2004-10-19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we get into the agenda, if anyone is here for the Northern
Distributing application, that application has been withdrawn. It’s our understanding that the
applicant will be resubmitting an entirely new site plan in the near future. So that item will be
stricken from the agenda.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 SEQR TYPE: SEE PREVIOUS MODIFICATION HOME DEPOT
PROPERTY OWNER: NPA II, LLC AGENT: LA GROUP ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE
LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HOME DEPOT IN THE NORTHWAY PLAZA.
MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-46
MR. HUNSINGER-Home Depot has sent a letter to the Town this afternoon asking that their
item be tabled until November. I would entertain a motion from someone on the Board to table
the Home Depot application, to the November 16 regular Board meeting.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
To the November 16, 2004 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 17, 2004: NONE
August 24, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF
AUGUST 17, 2004 AND AUGUST 24, 2004, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION AFTAB BHATTI AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: ECONOLODGE, 543
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO STORMWATER,
GRADING, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOTEL ON THE PROPERTY. MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE:
SP 20-03, AV 19-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12
LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Comments, George?
MR. HILTON-Sure. Just to briefly summarize my notes. I’ve discussed here some of the
changes, including removal of a freestanding light pole, as well as the addition of a light pole on
the site, and I guess the question, as far as lighting goes, is how do these additions change the
previously approved light plan. Clearing limits shown on the plan, Sheet 2, appears to have
some notation, and I guess the question is have the clearing limits been modified, has the buffer,
the approved buffer been modify, and are there any plans to modify that buffer. I guess
primarily, or the main issue with this is the revised grading and stormwater plan which has
been submitted to C.T. Male for their review and comment, and just a general question. Have
all site modifications been presented on the plans that have been given to Staff and to the Board.
That’s all I have at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to tell us about your project?
MR. BROWN-My name is Peter Brown. I’m representing Sam Bhatti. I’ve been construction
manager of the job. I’ve been there for, since December or January of last year. So it’s been a
long time, and there have been some modifications to the site work plan. I don’t know if you
want me to go and review them all individually, or if you guys have individual questions. I
don’t know how you would care to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe if you could just tell us about the proposed changes, or most
recent changes.
MR. BROWN-The changes have been brought about by several different reasons, and the thing
is what we’ve done, we’ve brought them up to every Code that we could find, okay, and to
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
make sure that the site work, drainage worked, that the lighting is adequate, that, and we’re
doing this also for a motel chain, okay. This is going to be a Quality Inn. I think the last time it
was in front of you people it was originally going to be an Econo Lodge, and they have
upgraded it and it is going to be a Quality Inn now. So it’s met several changes, from that
standpoint, as far as the basic standards go. As far as the site work go, you’d have to go right
through the very beginning, but what I do is I have a bunch of photographs here, okay, that I
made for each one of the Board members, and a few extra ones, and I believe you guys have the
plans in front of you, right? Okay. The smaller set of plans I would just refer to as the
approved set because that was the set that you people approved before, okay, and then if you
take the larger set of plans, which is the scale one inch equals twenty feet, no, it’s eighth inch
scale, excuse me. You can pretty much, we can start right at one corner and work around, okay,
and I can show you that each individual plan, or each individual change on the surface, okay.
As was said, C.T. Male approved the drainage plan without any questions at all. Okay. I think
there’s a letter in the file on that. So that’s been taken care of. So then if you go to the big plan,
okay, you start around the outside, the first big thing is we’re going to start on Drawing SDP-1.
MR. SANFORD-Excuse me. Is there any possibility you can put it up there and so the audience
can participate in this exercise as well as us, to view what we’re doing? We have that easel over
there. Is that possible, or is that too much of a clumsy exercise?
MR. BROWN-It’s a pretty clumsy exercise. I think my question was appropriately answered. I
appreciate that, but I have some physical knee problems and I really don’t want to stand up in
front of that easel. I’m much more comfortable sitting here.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. BROWN-But if you go to Drawing SDP-1, okay, and you start in the lower left hand corner,
it doesn’t show on this drawing, but the first thing that’s different from the original plan is the
transformers are all mounted on a pole that’s actually in the Old Aviation Road right of way.
Okay, and originally called for a transformer to be, an existing transformer to be relocated on
the property. Well, NiMo wouldn’t go for that, naturally. Plus there was 20 some meters in one
building. Two other meters, I guess a total of 20 meters on the site, and they weren’t going to
allow another one to come off of that transformer, since they only allow one per transformer per
site. So anyway. Go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to say one thing. I’ve looked at this drawing for
about an hour, and trying to compare it with the original set that was done by another
engineering firm, and I couldn’t get any correlation between this document and those, in terms
of changes, and that’s what I really want to see.
MR. BROWN-That’s understandable.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, when I’m reviewing these on my own.
MR. BROWN-I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-The changes should be implicitly clear, and here they’re not, and I think taking
us through a one by one like this, for me, personally, doesn’t do it, because I think these
drawings are inadequate to show what you’re trying to show, in comparison to what was
originally approved, and so I just don’t see this exercise, for me, doing anything at all.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Then let’s go back to the original drawings, okay. If you want to go back
to the original drawings, we can go back to the original drawings. Because apparently those
were clear in your mind, at that time, because they were approved, I understand. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-They were.
MR. BROWN-So apparently understood those plans.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the approved drawing.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So I can work off of those, also, and we have photographs to back them
up. So if you want those now, I can give you those now. Okay, but I’m going to go in some
kind of sequence, starting at one corner of the property and working around. Okay. I think
that’s the logical way of doing it, and where I’m going to start is basically if you go to the
original drawing on C-2, okay, the approved plans, C-2, let’s see if there’s a better one than that.
Okay. If you go to C-2, I guess I was rushing things. I didn’t mean to do it that way. I
apologize, but I’ll go back and we’ll go through each individual one. Go to C-5, and you’ll see
there’s two cars on that drawing, okay. One is, they’re both right directly, they depict a car on
the plan. Okay. One is parked over the line. The one above it is parked right in the middle of
the lot or driving through the lot, whatever they’re doing, and right in front of that there’s a box
with an X, okay. That was the original transformer. Okay. If you look at that transformer and
then you look down below, you can see there’s an Item F, and then there’s a perforated HDBP
outlet, and on the right hand side there’s a square box right at the end of the sidewalk. That
was where that transformer was to be relocated, okay. Niagara Mohawk said, no, they won’t
relocate that transformer. They will not let us attach to those lines. Now you’ve got to realize I
came in after you people all discussed it. So I said, okay, where are we going to go? So they
said, okay, we’ll take and put the transformer there. We’re going to clear all the trees down the
line along the easterly border on this plan, which is the border closest to you, okay, and even
though there’s several different individual pieces of property down through there, but they had
to bring three phase in, and it’s only a single phase line there now. So therefore they’d have to
upgrade that, and to do that, they’d have to clear that line of all the vegetation, which I knew
you people would not be happy with. I am not happy with it. So the next step was we took and
we sat down and we said, okay, we’ll bring it underground. Then I said, okay, we’ll work with
you on that, and what they said is we’ll put the transformer, that’ll come to this pole, which is
near the corner of D on the property line. There’s a D note, okay, and there’s a pole right there,
and they said we’ll come to that pole with three phase power, which means you only have to
clear half of that line, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is that D? Is that in the middle of the drawing?
MR. BROWN-In the middle of the drawing, right above, do you see gradient stormwater plan?
MR. VOLLARO-Gradient stormwater, I’m at D. That’s where they’re going to bring their three
phase in?
MR. BROWN-They’re going to bring their three phase right to the, there’s a property line and
two parcels below the motel line, and they’re going to put it on above, they’re going to come to
that pole and put their bank of three transformers up there, and then, or bring in the high
voltage, go down the thing, and into the transformers, underground, up on to that bank. I said
that’s not acceptable. Those trees are right down that line, and I can’t imagine anybody
expecting us to take and do that. So finally after going through Syracuse, and I don’t know if
we went to England and Saudi Arabia, but along the line of the national grid system, I ended up
with a guy in Syracuse who ultimately did make the decision that we could put the three phase
power right at the far southeastern corner of this parcel, of the property, okay, and what they
did, they allowed us to take and change that. It was a single phase transformer up there. They
allowed to put two more transformers on the pole, and come underground into the building.
MR. SANFORD-Where is that indicated on your new drawing?
MR. BROWN-It’s not on the new drawing. Okay. I didn’t show that down there because
there’s virtually no changes down there. I have pictures of it, if you want to look at those.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-Okay, but anyway, that was the first thing we went through, okay, and we
couldn’t even connect power. We couldn’t do anything because we couldn’t get an electrical
permit because the plans were wrong, blah, blah, blah, okay. Then if you go up, so we
straightened it out, and we thought we straightened it out the way you people would
appreciate it. Okay, and I know that I appreciate it, and I know that it’s a heck of a lot simpler
than cutting trees. There was nothing cut because of this, okay, and plus they can get to it very
easily, and there’s no, you know, it’s just a much neater situation.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it right on the property or is it off the property now?
MR. BROWN-It’s actually in the Old Aviation Road right of way. There’s an existing pole there.
It had one transformer on it. Now it’s got two more. It’s actually got three new ones on it. The
other one was a little bit smaller in diameter.
MR. VOLLARO-And then you’re taking it underground from there?
MR. BROWN-It goes underground from there into the side of the building, okay, right about
where D is on the building plan.
MR. SANFORD-Which would be, D on the building plan is in sort of the center of the building?
MR. BROWN-It’s actually a little bit to the.
MR. SANFORD-To the rear.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You’ve got it. You know what I’m talking about. There’s three D’s there.
I’m sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, there’s three D’s.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, there’s three D’s.
MR. BROWN-I’ll pick the lowest one, closest to you.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the eastern end of the building, right?
MR. BROWN-Yes, it has to go underground so it goes in and it comes above ground and goes
in the building right around where that D is. Okay. So then the next situation we get into, we
go to the building elevation, okay, which is at 101.75. Now you see there’s a D on the left hand
side. You see there’s a little projection out of the side of the building, okay. Now I don’t have
to go very far to take and say there’s an exit door right there. It’s got to be wheelchair
accessible, and if you step down from 101.75 to 95, okay, I think that’s a drop, if I know how to
use a calculator, of about 5.75 feet, or nearly six feet. Now that isn’t even a Benny Hill handicap
ramp. There’s nobody can step out there and survive. So we’ve got a problem right there.
Okay. Then if we take and go, so we have to redesign that whole thing, okay. So that’s one of
the reasons. Now I know handicap ramps are pretty important today. So then you go to the
next area where there’s a handicap ramp, which happens to be where the canopy is. If you go
to drawing D-1, that is actually a main blow up of the main entrance to the building, okay. If
you start at the floor elevation of the motel, which is 101.75, you have a nice gentle slope that
goes out at about a quarter inch per foot, and it goes out to the top of the curb at 101.4, and then
it drops down to 100.9, which is a half a foot drop, a little bit over a half a foot, okay, no
handicap ramp there, and if you want to look at the detail above it, that’s right where it is.
Okay. So we had to change that entrance. Now I’m back to.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask you a question. You changed that because that side of the building
is at 95 elevation, is that the reason?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-What we’re trying to do is, once we got into this thing, okay, there were so many
things that really were very difficult, okay, to work with. They had to work with it. We had to
work with it. We had no choice, okay. They were givens, and if you’d let me just go give you
the givens, then I’ll go back and show you how we took and tried to rectify them, and this was
not an easy thing to do in the field. Okay. As you can see, if you walk out the side door and
you have a six foot drop, you’ve got to do some thinking pretty fast.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a six foot drop from the original grade of 95?
MR. BROWN-That’s the way I interpreted it. I assume that you people were well aware of this
before?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the awareness for me, when we did this, if I remember back when we did
it, we go through so many of these, that that would be graded up, to the 101.75 figure.
MR. BROWN-You’re apparently having problems with the new drawings, and what we tried to
show on the new drawings is exact things that came out, okay. Now, if you understood this
drawing right, you walk out the door and there’s no step to step down on unless you place one
on the dirt down below at elevation 106, was it? Well, no, it wasn’t 106. It was 95. It went from
101.75.
MR. VOLLARO-To 95.
MR. BROWN-And you look on C-4, okay, the C-4, which one were we looking at before? C-5,
okay, and you can see there’s an elevation that comes right into the building, right where the
door is at 95.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, I see that.
MR. BROWN-Two feet in front of that it goes to 94. Now it depends on how far out you step to
get your exact drop. Does that show it sloping up? Yes it does show it sloping up, but there’s
an extreme vertical drop there.
MR. VOLLARO-From 101.75 to 95. That’s your differential.
MR. BROWN-That’s the way I interpret the plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Are there any questions on the next ramp area which is the main entrance?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have one on there. There was a note.
MR. BROWN-Well, I was referring to D-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There was a question on the height of the ramp, of the portico. That it
should be 13.6 as opposed to 12, for.
MR. BROWN-Where was the 12?
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t find it.
MR. BROWN-It is 12 feet now.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a note in here from the fire department that talks about 13.6 being
Code for a fire truck.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-If a fire truck is going to drive underneath the, and they put a road around the
side of it so the fire truck can always get through. There’s no parking on the side.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just telling you what we got in our packets from the fire department,
locally here, that said it should be at 13.6. I couldn’t even find the 12 on your drawing. It
wasn’t there. So I don’t know how it got to be the height that it is, and how come there’s a
differential.
MR. BROWN-I think that’s a building code issue, not a site plan issue. It’s on the Building
Code. It’s in the building plans, in the architectural plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how do we deal, I guess I’ve got to ask the Board, how do we deal with
our own Fire Code here that says it should be 13.6?
MR. BROWN-No. That is your Fire Code by the State of New York, okay. You’ve adopted that,
providing that a fire truck has to drive underneath that entrance to get into the property.
There’s an entrance beside it. The canopy does not go all the way across the front. They held
the parking way back up in there so that the fire truck could get up in and around, okay. It’s a
different, you are correct, okay, but the portico or the carport does not extend all the way out
into the main driving lane for the fire lane. That’s why if you look at the site plan, let me give
you which one this is, okay, this is approved. It’s unchanged, okay. If you go to Drawing C-2,
you’ll see there’s a big box over there on the left hand side, and that’s basically made for fire
trucks to get in and out of there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, on C-2, that depicts the portico, doesn’t it?
MR. BROWN-The portico is back, you see there’s a light fixture there, labeled C, okay, then if
you look up, there’s a streetlight A, okay, or an area light A, then you see there’s a box out there
which really is reserved for the fire trucks to drive through. In other words, it’s not a
handicapped, you can see the handicap beside that. It’s made so the fire trucks can get through.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me defer to our supporting engineer on that one. I don’t know how to
square this with our local New York Code. I don’t know what to do with that. Do you have
any suggestions?
MR. EDWARDS-No. I don’t have a great handle on the Fire Code. I’m sorry I don’t. Are you
saying it was built at 12 feet?
MR. VOLLARO-It was built at 12. It’s supposed to be 13.6, according to Code.
MR. EDWARDS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-New York State Fire Code.
MS. RADNER-The Fire Marshal would be the appropriate person to ask that question.
MR. BROWN-He has been through this thing several times, okay. The Building Department
has been through it. They’re aware of it. They have a full set of drawings that show that.
MS. RADNER-Do you have anything from them that you can give this Board letting them know
that they’re satisfied?
MR. BROWN-Well, I can go home and get the Code, if that’s what you’re really looking for. I
don’t think anybody wants to take and go through the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to do is get by a letter to this Planning Board from our Fire
Marshal that talks about 13.6.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MS. RADNER-I’ve got a letter here from Steve Smith dated August 31, 2004, saying, “We have
reviewed the plans submitted for this project. The plans indicate that a new canopy will be
constructed in conjunction with the office reconstruction. The canopy, as drawn, is shown to be
a height of 12 feet. Per Section 503.2.1 of the Fire Code of New York State, this canopy must
have a minimum unobstructed vertical entrance of 13 feet 6 inches to accommodate fire
apparatus. Thank you, Regards, Steve Smith” I think that sums it up pretty well.
MR. BROWN-That is true, as long as you don’t have a road around it, okay. It is not a bridge on
the Northway just to be 14 feet. Okay. You have an option to drive your fire truck around. I
can assure you that not one fireman in this area would dare drive a truck underneath there if it
was 13 feet high, or 14 feet high.
MR. VOLLARO-That may all be true, but my dilemma is I have something in front of me that
says otherwise, and I don’t know how to exactly get around that, but why don’t you, let’s put
that on the burner.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, why don’t we get through the rest of the application.
MR. VOLLARO-And get through the rest of the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then we can decide how to deal with that.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So that’s it for that portico, then, right? So we’re all set. That’s the thing
that’s got to be jacked up. Okay. So then we’re going to take, and I would like to take and ask
you to go and look at C-4, again. Now if you look at C-4, it says on there, again, your first floor
elevation is 101.75, which you’ll know by the end of the night. Anyway, there’s another door
that comes out the right hand side of the building, okay, or the north side of the building, and
you can see that it goes on to a sidewalk, and the contour that goes into the sidewalk is 99 feet.
Now the handicap rooms are in this end of the building, and, anyway, to make a long story
short, 101.75 and you take away 99 feet, there’s a two and a half foot drop in less than three feet.
Pretty hard to put a handicap ramp in there, and so therefore we had to make some adjustments
on that side. So that’s three out of four. Shall we go on to the other side?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what he’s saying. There’s a differential between his finished floor
and the rest of the grade, but shouldn’t that have just been taken care of by grading up to the
building, or do I have a problem?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, potentially, yes, and I think the detail on the site plan doesn’t reflect
maybe how you build in the field. That’s a general overview of grading, and when it comes to
details such as this, they really need to be done by a blow up of the entranceway with more
detail, or the designer of record gets involved during the process and makes it work. I mean,
granted that one side appears to be a large drop coming off finished floor, but again, there must
have been a thought process here as to how to handle that, and make it constructible, but I can’t
speak for the designer. I don’t know what their thought process was, but, yes, they definitely
had some difficulties during construction that make this thing fit. No question about it, but the
detailing of this.
MR. VOLLARO-Once they were faced with 101.74, they shot that elevation, and they had to
build to that.
MR. EDWARDS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Without too much concern right then and there about the surrounding
topography. That’s part of the problem. Okay. Mr. Chairman, you can forward.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, I didn’t hear. What was part of the problem? That’s all I heard. You
weren’t facing me, so I didn’t quite.
MR. VOLLARO-I said, when they were building this, they had to build a finished floor. They
had a drawing that said 101.74. So they had to build to that. They didn’t pay much attention to
the surrounding topography.
MR. BROWN-We didn’t pay much attention to the surrounding topography?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You built the floor to the print.
MR. BROWN-No, we did not.
MR. VOLLARO-So the floor is not at 101.75?
MR. BROWN-No, it is not.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting. Where is it?
MR. BROWN-Well, if you could read my drawings, or the drawings that we submitted to you,
okay, I believe it shows that it’s 100.56.
MR. EDWARDS-That’s really one of the problems. The drawing that was modified site plan is
difficult, at best, to read. The intent, I guess, from my standpoint, was to review it in terms of a
stormwater management redesign, and that was really the crux of our review of that was we
had some major changes to the stormwater system out there, and in principle it made sense.
What they did, again, to make this site work made sense, as per the modified plan, but the plans
that were resubmitted don’t clearly reflect the changes made in the field, by a long shot.
They’re not clear to read. The grading is not clear. The site changes aren’t clear, and it doesn’t
reflect anything more than a couple of bubbles on the old site plans, that try and reflect those
changes, so the modified plan does not clearly depict what happened, you know, in the field
out there.
MR. SANFORD-I think we ought to probably get that clarification with a new set of drawings
that accurately reflect.
MR. BROWN-Gentlemen, we have a serious problem here, and I hate to interrupt you, but I
don’t want this thing delayed, okay. We have gone through a very difficult period, okay. We
cannot get our bank financing without your approval. Okay. We’re going to have liens on this
property. The owner will be bankrupted. There will be the biggest mess that you have ever
seen in your life. Okay. What we did is tried to take and make adjustments that would satisfy
everybody’s needs, okay, and that’s what I wanted, and I don’t think there’s anybody that’s
driven by that says it hasn’t looked right, it hasn’t looked nice, it doesn’t look beautiful. I think
it’s one of the more attractive buildings in that corridor, okay, and that doesn’t mean it is the
most attractive building in anybody else’s opinion. That’s my own opinion and we all have
different opinions on what is attractive and what isn’t, but it is not outlandish in any way. I
think that’s a safe way to say it, okay. We have built it so that the grade, so the water flows. We
have had to take, and Jim has been to the site, and he knows we have a major problem with the
original building flooding. The office was built below the floor level. One of the stipulations
that they, when they went to the Quality Inn, they had to rebuild the office and started to bring
that building up to the level of the Quality Inn. So that’s the reason why we had to make a lot
of adjustments, great adjustments, okay. It was not done with any malice. It was not done to
save money. In fact, it’s cost them a bundle lot more, but right now, by everybody not sitting
there and seeing the quality of work that went in there, I’ll use that strangely, but anyway,
without seeing that we were out there with your best interests. Not at one time did I not
consider what you people would think would be the best thing. Okay, and we took and did the
best we could with what we were given, okay. Never once did we think that we were trying to
cheapen that building up. In fact, quite to the contrary. I think that I, without your individual
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
blessing on each individual change, okay, we had to make decisions in the field. Those
decisions were made. Jim has been there.
MR. SANFORD-What I would like to do, then, I mean, if there’s an easy way to do it, is to cut to
the chase here and to try to get a handle on exactly where we are now, what are the changes
contemplated, and/or formed, so that fellow Board members can feel comfortable having an
understanding of what has happened here, and I think what we’re seeing here is I can’t speak
for everybody else, but there’s sort of a vagueness as to exactly what we’re doing with this, and
that’s why I mentioned, I would feel more comfortable with, you know, accurate drawings that
basically say, here’s where it is now, rather than going from what we originally approved, then
trying to talk in terms of where we’re going to go with it to get it to the drawings which Mr.
Vollaro had a hard time appreciating. Would you like to add anything to that? So is there a
way we can address this in a quick way, so that we all have a good understanding of it?
MR. BROWN-What I would like to do is this. Okay. Number One, we have to get a Temporary
CO, okay. It’s unfortunate, but the building, we took and asked to upgrade the office building.
I don’t know if you guys recall that. Then at some point the property was merged. So now we
have two mortgages tied into one piece of property, and until we get one cleaned up, we can’t
even go on to the other. In the meantime, we owe, I’m without exaggerating, at least a half
million dollars. Okay, which the people have been waiting for so we can get to this point.
