2004-08-24
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
ANTHONY METIVIER
LARRY RINGER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM HOUSTON
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re moving around the agenda a little bit because we had a carry over
from last Tuesday’s meeting, and I’m going to move one other application farther up on the
agenda because I think it’s a relatively quick review for us. So the first item on the agenda is
going to be SPR 43-2004 for CWI Bus Garage.
SITE PLAN REVIEW 43-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CWI BUS GARAGE OWNER(S):
COMMUNITY WORK & INDEPENDENCE, INC. ZONING: MU LOCATION: 489 DIX
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING PAVING,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING TO AN EXISTING
BUS GARAGE. GARAGE FACILITIES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-2004,
SPR 39-95 MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 14, 2004 NCI
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 304.13-1-3
SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George?
MR. HILTON-It’s just a quick summary. The applicant proposes some site improvements,
paving, lighting to an existing bus garage on Dix Avenue. The ZBA granted relief for the
permeability and drive aisle widths. There’s a stormwater plan submitted with the application
that’s been forwarded to C.T. Male. The areas of the new lighting fixtures appear to be
downcast cutoff and the light levels appear consistent or not too excessive, as compared to
Code. The landscaping, as I’ve mentioned, appears to meet the Zoning Ordinance in terms of
the numbers, but the applicant has requested a waiver from the size of the proposed
landscaping in certain areas of the site, and as I’ve also mentioned, we recommend that any
condition of approval include a stipulation that the required NOI be submitted prior to Staff, or
prior to submission of the final plans to the Zoning Administrator for signature. That’s all I
have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Jarrett. Representatives of
CWI are in the audience in case there are any questions that we can’t answer that the Board
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
would like to ask them directly. In general, the sole reason that we’re here is to, or the initial
reason, I’ll say, is to deal with the stormwater problem on this site that every winter, especially
last winter, this site has been taking water from off site and it’s been freezing and they’ve had a
real serious ice problem. So they brought Tom in to engineer a design that would address that,
and the nature of the design is to get the site paved and to deal with underground infiltration.
We also discovered, in the process, that there were some clogged pipes under the road which
the Highway Department dealt with, and that alleviated some of the problem. So with that in
mind, we designed the site, and we know that we have residences real close along the back, and
the next goal, we went and talked to the neighbor, and the next goal was to retain some mature
trees on the rear part of the site that, although they’re on the CWI property, they do a lot to
buffer the neighbor, and in order to accommodate keeping those trees, we had to get a variance
from the Zoning Board because we didn’t have enough aisle width without paving over the
area where the existing trees were. Because the site is not a public site, but it’s used by the CWI
drivers to bring their cars in and then pick up the buses, leave the cars during the day, drive the
buses and then come back and pick up their cars after their shift, it wasn’t viewed that this
needed to have the same aisle width as say a Hanneford supermarket. So the Zoning Board
granted the variances that we needed and that, the neighbors were pleased about that, and
we’re here to talk about any of the site issues. I’m just going to ask Tom to walk you through
the design quickly to get started.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. During our design, we addressed a number of issues on the site,
including traffic flow and stormwater management as Jon has alluded. We referred back to the
1995 site plan approval by this Board, which actually had three entrances shown, one from Dix
Avenue, and as you’ll recall from the existing site, and what currently exists, there’s a very long
curb cut on Dix Avenue right now. We’re proposing to do away with that curb cut entirely and
use Quarry Crossing Road for two curb cuts. The entrance would be nearest Dix Avenue, and
the exit would be furthest from Dix Avenue, which we think is the most sensible traffic
management pattern. We’ve reorganized the parking on the site. We have one way traffic flow
to facilitate not only parking, but maximizing the buffer to the neighbor, for the neighbor to the
south. We are moving the buses away from that neighbor. The mini buses will be on the north
edge of the site facing Dix Avenue, as well as at the southwest corner, furthest from the house.
Our stormwater management system is going to be a series of catch basins, drop inlet catch
basins, to remove sediment, and then the overflow would go into infiltration structures below
the parking area. We’re maintaining the existing drainage patterns on the site. They’re
established patterns, and we feel that modifying that just does more disturbance and creates
more havoc than maintaining those existing patterns. We have worked with C.T. Male to
modify that design slightly. We’ve agreed to put in an additional drop inlet near the existing
tank, so that we prevent excess water from going in to the oil/water separator which is going to
be used to remove what we’ll call housekeeping oils from that tank area. In addition, we’re
moving one of the drop inlets and the infiltration system along the south boundary of the site,
we’re moving that further to the west to get away from the existing leaching system. We are
adding landscaping to the property. We’re emphasizing the landscaping near the residential
property to the south, but we’re also adding landscaping around the perimeter and along Dix
Avenue to shield any headlights onto Dix Avenue. Our paving should improve dust conditions
in the area. As I said, the oil/water separator will improve the environmental characteristics of
our site, and, lastly, we’re improving the amount of impervious surface that is currently in use
on the site. If you count just the property owned by CWI, we’re actually increasing the
impervious surfaces by one percent from 22 to 23%, but if you count NiMo property at the west
end, that has been used for years and is under a licensing agreement now, if you count that,
we’re actually decreasing the overall impermeability of the use, let’s call it the use. C.T. Male
can speak to the specific concerns they have, but I think we’ve come to a resolution on all the
items listed in their letter of August 10. The two most important, or two of the main ones,
th
were the ones that I mentioned. We’ve corrected the parking width labeling on the plan, and
we will change the catch basin structures to be closed structures, as requested by C.T. Male. So
that’s a general overview. I guess I’ll open it up to questions or comments from Jim.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you want to comment on your letter?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. HOUSTON-Maybe just some clarification. I assume you all have my letter of August 10.
