Okay. George? (In reference to discussion item from 6/20
meeting re: Lead Agency for Lake George Park Commission, Laursen)
MR. HILTON-Really what that amounts to is don’t worry about it because it’s potentially
another Class A Marina as we discussed the other night and as the Lake George Park
Commission confirmed for us today. A Class A marina permit similar to the ones you saw the
other night. However, it’s our understanding that they’re probably going to try to apply for
and receive pre-existing, nonconforming status by your Board, and if that’s the case, a SEQRA
review will not be necessary on our end. So, in order to make sure that there is a SEQRA done
as part of the project, we would rather you guys just not assume Lead Agency and leave it up to
the Park Commission and let them take care of it and not even make a recommendation.
MR. RINGER-Or a resolution.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
97
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/03)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman
98