Okay. Tomorrow the liens will drop, and I don’t mean to put you in this position, but you
could certainly say, okay, conceptually we approve this one. This side of it, and we’ll take and
review the whole thing at the other end of it. In other words, it’s got to work. The entire parcel
has to work. It wasn’t the owner’s fault that he was told to go merge the properties. He had no
reason to understand the consequences of this, and to merge the properties is a very simple
process.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that why we have two engineering firms here, the Jarrett-Martin is no longer
involved, because of the merger? Is that part of it?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think I have to go any further than that.
MR. VOLLARO-See, my problem is.
MR. BROWN-I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I’m not answering that question. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a problem trying to correlate this drawing with the new drawings. When
I’m alone doing this, because we all sit by ourselves. We don’t have all of this support here,
before we come to a meeting like this.
MR. BROWN-And I really am not comfortable sitting here discussing these issues. You really
want to know. Okay.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t want to ask why, but let me just get this straight. I don’t want to ask
you questions like this, but Bob’s right. We get a packet of information and we’re dealing with
them on an individual basis, and so sometimes, you know, we don’t have the Staff readily
available to ask questions, but if I understand the continuity, is there was another engineering
firm involved. They have been replaced, and now William E. Montgomery, Jr., P.E., is now the
new engineer and I believe that’s you?
MR. BROWN-No, I’m not. Bill Montgomery’s not here tonight. I’m here.
MR. SANFORD-You’re from his firm?
MR. BROWN-I’m from his firm. That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you’re now taking over the position of the prior engineer?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m not particularly interested in why that is, but, okay. So they’ve had
a changing of the guard, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
SAM BHATTI
MR. BHATTI-Sam Bhatti. I think that when this was approved, there was a mistake that
happened by Tom Jarrett, which I’m paying for it, and also reviewed by C.T. Male, they didn’t
review it right. Everything happened in elevation, because it’s two separate parcels, got
merged, and it was separate elevations, and all the damage occurred to me now. I’m paying
everybody else, because a mistake happened from Tom Jarrett and C.T. Male. They didn’t
review it right, and we have to fix this whole thing, and I’m under the water. Everybody can
ask a hundred million questions. I’m in trouble. I’ve tried to open this building since summer.
I can’t because the elevation doesn’t work. Anybody can go, a blind man can walk and see the
elevation doesn’t work. Because a mistake happened from one firm, and who I can sue? Either
Tom Jarrett, C.T. Male and the Town. The Town approved this plan, too. Everybody else is
happy because I’m screwed now.
MR. SANFORD-No, we’re not happy, but I appreciate your explanation.
MR. BHATTI-Nobody wants to help me. Tom Jarrett doesn’t want to help me back. I don’t
know why. Because a mistake happened. Nobody wants to admit their mistake. It cost me
$100,000, maybe more to be here today. I’m still not open in the summer. I lost all the money in
the summer revenue, and this is a plan if you go there, please, and walk through and see all the
elevation works now. I know, you know, we tried to do it the best we can.
MR. BROWN-Before we go for a vote, I would like to take and pass these out to you. Okay,
because these are photos today, most of them. Some go way back, okay, but I think you’ve got
the crux of everything. I don’t think there’s any other questions that I can answer. I don’t think
doing a super set of plans is going to mean anything that you can’t observe when you go out in
the field, if you can’t observe it on the photographs. Okay. The elevations, as far as the
majority of the stuff, is correct. It’s just not done with contours. So a separate plan was not
done. Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-There’s a separate phase of the project, here, I understand, of raising the
existing building, and there’s also got to be some architecture involved with that, too.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. EDWARDS-When you raise the building up, you’d have to raise everything up and
everything up and knock the old one down, I’m assuming. Was anything ever submitted that
reflects the grading or the architecture of that?
MR. BROWN-They approved that. They approved that based on these plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking about the old plan.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s talking about the Tom Jarrett plan.
MR. BROWN-Yes. We’re talking about the approved plans.
MR. EDWARDS-Did they reflect the change to the existing building, though? Was that part of
the plan?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-It was a new building, a new, basically, addition they were building, but there
was, they did want to improve the office.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, the façade was being changed, basically.
MR. SANFORD-Let me ask you this question. What you’re contemplating doing now is it
going to have any kind of an impact whatsoever on the adjoining neighborhood to the east?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely not. In fact, what we have done is this, okay, and I’m going to call it
an improvement. Have we changed it? Yes. Is it going to have an effect on the neighborhood?
Yes, and I explained that. Okay. That’s not a negative word, okay.
MR. SANFORD-No, I just want to hear it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, before we go any further, I guess what I’d like to do, Richard, is, you
know, let him finish his presentation, then we’ll go down through the site plan review criteria
was we normally would.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, Chris, that’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-That way, you know, if there’s questions on some of these things, we can ask
them.
MR. BROWN-That’s a legitimate question. He asked what the changes were, and I could tell
him.
MR. SANFORD-You could fit that in with our sequencing. That’s fine.
MR. BROWN-You want that answer now, or not?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, go ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no go ahead.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Anyway, basically what has happened out there, there was a dumpster
pad that was out there and one of the neighbors was complaining about that, okay. The
parking lot was basically couldn’t get a dumpster pad because they’re parked at 90 degrees to it.
Okay. The transformer is supposed to go in the same location, and you get two cars driving in,
you can’t get a dumpster up in, a garbage truck in to pick up a dumpster, okay. So we moved
it over in another location beside one of Sam’s buildings, okay, right beside the motel. He’s
going to go to a bigger one that has the disinfectant that goes into it in the summertime. It’s not
a restaurant, but a motel. It does, occasionally I suppose smell, whatever, and so anyway he
moved that up beside one of his motels so then he’d know if it was smelling it wouldn’t affect
the neighbor. The other thing is we changed the grading on the parking lot. We took and, there
was two manholes, the grade went down and it tapered down towards the neighbors. What we
did, we took and tapered it up and we built a mound in. So in the wintertime, when all the
foliage is off the trees, okay, people will drive there. There’ll be this berm. So your headlights
will hit the berm. They won’t be shining down into somebody’s kitchen or bedroom or
bathroom or whatever else might be visible from that site. So, yes, we did make changes there.
Did we make them for the better? I think so. Okay. Did we have you in mind? Yes. We didn’t
want the neighbors complaining. Sam likes the neighborhood there. He gets along well with
the neighbors. It’s an improvement. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the changes that were made were the transformer, the.
MR. VOLLARO-Elevation to the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Elevation to the building on the south side.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-All sides.
MR. SEGULJIC-All sides. Well, you had to put an elevator on the north side, I guess.
MR. BROWN-We haven’t put the elevator in. The elevator pad is in there. You’ll see that on
the pictures here. Okay. The elevator is a little tiny, it’s 150 square feet or less.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s not been put in yet.
MR. BROWN-The shaft is down below the ground. It’s graded off with a concrete pad on it
now. Okay. A handicap ramp has been provided at that end of the building, which is really
what the concern is. I believe. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Now the other side, the east end of the building, yes, we had to have
places for the air conditioners to sit. We have to have an exit coming off the pool. We had to
have a Bilco hatchway put in so you could get laundry equipment in and all the things. You
can’t get them down the stairwell, and, I mean, I don’t know how you do it any other way, but
we had to put those things in there, and those were all brought up front a long time ago to the
Building Department. They were all structural things that had to be done. Other changes, you
had a sewer line which ended up going to the front of the building because that wouldn’t work.
The water line ended up, I think, some vents, we’ve got some trenches around the outside
gutters and stuff like that, which all show in the pictures. Okay. So we can, as far as I’m
concerned, I think I’ve answered everything that has to be answered. Okay. We need help,
though, and we need a quick approval at some point.
MS. RADNER-Sir, this Planning Board conducts the meeting here tonight and you’ve got to
bear in mind that Mr. Hunsinger there is the Chairman of this Board, and this Planning Board
has the authority to ask you whatever questions they need to to satisfy themselves that you’ve
met the criteria necessary for site plan review, and to be perfectly honest, your financial
situation is not part of their criteria.
MR. BROWN-Guess what. You know the answer to that question. Incidentally, if you want to
take and look, there’s an interesting one I just saw here of the.
MR. VOLLARO-The pole.
MR. BROWN-No, they’re all interesting, I’m sorry. Here’s one that was done from a, this was
done by a, okay, this was done right here, okay, this rendering was done by the sign people,
okay. I’ve never met the people, okay, and they took it off the plans, and if you look, very
interesting what happens here. That’s a door that they lowered. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through our site plan review criteria. Anyone have
questions with design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-Hold on, Mr. Chairman, until I get to that, but based on the way I did my
review, I did not see this as being the kind of thing we could do with a normal site plan review.
So I just made comments. Because I tried to fit it in to the format that we normally use, and
these changes didn’t fit the format. I was looking to understand the changes between what I
thought we approved and what was being done. That was my review criteria. So I just made
comments, and I can go down my comments and when I get to my turn, I’ll just say what my
general comments were.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we just go by person, then. Do you want to start, Bob?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. I would start. C.T. Male, October 13, 2004 letter refers to stormwater
calc’s in the Montgomery report. I didn’t receive a copy of those. So I don’t know what the
calculation reports were, and I look at those kind of things. The new light fixture in front of the
building shown on the revised plan appears to be in the DOT right of way, the landscaping, the
wall. That may be wrong, but it appears to be in the DOT right of way. I had very much of a
difficulty comparing, now that I understand what was going on, I can see my own comment,
but this is what I write to myself when I’m working. Difficult to compare Montgomery’s
drawings to Jarrett’s original submission. The clearing limits indicates per Town requirements.
Montgomery’s drawings don’t go far enough south to determine any mods on the south end of
the building. The drawing, because of its scale, kind of stops. I don’t see anything there. Now
you already asked the question, Mike Shaw’s comment, who is our Sewer Superintendent for
the Town of Queensbury, his comment on his, it said tell me what’s being modified. He has the
same drawing package that I get, and he’s asking a question, what’s being modified. He can’t
figure it out either. Now, I’m going to say, I wrote something else down here, and it’s probably
controversial but I’m going to say it anyway. I understand there was a meeting of Town Board
members to discuss the changes of this site before it got to us, and I just don’t feel it’s
appropriate for these kinds of things to be discussed at the Town level. Because what happens
when a builder like yourself gets before Town Board members and gets sort of a nod, he feels
very comfortable before he comes to this Board. Now I know we have a letter in the file that
says, from our Zoning Administrator, that said that the Planning Board must be satisfied with
these changes, and anything that you do now you do at your own risk. That’s the instructions
that we got from our guy. So, when you say you’re going to do it at your own risk, when I hear
that there’s an “own risk” involved, I say to myself that’s very good. They do all these things at
their own risk. Now where does that put the Planning Board in terms of having any impact on
this project at all? I can see what you folks have gone through. Not a pleasant picture, obvious
to me, but it’s also incumbent upon this Board to understand what you’re doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I said, what happens if the Planning Board does not agree with your at
risk changes. That was my question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a comment, more directed towards Cathi Radner’s, our attorney’s,
comment. I appreciate her point of view that, really, the financial predicament, for lack of a
better word, that the applicant may be in, isn’t necessarily our top priority of business, but in
the past it has been, and I recall the individual up in West Mountain and the development who
needed to receive a subdivision in order to get financing for his mortgage, and it was
represented, I believe, by Mr. Michael O’Connor. At that time I said I feel sorry for you. I feel
your pain, but it’s not our problem, and on a 6 to 1 vote, the approval was received for that
subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure your comments are appropriate, because it’s really hearsay, but
I can tell you, any time I’ve sat on this Board, when an applicant has made a comment about
financial need or something to that effect, the same comment is made that was made this
evening. It’s really not, I mean, our role is to review the site plan.
MR. SANFORD-What I’m trying to say to you, Chris, is I agree with Cathi. I made that point, in
the past, and yet it was, in fact, incorporated into the decision making process. So I’m unclear
as to how we.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know which case you’re referring to, but we’re looking at this case
right now. You’re point’s well taken. If you have a question of the applicant, let’s ask the
question. If not, let’s try to move on.
MR. SANFORD-Well, basically I do think that certainly we shouldn’t deal with this in a vacuum
and we should have some empathy for the predicament that the applicant finds himself in. If I
understand the statement, and I appreciate the fact that the applicant did not want to go into it
in great detail for a number of reasons, but what I understand is the prior engineering firm
made certain calculations which were signed off by our engineers, which proved to be
inaccurate, and now they’re in a situation where they’re looking for remedy, and I understand
we want the remedy to be appropriate and proper, but I could also have empathy and
appreciation for the fact that they’d like to have it done in a timely manner because of the
financial duress that they’re under, and so to some degree I have a sympathy for that, and that’s
what I’m pointing out, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-And I’ll be happy to, by next meeting, point out the particulars of my reference,
but we do incorporate that thinking process from time to time in this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s one thing to be a little sympathetic, but it’s another thing to
use that as a reason to approve a site plan.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I agree with that.
MR. SANFORD-That’s all I had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Where does C.T. Male stand at this point with this project? I mean, could you
give this a new signoff and have it be acceptable?
MR. EDWARDS-Well, again, we had a few comments, and I want to go back to the comment
that was made about the review of this project, too. We got involved with this project back in
March, and if everybody recalls, the applicant was looking for waivers for stormwater
management, grading, and a lot of things. We did not agree with the waiver request on some of
the stuff. So they did end up submitting something to us for review, and I believe it was
primarily focused on stormwater management principles for the project. It was not a detail, a
grading review, constructability review for the project. I think this project had progressed to a
certain point before we had gotten involved. I think there was something different about this,
but I can’t put my finger on it, but I think, because of the waiver request on it, there was
something different about the review of this project. I can’t recall exactly what it was, but there
was limited review put into this project, and there was waivers requested for a lot of things that
normally wouldn’t be requested for. So with that said, we had a few comments. We took some
time to go out in the field with Craig Brown and Mr. Brown, and the owner, I think, was there,
too, and we had a few basic constructability observations, and after looking at the revised plan,
again, the modified plan doesn’t reflect all changes made in the field, and that’s our biggest
problem, I guess, especially with the grading. There’s some spot elevations crossed off and
marked on as new. I guess you could say they reflect as built conditions, but it’s not that clear
on the plan where the grading stands at this point. So my biggest beef I guess I have with it is I
want to see a revised grading plan, if possible, that reflects the as built condition, with the
exception, there’s a couple of minor site issues regarding a planter retaining wall and a light
fixture that we noticed in the field, too, but those are pretty minor, that need to be addressed,
nonetheless. So, can I sign off on the project right now? Probably. I don’t feel comfortable
doing so until the plans are a little bit more clear to understand the modifications, and those
couple of questions we had were answered.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m just thinking, we’re in a situation right now where we can’t have the
Chairman sign off on these, either, because they’re unacceptable. They’re in a dilemma
financially. In a project this big, if you do an as built, and sign off on the back end, so they
could get a CO, or a temporary CO, as opposed to, I mean, is that an approach we can take on
this project?
MR. EDWARDS-That’s the intent, I think, with a modified site plan was to, they built it the best
they could, under the conditions. They brought in someone else to stamp a drawing that
reflects those changes, but the plans aren’t quite there yet.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. EDWARDS-That reflect the changes. They’re getting closer, but they’re not quite reflective
of what was built out there. If they kept going and kept evolving, eventually they would
probably get there. We’d feel comfortable signing off on that. I’m sure, and probably with
some minor modifications they would get there pretty easily, with grading being the biggest
problem with the drawings right now.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, may I speak?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I think there’s another issue here that Mr. Montgomery sent a letter down to C.T.
Male several months ago, okay, and asked to go and meet with him so he could get the criteria
exact, he could find out exactly what you people would need, and things like that. It is true he
did come up and meet with us, but it wasn’t until after your Staff finally allowed him to do that.
Okay.
MS. RADNER-Sir, that’s his job. He’s hired by the Town, and he follows the Town’s direction.
This isn’t an exercise in finger pointing at whether or not you can try and pin a fault here on the
Town’s engineer. This is site plan review, and we really need to stick to the criteria of whether
or not this is a planning design that this Board can approve.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, what I was going to say before the Attorney decided to.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say about the same thing. He was following the proper
chain of command.
MR. BROWN-I understand that, but I’m saying precious time was lost, okay, and what Mr.
Montgomery wanted to do was have his comment, two professionals sitting down and having
his comment as to what exactly he wanted and exactly what he needed. Okay. It wasn’t
allowed to work that way, but that would be the normal procedure for two professionals to sit
down and discuss it and there’s nothing wrong with that, okay, other than the fact that some,
and I hope I word this right, some bureaucrat decides the Town policy the Town policy can be
breeched in unusual circumstances like this, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, the point’s well taken, but it really doesn’t help us to
where we are this evening.
MR. BROWN-I agree, but I’m just telling you something. The reason why the plans aren’t
complete is because by the time he got up here, we didn’t have time to even do it. Okay, and
that’s nothing against Jim. He’s been very, very cooperative, I can’t say a negative thing about
him. Nothing, he was here and he asked the question. He walked the site. He asked very good
questions and there’s not a problem. We just didn’t have time to take and resubmit them.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions or comments, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know where we’re going to go with this? I mean, how can we
approve a site plan on drawings we don’t have? How are we going to do it? I mean, he’s
pointing the finger at us or C.T. Male or the Town or whomever that we approved plans that
are no good, and yet he wants us to turn around and approve these and they’re no good. So it’s
the same thing. So where are we going to go with this? I mean, can you get us a new set of
plans that we can look at and identify with and have C.T. Male signoff?
MR. BROWN-I could take and have a new set of plans down to C.T. Male by Friday, okay.
MR. METIVIER-So let’s table it for next Tuesday.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I think that’s a great idea.
MR. METIVIER-I think it’s a great idea. Why not?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let’s get through the rest of the comments before we decide how we
want to, because I don’t know if Gretchen or Tom have questions or comments.
MR. BROWN-That’s reasonable, but we can’t go months for this. I’m not sure, speaking, I don’t
know about the financing.
MR. HUNSINGER-That might be where we end up with this, Tony.
MR. BROWN-That’s at least a reasonable approach.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions or comments?
MR. METIVIER-No. I think that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I have to agree with a lot that’s been said. There’s obviously been a great deal
of miscommunication here, but I certainly wouldn’t be able to vote to support, you know, the
site plan modification because I don’t think we have enough information. We need accurate
plans. We have to rely on our engineer who gives us the input that we need to have revised
plans. So I think that if we could get them by next week.
MR. BROWN-Are we allowed to talk directly with the engineer, without going through the
channels?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll talk about that after we get through our questions and comments.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because one of the things that we’re doing here, which is a concern to me,
we’ve had many discussions, we’ve had a great deal of discussion about the policy, procedures
over the last few months because we don’t want things to fall through the cracks. We don’t
want, we want to make sure that the Planning Board has enough information to make
decisions. We want to make sure that the Staff has the support they need to their work, and
when we go out of sequence and when we don’t follow our own procedures, then we set
precedents that other applicants that come before us expect the same consideration. So I am
concerned that we’ll break a procedural, or break a procedure that we’ve got in place that’s
working for us, in this particular situation, because I think it’ll have long term consequences
that we won’t enjoy somewhere down the road, so, you know, and I have some concerns from
that point of view. I’m a business person. I’m compassionate just like anyone else, but at the
same time, you know, part of our responsibility is to look at the plans and try to make decisions
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
based on the information presented. We don’t have enough information to make a good
decision. So, if we can pull it together for next week, under the circumstances, it seems
reasonable, but I just wanted to point out that there’s going to be a long tail to breaking with
our policies and procedures.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of questions. In the C.T. Male letter, there’s a reference to the Phase II
which includes raising the grade of the existing building. Which one is the existing building?
MR. BROWN-The Econo Lodge office as it exists now and has for the past.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not the building that was recently constructed?
MR. BROWN-No. That was actually in there before the new Aviation Road was put in there,
and the Aviation Road was raised above the building at that point.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just, I’m still confused. The existing building that’s going to be raised is the
one that’s on the west side of the property?
MR. BROWN-If you look at your packet of pictures, right on the very first page, P-1, now it’s
the one that is numbered, okay, look at the middle section, that’s the building that, the actual
first floor is lower than any point in the driveway, any point.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just that office is going to be raised?
MR. BROWN-That office is going to be raised, that’s correct. Then we’d have tremendous
flooding problems in it. I mean, they’ve had to take and relocate people out of there twice this
year.
MR. SEGULJIC-When is that going to be raised?
MR. BROWN-When is that going to be raised? We’ve already got approval from you to do this,
okay, but, okay, I don’t know how to explain it, okay. It was originally a separate project, but
now, at the insistence of somebody, and maybe the Attorney can explain this to us, they wanted
both parcels merged. They have two separate mortgages, and she must know about that.
MS. RADNER-This Board had nothing to do with the determination to merge the policy.
MR. BROWN-I know, but I’m just saying, can you explain, they’re asking me a question and I’m
trying to say.
MS. RADNER-I can’t explain the decisions you folks made.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I didn’t make that decision.
MS. RADNER-Someone from the applicant’s side of the table made that decision. The Board
did not.
MR. BROWN-No, the Board insisted that it be merged.
MR. HUNSINGER-I remember we approved that site plan, yes.
MS. RADNER-As I recall it had to do with the area and the need for variances, if it wasn’t
merged.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know, but this really has nothing to do with anything, other than the fact
that it’s created ultimate confusion. As you can understand.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially you’re going to demolish that office and raise the grade?
MR. BROWN-We can’t do it until we get this building paid for.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now maybe, just quickly, if you could just run through these
photographs. Just quickly.
MR. BROWN-Okay. P-1 basically goes back to NiMo, okay. What I’m showing here is just
strictly what was existing there as far as transformers go and everything like that. It’s already
been resolved. I think that you people appreciate the fact that we don’t have a transformer on
the site anymore. It’s all going to be taken care of off the street.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. BROWN-That’s P-2, also. P-3 shows you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, excuse me. P-2 has a dumpster on it, at the bottom.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the one that’s existing, or is that?
MR. BROWN-That’s gone.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s gone. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes. That was the pre-existing one. Okay. The next page just shows a whole
bunch of meters.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. BROWN-NiMo couldn’t believe that they even, or National Grid people, that they allowed
that to happen. The next page is below 101. That’s a sump pump that’s above the grade, and
what it’s basically showing is the equipment that gets flooded out down there, okay. Here’s the
electrical panel. You can see on the next page, and you can see the electrical panel is stained
behind it from water coming in. These are the things we’re hoping to get away from. The next
is P-5, which shows you basically what was there during the wintertime and getting back to the
question about what’s been changed, nothing’s been changed as far as the sewer department. I
understand your comment. I’m just saying nothing was changed. It was all approved. It’s
been inspected.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So somebody has to transmit that to Mike Shaw, that there’s no change
to the sewer, because he has a question.