th
In response to that, I received an e-mail with an attached memorandum from Tom on August
16, and basically describing the responses that he’s just described, and just a clarification on
th
the catch basins or drywells. Those catch basins where the water gets collected off of the
pavement surface was originally on the plans submitted as a drywell, and as opposed to any
oils and foreign substances going directly into the ground at that location. I recommended that
to be a contained structure, solid walls, and then have all our percolation occur in the trenches,
as opposed to right through a drywell. There’s a lot of concern about having parking lot runoff
go directly into drywells, but anyway, that’s what Tom was mentioning in his discussion. He’s
agreed to do that. I have not received any drawings that show these changes. It’s just, Tom and
I have had a discussion saying that it seems to be agreeable to both of us, and then just to clarify
that one catch basin over near the fuel tank is, he’s talked about trying to create more or less like
a pool or a bermed off area in there. So that particular system does not receive stormwater off
of Dix Avenue, and that will greatly improve the success of that, to be able to remove oils and
greases, but anyway, that’s pretty well the nature, but I haven’t received any plans for final
review. It’s just been this memorandum, and conversations that we’ve had.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll go down through our checklist I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask a question, before you go through that, Mr. Chairman. On
this existing fuel island, is there now, because the drawing I have is C-1, and I guess February
2004. Is that the latest date for this? I’m sorry, 6/11/04 is what I’m looking at? I don’t see any
drywell, so I assume that that’s, or a catch basin or anything like that next to that existing fuel
island. So that’s something that’s got to come through on a drawing revision.
MR. HOUSTON-It’s not shown on C-1, on C-2, the next sheet in the set, has that, has the
location of where it was proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now there’s going to be a revision to that?
MR. JARRETT-We’re going to add a new inlet to that, and the inlet will be within that bermed
area that Jim described, so that we only take flows from that tank going through the oil/water
separator.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I see it.
MR. HOUSTON-I was concerned about some water coming off of Dix Avenue coming in and
basically flushing out the contents of the separator or overloading that system.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions relative to design standards? Site
development criteria? Conditions, vehicle access?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a comment on it. I think that the vehicle access and the traffic
patterns, closing the curb cut on Dix, I think, is a big plus. I think adding one to Quarry
Crossing is an acceptable tradeoff, for closing one on Dix. So I would go along with those two
openings, even though I think, I’m not sure what designation Quarry Crossing has, as a road. Is
it an arterial? So it doesn’t hit our 330 separation requirements between curb cuts. So I think,
you know, it looks good to me. I mean, I think it’s an acceptable tradeoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development? Stormwater/sewage?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty much covered in C.T. Male’s letter of August 10, 2004. So I think
all we do need here is a signoff of an agreement from our engineer that he’s now in agreement
with this plan, or the changes that the applicant has made.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a question on lighting. In order to meet the four to one ratio, I think
the min should be .125 with the average foot candles at .5.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, conceptually, Bob, we’re not trying to meet the four to one.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not finished yet. However, based on the intended use, I’ll approve
the proposed lighting plan. I just want to make everybody aware that we do have, and it may
not be, depending upon what happens in the future. The way we the use uniformity ratio.
We’re going have to clean that up.
MR. LAPPER-Here it would make it a lot brighter site to comply.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand that, but I just wanted to say that we weren’t in conformity
with the ratio, but I understand why and it’s okay with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping? Environmental?
MR. VOLLARO-On landscaping, are we going to agree to the smaller sized species, and a
greater emphasis along the southern property line and at the eastern edge of that line? I think
both of those I think are good proposals. If anybody has any questions on that at all, I don’t
know.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I had some general comments about the project. I mean, it’s a really
tough site, and I think, you know, what the applicant is proposing would be a major
improvement, and I think that some of the things that they’re trying to, particularly with the
wastewater plan that’s been put together, I think it’ll be a much better environmentally
conscious site when it’s finished than it is right now. So that’s why I’ve been kind of quiet.