MR. BROWN-I’ve got to talk to him tomorrow anyway. So I’ll take and make sure, let him
know that. I didn’t see the staff report. Okay. P-6 is just showing you the trees that are going
to end up being removed, no matter what happens with the, whatever happened with the
power lines, okay. The NiMo Pole Number Eight was there existing. That had one
transformer, if you’re looking at Page P-6, down in the right hand corner, and you can see it’s
got one transformer on it now, at this time, when the picture was taken, okay, and it goes
underground from there in. So the only thing that’s changed on that pole is you do have a
heavier phone line. They re-did that. You do have a cable t.v. line which was re-done, and you
do have three phase power going down into this building, but there’s stuff that goes above the
one, the single phase that goes to the development behind is unchanged. Tree H remains the
same. Tree I remains the same. Going to, we’re just showing you the trees that basically were
untouched. The P-9, we had a question that went way back into the staff, and Tree A, B, and C
as you can see were dead in the wintertime. They were in the way. We were not allowed to
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
move those until finally somebody said, we won’t put it in writing, but remove them. Okay. So
we had to get concrete trucks in there. We couldn’t finish the pool or anything else until we got
rid of those. So everybody agrees they’re dead. We go to P-11, you can see where the second
proposal for the transformer was, the existing transformer. The second proposal was right over
at the corner of the parking lot, which would have eliminated at least two spaces to put it there.
Okay. These are just showing the trees again. Then you can see the new transformer. That
stands out pretty big. It’s got the two transformers, okay. We have a lot of other photographs,
but that’s the change on that pole. So there’s no impact at all to that. The next is an elevation
from the sign people, and if you look at the right side of the building which faces Aviation
Road, you can see that they dropped the door down, and just so get a graphic, because actually
what they interpolated the plans, or they interpreted the plans that way, okay. You can see that
the plans that were submitted with the canopy out in front, you can just see from the picture of
the people, okay, they’re about six feet tall, and you can see that’s nowhere near twelve feet.
We have it up to twelve feet now, but it was never intended to be for a fire truck to drive
underneath it. Okay. I understand your question. I’m just showing you that this off the
original plans. I had nothing to do with this. This is the way it is today. This was done the
other night, the pictures of the blue photograph there which basically shows the lights on the
existing building and you can see one of the new lights on the thing is not on yet, the photo cell
hadn’t turned it on yet. This is the grading around the building. Out in back, we have an area
well that goes around windows which is essentially the same as it was before, and the back, you
also see there’s a section that has no siding on it above the canopy. Are we on to that photo yet
or not? Okay. Anyway, that’s where the elevator’s going to go on there, okay. The elevator’s
going to go, there’s a concrete pad and that’s all planned for the elevator, but we left as it is, so
that you guys could review that and see what the consequences were of us putting the elevator
in. Whether we just wanted to abandon it or whether you would allow it to be put in or not. I
hope that you will allow it to be put in. Okay. You go to the next page, this is kind of in
backwards. It just shows the grading around the thing. It shows the berm as it exists today,
okay, and you can see the grade from the parking lot is really very gentle. Next page is also an
upside down, which shows the canopy part coming off the back where the elevator’s going to
be. You can see the pad. You can see the catch basin to the far right there’s a man hole which is
existing. These are all shown on this drawing right here. You’ve got a set, right, Jim?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes. So, he didn’t see these before, but they’re in place now. The stone is all
compacted, ready for pavement tomorrow, okay. Then you go to the next one which has the
Queensbury sign on it which is out in front, and you can see what the front of the building
looks like, and you can see it does grade up to it, but unfortunately we didn’t know whether
you would want a retaining wall there or you’d want to graded and landscaped. So we put the
retaining wall in and the rails around it anyway. So, if you want the rails to come off , I’d be
glad to take the rails off. If you want the lawn to come out and go down to a retaining wall
there, we can do that, too, but we can’t take the handicap ramp away.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Which drawing, which photograph are you referring to?
MR. BROWN-That’s the one that has the Town of Queensbury, entrance to the Town of
Queensbury sign on it. Very near the very back of the packet. It shows the front of the
building. The only one with gold in it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, at what point, you said that the floor elevation was planned for,
what, 101.75?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now it’s at, I think you said 100?
MR. BROWN-100.56 I think I said. It’s within a foot a little over a foot.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-So at what point was it realized that there were issues with the building plans,
the site plans?
MR. BROWN-We realized right off the bat. I went to, I don’t want to get into it, but we realized
right off the bat. I had a meeting with certain offices and we went down and said, hey, what’s
going on here?
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. BROWN-The next thing I know they’re up telling us we can’t cut trees.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, we need a consensus of this Board, but I think what we’re
heading towards is trying to table this until next week, provided that the applicant can come up
with a new set of drawings that accurately reflect this project as, incorporating the changes that
have been discussed by the applicant tonight as well as having C.T. Male sign off. If, in fact,
they could get these drawings done and communicate with C.T. Male by Friday, is it possible to
have the C.T. Male review it by then?
MR. EDWARDS-By Friday?
MR. SANFORD-For next Tuesday, for the 26.
th
MR. EDWARDS-If they provide it to us by Friday. It’s possible. We’re swamped, but we can
take a look at it and make an attempt.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, again, we have a full agenda tonight, and we’ve spent an hour
and ten minutes on this. I think that’s where we’re kind of headed with it. It’s your call, but I
think that’s where we’re headed, that we want to expedite this. We don’t to do anything
tonight. No one feels comfortable, but if they can provide the turnaround and C.T. Male can
put it on a fast track, we can get it back next Tuesday and maybe move it along. So, I’ll throw it
to you for whatever you want to do with it, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we still do have to open the public hearing. There is a public hearing
scheduled.
MR. METIVIER-Is there, on a modification?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t see it scheduled.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s listed on the agenda.
MR. SANFORD-Is it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Typically there are not public hearings required with modifications. We did
notice the neighbors in this case, as it was sensitive at the time of the original approval. I think
it’s your decision whether.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly, Richard, you would appreciate this as well as anybody.
MR. SANFORD-No, I agree with you. I didn’t think there was a public hearing because it was a
modification of a previously approved site plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re right. Usually we don’t we have a public hearing for a modification.
MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of comments, too, and George
Hilton did look at a resolution from the previous approval, and there was no condition for
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
merging the properties in the resolution, the official resolution. I also wanted to make a
clarification. Mr. Vollaro had a question about Town Board members meeting with the
applicant, and I can clarify that. There was some concern because of the work we were going to
be putting in an enforcement action because they were doing work without having approval of
the modifications. So they did ask to meet with two Town Board members, which does not
constitute a quorum. Site plan issues were questioned, it’s my understanding, just as it pertains
to what they wanted to do, but there was certainly no, as far as I know, I didn’t attend that
meeting, but I did speak with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. There wasn’t anything
that was said. What we were trying to do is be cooperative in every step of the way, in that we
knew Mr. Bhatti, you know, was under some pressures, and instead of putting together a Stop
Work Order, we said, okay, we’ll continue to inspect things, even though there isn’t an
approval of modification by the Planning Board. So I did want to make that clear, that one of
the concerns we did have, though, is in terms of going ahead and making sure that you have the
modification. As you know, the entire purpose of the Planning Board is to review for health,
safety and welfare of the community, and that’s one of the things I think George Hilton alluded
to why you have a public hearing is because there were some concerns and so we were
concerned with some of the environmental impacts such as the stormwater, if that was going to
remain on site, or what was going to happen there. So I did want to clarify that, and we really
did have to wait until we had some plans to give to the engineer, because we’re really just
trying to avoid a he said/she said situation and it comes down to documentation if there is a
problem. So I just wanted to make those few comments. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Again, we do have a public hearing
scheduled. So if you would give up the table. Is there anyone here that would like to comment,
either for or against this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I will leave the public hearing open. I wanted to make a similar comment,
as well as Staff did. I certainly wasn’t aware of any meeting that the applicant had with any
Town Board members, and, you know, I certainly wasn’t under any pressure to take action, you
know, especially when I didn’t even know about the meeting. So, you know, like everything
else, we review the application based on its own merits.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, that wasn’t supposition on my part. It’s part of the letter to Mr.
Bhatti from Craig Brown.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that, where he says you can proceed at your own risk. I
understand.
MR. VOLLARO-Proceed at your own risk, but also talking about the fact that there was a
meeting of Town Board members. I didn’t fabricate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I didn’t suggest you did.
MRS. STEFFAN-Marilyn, will there be any, by moving this application forward a week, will
this cause any staffing or capacity issues in the Community Development Department?
MRS. RYBA-We’re close to having a full agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we do have a full agenda next week.
MRS. RYBA-Right, but, you know, I think it’s really most incumbent on C.T. Male, at this point,
if they can get something together in their work schedule. I think previously we’ve required
anything coming in on a Friday by noon on Friday so that we can get it faxed down to them, or,
you know, depending on what form we get plans in, how we can get that information to them.
So that’s the only thing I would suggest is that you do put a very specific deadline.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-And the other issue is to get the information to the Board.
MRS. RYBA-Correct. We’ll do what we have to do. We always do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, my biggest concern with this particular project, I mean, I don’t
want to make it sound like it’s irrelevant whether or not the finished floor level was at 101.75 or
100.56, but to me the biggest concern is, does the stormwater management plan still work, and,
you know, at this point, there’s still some questions from C.T. Male about that, as evidenced in
their letter. So I think that’s really, in my mind, the biggest issue. I think if all we were looking
at was the addition of an elevator shaft on the back end of the hotel, I don’t think that would
make a difference either, but I think there’s enough question and concern from the Board and
Staff that we’re just not there yet. I will entertain a motion, unless there’s other comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just have one other comment. That’s with the Fire Marshal. Would we want
to have the Fire Marshal revisit this and just clarify it, and get a letter? Because we have a letter
sitting here.
MR. BROWN-I have his report, the final report, sitting right here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Like Mr. Vollaro says, he said it should be 13 feet 6 inches, and he says
accommodate fire apparatus. I guess my question is what does he mean by apparatus?
MR. BROWN-You want to ask him about that issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess just get a clarification with him that it’s okay. We’ve got this letter
hanging here. It’s a loose end.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, he’s already done the final report on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it should be no problem.
MR. BROWN-There’s no problem, you know, we pointed it right out to him, because I did find
that in the index, or in the folder, in my folder that was given to me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So would the Board want a letter to that effect?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so, yes. I don’t want to speak for the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-For me, as one Board member, just get me some clarification from our side of
the house that it’s okay. I’m fine with it. If twelve is good, eleven is good, thirteen, six is good,
just put it on paper. I don’t care.
MRS. STEFFAN-Again, this is precedent setting. We do need some information, because the
Code and the State law is the law, and not subject to interpretation, and everybody else would
be held to the same standard, and so, you know, we do need some clarification, because if
everybody else is held to that standard, then you need to be held to that standard as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll ask again, does anyone have a motion?
MR. SANFORD-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
What we’re looking for in this tabling is that we have comprehensive drawings that reflect the
modifications accurately, and that those drawings, as well as any outstanding concerns, be
submitted to C.T. Male for review and signoff prior to our meeting of 10/26/04 and we receive a
letter from the Fire Marshal indicating that they approve of the site plan as is.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Is there any problem with me meeting with C.T. Male?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. BROWN-And I’ll bring the plans right to his office.
MRS. RYBA-We do need a copy. We need copies for the records.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m going to take them right to his office, though, so there’s no time lost, but
I’ll get you copies. You want how many copies, 12?
MRS. RYBA-We usually get 15.
MR. BROWN-Fifteen, fine.
MR. EDWARDS-I think we have to meet to clearly understand the changes to the plans.
MR. BROWN-Yes. If we can meet together at our convenience.
MR. EDWARDS-Let’s meet before the plans are done, though, Peter. Let’s meet first.
MR. BROWN-That’s what I wanted to do, originally. This is the point I was trying to make.
MR. EDWARDS-Go through the punch list.
MR. BROWN-So are you going to be coming up this way in the near future or not?
MR. EDWARDS-I have an office here now.
MR. BROWN-You’re right here in Glens Falls? Bay Street?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW 6-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS
SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: SR-1A WETLAND: NYS DEC GF 27 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE
SHERMAN AVE. ,WEST OF POWER LINES APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE
WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED WETLANDS, AS WELL AS THE DISTURBANCE OF 0.099
ACRES OF REGULATED WETLANDS IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 32
LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003 NYS DOH, NYS
DEC TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2 LOT SIZE: 49.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 PRELIMINARY STG. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS
SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES, NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 32 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CLUSTERED
ON A 49.82 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFERENCE: FW 6-2003 TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2
LOT SIZE: 49.82 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to recuse myself from this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This is associated, as well, with Subdivision 4-2003. The application was tabled
so that the applicant could get some comment from DEC, which they have. They’ve revised
their plan, per the DEC comments. As I’ve indicated, as some time has past, I’ve included my
previous notes, just as a refresher, to kind of bring up what we talked about before, concerning
these two applications, and as I’ve indicated in my notes, this is proposed as a cluster
subdivision, and typically in reviewing a cluster, it’s kind of a question of what the benefit to
the community is, in order to allow the applicant to create lots at smaller sizes than what the
zone would typically allow. That’s really where we’re at at this point. As I said, I included the
previous notes just to kind of give you an update as to what our comments were. C.T. Male has
provided comment on this as well. This is an Unlisted Action, and they have submitted a
SEQRA Long EAF. That’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. For the record, Jon Lapper and engineer Tom Nace. We’ve been working on
this project for some time, and at the last meeting, as George just stated, the Board wanted us to
go to DEC first and make sure that the concept was okay with DEC, and we have a pretty
strong letter from them. They gave us a comment letter saying that they, the quote is the
Department is comfortable with the project with the agreed upon minor revisions.” So we
finally received that and submitted it and that’s what got us here. In general, the design of this
site requires a mitigation of wetlands, relocation of wetlands, and what Tom Nace has proposed
is a six to one mitigation. Usually the Army Corps of Engineers, on the federal side, requires
one or two times, when you’re creating wetlands, to justify relocating them. So, in terms of the
Town wetland, the six to one mitigation is very generous. In terms of the design and why this
is a cluster, you’ll recall that the Planning Board approved the Schermerhorn subdivision,
which is immediately adjacent, and actually interconnected as the Planning Board required. So
this provides a comprehensive plan for that whole area where these roads will be linked. The
wetland, the small area of wetland disturbance and relocation is required. So there could be a
loop road, rather than a cul de sac. It just makes sense as a subdivision, and again, it is
connected to the adjacent Schermerhorn subdivision. That’s really the big picture, in terms of
the benefit of the cluster. Because the lots are in the rear and south of the property, it allows the
land along Sherman, which is obviously a pretty heavily developed residential area of the
Town, that that’s where the open space area would be. So we’re proposing that that would be
dedicated to the Open Space group, and that would just help the whole corridor, because you
wouldn’t have houses all along Sherman. You’d have an open space area with this project in
the back. Let me turn it over to Tom for some more specifics.
MR. NACE-Okay. I don’t have a whole lot more to add. As Jon said, we’ve received word from
DEC, and we’ve been in communication with them frequently, and they’ve said that they’re
comfortable with the way the project is. With the changes we’ve made, and they’re changes
that are requested, I presume you got my letter to them in your file, my letter to Craig Brown as
well, but the requested changes they had were to eliminate one of the lots, Lot Number 20,
which was right adjacent to the impacted wetland area, and to move the sanitary septic system
on Lot 19, which we have done. Other than that, I’ll entertain any questions you have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through our subdivision review criteria.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to do that for the Freshwater permit, or do you want to talk about
the Freshwater Permit first?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, why don’t we talk about the Freshwater Permit first.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Based on the DEC letter of August 20, and Roberts Environmental
th
letter of August 17, I would definitely approve this, with a couple of conditions. That the
th
original Freshwater permit that was supplied, and it states that the approximate starting date of
the project will be spring of ’04. Obviously you missed that. So I think this kind of has to be
resubmitted for the record.
MR. NACE-We could certainly update the application form to indicate current conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-And that would be the only, the other thing is the actual receipt of a DEC
permit.
MR. LAPPER-That would be a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be a condition also. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on the Freshwater permit?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I just want some clarification. The drawings that we’re looking at do not
reflect Mr. Nace’s comments, I don’t believe.
MR. NACE-Yes, they do. The elimination of Lot 20 and the moved septic system.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, no. Hold on. I’m talking about the Drawing on S-2 still shows the Lot
20.
MR. NACE-There is a Lot 20. I renumbered the lots beyond 20.
MR. VOLLARO-He renumbered them.
MR. NACE-So now instead of, what were there, 33, now there are 32.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think what we’re into is the whole subdivision is lowered by one lot,
essentially.
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. SANFORD-So you’ve recalibrated your numbers here, from?
MR. NACE-Absolutely. If I had a subdivision out there that was missing a lot number, and we
went to file it at the County, somebody would be scratching their head and looking for Lot 20
for a couple of hours.
MR. VOLLARO-I had that problem, too, until I counted all the lots, Tom.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I wish I had the old drawings. Okay. So Lot 20 was actually moving in
to that wetland, I guess from, I’m not sure of the direction but.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think Lot 20 used to be next to 19, I think.
MR. NACE-Correct. Lot 20 was right in here, and it wasn’t infringing on the wetland, but it
was right, you know, adjacent to it, and what I’ve done, when we eliminated that, I think I
adjusted the lot lines on 18 and 19 that would be just a hair more generous, but, you know, still
leaving a good buffer to the wetland there between the edge of Lot 19 and the wetland.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, in terms of what the reciprocating gesture on the part on the part
of the applicant would be to the Town or the cluster approval. Mr. Lapper’s indicated that
there would be a dedication of land, or they’re willing to consider a dedication of land to the
conservatory group. Is that correct? How many acres would that be? I believe when the
Schermerhorn project across, there was a 13 acre, Jon, is that correct, that was dedicated, which
might have been a habitat, or potential habitat, for Karner blue, which I thought was a good
gesture, and I’m wondering what we’re talking about here.
MR. NACE-I think here we’re talking somewhere in the realm of 15 to 18 acres, probably even
closer to 18 total, and the idea would be the entire front end and this wetland area, contiguous
wetland area, and only reserving a small area here along the road.
MR. SANFORD-What I’m asking, Tom, is, you know, assuming that we get there tonight, you
know, and we’re going to do a motion, how do we word that in a way in which it’s clear what
we were looking for here?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re offering it, the dedication to the Town, or to the Town Land
Conservancy, as an open space parcel, and it is contiguous to the wetland area to the west, and
so visually, in terms of the benefit of open space, it’ll be a big area.
MR. SANFORD-I understand. Okay. So we can make that a condition.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I think this application lends itself, I guess, to our regular
format.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does, and I was going to say, we’re getting off.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s actually on as two matters. There’s the Freshwater Wetland and then
the subdivision it certainly doesn’t hurt to talk about both at the same time.
MR. SANFORD-No, I just wanted clarification of that, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-And that’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, any other questions on the Freshwater Wetland permit? Okay. Why
don’t we move, then, into the subdivision review criteria. Any questions, comments, concerns
on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one, on design standards. 179-11 addresses clustering, and I would
like to explore with the applicant the possibility of putting the remaining 29.91 acres into a
conservation trust or easement as described in 179-11-040, under E where it talks about Open
Space ownership.
MR. LAPPER-We would, if that’s the way the Board wants it, or as an alternative, that’s fine. I
think what Tom said is about 16 acres because there’s a little piece by the road that we would
not include in that, by the entrance road, but the 16 acres, certainly, if you want it, a
conservation easement.
MR. VOLLARO-It fits with Mr. Nace’s letter of 17 October 2003.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, in truth, that’s even simpler, unless the Town had some other need
for the land.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to, I guess, explore a little bit of what we’ve learned, we, some
people on this Board, about conservation easements and conservation trusts, and I think I’m
trying to get that into my mind as a way of preserving green space.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s totally acceptable to the applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-And I looked in our Code, 179-11-040, Paragraph E talks about that, and I think
Mr. Nace’s letter of December 17, 2003 talks about approximately 20 acres there. So the 16 and
the 20 kind of fit, in my mind, and we ought to try to have a meeting of the minds as to what
kind of property will be set aside here.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-And how it will be maintained and what it will look like, because I think, when
we’ve got as much acreage as we’re talking about, we really ought to do the best we can with it.
MR. LAPPER-We have to make a re-submittal for final so we can address, we’ll delineate
exactly what that land is and we’ll address those issues in the final submission.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, Bob, I think we wrestled with this before, and I think, if they’re going to
gift, for lack of a better word, the land, let’s say to the Town, you know, I find it problematic for
the applicant to have a maintenance program under those circumstances.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, that’s where the Conservation Trust and Easement would take care
of that, because it talks to that.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and so I think that that’s, you know, I mean, I think we need to get our
arms around that a little bit, before we send them back, you know, away, because I don’t think
it’s appropriate to expect to have land that’s no longer part, owned by them, to be maintained
by them.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question about that. That’s why I keep pointing this thing towards
this conservation easement, conservation trust, because I don’t think, once the applicant gives it
to somebody and says, okay, you I’ve given you the gift, it’s up to you to take care of the gift,
but the take care of hasn’t been described.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s always the problem, yes.
MR. SANFORD-But I think, I appreciate the concept, I mean, the gesture.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that was the only one, for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Development criteria?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one on that, and I guess it’s going to, the street design and layout,
how long is the cul de sac and how is it measured, Tom?
MR. NACE-How long is the cul de sac?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s a loop road.
MR. NACE-There is no cul de sac.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a loop road.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a loop road.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s connected.
MR. NACE-It’s connected.
MR. HUNSINGER-To another subdivision.
MR. NACE-To another road system. So there’s always this entry or this entry. So it’s really not
a cul de sac.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess there’s a letter from West Glens Falls Fire Chief dated 5/24/04 that
speaks to it as a safety issue, and that’s why I raised it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And, you know, we get these letters from other places within the Town that
come to us as a piece of paper with a comment on it, and I have to take that comment into, since
it’s coming from Staff to us.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and here there’s two ingress/egress because it’s that interconnect to the
Schermerhorn, so it really wouldn’t apply, the 1200 feet rule.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 1,000 foot rule.
MR. LAPPER-Thousand foot, excuse me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, this is exactly why. I remember the discussion on Schermerhorn
subdivision, and this is exactly why we were so insistent that that connector road be shown and
constructed.
MR. LAPPER-And in fact I just drafted that for dedication today for the Town Board on the
Schermerhorn because it’s done.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I wanted to know. Because I noticed that Mr. Missita, our
Highway Superintendent, said until they’re connected, he’s not going to get into the dedication.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re actually putting up, Rich is putting up, a bond, a $25,000 bond, to
cover the cost of that connection as part of the dedication.
MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense to me. The other thing I had on development criteria has
been already answered. This now becomes a 32 lot subdivision, 31 being residential lots, with
the elimination of Lot 20.
MR. LAPPER-The former Lot 20.
MR. VOLLARO-The former Lot 20, yes. Lot 20’s still on board right now. That’s all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on development criteria?
Stormwater, sewage design? I do know there were some comments from C.T. Male on
stormwater specifically. Do we have any update?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. NACE-Yes. We responded to, we got C.T. Male’s comments Friday. I responded to those
first thing Monday. I’ve talked to Jim today. I’ll let him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. They’ve been addressed adequately.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. EDWARDS-The information’s been sent to us, and we’ve reviewed it.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. EDWARDS-And we feel comfortable with the information sent to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one more question that probably can be easily answered. I couldn’t
find the relocation of the septic field on Lot 19. Was it moved?
MR. SANFORD-The new plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it showed it away from the wetlands.
MR. SANFORD-It showed it away from the wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-It looks okay to me.
MR. NACE-Yes, it was.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-The septic system on Lot 19 had been over on this side, and we relocated it to the
other side of the lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I figured I might have missed that. I guess there was an answer to it.
Yes.
MR. SANFORD-There it is.
MR. NACE-Incidentally, the matter of question, do those half scale plans work out okay? Are
they readable for you?
MR. HUNSINGER-I like them.
MR. SANFORD-Preferred.
MR. VOLLARO-I like them because I use a magnifying glass to read some of the stuff, but it’s
easy to handle on the little desk my wife allows me to use.
MR. NACE-I just didn’t know whether, because when we reduce them, it doesn’t necessarily
reduce the line weight. So I just wanted to make sure you could still read them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on stormwater/sewage design? Buffering, landscaping
design? I think the no cut areas are clearly delineated.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have a question on that. The no cut areas look good, the 15 to 20
foot no cuts, but will this defined in a deed restriction for each?
MR. LAPPER-That’s what you did next door. So we would just submit the deed restriction
when we submit the road for dedication.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking next door, you’re talking Mr. Schermerhorn’s?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it would be deed restricted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions? Any questions on neighborhood
character? Environmental concerns?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I just wanted to get some clarification in my mind. What is the
basis for this mitigation plan? We have, at least what I see, we have .62 acres versus 1.66. Why
isn’t there 100%?
MR. NACE-Wait a minute. You have what now? You have?
MR. VOLLARO-We have 1.66 acres that are being disturbed. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-No, that’s mostly buffer. There’s .09 something acres of actual wetland. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It’s only disturbance of the buffer, not the wetland.
MR. NACE-This is the wetland.
MR. SANFORD-Not the 100 foot buffer.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. NACE-What’s measured is the actual wetland disturbance.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re on a six to one, is that where you are?
MR. NACE-We’re on a six to one, yes, and we are, you know, even though we’re disturbing
buffer, we’re also creating, with the creation of the additional wetland, we’re also creating
additional buffer, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? I had a question on that myself. Who monitors the
replacement of the wetlands? Is that something that DEC monitors? I mean, when you go to
remediate and replace, what happens if it doesn’t work?
MR. NACE-They have the right to come back and make you re-do it if it doesn’t work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that’s something that DEC would monitor?
MR. NACE-That’s in their typical permit conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions on environmental.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one more and then I’ll be done. The Long Form environmental
assessment form Part I was submitted back 11/15/03. Is that still valid? I guess I have to ask
that question because that’s what we’re going to be going on.
MR. NACE-If anything, there’s been a reduction of impact by the elimination of a lot. I think
the only thing we’ve really changed on the plan since then is, you know, anything substantial is
that one lot that we’ve eliminated.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-If the Board is comfortable with that, I would go along with that.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The last submission was 11/15/03, almost a year ago.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Questions, concerns, involved agencies? Any other criteria not
reviewed or questions asked we didn’t ask?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The Water Department had a letter on this project. The Water
Department’s letter of 9/28/04, and they just asked that this project, the new six inch water line
between this subdivision and the Schermerhorn subdivision does not show a valve, and that’s
the only thing I see in their.
MR. NACE-That’s because there’s a valve over on Schermerhorn’s side of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can you clear that up with Bruce Ostrander?
MR. NACE-Yes, obviously, yes, I will.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For terms of protocol, can we do joint public hearings for the
Freshwater Permit as well as the subdivision?
MS. RADNER-Certainly. As long as it’s clear that you’re accepting comments on both.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I’ll ask you to give up the table. We’ll open the public
hearing. I will open the public hearing for both the Freshwater Wetlands permit as well as the
Preliminary Stage of the subdivision. Is there anyone that has any comments to make to the
Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
HOWARD KRANTZ
MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. Howard Krantz, attorney for Madeline Drellos. Madeline owns
the adjoining property to the south of the subdivision. I wrote to the Board back on May 27 of
this year, and given the length of the project, if you don’t remember the letter, that’s certainly
understandable, but we expressed concerns about the project’s impact on my client’s property.
Not opposing the project per se, but just to ask for a reasonable mitigation of some concerns. To
summarize, Madeline Drellos owns the property to the south. She’s lived there for 30 years,
and as you know, there’s wetlands on the property. There’s also a high water table on the
property, and unless the grade is being changed on the property, as the proposed subdivision
approaches my client’s property, the grade is towards my client’s property, as I read the
contour lines.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-So the natural drainage is heading south, at least towards the southern end of
the subdivision. Actually, I think the whole project basically runs from north to south, as far as
natural surface water drainage. With the development, with the impervious material, the roads,
the driveways and the buildings and such, this surface water problem is going to obviously
heighten, and there’s also a very high water table in the area. To make a long story short, what
we requested reasonably back in May is that there be a 40 foot no cut zone at the southerly end
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
of the property. This would be in the back yards of lots, what were 11 through 16. I don’t know
if they’ve been renumbered. That effects, you know, my client’s property, and this hopefully
will mitigate not only surface water runoff but hopefully no change in the high water table that
is in the area. In addition, this would provide mutual privacy for the residents in the
subdivision as well as my client’s property. I understand that the proposed no cut barrier is
only 15 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-On the southern end of the property it’s 15 feet.
MR. KRANTZ-Right, and we’re asking that that be reasonably increased. So it wouldn’t impact
on the number of lots or the homes to be constructed on the lot, but I think it will prevent
problems, and, having been a resident of Queensbury for a long time, I’ve seen Queensbury
more than once get stuck in developments with high water tables and Queensbury end up
writing the check to mitigate the problem. So, whatever green area could be kept, especially as
a buffer between this property and my client’s property, would be appreciated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a quick question. Is there a particular problem with surface water or
runoff currently?
MR. KRANTZ-Yes, there’s usually, well, there’s some now. The natural grade is in that
direction.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There’s a natural grade.
MR. KRANTZ-Madeline can speak to that. She’s been there 30 years, but I understand there’s
oftentimes surface water, what, nine months?
MADELINE DRELLOS
MRS. DRELLOS-The spring, summer, and fall, depending on how much it rains, but it’s
running water back there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KRANTZ-And with the development obviously it’s going to increase. If we had a 40 foot
no cut, rather than 15, at least it will mitigate some of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Thank you.
MR. KRANTZ-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other one like to make any comments or ask questions of the Board?
RONALD BALL
MR. BALL-Mr. Chairman, my name’s Ronald Ball. We, my son and I, own the adjoining
property to the west of the proposed development, and we’ve owned it now for about four
years, and we purchased that property, if I may, may I go up to the board, to point out?
MR. HUNSINGER-As long as you take the microphone with you.
MR. BALL-This property here is what my son and I, there’s six lots, a 10 acre lot, and when we
purchased the property four years ago, I understood that we had all our approvals to build six
homes on there. I got the maps, everything was stamped, everything was approved, and it
showed wetland, wet area, which we knew. Test holes were dug, and I think the deepest part
of the property was about two and a half feet before they hit water, back in 1990. This is when
the approvals were. About six months ago, we decided, now it’s time for us to build a home.
We wanted to build a farmhouse on this 10 acre lot. The Town said before you do that, you’ve
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
got to have the Department of EnCon up here. They’ve got to flag it for us to show where the
wet area is. I said, well, I didn’t realize they had to do that, because I already have all my
approvals, and it shows right where each home was going to go, shows all the test holes, shows
where I’ve got to put the drainage off the cul de sacs, everything, all the approvals. I’m not a
contractor, and there’s a lot of things I don’t know about building. One thing I know is this guy
spent $20,000 to get all these approvals, to have it surveyed and everything else. Four months
ago, the Department of En Con came in and flagged all my property. Said it’s too wet to build
on. You can’t build on it. We’re not going to issue you a building permit to build on it. I said,
well, wait a minute, why? Well, they said because of the development. They seemed to think
more houses have gone in. The runoff has gone into our area. You probably see where I’m
going with this right now. I allow you to build here, and what are you going to do with your
runoff? Is that going to come into my property that I’ve already got approvals? I’d like to see it
built. I want to see it built. I don’t want to stop it. I’m not going to say that I don’t want you to
build there, but the thing is, what am I going to do with all this dead property now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BALL-I know he had a pond in the back. I don’t know how he worked around it. I think
what they probably did is maybe they’re going to turn the property over to keep it forever wild
or something, or it’s something that has to do with Schermerhorn’s. I’m not sure, but their area
was as wet as mine, and I don’t know how deep you went with your test holes to find any
water, but we know we’re not going to put any, we’re not going to be able to build any houses
with the foundations. I don’t see his any different than mine. I don’t see how you could put a
foundation in any of these places without a lot of water, but then if you bring in more fill to get
the foundations up in the air so you can build, they’re going to be forcing that water onto my
property, which I haven’t got any approvals anyway, but, you know, I don’t know what to do.
I don’t know what to say.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could address your questions to the Board, and we’ll get the answers
for you. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Barring none, if the
applicant could come back to the table.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve got an answer that’ll get us all out of here before the end of the game.
MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, let me address the wetland issue. Yes, there are DEC wetlands
back here. In fact, this is the area of flagged wetlands on the original DEC map that brought
this to everybody’s attention, and DEC has flagged all the wetlands on our property. In
general, the lay of the land, if you look at the contours, it all drains this direction, but what
happens, and this kind of amazed DEC as well as the Health Department, but once you get out
and dig the test holes and see what’s really happening is that, even though this is higher and the
water’s draining this way, as you come south, the soils get deeper and more porous, and that
water is able to soak into the ground more readily. So even in the middle of this very wet
spring, when we were out there, there was water flowing through the wetlands up on this part
of the lot. By the time you get down into here, it’s disappeared into the ground and gone, and
as you get further south it gets deeper and deeper. We did dig all of our test holes either to
water or to a depth of six to seven feet, if we didn’t hit water or mottling, and our, to answer his
question about, are we going to push water onto his site, all of our road drainage and our front
lawn areas in the center of this all drains to the low point in the road, but it’s infiltrated as it
goes through our drainage system. So this down in here is really our low point, and then we
have an emergency overflow pipe. The calculations show that even a 50 year storm it doesn’t
take any flow, but it is an emergency overflow pipe that if things ever got to a critical condition
would allow water to slowly seep out into the existing Luzerne Road storm sewer system.
MR. LAPPER-We have an agreement from the neighbor which is next to Mr. Krantz’s client that
is between this property and Luzerne Road, an agreement to convey an easement, which was
signed by the neighbor, Mary Warner, so that gets it into the Luzerne Road drainage system. So
that’s how we’ve provided it and we’ve got that documented.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-I know that was one of Staff comments. Has that been provided to Staff?
MR. LAPPER-I think I sent it unexecuted, and now I’ve got it executed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Nace, what would be your explanation for the comment that the gentleman
previously made about being cautioned that they wouldn’t be able to do certain things because
of displacement of water onto their property, from your proposed development?
MR. NACE-Well, in the sandy soils, most of the surface water, the runoff water, infiltrates into
the ground. It doesn’t, in these sandy soils on the west side of Town, it’s not likely that clay’s
over along Meadowbrook Road. It filters into the ground before very much of it at all runs off.
MR. SANFORD-Who was it that gave him that comment? I didn’t pick it up. Was it DEC?
MR. NACE-I have no idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-He said DEC.
MR. SANFORD-DEC. So I guess my question to you is DEC accurate or inaccurate in their
assessment?
MR. NACE-I wasn’t there. I don’t know the context that it was said in. It’s my opinion that
having the additional homes on this property will not exacerbate the wetland area to the west of
us. Okay. One of the other questions that came up was about the buffer to the south. Okay.
We have a 10 foot buffer. I just looked, and I think we could probably accommodate a 25 foot
buffer there, if that would help, as a no cut buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-That was going to be my suggestion. Make it 25 all around.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-Would the gentleman that spoke before, the attorney that spoke was
requesting, what was it, a 40 foot buffer?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Is that acceptable or unacceptable?
MR. NACE-No, that’s really not. With the size of the lots, the 40 foot is, 25 foot is, and that’s
what we’ve provided on the other side as well.
MR. SANFORD-Now this thing’s been around for a while, this application, but on these current
drawings, I don’t believe, unless I’m wrong, do they show your test pits on these most recent
drawings?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, C-3 does.
MR. NACE-Yes, they do.
MR. HUNSINGER-And there was one test pit they had mottling at 27 inches, but a lot of them
were 50 and 60 inches plus.
MR. NACE-Correct, and we had test pits on the northern side of the property that obviously
were in the wetland areas or adjacent to them that were even less, but those are not the areas we
intend to develop.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Why can’t you do a 40 foot buffer?
MR. NACE-Just because they’re fairly small lots, and we have septics out back, okay. We can
accommodate, fairly easily accommodate, a 25 foot buffer, but trying to do, with the front
setbacks, trying to do a 40 foot buffer would probably raise havoc with some of the septic
system layouts.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five feet’s a pretty decent buffer.
MR. METIVER-What’s your front setback?
MR. NACE-These drawings have been around for too long. I don’t remember, numerically,
what it is.
MR. METIVIER-Mr. Nace, I’m just asking you, or the Town, what’s our required setback on a
home from the road?
MR. NACE-Thirty.
MRS. RYBA-Thirty.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all I wanted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or concerns of the Board? Questions or concerns of
Staff?
MRS. RYBA-I do have one thing that I would like to draw the attention of the Planning Board
to, and that is when you’re thinking about the open space and whatever kind of dedication is
acceptable, to look at the Open Space Vision Plan and Map and the benefit to the community
and what’s included here. I think there were a number of things that were described as
important to people in the community and some of that’s visual, recreation, trail connections,
education, in terms of a wetland, would there be some kind of ability for students to come and
look at that. This particular open space that they’re describing, there’s some wetland but mostly
high ground water. So I would question, you know, what’s the benefit to the community, and
specifically how that fits in with the Open Space Vision Plan and map. That’s one aspect. The
second is that if it is something that’s going to go to the Queensbury Land Conservancy, which I
also want to add is not a Town affiliated organization. It’s a separate private nonprofit, that
there be some kind of acceptance letter that the Queensbury Land Conservancy would actually
take that. Because in lieu of having some kind of benefit to the Town for other purposes, you
really have to question who’s going to take care of it, and I think Mr. Vollaro had alluded to
that, and it may be something that’s best left to the community for a homeowners association to
take care of, and those are just questions for the Planning Board to consider. So I’m just putting
those out to you now. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same things. Would it be appropriate to put those final
decisions off until Final approval? I guess that’s where I kind of saw us going tonight.
MRS. RYBA-Certainly you can do what you want to do. I think having, the sooner you can
address some of that, because oftentimes what’s happened is, and we’ve seen several examples
where there’s land to be dedicated, and it takes some time, sometimes even after all the
approvals are given, and we get into situations where the agreements aren’t made up front, and
then what? There are many subdivisions throughout the Town where there’s pieces here and
there, and they’re just lying there, and yet homeowners want us to take care of them, and
there’s really, what’s the big purpose, what’s the community purpose for the pieces, if it’s just a
piece of land that’s not available for some kind of consideration, and, yes, you can have open
space for open space sake, in terms of the aesthetic aspects, but that’s all I’m asking is that you
think about those things and just see how it connects with the open space plan.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-That begs the question, Marilyn, what you’re talking about. I mean, you know,
the private, not for profit conservatory group, you know, I know very little about it. I know it’s
only been in existence for a short period of time, and not for profit organizations like this come
and go, and I wonder what happens in the case of an insolvency of an organization like that, as
they acquire more and more land, and obviously, the land that they receive is typically gifted to
them, and because they’re not for profit there’s probably some form of a 501C, something or
other, and they’re not paying taxes, but, what I would hate to see is a situation where there’s a
latitude where they could sell some of these parcels off and do certain things, should they need
to for financial reasons. I don’t have the answers to this. I don’t know if it’s been thought out
or researched. I, for one, until I get those answers, would feel more comfortable with the Town
taking possessions of these types of lands. That way I know that it’s not going to be built upon.
MRS. RYBA-Well, there’s certainly a lot of questions here, and a 501C3, you’re right, they could
go out, and those are the kinds of things that I’ve worked with these organizations in the past
where you build in some kind of maintenance fee so that you can continue. You build in some
kind of contingency, but those are questions to ask whatever’s coming forward.
MR. LAPPER-Well, here’s my hierarchy of response. We will offer it to the Town first. If the
Town wants it, there could be recreation use just, or open space use. Secondly, if the Town
doesn’t want it, we’ll offer it to the Land Conservancy and the third would be that we will form
an association for just passive maintenance. It wouldn’t require an offering plan. So it’s not
that big a deal.
MR. SANFORD-What I heard from you is you’re flexible.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-You’re willing to accommodate it, no matter, you know, it’s up to us to kind of,
you know, get frustrated and try to figure out what to do.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll submit that for Final and then you can decide at Final.
MR. SANFORD-I appreciate that, Jon. I’m just talking, not about where you’re going, or your
intentions, but I’m trying to figure out what’s in the best interest for the Town.
MR. LAPPER-And we’re flexible.
MR. VOLLARO-On some of the stuff we’ve seen, Marilyn, you’ve seen some of the same films
I’ve seen on subdivision conservations, and some of the convention wisdom says that the
developer should really be coming to the Town with some sort of a proposal like a conservation
trust or a conservation easement. The reason they didn’t want to use easements is easements
have a certain degree of finality at times. So, they like to get into a trust, and in that trust tends
to talk about how this piece of property is financed and maintained. I don’t know enough
about it. I’m trying to understand and study this, and I think that contractors in the Town now
that are going to be coming to us ought to get a little bit familiar with that as well, because it’s a
coming thing from this Board.
MR. LAPPER-The Land Conservancy really acts like a trust, in effect.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think Mr. Sanford hit the nail on the head. Conservancies can go out of
business. Trusts, as they’re written, have a certain life in perpetuity, and that’s what I’d be
interested in, and I don’t know enough about it, to be perfectly honest with you. We’ll lay that
out in our application for Final, and we’ll say that we’ll do it either way, whichever you decide.
Yes, well, I’d like it to be a recommendation from the applicant, as opposed to something that
those of us here that don’t know too much about it yet, can’t really.
MR. SANFORD-It’s new territory for everybody, Bob, though, in all fairness to the applicant,
and I think their gesture is generous.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-So do, I.
MR. SANFORD-In that they’re basically saying we’ll do whatever you really want us to do,
but, you know, we’re confused. We don’t what we want.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s something we’ve got to get on the stick on. It’s part of this PORC
Committee, but it’s part of the Committee’s responsibility to try to find out how to use these
Land Conservation programs.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I’m, for one, trying to do that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, just forever wild is nice to me, but, again, I appreciate what you’re saying.
Based on the movies we’ve seen and the films, they’ve done creative things with these, and
they’ve made them maybe nicer than just leaving them wild. I hear you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m, you know, just trying to find out, how does the contractor survive under
conditions like that? How does he make money? I mean, nobody’s going to put a stick in the
ground without making a buck. I understand this. That’s my spiel.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we want out to go forward with our SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. RADNER-You have to close your public hearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ll close the public hearing.
MS. RADNER-I think Mr. Krantz wanted to make a final comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry.
MR. KRANTZ-Just a brief comment. Just a brief reply to the proposal to increase the no cut to
25 feet. I believe that all of the lots, with the exception of two, will not have any impact on the
leach field of the septic system, and the two that do, I believe the leach fields can just be
reoriented. We would also ask that if you agree that a 40 foot no cut is reasonable, a reasonable
condition to impose, that it be a deed restriction as well as a condition to the subdivision
approval, and last, which has nothing to do with the subdivision. It may be my eyesight as I get
older, but if you could have the Town rewire the immediate lights over that screen, you’d get
much more contrast for people in the audience, without impacting, I don’t think, on the Staff’s
lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-I believe the developer already went on record saying that the no cut zone
would be a deed restriction.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re proposing 25 because part of what they said was the stormwater
drainage, and we’re dealing with that with the easement on their neighbor’s property down to
Luzerne Road. So there really isn’t a concern, and 25 should be plenty.
MR. SANFORD-They are small lots.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the issue. They’re small lots.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ll squeeze them to the point where you can’t orient your septic.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, and we’ll start the SEQRA.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Bob.
MS. RADNER-If I could just interject. Again, we want to be clear here that your SEQRA’s going
to consider both the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and the subdivision approval. Just so that it’s
there on the record you’re considering both.
MR. SANFORD-Is this Long Form?
MR. VOLLARO-This is Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is Long Form.
MR. VOLLARO-“Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?”
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not sure.
MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, but can be mitigated. Right?
MR. VOLLARO-Is it small?
MR. METIVIER-Small.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to Moderate, mitigated by the stormwater management plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about Mr. Ball’s property?
MR. LAPPER-We drain away from his property.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, this property drains away from it, and the only potential
stormwater that would drain off site is through that emergency outlet plan to Luzerne Road.
MR. METIVIER-So that’s, again, mitigated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, mitigated.
MR. VOLLARO-True. I would agree with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-And even that doesn’t occur in a 50 year storm.
MR. VOLLARO-“Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water
runoff?” Now, that’s more specific, I think.
MR. SANFORD-Potentially yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s small to moderate, in my own opinion. That’s for the Board to
answer.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-And mitigated by the stormwater management plan.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I’ll go with that.
RESOLUTION NO. FW 6-2003 & 4-2003, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
THOMAS SCHIAVONE, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do I hear a motion for Preliminary approval of this subdivision?
MR. METIVIER-Do you want to do the wetlands first?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Thanks, Tony. Would anyone like to make a motion for approval
of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit?
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW-6-2003 THOMAS
SCHIAVONE, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
Applicant proposes disturbance within 100’ of regulated wetlands, as well as the
disturbance of 0.099 acres of regulated wetlands in relation to the development of a 33
lot residential subdivision.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/17/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment and application
materials in file of record, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on December 16, 2003 and October 19, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Freshwater
Wetlands application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
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. Any conditions of NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit shall be made part of this
permit.
Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Motion for Preliminary subdivision approval.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 THOMAS
SCHIAVONE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
32-lot Residential subdivision
WHEREAS, the application was received in 2003, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch
plan), and application materials in file of record; and
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
12/16/03, 5/27/04, 7/27/04 and 10/19/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application 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
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved
Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2004 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-And I guess we ought to get together, I think there’s going to be some
conditions on this, or do we put them in Final?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we could do either or, or both.
MS. RADNER-Remember that any conditions you make on Preliminary have to be met in order
to move on to Final. So, typically things that have to do with final site plan you save and put as
conditions for Final subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-That was going to be my suggestion, not to do it. That’s why I asked the
question. So I don’t think there’s any conditions on this.
MR. LAPPER-We’re clear with DEC and we’ll deal with the open space parcel. The drainage
easement to the south.
MR. VOLLARO-And the 25 foot.
MR. METIVIER-And your no cut zone.
MR. LAPPER-Twenty five foot, we’ll change that for the resubmission for Final.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So let’s do that on Final.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and thanks for working with us on this one.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A, APA
LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND – 11.16 ACRES & 4.88 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN LAKE LUZERNE – INTO FIVE (5) LOTS OF
APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES EACH. PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE SEQR FINDINGS
AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2004 TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2
LOT SIZE: 11.16 AC., 4.88 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JIM NEWBURY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Since the Board last looked at this application, the applicant has revised the
subdivision plats to indicate topographic contours and the location of slopes greater than 25%.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
This is somewhat of a unique application in that it’s split, a unique property in that it’s split by
the Town of Lake Luzerne and the Town of Queensbury, the boundary. It is within the
Adirondack Park. It’s classified rural use according to the APA’s land use map. The average lot
size in that area is listed as eight and a half acres. Essentially the subdivision proposes to create
five, 10 acre lots, 10 acres in total. However, when you look at the lands within Queensbury,
the lot sizes range from four, approximately four to five and almost three quarters acres. In
looking at a density calculation, the applicant has provided figures which show 11.637 acres of
land with slopes greater than 25%. When deducted from the total site acreage, this brings the
allowable residential density down to actually four lots, and that’s considering the site as a
whole within the Town of Lake Luzerne and the Town of Queensbury. As I said, it’s somewhat
of a tricky application, given it’s location, and I’m sure you’ll have some questions, and if you
do, I’ll certainly try to answer them, but this is a revision of what you’ve seen before with
additional information. The public hearing is open, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Gentlemen?
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves and Jim Newbury, for the record. Back when we were
in front of this Board previously, as Staff has stated, the request, because you took Lead Agency
on SEQRA, was to form the contouring, two foot contouring on the remainder of the property in
the Town of Lake Luzerne. So you could look at it as a property in its entirety. So that has been
performed and given to you on the plan, with the density calculations and the slope analysis as
Staff has stated, and that does take into consideration the land that it does lie within the Town
of Lake Luzerne. This project has gone in front of the Planning Board, as previously stated, to
the Town of Lake Luzerne, and they have passed a lead agency on SEQRA to this Board, and
they’ve granted a Preliminary approval, and they’re waiting to grant a Final approval once the
outcome of this Board. One of the comments of Staff in their letter, was wondering whether or
not the Town of Lake Luzerne had to have any variances granted on this project because of the
fact that they have less than 10 acres, and they have stated in their minutes that, no, provided,
because of the fact they’re behind lots that front in Queensbury, provided they’re part of the
same ownership of the lot going off of Cormus Road, which that’s the exact way we proposed
these, ten acre lots perpendicular, basically, off of Cormus Road. So the only way to access the
area in Luzerne on each one of these is to go through the land in Queensbury, in other words,
not another entrance off of Luzerne Road with a right of way. So, no, they do not require a
variance in that Town. So we have performed all the topography, and I believe at this point,
unless I’m mistaken, we can move forward with SEQRA so we can go to the Zoning Board
tomorrow night and then next Tuesday come back to this Board for an actual subdivision
review.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a question to Counsel. I appreciate the issue about part of the land
being in Queensbury and the other part being in Luzerne, but from a legal perspective, when
we talk about our minimum lot sizes and things like that in the Town of Queensbury, how does
the law read on that? Is it that within the Town of Queensbury that the minimum lot size needs
to be a certain size, or in total it needs to be a certain size? This should not be guess work, or it
shouldn’t be vague. It should be, if not stated, or in no uncertain terms there ought to be other
examples which substantiate a position.
MS. RADNER-We are requiring that they go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which I
believe is set for tomorrow, to obtain an Area Variance, because the portions of the lot that are
going to be in the Town of Queensbury will be under the 10 acre. When you’re considering the
subdivision approval, you may certainly consider the fact that the total acreage will be 10 acres,
but the Zoning Board of Appeals will be considering whether to grant them a variance to allow
the portions that are in Queensbury to be less than 10 acres. If it were not for that variance, they
could not do it.
MR. SANFORD-I would almost argue that, in the past, that’s the reversal of the way we’ve
normally handled things, in that they normally receive their variances then come to this Board,
and here we’re asking.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MS. RADNER-That’s correct, and you’re going to, you’re only doing SEQRA tonight because
you’re Lead Agency. So you’re only going to be reviewing the environmental aspect tonight.
They’re going to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, get a variance, before they come back to
you for subdivision.
MR. STEVES-This is what happened the last time we were here. The Board determined that
they wanted the topography on the entire lot, in order to make their SEQRA determination, and
so therefore we were postponed from the Zoning Board meeting. We cannot go to the Zoning
Board without your SEQRA.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Now how about the density issue? I mean, if you do the calculation,
it comes up four lots, I guess it’s just the applicant, not to the attorney.
MS. RADNER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-What’s the compelling reason to say, okay, go ahead for the five lots?
MR. STEVES-Well, the question remains, then, if you were asking us to go to the Zoning Board
because of the fact that you’re saying you cannot use or you cannot look at property within
another municipality, because of the fact that the municipal line doesn’t necessarily have to
follow property lines. Then why did you ask us to do a slope analysis in Luzerne for SEQRA?
The area of 12 acres, or 11 acres that’s over that 25, 25% or over, basically 50/50 in each Town.
MR. SANFORD-No, that’s not my point. Let’s say all the land is in Queensbury, and none of it
is in Lake Luzerne. If you do the same calculation, why shouldn’t you be coming here with a
four lot subdivision rather than a five lot? That’s my question.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Well, I believe that the, good question, that the reason for that portion of
your Code was for clustering. So that you can prove that you have an area on which to build
upon. You have a 10 acre lot in Queensbury. Say it’s a standalone 10 acre lot, that you don’t
need to be subdivided, and five acres of it was extremely steep, to the point where you had to
repel up and down it, and five acres was flat as a football field where you’d be saying to me that
it is unbuildable. A 10 acre lot with five acres of steep slopes still leaves five acres of non-steep
slopes. I think that’s more than enough room to build upon. I believe that the reason for that
was on smaller lots. If you read back through the Code over the years, I think Bob’s been on the
Board long enough to realize that that’s what the intent of it was at the time. I know how it’s
been applied in the recent years, but I believe that it was for smaller lots, not for 10 acre lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Walking this property off of Cormus Road when we did it some time ago, my
recollection is that, at Cormus and fairly far back, it’s pretty far flat.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-As you get further out is where the slope starts, but there’s plenty of room up
at the top near Cormus to build.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s your point.
MR. STEVES-That’s absolutely my point.
MR. VOLLARO-I have another question.
MR. STEVES-And one other comment, before we go on, Bob, before I forget, I believe that that’s
a waiver from the Planning Board and not a zoning requirement.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, one of the reasons I’m raising it is I don’t want to play guesswork
with what the intentions are. My feeling is we have a prescribed algorithm for calculating
densities. If you do it, it comes up with four lots, not five lots. I guess I just don’t feel
comfortable saying, well, they can find flat enough land to build, so the density calculation is
irrelevant or it doesn’t apply in this case, I would think the people who laid out the Code, if
that’s the way they truly felt, would have put a big footnote saying, well, for these following
exceptions do we care about density. So, anyway, that’s my feeling on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I had a related question as well. When I look at site plan S-1,
the density calculation is different than what Staff arrived at. Staff, in their Staff notes, said that
the area of slope greater than 25% is 11.6 acres. In your density calculation, you have 1.33 acres.
MR. STEVES-I don’t know if you have the, that was what was, this was what was submitted
last, and it says 11.37 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m looking at the original. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The new presentation was a little bit difficult to follow with all those cross
hatches.
MR. STEVES-Right, because what we had shown was the 15% and 25, and I think just taking it
down to the 25 and getting rid of the 15% would be a lot cleaner. I just wanted to show that for
the Board, so they could see the difference between the two slopes, and again, I agree, and I
think those are issues that we can discuss next week. I think really what we’re here for,
obviously, is the SEQRA, and, you know, I think there’s things we can discuss tonight,
absolutely. I don’t know if it’s going to be resolved tonight until after we go to the Zoning
Board.
MR. VOLLARO-In the SEQRA area, when we get into Part II of SEQRA, it’s going to talk to us
about other agencies, and there’s a letter here from the Adirondack Park Agency dated March
16, 2004 that says, “In order for the Agency to determine if the proposed project is jurisdictional,
it is advised that the applicant contact the Agency to receive the jurisdictional determination.”
Should we have a jurisdictional determination on this property before we go to SEQRA?
MR. STEVES-They were exempt from SEQRA. They’re above that anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-They consented for us. They say that. The Adirondack Park has no objection
to the designation of the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agency for this project. However, please
be aware that if the project is in Queensbury subject to Agency Jurisdiction Class A, which it’s
not, it is an exclusion, and I understand what they’re saying there, but it says in order for the
Agency to determine if the proposed project is jurisdictional, it is advised the applicant contact,
and to receive a jurisdictional determination.
MS. RADNER-Correct. You don’t need that determination, though, before you can proceed
tonight with SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. RADNER-You do need it, though, before they can proceed with their project, because that’s
one of the approvals they may need in order to go forward with their ultimate plan.
MR. VOLLARO-If they don’t get approval from the ZBA tomorrow night, or if they do get a
variance tomorrow night, that variance has to go before the Adirondack Park Agency.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-With four distinct responses.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, part and parcel of the SEQRA is the density issue, Bob. There are
obviously elements where that’s relevant, and again, again, I just, you know, what I see here is
I’m willing to be flexible regarding the Lake Luzerne and Town of Queensbury issue, but I
don’t understand why there’s a compelling reason to discard our density calculations that are in
the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s George did, the 11%.
MR. SANFORD-Well, four lots versus five lots. I just don’t understand that. I mean, the whole
tendency, I mean, we’re going to be contemplating, later on, changing the zone from 10 to 42.
So obviously the trend on that mountain is bigger, is to keep it bigger, not smaller, and if it
does, I just don’t understand why we would contemplate a subdivision that is in violation of the
density calculation.
MR. STEVES-Well, the density calculations, it is not in violation. It is an area that this Board has
the ability to grant a waiver on. It is not an issue that you have to get a variance on, and I agree.
Hear me out. Now if you’re asking for a one acre lot, and I come in and I say, Rich, it’s 200 feet
deep and 150 feet of it is over 25%, and I’m going to build on 50 feet in the front, you’re going to
say, that’s damn near impossible, but if I say, I have a 10 acre lot, and I have .1 acre that is over
25% and the rest of it is flat as a board and now you’re telling me it’s an unbuildable lot, or non
suitable for building because I do not meet your 10 acre density requirement, and I say that
that’s ludicrous.
MR. SANFORD-No, and I appreciate where you’re coming from, but I guess what I’m trying to
say is it may be a larger issue than just the ability to construct a building on reasonably flat land.
It might have to do with their being a general understanding, in terms of what the vision is up
on that mountain, which is to encourage rural, rather than more condensed construction.
MR. STEVES-I disagree completely with how that is interpreted now compared to what it was
interpreted like five years ago, but we can argue that point forever.
MR. SANFORD-Well, no, I mean, again, I don’t want to get argumentative here, and I won’t,
but I mean, there are many times when, you know, I’ll make, you know, certain suggestions,
and the applicant might come back to me, or their agent, and say, well, this is how it’s written in
the Code. So you really should feel compelled to agree with this, and now I’m making that
point that the Code says you don’t have the density for five, and you’re saying, well, be flexible.
MR. STEVES-Subdivision Regs, not the Code.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, relax, you know, take it easy, and so you seem to want it both
ways. So, I mean, again, if this was for four lots, I’d feel more comfortable with it than the five,
that’s all.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Should we go through the subdivision review
criteria? In order to address the SEQRA questions, SEQRA issues.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’ve got to go through the design standards in order to address the
SEQRA issues. I agree with that. I think we do. Otherwise, we have nothing to comment on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. STEVES-Could I throw one thing out, as you go through that. There’s other things, you
know, as was done on other subdivisions in areas on mountainsides and areas around the lake
where you have a subdivision and you say, gee, you want a little bit more control on it, which
I’m 100% in agreement with, is that you can also put the stipulation on it that each lot comes
back in for site plan review, because we can’t tell you exactly what size house the person wants
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
to build, exactly where he wants to build it, and I don’t see that as a bad option in this case,
either.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to use the Long Form? I guess that’s what they submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-If everyone’s ready to jump right into the SEQRA. We still have a public
hearing, before we can do that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, I’m a little confused, here, Chris, if you want to know the truth. I
mean, I guess, you know, I understand the questions that we answer with SEQRA, but aren’t
we looking at it in the context of actually what is in front of us, in terms of the actual
subdivision? And if we do have an issue of the density calculation and how many lots we feel
comfortable with, I think we should address that prior to SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I thought we should go through the design standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, design standards, start right off, design standards and just go right
through our criteria, just start it right off, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone have questions, comments, concerns with design standards?
We already talked about the density calculations. Any other questions or comments?
MR. VOLLARO-Requested waivers, up on design standards, the applicant has asked for
waivers on stormwater management and grading. Now, I feel that there might be some, in
order to justify what the applicant is saying about flat and so on, I feel there may be some
justification to determine what driveway slopes might look like and clearing and grading may
affect stormwater management. I think that maybe, in my mind, at least, I’m not sure about
granting the waivers on stormwater management and grading right now.
MR. STEVES-That’s why I would be open to, as I suggested, that each lot be subject to site plan
review, because of the fact that, if I go in with the stormwater and grading plan for a 10 acre lot,
it’s not like, a half acre lot.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that we get into stormwater management and grading on an
individual lot basis and go into site plan review?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-That may make sense.
MR. SANFORD-Except that I don’t think it comes to us under that. He’s saying we can actually
request that it come to us?
MS. RADNER-It doesn’t allow you to do that. Typically we discourage it because the average
homeowner, buying a lot, goes to the Code and doesn’t see any requirement for site plan review
of a single lot, and we’ve tried to discourage that. You should consider things like building
envelopes and the suitability of the lots before you grant the subdivision review ultimately.
MR. STEVES-But you have done that in the past.
MS. RADNER-We have, but we discourage it and there have been rare, unusual circumstances.
MR. STEVES-Understood, and like I say, because of the reasoning, and I wholeheartedly agree
with Counsel as well, but I you have a half acre, lot, it’s pretty obvious where that person is
going to be building, and it’s going to be a fairly small area within the setbacks. When you have
a 10 acre lot, I’m going to say this is where I would design to build it, and then somebody’s
going to buy the lot and say, well, my dream home is going to be way in the back, or way in the
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
front. That’s hard for me to have the crystal ball and know where people are going to be buying
these ten acre lots they’re going to be building. That’s the reason I put that forth.
MR. VOLLARO-The size of the lot is what really affects the decision here.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments, concerns with development criteria, site conditions,
utilities, street design and layout, traffic access and circulation, sight distances, emergency
access and services?
MR. VOLLARO-No. This is a subdivision you’re looking at?
MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision review criteria.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions relating to stormwater, sewage design?
MR. VOLLARO-Again, I have questions in that, needs stormwater management plan. I was
talking to myself here when I write the notes, but now seeing the applicant’s side of it, this may
be a little premature to ask for that. I don’t know. A theoretical sighting for all five, or all four,
whichever we agree on, a theoretical setting of the house itself may certainly help us here,
because right now we don’t have any feel at all, and neither do you.
MR. STEVES-Right, and one other comment I want to make, Bob, is that we had discussed this
briefly the last time when we sat in front of this Board and asked exactly what you wanted so
that we could move to the next step on SEQRA, and I asked, and that list of waivers was
included, before we were here before, and we want through and everybody said topography,
two foot, so we could make our determinations. I haven’t changed the request for waivers at
all. If we wanted stormwater and everything, in all fairness to my client, we’ve waited three,
four months to get back in front of you, if we could have known that the last time we were here,
we were always talking about large lot, and there’s a potential to do a site plan on the lot after
the subdivision, as we have done in the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think the approach that we, as a Board, need to take with
this, in any of these considerations, is to imagine the worst case scenario, you know, long
driveways on each lot, or whatever the case may be.
MR. SANFORD-Steep slopes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Steep slopes.
MR. SANFORD-You know, and the safety issue of driveways on steep slopes. We don’t know
where the houses are going to be located.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly. Either that, or we need to discuss and provide conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, looking at the way the lots lay, in my mind, reasonable people
would say, if you look at the lot, right now, off Cormus, it goes off fairly flat and then it starts to
really get raviney.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Any contractor coming up would probably put the driveways parallel with
Cormus so he doesn’t get into a greater than 10% slope. We don’t know that. That’s our
problem. I think you’re absolutely right. I think so is Rich.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have any insight as to what’s going to happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Although we could make a condition that you can’t construct a driveway
with greater than 10% slope. We could certainly do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with you, Bob, but when you look at Lot One, that’s got a lot of
slope to it. I mean, look at the proposed driveway going across 15 to 25% slopes.
MR. STEVES-That driveway is shown at 10%. That driveway for the entire length is shown at
10%.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it cuts across a 15 less than 25% area.
MR. STEVES-Correct. I’m just saying that you can construct that driveway, as Bob was saying,
cutting across the slope and then parallel to it, at a consistent grade of 10%, and that is definitely
the worst case scenario.
MR. SEGULJIC-The ones to the south, they’re not as, I would agree with what Bob says, when
you go over to the south, they are flat at the entrance, but when you work to the north, there’s a
lot of slope there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Lot One is tough, a tough lot.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I mean, basically Lot One, you could almost imagine that that’s the, where
it’s shown to be built is probably exactly where it would be built. I think there’s a driveway
there that exists now. Correct, Jim?
MR. SEGULJIC-You do say existing driveway there.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, just a question with regard to Lot Three. So there’s an existing home on
Lot Three?
MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s the existing farmhouse.
MR. SEGULJIC-So Lot Three, for argument’s sake, has been developed already?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. So it’s four new building lots, and Jim knows more about Lot One,
but I believe that is the existing driveway on Lot One.
MR. NEWBUR Y-It’s just a natural.
MR. HUNSINGER-We drove up it when we did site visits.
MR. NEWBURY-The grade has been dropped even more so in the last month or two. I’ve done
a little work on top.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-But I would imagine, since that is currently in existence, and I don’t know if we’d
have a problem saying that that would be the driveway to be utilized on Lot One because it
exists on Lot One.
MR. NEWBURY-I don’t think anybody would ever consider building anywhere, other than
within 25 feet of where it shows on there. The views, that’s where it is.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve already kind of picked the best locations for the houses.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Getting back to our subdivision review criteria. Any additional
questions, comments on stormwater, sewage design? Buffering, landscape design?
Neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Environmental concerns?
MR. VOLLARO-The only environmental concern I had, and I think it’s been answered, was the
APA letter, on their jurisdictional.
MR. HUNSINGER-Involved agencies? We already talked about DEC, APA. Any other criteria
not reviewed or discussed?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I guess just one. The applicant’s submission of Part I SEQRA is dated
11/12/03. Is this still valid, based on the new information we’ve received? For example, S-1 was
revised at 8/30/04 on the new slope information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have the new data. I mean, clearly the slope information’s
different.
MR. STEVES-The topography, because of the slopes, they, on the SEQRA form, go to 15% or
greater, and we did already label that and it’s still within the same 20%.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just asking you if you still had a valid submission here. I assumed
that it was, but I wanted to hear it from the applicant.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, concerns of the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled, if you could give up the table. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to
speak or ask questions on behalf of this application? Come on up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAT & THOMAS WASHBURN
MRS. WASHBURN-I’m Pat Washburn.
MR. WASHBURN-Thomas Washburn. We live on Cormus Road. We live at the very end of the
road.
MRS. WASHBURN-We live here and we also own this parcel. We own two 10 acre parcels
within the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. WASHBURN-This parcel, and this parcel.
MR. WASHBURN-We own both parcels, one adjacent to this property. We’ve gone over the
maps, original map, the first one, that kind of showed where he seemed to have placed some
homes on this supposed property. Okay. The concern would be, there’s a lot of ledge. Does
anybody realize the amount of ledge that’s involved up here?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’ve been at the property.
MR. WASHBURN-Okay. You’ve seen the ledge.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. WASHBURN-You’ve seen the ledge right by the side of the road. So, putting a drive in
and foundation in a home is going to require a lot of blasting, and you have neighboring homes,
right around a couple of those clusters where that ledge is going to be. I can’t see any other way
that you’re going to put at least on a couple of those sites. In doing so, the driveways come
back down towards Cormus Road. With, let’s take Lot, I guess it’s One, is the first one as you’re
coming up Cormus Road, the one that’s going to sit way up on top of the mountain, had the
view, the beautiful view, looking down on the poor guy that’s right straight in front of him.
You put a black top driveway in there, where’s the water going to run? It’s going to come down
to Cormus Road. From Cormus Road, it’s going to come down to Luzerne Mountain Road.
Luzerne Mountain Road, chances are it’s going to go right straight into the guy’s driveway
that’s on the corner down there, who is Tom Barrowman, and it’s probably going to take out his
driveway. As it stands now, in heavy rains, the Town has to come up and do repairs on the
shoulders from washing out of stone on the edge of the road, and it’s just a common thing. The
more homes you keep putting up there, and two sites right there, without knowing the location,
now that’s the next group that’s going to say where the house is going to be, nobody knows, but
the potential for storm runoff water is very good. Now, I don’t know about the runoff water
that could affect us on our end of the road, either, from the other drives that would come in, but
it’s a potential. You’re going to increase our neighborhood almost double the size, is what
we’re looking at. If this plan goes through, this is going to double the size of our neighborhood,
and we live in 10 acre parcels. He doesn’t even comply, which is for tomorrow, but he doesn’t
even comply, you’re looking at giving him half in Luzerne and the other half in Queensbury, to
make up 10 acre parcels that we’re looking at here, and it doesn’t, everybody else has had to
comply with this 10 acre parcel zoning in Queensbury, and I think that should be looked at. I
mean, it should be part of this, at least one sequence of it.
MRS. WASHBURN-And if I may comment, we live up there because we love the quiet and the
rural situation that we have. We enjoy the deer and the turkeys and all the wildlife. We enjoy
hiking. We enjoy all those things, and to double the population up there, which four new
homes would do, is going to drastically change the environment, as far as we’re concerned.
We’re the very last house. Once we pass the farmhouse, we see no other houses, and we like it
that way. We’d like to see it stay that way, or we would certainly at least like to see Mr.
Newbury comply with the ten acre zoning requirement within the Town of Queensbury, as
everyone else has had to do. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re welcome. Thank you.
MR. WASHBURN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else like to comment?
TOM BARROWMAN
MR. BARROWMAN-Tom Barrowman. I guess I’m the driveway that’s going to get washed out
that Tom mentioned. As far as density and population is concerned, when I originally
purchased the land up there, I very carefully went up and looked at the maps, and found out,
you know, what the zoning was for that particular area, and I just can’t believe that whoever is
the Zoning Board of Queensbury, when they set that rule, they didn’t come up and look at the
land that was there, and say, well, we can increase the density within the Town of Queensbury
by acquiring some land in Luzerne. In other words, I’m all for keeping the zoning as it is, ten
acres in Queensbury, and that is what you’ve set. You didn’t say, let’s add other land so that
the density would wind up more within the Town of Queensbury. As far as road safety goes,
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
there’s an extreme safety hazard when you turn on to that Cormus Road. I know the people
that live up there put up with that, but you have, anybody who’s been up there and made that
turn, you have to cross your fingers to make that left hand turn, because you have traffic
coming up over the top of the mountain that can’t see 25 feet in front of them when going back
down again. So you have to hover in that right hand lane, and then quick scoot to the left and
cross your fingers that you’re going to make it across there. As far as, I heard views mentioned.
So that means all the people within Glens Falls and Queensbury are probably going to see these
homes, and I’m not sure, down the road, this is what you’d like, and if that is something to
consider, you have homeowners up there that I hope they’re going to be treated the same down
the road, and that means be allowed some variance, so that the density within Queensbury
might match the Newbury property, and that means you’re going to have the mountain
somewhat like, if anybody’s every been down to Warwick, New York, where they did similar
zoning about 30 years ago, you just have nothing on there now. You have all just homes there.
You have homes all over the place.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the APA’s going to, this property’s in the Adirondack Park and
they’re requirement’s eight and a half acres, in their jurisdiction. So I think that that wouldn’t
happen, with respect to this property. In other words, if we limit it to Queensbury only, I’m
looking at 4.07 and 5., so all these would have to go before APA, if we gave the variance, if the
ZBA granted variance, that would have to go before the ZBA, and the Adirondack Park Agency
for approval.
MR. BARROWMAN-That is something we could at least attempt to try.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure about that, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-I am.
MR. SANFORD-I thought there was a letter in the packet which suggested that, well, I’ll have to
read it again.
MR. VOLLARO-It says, I think Staff can jump in and correct me if I’m wrong. If we were to
look at this only for Queensbury, and we’re underneath our own 10 acre requirement, we
would have to go to the, they would have to go to the ZBA for a variance. Once that variance is
created, within the Adirondack Park, the Adirondack Park wants to know about that by
Certified Mail and then they would make the determination of whether or not they’ll allow that
in the Park. That is my understanding. Is that essentially correct?
MR. SANFORD-You know, we need answers to these questions, Bob, and I don’t think anybody
really knows the answers, but, I mean, are we looking at just the land in Queensbury, or are we
looking at the land that they own?
MS. RADNER-You’re looking at all of the land. You’re Lead Agency. So you’re looking at the
potential for a zoning variance. You’re looking at the impacts on the land in Queensbury.
You’re looking at the impacts on the land in Lake Luzerne.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s why everybody gave us Lead Agency.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we’re Lead Agency, but we don’t make the call on the variances. Like the
ZBA’s going to make the call on the variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, the ZBA does.
MS. RADNER-You’re only reviewing the environmental impacts tonight, and that includes the
environmental impacts if this variance were to be granted.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, if we’re Lead Agency, Bob, then how does it go back to APA?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MS. RADNER-It’s not going.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not going to go back to them.
MS. RADNER-It’s not going back to APA for environmental review. It’s going back to the APA
for a determination whether it’s APA jurisdictional. They’ve already consented to your having
Lead Agency status for purposes of SEQRA review.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t think that’s (lost word) mean much. You know what I mean?
MR. VOLLARO-See if the variance is granted tomorrow night, for the Queensbury lots, and
that’s what the variance is going to be all about, for the size of the lots that reside in
Queensbury.
MS. RADNER-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Think about the other subdivision we looked at, that required APA review,
where it was a substandard lot, and before we could act on it they had to get APA approval.
The APA denied it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that was up on the mountain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. RADNER-In that case also there had been a ZBA variance. That was a different town, but
again, it crossed town lines, if you’re thinking of the same one I am, and ultimately APA said,
no, we’re not going to approve it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, well, no, I’m not thinking of one that was in another Town, but it
was entirely within Queensbury, and the APA denied their subdivision request.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I won’t but in to this gentleman’s comments, but again, it’s all
coming down to there are a number of areas that are somewhat problematic and yet, for me, at
least, I can’t see why we would want to be lenient on the density calculation. At the very least
what we’re doing, if we adhere to our standards, is we’re making the lots even bigger.
MR. BARROWMAN-In your review, I think you mentioned something about the change in the
environment up there, and I didn’t, my neighbor mentioned that we had a neighborhood, and I
look at it the other way around, that we don’t have a neighborhood, and with this development
up there, it is certainly going to make a tremendous change in the top of the mountain, just a
tremendous change, and I just can’t believe that that’s what the original intent was a few years
ago. I just can’t believe that.
MR. VOLLARO-See, we get into things, too, like the rights of ownership and people who own
the land. It gets a little bit, the gentleman owns the property and has a right to develop it.
There’s nobody on this Board who can deny that right if he does it within the context of the
Town’s laws.
MR. BARROWMAN-But there’s no hardship in developing the land that’s there. He can still
have two lots within the Town of Queensbury. He’s just going for a monetary thing of having
more lots.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I mean, you know, the big issue is, are we looking at just Queensbury or
are we looking at Queensbury plus Lake Luzerne and applying it to our ten lot or ten acre
minimum lot size? And that, apparently, the ZBA gets involved with, and then the other issue
is the density, which is our jurisdiction. Those are the two issues as I see it. Right?
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. VOLLARO-The fact that we asked for and received Lead Agency from Luzerne and from
our own Boards, from the ZBA as well, I think we have to then look at this property in total, the
property that’s in Luzerne and the property that’s in Queensbury. That’s why we got this Lead
Agency handle. That would be my analysis. I’d like to defer to somebody on the Board here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we stick to the public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you.
MR. SANFORD-I’m with you, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to ask him a question, if I might.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The gentleman that came before you talked about your driveway, and I’m
trying to locate where your driveway is on this current map.
MR. BARROWMAN-I’m about 250 feet below where that Cormus Road makes the turn.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re down below.
MR. BARROWMAN-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-Right, on the road that goes up and hits Cormus Road.
MR. BARROWMAN-Correct. Hits the Cormus Road, and it has been a constant problem over
the years, and the water, they’ve tried fixing it a couple of times. They almost fixed it this
summer, but not quite, and I think if any more water does go down the mountain, that is going
to be a big problem for me. A big one. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MIKE SIEGEL
MR. SIEGEL-Mike Siegel, resident of Queensbury. I envy the Board less and less as the
population grows and grows. You’re going to run into more and more problems. If the density
calculations are part of determining approval of the application, and it has been determined
that the density requirements are not met, then the plans should be changed to meet the density
requirements. If, however, it is determined by the ZBA that the small difference, if there is one,
should have a variance, then the Planning Board should complete SEQRA, with all appropriate
notes such as density, such as environmental impacts and neighborhood impact, and make its
recommendations, then handle the problem items, after it comes back from the ZBA. What
you’re saying now means really nothing because you can’t come to a determination until it
comes back from ZBA. As the Lead Agency, you now have to consider Lake Luzerne and
Queensbury as one plan. That’s the position you were put in. So I would just.
MR. VOLLARO-True.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with those statements, and I guess I’m out on a limb on it because
counsel has told us that we have to do SEQRA first. I think that just doesn’t make sense.
MR. SIEGEL-Exactly. You make all your comments on all the items that you feel are problems
in SEQRA. It gives you plenty of chances to do it. The ZBA then has to take that into
consideration, and it bounces back to you where you have final determination anyway, and you
can handle all the problems after it gets back.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
RICHARD UDALL
MR. UDALL-My name is Richard Udall, and my wife and I own the parcel next to the
Washburns. We actually, I lived in that house where the Washburns are, and retained 33 acres
adjacent to it at the end of Cormus Road. So I lived up there at the time where there were just
four families, and appreciated the beauty and the quiet and the serenity and a lot of people who
have moved up there have moved there for those same reasons. To go into increased density is
the most unhappy thought in my mind. My wife and I, now that I’m retired, are planning to go
back up. We’d like to go back up and have somewhat similar situation to what we had with the
density that’s come a long the way, and then when you add in all the variances they’re asking
for, and the rules are set up for one reason, and the reason is sound environmental, and then
you start asking for variances and making, bending rules and so forth to accommodate people
who are trying to increase the density and change the character of the neighborhood, to me, it’s
not a proper thing to do, and for that reason, plus the other things, the water problems, the
blasting that would have to be done, the wildlife that is going to be disturbed and will no longer
live in that area, that add to the beauty of it, I’d hate to see the character of that area changed by
what’s being proposed here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else like to comment?
STEVEN BROWN
MR. BROWN-Hi. I’m Steven Brown. I live across the street, right on Cormus Road. First I have
a question for you guys. You’ll have to excuse my ignorance. I hope you don’t laugh at this
question. Several times tonight you talked about voting on a SEQRA. Am I pronouncing that
right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-Can you explain that to me?
MR. HUNSINGER-We have been granted Lead Agency status for the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and basically what that means is that we have to take into consideration
any environmental concerns before this project can begin to move forward.
MR. BROWN-Such as stormwater runoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-Okay, and is that the only thing you’re voting on tonight?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the only thing that we would be voting on tonight is we would be
acting on SEQRA. We would not be acting on the subdivision approval because they do have to
go before the Zoning Board for variance approvals before we can.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s tomorrow night?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So everything we’ve heard so far from my neighbors really doesn’t pertain
to what you have to vote on tonight?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it does, because we have to take into consideration any of these
environmental concerns when we consider the whole SEQRA process.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. BROWN-Okay. So environmental concerns could also be noise, that type of thing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So that’s tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-And if that is approved, then tomorrow night that at that point what do you vote
on tomorrow night?
MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t be this Board. It would be the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-They would be considering a variance. Because part of the lots are in the
Town of Lake Luzerne, a variance would be required in order for them to approve, receive the
site plan approval that they’re seeking in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things we’re going to be doing, Mr. Chairman, here, is that as we go
through SEQRA, we may stumble because of the lack of certain information here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. That’s why I said, that’s as far as we would ever go.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, on the sidebar conversation I just had with my colleague, Mr.
Vollaro.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing. If we could let this person speak.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Let him go.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BROWN-No, that’s okay. I’m really, I’m learning a lot tonight. So I appreciate the
education. Lake Luzerne, they’ve already approved all of this. They’re okay with it. Now, it’s
just Queensbury?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. All they approved is to grant this Board Lead Agency status.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So they’ve put the decision in your hands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. RADNER-The environmental review is what’s in their hands.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the reason the Zoning Board is going to be looking at it is because there’s
a 10 acre requirement in the Town of Queensbury for this particular area.
MR. BROWN-Thank you. All right, well, I’m kind of in an awkward position tonight, because
Jim, the applicant’s, not only my neighbor, he’s my friend, but I guess just to kind of go with
what my other neighbors have said, it’s going to sound like a broken record, but the Washburns
have ten acres and ten acres, and so they have twenty, and yet I think they only have one home.
So, I live here, this is my piece and my piece. So I have about 37 acres, and I have one home on
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
37. They have one home on 20, and by the way, I’ve lived there almost four years. Never really
met the Washburns. So that’s, even though I live here, they live here, that’s how far away we
are. That’s the environment up there. You guys have all been up there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. And then we’ve got Mr. Udall that has 33 acres and doesn’t even live up
there. So, I mean, you get a gist of how quiet this is, and I do agree, you know, when you talk
about, I think you guys asked a question, you will vote on it, is it going to change the impact of
the community. I would agree with what someone else said tonight. There really is no
community up there, which most people would hate, but it really is why we all moved up there.
We don’t, you know, besides just waiving, I mean, it’s really that quiet. In fact, you know, there
are no street lights. The United States Postal Service won’t even deliver to our homes. I mean,
it’s really in the middle of nowhere. Something you guys mentioned about the pitch on the
driveways. I think when you look at this, I think it gets steeper as you go towards Luzerne, and
my concern with that is what you guys want to do for the safety of it is you want them to build
closer to Cormus Road because that’s where it’s flat. That really opposes our view, because
they’re going to be seen from the road. There’s seven homes. So like Mr. Washburn said, not
only are we going to almost double the population up here, but you’re going to see them all. I
can’t, we don’t know that, but it possibly could be. I mean, they may want to do that. Who
knows. I guess lastly, you know, when you look at, there’s seven homes. Jus something to keep
in mind, again, you guys have been up there. It doesn’t seem like there’s seven homes, because
there’s a dead end. Two of the homes are completely hidden and the people have gone to great
lengths to get them hidden, and the other two are pretty obstructed. So really, half, more than
half of the homes up there you can’t see from the road, and we’ve gone to great lengths to keep
it this private, and I guess the reason we’re all here tonight is, as you can see, it’s really going to
change the impact of what that’s going to look like. I guess that’s all I have. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else like to comment?
JIM SHANNON
MR. SHANNON-My name is Jim, and my wife and I, Casey, moved here from Colorado about
four years ago, and for quite some time we spent a lot of time walking these lots that Jim is
proposing, and we feel that they make great commonsense the way they’re set up, and my wife
and I are interested in building an ecologically friendly house, and I think for some of the
reasons why we want to move up there, and probably some of the same reasons why a lot of
these individuals are up there, and that is for the privacy, and I think moving in to an area like
that, we’re interested in putting something in that mixes with the environment, and I think in
looking at those lots, I think there’s really, I think most of the majority of the lots besides Jim’s
home and then the number one lot which sits high on the hill, I think a lot of those other lots go
fairly far back, because my wife and I, in our plans, were looking at going back to where we
probably wouldn’t be seen and building and house that, like I said, fit into the environment,
and we’re also people that treasure some of the same values that they do, in the fact that we
would like to enjoy the woods and the open spaces, and not be too closely attached to other
neighbors. So that’s what I wanted to add into it, and I hope other people that are interested in
the property have a lot of those same values.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MS. RADNER-Can you give us your last name for the record, please.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SHANNON-Shannon.
MS. RADNER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
FRANK DOBERTS
MR. DOBERTS-My name is Frank Doberts. I’ve been walking the lots here for the last year. I
didn’t come here to plan to talk to you, but from what I heard by the people that are already
living up here, I feel that I have to speak up. I feel that the people who are living up there in the
mountain are very lucky people and I want to be one of them, also. I hope. Just really quickly,
one of the plans that my wife and I had was to build a 400 foot driveway to go all the way back,
so we’re not being seen by the people. So we have quiet. So if there’s any concern from their
side about the impact from the houses, I don’t think that our house would be seen, if we’re
lucky enough to be able to buy the lot. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? I guess for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing open.
Was there something else you had?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a comment, Chris, and I’d like to hear from the rest of the Board on
this, but at this particular time, I don’t think I could do a SEQRA, in the absence of the
stormwater management and a grading plan, simply because of the impact of how the water’s
going to flow with large driveways, etc., etc. We just need to have that information in order to,
I mean, the SEQRA questions are directed at that, and in the absence of having that information,
we’re speculating at best, and so my recommendation would be a tabling motion, asking for the
following. That the applicant provide a stormwater management plan, a grading plan, and also
provide an alternate subdivision plan that keeps within the density calculation, and to me that
would be the most prudent way to proceed, and I throw that out for the rest of the Board’s
consideration, and I would welcome comment.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand where Rich is coming from. What I would like to do, however, is
attempt to get into SEQRA and see where we go. If the lack of a stormwater management plan
and a grading plan begins to impede our ability to answer questions, then I think we’d have to
stop and think whether we would have to ask the applicant for those. I think we should try to
go forward and try to get through it.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, you know the SEQRA form.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand it.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I don’t know why we have to go into it. You should be able to answer,
you know, based on your knowledge of the SEQRA form, are you comfortable in answering
some of those questions without knowing what else is going to happen? When we’ve heard
public comment about potential washouts of driveways and things of this nature and the
gentleman just before said he was looking to put a 400 foot driveway. I mean, how do we know
what might happen in terms of water runoff, but anyway, I mean I hear your comment, but to
me, we can’t be responsible in doing our job, absent some of this information. I mean, it’s just,
we don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-It certainly would appear that way. I wanted to see just how.
MR. STEVES-Can we quickly poll the Board?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think we ought to at least, well, I was going to say I
think we ought to give the applicant an opportunity to maybe respond to some of the neighbor
comments, I mean, if you’re basing.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I just wanted to let you know.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. I’d like to comment on some of the comments made by the public,
and then I would ask that we poll the Board, and if that’s the conclusion, without wasting
everybody’s time, we will come back with a plan with some of the issues that Rich has brought
up and any other Board members may want to bring up.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean one of the concerns that was mentioned was that because of the
presence of a lot of ledge, they have concerns about blasting. I mean, if you have information
that you can share with us that would indicate that, you know, there would be no blasting
going on, then that would satisfy that SEQRA issue.
MR. STEVES-There is obviously ledge on the property, but there are lots of areas where there
are suitable areas for digging, that you wouldn’t run into ledge. I cannot deny that there is not
ledge there, because there is, but that is by no means the entire property. On every lot there are
areas that you could build on without having to blast. As far as coming back to the main point
of conversation from what I hear from the public, is I want to reiterate that we are creating 10
acre lots. Everybody is saying, well, you’re not creating 10 acre. I live on a 10 acre lot. These
are 10 acre lots. Okay, and you’re in a 10 acre zone in Queensbury and a 10 acre zone in
Luzerne. If we wanted to have a right of way coming in that we tip on to Luzerne Road and
come in and break off lots in Luzerne and lots in Queensbury, you could still get the same
amount of lots. It doesn’t make a subdivision that is very conducive to the property at all.
Coming off of the existing road and breaking off lots, especially when the existing house lot
faces off Cormus Road, is the way to go, but, you know, just because of the fact that the Town of
Queensbury can only regulate property within Queensbury we need a variance, but I don’t
want people to think that these lots aren’t ten acres. They are ten acre lots, and as far as talking
about slopes, most of the people that are asking about their lots being ten acres are slopes that
are probably fifty to sixty percent of the property is over twenty-five percent. That’s just the
facts up there, especially when you’re on the downhill side of Cormus Road. To compare it to
our property, and as far as the stormwater, grading, drainage, those are issues that this Board
has, and aren’t prepared to go ahead with SEQRA. In talking with my client, if you want to see
some more information on that, please. I mean, we want a nice project, as well as you want a
nice project. I think that’s obvious that we’ve been here, and when you come back you ask for
topography, we come back, we’ll give you all the topography. We’re here to do what you want
us to do. At the same time, just tell us what you want, so that we can come back with all the
information, so we’re not doing this too many times.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s fair. Tom, what’s your feeling?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, where I get hung up is whether four lots or five lots are allowed. It seems
pretty clear to me that only four lots are allowed.
MR. STEVES-That’s a recommendation. Let me back up. That’s something that this Board can
make a waiver on or not. That is your discretion. Am I correct or incorrect on that?
MS. RADNER-Well, it’s one of those areas of the Board where the Subdivision Regulation does
say that the maximum number of buildable lots shall be calculated, subtracting the steep slopes.
There is, however, the section that says the Board has discretion regarding the size of lots. It’s
going to get to a matter of how comfortable this Board is, in what degree of discretion they
exercise.
MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m saying, but that is a decision made by this Board, not just saying
it’s cut and dried that you don’t make. It’s a decision they make.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MS. RADNER-They have some discretion. Yes.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s what I’m trying to get across.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I look at this, for example, if the applicant wasn’t taking this
approach, the lots in Luzerne and the lots in Queensbury, the probabilities are very high that
the APA would not approve any of these lots at 5.7 and at 4.3, for example, on Lot Number
Three.
MR. STEVES-They have copies of this plan, by the way, the APA does, and because they do not.
MR. VOLLARO-See, they require 8.5 in this area, and when they see it coming in at 4.30 and
5.37, they may question it. If they see it coming in at 10, they will not.
MR. STEVES-By the way, any zoning, any variance that is granted in any municipality that the
property lies within the Adirondack Park, it is required to send it to the Adirondack Park for
their review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, by Certified Mail, by the way.
MR. STEVES-By Certified Mail. It has to go to them, if any zoning determination is made, it has
to go to the APA, but the APA is eight and a half acre, but the thing with the APA is they look
at it saying I’m trying to create a three acre lot in Queensbury where it’s a 10 acre zone. That is
something that they would probably not look favorably upon, but in this instance, they do not
look at the municipal line. They’re looking at, you’re creating a 10 acre lot.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s why they said in their letter that we agree with granting you
the Lead Agency responsibility, and they make that very clear in their letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-For the sake of moving along, Tom, how do you feel about moving forward
on the SEQRA? Richard has said he would prefer to table it, and Bob has said let’s get into it.
We can start going through SEQRA, but I can see issues popping up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to go through SEQRA and give it a try, because my concern is if we ask
them to come back, with all of the, you know, the stormwater plans and the grading plans, we
may be asking for things that, we may be requiring the applicant to, I don’t know how well this
will land, but to spend more money than they need to on plans that they may have to do a
second time, do unnecessary work, because if they don’t really know what the homeowners are
going to want on these lots, and if it does get approved, even if it goes through zoning and it
gets approved, then they have to come back to us anyway. So why should we put another step
in the process?
MR. HUNSINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I almost like the idea of, I’ll go through SEQRA, but having each lot approved,
come back for site plan review. I know that Cathi, you know, has suggested we don’t do that,
but, in this particular case, it might be a great way to control stormwater. We could, each
individual lot is going to be separate, you know, control clearing, setbacks, everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why couldn’t we create standards that would apply to every lot, and,
just for example, say you couldn’t clear more than an acre, you couldn’t build a driveway
greater than 10% slope.
MR. METIVIER-Each lot is going to be so different. Each one of these five lots is so different
than the next that I don’t think you could do that. That’s the whole thing. Even the stormwater.
We don’t know if it’ll work for one lot and not for another.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern is the feeling that I’m getting is.
MR. STEVES-Sorry to interrupt.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. Go ahead.
MR. STEVES-In talking to Jim, in trying to alleviate everybody’s concerns, but yet not go
overboard, would the Board feel more comfortable if we tabled this, come back, with a generic
stormwater, and an idea of the clearing plan and everything, and then if it’s a significant change
from that, when somebody comes in and buys a lot, then it could be looked at again. I’m trying
to come in with a happy medium here for you, somehow. I can guarantee you, on Lot Three
there’s already a house there. Lot One, there’s only one spot for it to go. On the other three lots,
I can definitely come up with a probable location for the homes that won’t be too far off from
where somebody would want to build, but, you know, it’s all personal preference, but I we can
come up with an idea of like a worst case, like Bob was saying, put the driveways as we show
on the southerly two lots all the way back in to Luzerne, and do the stormwater calculations
and grading and drainage control based upon that scenario. Would that help?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, my concern is if we start SEQRA, we’re going to get
hung up, and we’re going to spend a lot of time to get nowhere. So I would almost prefer that
we just sort of, you know, look at a tabling motion now, and I think we’re of similar mind.
MR. SANFORD-Well, one thing, I agree with the tabling motion, and what Mr. Steves has said.
Although I really do feel it’s appropriate, and I know Tom, I think, shares my thoughts. I really
think it’s appropriate, also, for them to come back, in addition with grading and stormwater, to
also come back with an alternate that meets within the density calculation. I really kind of think
Lot Number One might have to be kind of merged in with Lot Number Two and when we took
a look at it, when we did it it was a while back, but we did site plan visits on that, but I was
looking at that and I thought that lot was problematic, but with all the slopes and everything
else, and now the topo’s bearing that out, and so I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to say,
look it, you know, there’s a strong inclination on the part of this Board to basically have you
keep within the density calculation, and so I think you need to revise your plan to show, so that
you are within that.
MR. STEVES-Are you asking for two plans, one?
MR. SANFORD-And alternate that has four lots.
MR. STEVES-No problem.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and I mean, the idea is, I really, to be honest with you, I see your point
about, it seems to me not to make a whole lot of sense to consider, you know, Lake Luzerne
land different from Queensbury in the nature of what you’re trying to do. What matters is the
size, and I think the intent was to see good, solid ten acre lots, but I do have a problem with the
slopes and the runoffs and that kind of stuff, and so I would like to see four lots, and be assured
that we’re not going to have problems with stormwater and grading, and that’s what I think we
should do.
MR. STEVES-Right, and like I said, we’ve been agreeable from Day One. So we don’t have a
problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? I did leave the
public hearing open. So the public hearing will be continued.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003
JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
For a stormwater management plan and a grading plan and an alternate subdivision plan,
sewage and leachfield locations as well, on there, placed in the most appropriate spots on those
lots for what you think is the most appropriate space to build on, with placement of suggested
or proposed homes.
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. SANFORD-Are we going to table to a particular date?
MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to.
MR. HILTON-Well, next week is pretty full. I guess if you don’t specify a date, what we would
do is, if the information is in by the next deadline, we would put it on, at this point.
MR. STEVES-That’s fine, because I wouldn’t want to table it to next month, right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, because you’ve got some work to do. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I think you have somebody in the audience that has their hand
up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we left the public hearing open, if you have a quick comment, you can
make it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, you talked about combining Lots One and Two. If you look on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what we’ve done is asked the applicant to provide an alternate plan.
We didn’t really specify how he should do that.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, he suggested possibly combining Lots One and Two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-And I suggest Lots Four and Five be combined, because they’re very
skinny, skinny lots.
MR. STEVES-I will look into the best solution, and I’ll bring that back and present it to the
Board. I don’t want the Board to design it at this time.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m not really giving any real guidance here. I retract any guidance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the benefit of the public, we had asked the applicant, prior to this, to
provide us with some alternate plans, which they did, at the first Sketch Plan review.
MR. STEVES-We have no problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second your motion, Mr. Sanford.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment you wanted to make?
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HILTON-Yes, just for the public’s information, because this is tabled, it will not be on
tomorrow night. It’s not going to be in front of the Zoning Board tomorrow night. So, I just
wanted to let you know.
MR. STEVES-Or next Tuesday.
MR. HILTON-Or next Tuesday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would we re-notice the?
MR. HILTON-Yes, we made a note of that. We will.
MR. HUNSINGER-So there will be another public notice in the paper, and you will be notified
when this comes back before the Board. George, the application for David Ehmann, how come
that just wasn’t a Staff review?
MR. HILTON-Wasn’t a Staff review?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Well, it’s a two lot, but it’s in the Park. It’s just above the line, I believe. So it,
you know, you can’t qualify for the Two Lot Administrative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-But it’s almost a lot line adjustment, in a sense, and it’s very simple. So I would
make a recommendation we put it up now, and get it over with.
MR. HUNSINGER-I am going to jump the agenda. I apologize. We will hear the application
for Subdivision 10-2004.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DAVID EHMANN ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 759 & 747 RT. 149
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 36-ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.5
AND 32 ACRES. APA TAX MAP NO. 279-1-3 LOT SIZE: 36 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
DAVID EHMANN, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. The floor is yours.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. Basically what I’m doing is just trying to split off. I have two houses on
one parcel. I just want to have each house on its own parcel for mortgage purposes. Last time
we were here you wanted me to get a wetlands delineated and finish my 36 acre survey, which
I did both. There’s a letter from the APA saying that the delineation of the wetland is not
necessary on the other side of the road, because they consider that a separate parcel. Also, they
said, for mortgage purposes, jurisdiction is usually waived anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-I have their letter. It’s pretty straightforward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Does anyone have any questions or concerns? I thought it was pretty
straightforward.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. I have just waivers that I requested because I’m not doing anything.
There won’t even be a shovel going into the ground. It’s just two houses, two parcels.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make the motion.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing, and we then we have to do SEQRA. Is there
anyone here that wanted to comment? I will open the public hearing and I will close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted Action.
MR. SANFORD-A Long Form, or the Short Form?
MR. VOLLARO-They’ve got a Short Form in. I believe it’s a Short Form. No, he submitted a
Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. He submitted a Long Form.
MS. RADNER-You can do the Short Form if you want to.
MR. SANFORD-You can do the Short Form.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. I was just asked to do the Long Form by whoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s do the Short Form.
MR. HILTON-With Unlisted Actions, the Town Code requires that Long Forms be submitted,
but I guess, with Counsel’s approval, if you want to do the Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let’s do the Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2004, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DAVID EHMANN, 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.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
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 19 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a motion for the approval?
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2004 DAVID EHMANN, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Two lot residential subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch
plan), and application materials in file of record; and
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
October 19, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary / Final Stage is hereby approved in
accordance with the resolution as it’s been prepared by Staff with the following notation:
1. Waiver request(s) are granted: Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. EHMANN-All right.
SITE PLAN NO.44-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD HENNESSEY PROPERTY
OWNER: JOHN MICHAELS AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE:
PUD HUDSON POINTE LOCATION: 777 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 7,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL CENTER ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE HUDSON
POINTE PUD. THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE HUDSON POINTE
PUD REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 [APPROVED] TAX
MAP NO. 315.00-1-14, 20 LOT SIZE: 1 AC., 1.37 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD HENNESSEY PROPERTY
OWNER: JOHN MICHAELS AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE:
PUD, HUDSON POINTE LOCATION: 777 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT A GAS STATION ALONG WITH A 2,100 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE
STORE. THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE HUDSON POINTE PUD
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 44-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/24/04 [APPROVED] TAX
MAP NO. 315.1-14, 20 LOT SIZE: 1 AC., 1.37 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRSENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; R. HENNESSEY,
PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly. Just a summary, the applicant has submitted a revised lighting
plan which appears more consistent with similar uses that have been approved recently. I did
make the note, however, that lighting levels directly in front of the proposed buildings directly
in front of the proposed buildings appear to exceed the lighting standards, Town’s lighting
standards. Although that appears to be the case, certainly a lot has to do with where the fixture
is located, if it’s up underneath the canopy and not visible and if there’s no light source that’s
coming out horizontally, I guess. The building elevations have been submitted, and there’s not
a great deal of information about the gas island canopy, and I guess, what is the proposed
design, is it proposed to match the proposed buildings? The applicant has revised the Corinth
Road exit to an exit/entrance, and I guess it’s my understanding that, at the last meeting, it was
the direction of the Board that it be a right out only, and I guess, given the proximity of this curb
cut to the curb cut to the south on the Town owned land, Staff recommends that this accent
point be revised to be a right out only exit. The issue of the interconnect, any vehicular
interconnect between this property and Hudson Pointe to the north, we’ve gone over that. The
Town Board is seeking a recommendation, as far as any vehicular connection between this
property and the residential properties. As we’ve indicated, an option would be, could be, a
bike path, as transportation connection, pedestrian connection, albeit. We have a separate
memo that Marilyn has submitted on this, and she will summarize this, I guess, in a minute,
and as I’ve indicated, a Notice of Intent is required as this involves the disturbance of greater
than one acre, and, I guess, a stipulation requiring that this be submitted prior to the issuance of
a building permit is something we would support. With that, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours.
MRS. RYBA-I just was going to summarize the memo, because you did get a hard copy this
evening, but I had faxed everything, I believe yesterday, at the Planning Board, as well as a
copy, or actually I should say e-mailed to the Planning Board and faxed copies to the applicant.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
My understanding from your August 24 meeting was that you wanted Staff and also to the
degree necessary counsel to look at the PUD agreement that was made, in terms of what some
of the requirements were regarding the road and that PUD history, and so what my comments
did was look at that information and tried to outline for you some of what I believe are the
requirements and some of those requirements deal with the fact that the right of way is to be
dedicated to the Town for highway utility placement and pedestrian purposes, and that the
Town is not obligated to construct a road, and certainly not by any specific date. The other is
that there is, that the purpose of the Town right of way, one of the aspects of it, was to have it
constructed to Town standards, and that access to these commercial lots, in fact by a
modification to the PUD made in 1996 was that it be through this 60 foot right of way only. So
there’s some discrepancy there, even in terms of the Staff recommendation for a right out only
onto Corinth Road, but there had been some discussion with the applicant about the tanker
truck movements. So I’m not really sure what the end result will be there. The other thing is I
believe there was a question about whether the road had to be built between the residential area
and Corinth Road along that 60 foot right of way, and I would certainly believe, looking at this,
that it’s not something that has to be built, but that the intent of the Planned Unit Development
was certainly to have that connection between the residential area and the commercial area for
access in that a pedestrian bicycle pathway would meet that intent, and also allow for the
future, in who knows when how long in the future, if a road did have to be built, that that could
be done. I think you need to look at Kathy O’Brien from the DEC Endangered Species Unit, she
submitted a letter that said if this road were to be built further east off of the right of way, that
there would be some concern, because I think, if you look at the site plan, the narrowest point
between the right of way and where the NiMo access is, there is some Karner blue butterfly
habitat, and I’m not sure, but there might even be species there, too. So there are a lot of
reasons for not necessarily building a road all of the way. Anyhow, but there’s more here, and I
hope you got a chance to read it, but if there’s questions, we can go through it. I think one of
the other comments that was made at the last meeting, too, was that people were concerned
about ATV use, but if you look at the County bike path, pedestrian pathway, there are certainly
facilities, there are ways to prevent ATV’s from going on to a bicycle, pedestrian path, and that
can be addressed at that point. The other is, once again, looking at the Open Space Vision Plan
and Map which advocates these trail connections, and certainly there’s some trails, trail way
system all along. The vision was to go all along the Hudson and then out into Corinth Road
and West Mountain Road. The County’s going to be putting some roadway, they’re going to be
delineating some roadway area for bicycle paths within the next year.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper, Richard Hennessey, and Jim Miller. I guess,
just hitting the more significant issues first, since the last meeting, the applicant proposed that
they would construct a bike path. They heard what the residents of Hudson Pointe said, and
the residents obviously don’t want a road. So a bike path, as Marilyn just stated, would
accomplish the goal of allowing pedestrian access. The kids can go get ice cream cones, and yet
there wouldn’t be an issue of vehicles, of cars, and obviously it can be designed to keep ATV’s
off of it. So that seems to work for Planning Staff and should work for the neighbors. What
we’re proposing is that the roadway, the portion of the roadway on the Town property would
be built to Town standards, and there would be an easement dedicated from the Town to the
applicant for access to this parcel. The Town Board has already looked at this and said that it
complies with the PUD, or is consistent with the PUD approval. In terms of the access issue on
Corinth Road, Marilyn pointed out, in her memo, that unless there was ingress and egress on
Corinth Road, it would require a variance, because that right of way is not going to be a Town
road. It’s going to be a private right of way. So I guess we would say right in right out doesn’t
have any impact on traffic. We could give up the lefts and go with the right in, right out, and
then it wouldn’t need a variance and it would comply, and that’s the big stuff.
MR. MILLER-On the lighting, one of the issues we talked about, we had, I met with George
Hilton and reviewed the lighting plan that you had referred to on Stewart’s up on Ridge Road,
and, as it turns out, the canopy height and the type of lights is exactly the same here. So the
canopy we’re proposing is going to be the same, in terms of lights. The lighting around the site,
we eliminated some of them and we reduced the wattage down to 250 watt from 400 to lower
some of the light levels throughout the site, and Staff had a question, the entrances along the
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
front of the building will be soffit lighting, underneath the roof overhang to light those
walkways, and Staff is concerned that those light levels were high. I think part of the problem
is, you know, the lights are mounted 10, 12 feet up, shooting directly down. So you get fairly
high light level, but it’s indirect. It’s recessed lighting, and it’s only along that walkway. I don’t
think it’s going to be something that’s going to spill out into the site and cause any kind of a
problem. Our concern is, in a short area like that, if we try to lower the light level too much, we
start getting dark and light spots along that walkway, and we think it’s important that that
walkway obviously is well lit. The other thing is the building elevation’s submitted, and there
was a question about the canopy. I think the intent of the elevations that were submitted was
that the canopy would basically repeat some of the architectural materials from the building, as
far as the fascias and the trim on the canopy. It won’t be backlit, and then there would be like a
mansard roof which would repeat some of the shingles that are on the building roof, so that,
architecturally, the canopy would tie together with the building more than just having a flat
roof canopy.
MR. VOLLARO-The rendition doesn’t quite show that, however.
MR. MILLER-I never saw those. They got dropped off by the renderer and I never got a copy. I
just saw it today, but that was the intent.
MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board want to proceed with this? Do you want to go through
our sort of standard Subdivision review criteria?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think so. I think we can go through the Design Standards and do them
quickly.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll start off with design standards. Any questions, comments,
concerns on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, I have one. I think conformance with the design corridor standards.
The distance between the curb cuts here is only really 30 feet, versus our 179-10-010C, where it
says the driveway spacings for Corinth Road are 330 feet. So, you know, we’re trying to
accommodate the way this site’s laid out, and go along with the 30, but I’m looking at the exits
back on to Corinth Road, and I don’t quite understand how we’re looking at the right turns out
or what is the applicant proposing?
MR. LAPPER-Right in and right out on the access to the site on the east side, and when you
don’t have lefts.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s two accesses here that go on to Corinth Road.
MR. MILLER-Are we talking about the main driveway that shows on the most recent plan as a
divided driveway?
MR. HUNSINGER-The northernmost driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s furthest?
MR. HUNSINGER-This would be full access.
MR. VOLLARO-This would be full access. I see.
MR. HUNSINGER-The southern entrance would be full access.
MR. MILLER-We’re talking about, yes, reducing that further and make it right in and right out
only.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-And my personal concern with that is that it doesn’t work. Just drive down
Quaker Road and look at Lowes. All day long people make illegal left hand turns.
MR. SANFORD-I remember you saying that, Chris, but I always check it out, and I don’t see a
lot of people doing that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t drive down there anymore. I avoid Quaker Road, because of where I
moved to, but when I was, I would see four a week, minimum.
MR. LAPPER-You make a good point. I see that at Lowes all the time. The difference here is
that if you miss the corner of Quaker/Bay, you’re, you know, 2,000 feet away, and that’s why
people do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve seen people do it on purpose. I mean, there was no question in my
mind it was done on purpose in several cases.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I hear you.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think one of the things we could do, you know, is just make more of an
island where it’s more pronounced, make it more difficult. I mean, that’s all we can do. I mean,
we can’t control what people are going to do out there.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand, but, you know, like anything else, it becomes an issue of
enforcement.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we did it at Taco Bell, and it works pretty well, because it is pronounced.
So it really precludes left turns.
MR. HENNESSEY-Is the concern making that left into that, the driveway to the left in there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HENNESSEY-Probably most people will turn right, heading east.
MR. MILLER-That’s my concern, and that’s why I didn’t eliminate it originally. I thought, you
know, my feeling, when we talked about it last month, the turning motion that I thought was
the most unsafe was someone coming out and taking a left, where you might have somebody
coming out the other driveway and taking a right, and so there was a conflict in a short
distance. Quite honestly, I think that the way we show it, where you can either take a left or a
right in there, is probably the safest. The thing I’m concerned about is you can’t take a left in,
that, you know, you’ve got to go down, around to the next turn and come back up, you know,
people get a little bit confused, and that’s not a safe issue either. So that’s why we showed it
that way.
MR. HENNESSEY-The right in there is almost meaningless. A quick right out (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-It’s just that we’d rather not have to go get a variance just because we don’t
comply.
MR. MILLER-I don’t understand why that side road, it’s on Town property, is considered a
driveway entrance. I mean, that’s the way the PUD was set up. It’s really not a private
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Both of these drives are within their plot.
MRS. RYBA-Right. Just to clarify, on the variance concern, the variance is what may be needed
to the second property, for the retail stores, the one that’s behind the property facing Corinth
Road, because you need to have frontage on a public road in order to.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. MILLER-Marilyn, I think the intent of the PUD, that it’s a road that we would be
constructing, that you’re referring to as a private driveway, would, in fact, be that public
frontage, and I think that was the intent, the way this was zoned.
MRS. RYBA-So you’re planning on dedicating that to the Town, then, for a public road?
MR. MILLER-It’s already owned by the Town.
MS. RADNER-Where you’re going to need to either get a variance or modify the PUD is that
the 1996 modification stated that this was to be the only access, the 16 foot right of way, the only
access. So in order to have a second access, you’re either going to need to modify the PUD or
seek a variance.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and on that issue, that’s the one on the east side, we would just go to the
Town Board and ask them to modify that, because with the tractor trailers, the tankers, you’d
have to have that.
MS. RADNER-Okay. So you’re clear that you have to do that? Because we did check the ’96
resolution and it’s black and white.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We would like to just ask the Planning Board to approve it with that as a
condition, to save a step of having to go and come back, and the Town Board’s already seen this
plan, when they conceptually approved it, with those curb cuts. So we don’t expect that they
have any problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We actually kind of jumped ahead, street design and layout really comes
under development criteria. Were there any comments under design standards anyone had? I
had a couple of questions. One, I guess really more of a comment. I know you said you didn’t
see the proposed. I mean, I like them, but I think maybe a green roof would be better than gray.
I mean, I just don’t know what your feelings are on that.
MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, a green?
MR. HUNSINGER-As opposed to the charcoal gray roof. It’s more of an earth tone.
MR. HENNESSEY-The only thing about that is certain colors lend themselves to different
brands of stores.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HENNESSEY-For example, if I put a purple building center out there, it’s a Lowes. If I do
orange, it’s a Home Depot. If I do a green gas station, Hess. Okay. That’s the reality of it.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I think, you know, the only concern I would have with the green, unless it
was a really dark green, you know, it starts to attract too much attention. Some of the green
roofs I see, they’re pretty bright.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. Forest Green, you know. I mean, I might be all by myself on this one.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it looks fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the rendition looks pretty good myself. That, I just hope that there’s a
degree of coherence between what we see here, which is a pretty nice looking rendition, and the
rest of it. Because the one we got of the pump island doesn’t look anything like that at all. I
mean, it’s like, where did that come from.
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like a little roof.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. MILLER-Well, the intent is that, you know, the trim around it and the roof portion of it
would match.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s more important. Yes, okay. Anyone else have any comments,
questions on design standards?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sure the retail stores would follow the same pattern?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All I had in my notes was the pump island drawing is inadequate because it
does not show the façade, but for example, who’s, a lot of times when we see gas stations come
in, we see who it is. It’s Sunco or it’s that sort of. We don’t, the façade on that is going to show
somebody’s gas, I assume.
MR. HENNESSEY-Well, that’s correct, and the brand of petroleum has not been selected yet.
MR. LAPPER-So signs would have to be dealt with separately.
MR. VOLLARO-That pump island’s designed to change a little, based on who you picked as a.
MR. LAPPER-But not the canopy.
MR. HENNESSEY-But not the canopy. The manufacturers, or the distributors, whether it’s
Mobil or Hess or whatever, will always defer to the Town and accept your standards. So, for
example, if you’re saying you want this, it won’t have the blue stripe on it if it’s a Mobil station.
Okay. It will look like that canopy. However, the pumps may have, their logo on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Their logo.
MR. HUNSINGER-And their colors.
MR. HENNESSEY-And their colors.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll stipulate as a condition that the design of the canopy will match the
design of the building, like Jim said.
MR. VOLLARO-And my other question was, in the design, was does the retail match the color
scheme of the convenience store? We only got the convenience store.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s what Gretchen just asked.
MR. MILLER-Yes, they’d match. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They would match. That’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that the
thing kind of looks like it’s glued together. One patched glue. Okay.
MR. HENNESSEY-The goal there is to do a very nice, upscale location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Development criteria? Site conditions, utilities, street design and
layout. We sort of talked about a little bit. Traffic, pedestrian access and circulation, sight
distances, emergency access and services?
MR. VOLLARO-I still don’t have a good concept in my mind as to how that entrance and exit is
going to work. I mean, somebody has got to get into my dense head with that one. Just get on
up and give me just a rundown of somebody coming in and somebody going out, same car.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. MILLER-Okay. I think if somebody is coming south on Corinth Road, you know, they
have to take a left in. It’s one of the turns that we were talking about, I felt that keeping a left
turn in at the main entrance worked fine. If they’re going to stop and turn left, whether they
turn left here or come down another 50 feet and turn would be the same, and they would access
that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Why wouldn’t they use the first one?
MR. MILLER-Well, I think it should be allowed. I mean, that seems to be an issue that that
should be eliminated, that left turn. My concern is that someone coming south, to make a left
turn, if they can’t turn in here, it may be confusing for them to realize they’ve got to go past that
and then come back around. My concern is that we create some confusion there. I think the
most danger turn move, because of the closeness of the driveways, is someone exiting, if
someone is taking a left out here, you may have someone exiting here and taking a right, that’s
the largest conflict. So, I think that it’s imperative that that’s a right out exit and it be signed
properly and the layout plan shows that, that people would be directed to come out and take a
left using the driveway on the Town property, and then, you know, the same thing coming
right is the same as coming left entering the property, whether you came in and you turned
here or turned in this area, it’s about the same turning movement. So my way of looking at it,
the only concern I had was a left out of that driveway, but, you know, we’re willing to defer to
what you think.
MR. SANFORD-I’m with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand where you’re coming from. I think the way you’ve laid it out, to
me, looks pretty reasonable, actually.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I probably shouldn’t have made the comment about Lowes, because
it’s actually people turning left into Lowes, not trying to turn left coming out, because coming
out I think, you know, the way the curb is cut, I mean, you would have to really intentionally
want to wrong to do that.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve seen people do that, too.
MR. MILLER-Yes, they do it. I think, though, the majority of people don’t.
MS. RADNER-Did I understand the gentleman to the left to say that the portion of the Town
right of way would be built to Town standards for dedication to the Town if the Town accepted
it?
MR. MILLER-Yes. As a matter of fact, we have a detail sheet, and the road sections and
everything is exactly what we’d do for a subdivision road.
MR. LAPPER-We’re actually building it on existing Town property.
MS. RADNER-I understand that. So I just want to make sure that it fits in with the PUD.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on development criteria? How about
stormwater/sewage design?
MRS. STEFFAN-Can I just go back? That entrance that is on to Corinth Road, is that wide
enough? The entrance is 16 feet wide and the exit is 14 feet wide.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I mean, typically, you know, DOT, a typical lane exiting DOT looks for 12
foot wide, and they’ll even let you go down to 11. So we’ve actually exceeded what the State
requires, just to make it easier to get in and out.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MRS. STEFFAN-I just noticed, because off of the proposed Town road, that they’re 20 feet each
side, there’s some split. The other thing, when we were talking about Lowes, the entrance to
Lowes off of Bay Road, it’s too small, and you’ve always got pick up trucks, not tractor trailers,
because they’re not supposed to use the entrance, but the curbs are all cut up, because people
are just cutting over. It’s not wide enough.
MR. MILLER-Well, that’s why we made them a little wider than, because we’ve got the room
there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Wider than standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater/sewage design?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a couple on that. First of all, we need a signoff on C.T. Male’s
letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to ask about that.
MR. VOLLARO-And a SPDES Permit’s going to be required. Again, C.T. Male’s letter of
8/18/04. My other question, independently of the C.T. Male comment, is where is the leachfield
replacement areas on this drawing?
MR. MILLER-I believe that the design that we’ve used on this one, let me check and make sure,
a lot of times on these systems we’ll space the laterals at eight feet, which would allow.
MR. VOLLARO-Interplacement?
MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s eight feet so it allows the replacement, basically, in between the existing
laterals.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the perc rate there? Is it pretty good? Because, you know, is it sandy?
Okay.
MR. MILLER-It was pretty good as I recall. It’s been so long since we did that. I know it’s on
here somewhere. Our engineer says two minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty good.
MR. MILLER-It’s right on Sheet SP-1 under the soil status. We’ll add that perc test on there.
That should be on there. We’ve got the test pits. We don’t have the test pit information.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just wondering, interdispersal between the eight foot, I know it’s
done, but I don’t know how well it works, unless the soil’s very sandy. If it’s good and it percs
well, it probably works, because the soil to the either side of that, by the time you say you’re
going to replace that leachfield, and you know it’s not working anymore, a lot of that soil is
questionable, even when you go into the middle of the eight feet, but that’s a call. I think our
Code talks about having separately stated leachfield replacement area, but you’re using the
eight foot as a replacement area.
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-Yes. Just for the record, Tom Nace. DEC recommends that as one of their standard
procedures for replacement areas is to space the laterals out, and there really is, once you space
them out to eight feet, you’ve got six feet between the edges of the trench walls, and typically
even in a silty soil, when it fails, the failure is within a foot of the trench wall.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Fine.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, stormwater/sewage design?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Buffering/landscape design?
MR. VOLLARO-That looks pretty good to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-Improved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Environmental?
MR. VOLLARO-You didn’t get down to lighting yet, lighting design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s part of, well, I guess it’s not explicit in part of development
criteria.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I do have a particular question on lighting that I’d just like to, I’ve got
my own sheet here. I want to probably ask counsel this question. She’s going to say why are
you asking me about lights, but there is a disclaimer on this lighting drawing from LSI. It says,
“LSI is not responsible for safety and security risk due to inadequate light levels, as required by
the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.” When you accept something like this, are we
accepting any liability with a statement like this on the drawing?
MS. RADNER-No. I would say you’re not.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know.
MR. LAPPER-Lighting consultants just like lots of lights.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know. I’m surprised at that because our lighting standards, against, you
know, the lighting engineer’s standards, so I don’t know why they would say something like
that. I’ve been recommending, in the PORC Committee, that we look at this, however.
MR. HUNSINGER-I still think one of the best lighting plans we did was the Saturn Dealership.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think so. I don’t know what Staff or consultants would think.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks good. I think Home Depot looked good, too, before they played games
with it.
MRS. RYBA-I was just going to make a comment, too, and this is something that you see.
There’s a difference between lighting for gas stations that you’ve approved on 149, versus
Quaker Road, and so I’m not aware of any other gas stations on this part of Corinth Road, and
so anything you have is going to show up against the dark background.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll be back to fix Home Depot next month.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one other question about lighting. You had mentioned you’re going to
have lights in the canopy for the retail store, I guess it is? And I see, you know, lighting at the
entrance.
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. MILLER-In the soffit.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the soffits. I see in the retail store entrance there’s like 18, 11 foot candles, 18
foot candles. Are you going to have a similar situation for the convenience store?
MR. HENNESSEY-Those are shown on there as well.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then why, the lighting levels aren’t even close to what’s at the retail store?
MR. HENNESSEY-I don’t know. I’d have to take a look.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, right outside the retail store, you have.
MR. HENNESSEY-And it depends on exactly where that grid falls on the building. So, I mean,
you move just a little bit on that grid, you make a big change.
MR. MILLER-Yes. If you look at the grid, if it falls right underneath a light, you’ll see the
number’s really high, and if the light happens to be in between the grid, you know, it may be
four, five foot candles lower.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we can expect to see the same light levels at the convenience store that we
see at the retail store?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That makes sense.
MR. HENNESSEY-The same fixtures.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Can we stay on lighting for just a minute? On the print and drawing, three
things are shown. The flat lens, encore, the citation and the sover. Now, looking at the cut
sheets on those, it looks like the flat lens encore is what you really ought to be using under the
canopy, and the citation completely downcasts what you should be using for your poles. One
of the things that hadn’t been stated there, what pole heights are you going to use? They give
you lots, in the cut sheet. They go from 14 up to 35, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought that was on the plan somewhere.
MR. HENNESSEY-I think it’s on the lighting plan as well.
MR. MILLER-Sixteen.
MR. VOLLARO-Sixteen, and with everything else up you’ll get to the twenty light?
MR. MILLER-Well, it’s two foot off the ground and a sixteen foot pole. So eighteen feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Environmental concerns, questions, comments? Involved agencies?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think there’s where Marilyn touched on it before, you had Kathy’s letter,
Kathy O’Brien’s letter about the road going east on Karner blue interface. I guess my feeling
here is, in order to satisfy the requirements of the PUD connection is to go with the bike path
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
and walking trail. I think that’s the best compromise I can see, and then if a road comes along at
a later date, we’ll look at it then. That’s just one man’s opinion here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to talk about that now?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think I was the only one that felt it should be a full road at the last meeting.
I haven’t changed my mind, I mean, notwithstanding the comments from the public. I still
think it should be a full road, and it makes some of those variance issues go away. I know that’s
not what the neighbors want.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why do you think a full road?
MR. HUNSINGER-For several reasons. Number One, that was the original design. I know the
Town Board has since agreed to modify it, but secondly, I think there’s, when you look at a
traffic map in Queensbury, there’s too many dead ends and cul de sacs and not enough
connecting roads, and I think, at some future point, I know it’s a real issue now, and it’s one of
the reasons why we have some of the traffic problems that we have, is because you don’t have
alternate means.
MR. LAPPER-Chris, in Hudson Pointe, there is that Sherman Island Road. There is the, when
you come in to the Hudson Pointe Boulevard, you make a couple of, there’s a left turn that gets
you to the other neighborhood next door. So it’s not really that there is another egress.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No, I understand.
MR. LAPPER-I guess our position there is just that the neighbors adamantly don’t want it, and
we’d just rather not mess with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, and it’s a reasonable position for you to take. Like I say, I might be
the only one that feels that way.
MR. LAPPER-John’s willing to build a bike path at his expense, but to get into a whole fighting
with everybody about the road, we’d just rather not go there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I’m the only one that’s voted against, you know, dead end
streets over 1,000 feet long, too. It’s just one of the issues that I feel strongly about.
MR. MILLER-We went through, I was involved in the Hudson Pointe project, and I think the
concern for this road was that, you know, just what you said, is that we just had that Hudson
Pointe Boulevard, and that was the only access, that it may be necessary, at some point, to do a
secondary road, and I think what was proved out is there’s no problem the way it is, and the
neighbors have stepped forward, and they don’t want it, because it only serves that one
development, and it’s not like this is a cross connection road that you’re going to go through
Hudson Pointe to get to something else, and it was designed as a boulevard. So I think that
time has shown that it’s really not necessary to serve that development.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s because people are used to the way it is, and I guess, I mean, we
could sit here and argue this all night. Again, I might be the only one that feels this way, and I
guess my other position is that it’s kind of silly to have a PUD where the commercial is separate,
and to say, well, we’re making the connection be a bike way. I just don’t see that as being the
true intent of what the design was.
MR. HENNESSEY-Every one of the residents there had the opportunity to speak, and they were
pretty clear that they would prefer to drive around.
MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. LAPPER-They think there’s going to be more traffic, that people will use it as a cut
through.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, and again, if I was one of those people living on that
street, I would probably feel the same way. So I don’t think they’re being unreasonable.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I think the intent, when these commercial lots were added, it wasn’t, you
know, just solely to meet the needs of Hudson Pointe. I think it was recognized the fact that
more development was happening in that area, and that would make sense to have some
commercial there, not only to serve Hudson Pointe, but other people, West Mountain area and
that stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if you’re trying to design a PUD that’s, you know, everyone
uses the term Smart Growth, and, you know, neighborhood and stuff like that, where you have
an integrated neighborhood where you don’t have to get in your car and drive two miles to go
places and do things. I think the concept starts to really fall apart when you start to
compromise, in terms of things like making roads bike paths. That’s just my own feeling.
Again, I could be the only one up here feeling that way. I just wanted to put it on the record,
but people drive. I mean, let’s be real. Especially in Queensbury.
MR. SANFORD-On this location plan, you have your site, and then you have the dotted line. I
guess that’s going to be the proposed trail, or bike trail or something, but you have two very
rectangular shaped lots, and you have something on them, I guess, already, but what is that all
about? Is that at all connected with this? Those two cleared lots that don’t have anything in
them. Directly next to your site. You were just looking at it.
MR. HUNSINGER-The little insert map, the location plan map.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll show you. What’s this? What are they?
JOHN MICHAELS
MR. MICHAELS-John Michaels, for the record. The church owns them. On the right side?
MR. MILLER-No, he’s looking at. I don’t know who owns them. I think they might just be
single family residential lots. He’s looking at these lots here. I think they might be single family
that just has a house up on the Corinth Road.
MR. MICHAELS-One of them’s Quincy Lane.
MR. NACE-And the other one is that horse farm.
MR. SANFORD-The horse farm, used to be a pig farm?
MR. NACE-I don’t know if it used to be a pig farm, but there’s a horse barn and corrals.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I think I know where that is.
MR. NACE-And then the one to the north is Quincy Lane subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which one’s Quincy Lane?
MR. NACE-Okay. This was Inspiration Park here, with all the small lots on the Corinth Road,
and the next lot down is Quincy, and then the one below that is the horse place.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Quincy Lane, I just made my point. I was the only one that voted against it
because it was a dead end turnaround more than 1,000 feet long, and you could have tied it into
this proposed road right here.
MR. MILLER-You’d have to go through the horse farm, though.
MR. HUNSINGER-You would? Okay. You understand where I’m coming from?
MR. MILLER-Yes, I do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any, no, not anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-We tabled the public hearing from August. So the public hearing is still
open. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on the application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll leave the public hearing open. What’s the will of the Board? Are we
ready to move forward on SEQRA?
MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the path, then, we are in favor of the bike path?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the general consensus, except for the Chairman’s position.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. My only concern with that is, so the bike path is going to tie into the
road and the right of way, correct?
MR. LAPPER-Because it’s on Town property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should that road be made a little wider for a bike path along the side of this
road?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they show that in the inset pretty well, I think, how the bike path would
look.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but my point being that if we have traffic on this road, I know we’re
going to have potentially bicycles coming down this road, are we going to have a bike lane on
the side of the road?
MR. MILLER-We could do that. I suspect that the volume of traffic on that road isn’t going to
be a safety problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it just takes one accident.
MR. SANFORD-It begs the question, why do anything? I mean, I guess because you feel you
have to connect it? Is that the idea?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a requirement for the connection between Hudson Pointe and
here. There’s a requirement in the PUD that they be connected, and the bike path is
implementing that connection.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s a good idea.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I’m just questioning whether it makes any sense.
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Any time you get a bike path in, it’s a good idea. I would just like to see a
designated bike path along this extended road, just because you could potentially have kids
coming along here.
MR. LAPPER-John said that’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So the bike path would be almost coincident with the road, in a portion of the
side of the.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, wide shoulder, striped.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we can proceed to SEQRA on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Ready to move on SEQRA?
MR. VOLLARO-Long Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-I believe so. What did they submit?
MR. LAPPER-I can’t think of any reason why it would be Long.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, this is a simple site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I think a Short Form was submitted. Wasn’t it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll close the public hearing. Go ahead, Bob.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 44-2004 & 45-2004, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD HENNESSEY, 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.
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
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 19 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-I guess we’re looking for a motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Question for Staff or Counsel. These are listed as two separate applications,
but we have tended to review them and discuss them as one.
MS. RADNER-My understanding on this one is what you have is Preliminary and Final.
MR. SANFORD-No. We have one for a convenience store and one for a retail center. I think
they’re different.
MS. RADNER-If you have them as two different applications, I’d recommend you have two
different resolutions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should we have two separate SEQRA resolutions?
MR. VOLLARO-I think you would have to segment that to have two SEQRA resolutions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d be segmenting it to have two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to make sure.
MR. VOLLARO-But we can go forward with two draft resolutions, one for each.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2004 RICHARD HENNESSEY, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
7,000 sq. ft. Retail Center within the Hudson Pointe PUD, and
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/04 and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record; and
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
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 8/24/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. A Notice of Intent be filed
2. Final C.T. Male sign-off
3. The road presently shown on Drawing SP-2, that the bike path be laid out on the
southern portion of that by striping, on the southern part of that road, up to the
Corinth Road, shown on Site Plan SP-1,
4. That the curb shoulder would be subject to Rick Missita’s approval
5. Perc test data to be included on all drawings.
6. Also conditioned upon Town Board approval of modification of the PUD and
development of the road and bike path as well.
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2004 RICHARD HENNESSEY, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Gas Station along with a 2,100 sq. ft. Convenience Store within Hudson Pt. PUD
WHEREAS, the application was received on 715/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record; and
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
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 8/24/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Notice of Intent to be filed,
2. Final CT Male signoff,
3. The road presently shown on Drawing SP-2 that the bike path be laid out on the
southern portion of that by striping, on the southern portion of that road, up to
the Corinth Road, show on Site Plan SP-1,
4. The curb shoulder would be subject to Rick Missita’s approval,
5. Perc test data to be included on all drawings,
6. Also conditioned upon Town Board approval of modification of the PUD, and
development of the road and bike path as well,
7. There will be a shared access agreement in place between the two properties, so
that if there’s ever-separate ownership, it continues, and put that on the plan.
Duly adopted this 19th day of October ,2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HENNESSEY-Thank you very much.
RECOMMENDATION:
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
PZ 4-2004 TOWN SPONSORED – PR-10A TO PR-42A THE TOWN BOARD IS SEEKING A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE PROPOSED REZONING
OF PR-10 PROPERTIES TO PR-42, WHICH WILL CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
FROM 10 ACRES TO 42 ACRES.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to defer to Staff on the recommendation of Zone Change 4-2004,
PR-10A to PR-42A.
MRS. RYBA-The Town Board is looking for the Planning Board recommendation on a proposed
zoning district revision where all PR-10 land would be rezoned to PR-42, I believe it’s a total of
4 lots all owned by the City of Glens Falls, all watershed lands. The uses that are involved
would remain the same. So there’s no change in uses. It’s a dimensional change, and as I said
in my Staff notes, this is just something that was put together by the Town Board as a zone
change, at their request. So Staff is available to answer any questions, but they’re looking for
your recommendation. I believe they’d like to have a, they have opened their public hearing,
and have continued it, and I believe they’d like to have a resolution at their November 1
st
meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion, concerns?
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. I have a concern with it, yes. It’s down on the, Marilyn, I
think you supplied some of their questions and so on that were attached to that.
MRS. RYBA-Right. We used the form, even though it’s a Town Board, you know, it’s an
internal action, we still use the format that we require external applicants to provide, just so we
could answer those questions, because they’re still important questions, in any zone change.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says under your three, how is the proposed zone compatible with
adjacent zones, and you answered that very nicely. Now it says although PR zones would
allow passive recreation activities, in other words, when we zone PR in our Town, however, the
City of Glens Falls does not allow any such activities on watershed properties. Now, I asked the
question, why don’t they have to abide by our zoning laws, and why are watershed properties
unique and how are they lawfully protected from local zoning laws. That’s my question.
MS. RADNER-What the Town has is the permitted uses. It doesn’t mean that any private
property owner has to permit those uses on their properties.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MS. RADNER-So that’s, if the Town were to, for example, sell one of those parcels, that could be
a permitted use for recreational purpose, but it doesn’t mean that, if you, for example, owned
one of those lots, you have to open it to the public.
MR. SANFORD-You could build a house on it.
MS. RADNER-Correct, as long as that’s a permitted use in the zone.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MS. RADNER-But, for example, if you have a permitted, a zone where a permitted use is a gas
station, it doesn’t mean that every owner’s required to put in a gas station. It’s just one of
several permitted uses.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s pretty clear.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-You know, actually, I’ll just go on record. I totally support the resolution. So I
don’t know if the rest of the Board feels that way.
MR. VOLLARO-I do. I think, you know, putting 854 acres into 42 acre zone is perfectly okay
with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-It’s fine with me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Up on the ridge, yes.
MR. SANFORD-So, I mean, are you looking for, Marilyn, this Board to actually make a
resolution?
MRS. RYBA-Actually make a resolution for a recommendation that you support the zone
change, if that’s your desire.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’ll make it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Rich. The only question I had was, how was the number 42
arrived at? It seems kind of random.
MRS. RYBA-I think that the 42 comes from an APA designation, like with the Land
Conservation zones there’s a 42 acre, and why it was, I think it might have been carried over to
PR because, I don’t know, there might be some history there, but I’m not positive. It’s just that
it seems to be the largest zone designation in Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just knowing that it’s an APA designation satisfies that.
MRS. RYBA-There isn’t any land in PR that’s in the Adirondack Park. So I’m not sure why
there’s that PR-42.
MS. RADNER-It is an existing zone, though.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MS. RADNER-It’s not a new zone that’s been created. It’s just moving that land into that zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think some of it is looking forward and if the watershed property ever
becomes available, then the Town picks it up, then it would be able to be used.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but I think what Chris is getting at is maybe it would be better if it was 100
acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just saying.
MRS. RYBA-Well, actually, one of the things in the Comprehensive Plan, and there was some
discussion in this Plan about there being a separate zone to protect watershed properties, and
not just necessarily along Halfway Brook here, but also off of the West Mountain area and the
western part of the Town, the Luzerne Mountains, I should say, but then the Town Board’s also
coming forward and it’s something that will go to you in your packets for next month. They’ve
requested a public hearing for December 20, and they would like to get your recommendation
th
on a zone change from LC-10 to LC-42, and that encompasses a lot more land in the Town. So
you’ll be getting that for next month.
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That makes sense. That’s the one I was inquiring about the other day.
Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we have a motion on the table. Is there a second?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY CHANGE THE
CURRENT ZONE, THIS ON APPLICATION NUMBER PZ 4-2004, I THINK WE’RE
LOOKING AT A CURRENT ZONE OF PR-10A, TO A PROPOSED ZONE OF PR-42A AND
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE TOWN
BOARD MOVE FORWARD AND MAKE THIS CHANGE, Introduced by Richard Sanford
who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MRS. RYBA-May I have your indulgence for just one quick thing, and that is Great Escape
update. Chazen Companies, I’m meeting with them tomorrow, or excuse me, Thursday
morning. They will have some Staff notes prepared for The Great Escape, and then you’ll also
be getting the rendering of the bridge, the pedestrian bridge. There are some Department of
Transportation plans that you’ll be getting. These are called the 40% plans, and what they are,
they’re the engineering plans that were submitted in reference to the light at the Glen Lake
Road, Route 9 area. We access off of, or going into the ring road from the Exit. So Chazen is
incorporating that information in their notes as well. So we should be all set, but you will be
getting that information in with your Staff notes for next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-So will we be doing a site plan review on the bridge?
MRS. RYBA-You’re doing, yes, you’re doing site plan review on the bridge, and some
modification information as well for the parking lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-My understanding is there’s some material left over, so the elevation of the
park, they spread it and the elevations of the parking lots come up a little.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other items for discussion?
MR. SANFORD-Aren’t we also supposed to be giving some kind of a recommendation on
underground utilities?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s next week.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s next week.
MRS. RYBA-Yes, you are, and just one more quick thing, which is Friday, I did get the final
version of the buildout study. I’m taking one last look at it. I had looked at it. There were
definitely some changes that had to be made, just in terms of, I don’t want to say editorial, but
editing, just for example numbers, some basic math, etc., etc., and that’s part of the reason why,
you know, we wanted, definitely, to have us go through it with a fine tooth comb so that we
could pick up on any of those kind of concerns, because before you release anything to the
85
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/04)
public, there should be some very accurate numbers in there, but that should be forthcoming.
I’m just going to take one last look at it and get that going, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Marilyn. Thanks for your work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll see everyone next week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Acting Chairman
86