There’s really no specific comments, but it’s some sort of general comments that, you know, I
think it looks pretty good. I think we get the signoff from C.T. Male and we’re pretty much
there.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you. Under neighborhood character I just have a note that says
much improved.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s true.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the landscaping isn’t what we would normally require, but it’s, you
know, again, a significant improvement over what’s there now. So I don’t have a problem with
it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments on neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-Neighborhood character I have much improved on my notes. I mean, I think
it’s a good site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Other involved agencies? Anything I missed? I have two questions for you.
How long is your lease with NiMo?
MR. LAPPER-It’s a license agreement. It’s sitting on my desk, and I can’t recall. It’s renewable
periodically.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ten, twenty year lease, something like that?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the impact with the neighboring leaching field, that close to
your, actually on your property?
MR. JARRETT-We’re not absolutely sure that it’s there, but it is rumored to be there, and we’re
actually improving the situation by pulling our driving lane back away from it somewhat, from
where it is now, the driving lane right now.
MR. JARRETT-So we feel that there’s been no negative impact to date, and we’re actually
improving the situation, but we’ve shown it as a clouded area because it is rumored to be in
that area somewhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know the history as to how that leach field got on to their property?
I mean, I’m trying to think ahead here, what happens if the system fails and they need to
replace it in five years? It wouldn’t appear he has much room on his property, if any.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I’m curious as to how the system ended up on someone else’s property.
Did they sell a portion of their property to CWI at one time, or?
MR. LAPPER-CWI only acquired it in ’95, and that’s been there for a long time.
KEVIN ELMS
MR. ELMS-I’m Kevin Elms, the Facilities Manager. The property was purchased in ’95 from
Scotty McLaughlin, the whole parcel. That was pre-existing to us buying it. So, I really don’t
have an answer as to how that actually got on the property. Probably it was pre-existing to
people knowing exactly where the line was, to be quite honest.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Craig, you’re talking NiMo property, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m looking, if you look in the lower right hand corner, the lands now or
formally of Donald and RosaLee Abbebee. It would be the lower right hand corner of the site
plan, as you’re looking at it.
MR. SANFORD-C-1 where?
MR. MAC EWAN-The lower right hand corner, it would be just below the exit lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you look where the arc is, that goes toward the oil/separator tank, you’ll
see a clouded ballooned area, with an arrow pointing to it. It says right there, it’s labeled as
approximate area of neighbor leaching system.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s on the property owned by Donald and RosaLee Abbeebee, and
based on the footprint of the house and the garage, there’s no room left on their property,
should the system ever fail, that they have room on their own property to replace it. That was
my question. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We can point out one thing. The lot immediately south of the bus parking is also
owned by Abbebee. So they could put a leaching system there, presumably, in other words, to
the southwest corner, that is their property.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-I see it, yes. Okay. Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone
want to comment to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form?
MR. VOLLARO-Short.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 43-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CWI BUS GARAGE, 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 24 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2004 CWI BUS GARAGE, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site improvements including paving, stormwater management structures and landscaping to an
existing bus garage. Garage facilities in the MU zone require site plan review and approval
from the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
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 Tuesday, August 17, 2004 and August 24,
2004; 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. The data from Jarrett-Martin Engineers to CTM dated 8/16/04 shall be made part of the
permanent record.
2. CTM sign-off is needed on the revised plans.
3. A copy of the required Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be submitted prior to Zoning
Administrator’s final signature.
4. All light fixtures shall be inspected by Planning Staff prior to installation.
Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2004 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NOEL LABONTE, III PROPERTY
OWNER: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: DANIEL RYAN ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,116 SQ. FT. 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE. MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCES IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO.
309.9-3-86 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-We really don’t have anything to add to this. I think, well, I know that this was
tabled to address C.T. Male comments, and I think that’s the only outstanding issue at this
point. So, that’s all I have.
MR. LAPPER-That’s all we have as well. Dan submitted his response to the C.T. Male review
letter. At the last meeting, you just wanted C.T. Male to go through his revised response.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who do you have with you tonight?
MR. LAPPER-Dan Ryan, Project Engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else to add?
MR. LAPPER-No. I think we had no issues. We made the changes that were requested.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a signoff letter to this yet?
MR. HOUSTON-No, there’s no.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I did was I looked at their drawings. I looked at your letter, and it
looks like the drawing, it seems to me that the drawings reflect most of what you asked for, but
we need a signoff from you.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. I’m not sure why it didn’t come across my desk, but it didn’t, but I did
have a chance to look at it briefly here before the meeting, and just as you’re saying, I went
through, comment by comment, and it seems like most of the comments, all of them were
addressed to my July 13 letter.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Correct. It seems like it’s okay, but we still need, I think, eventually, a signoff
letter from C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Okay. Let’s go down through our checklist. Any questions on
design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve been through this a couple of times.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just roll through it again. Questions on site development? No issues
with vehicle access, parking field design, emergency access? Stormwater/sewage?
MR. VOLLARO-I think they got it all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. RINGER-I don’t think there’s enough parking, but it meets the Code, and I don’t think
there’s anything we can do about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little concerned about that myself.
MR. RINGER-But the Code says one and a half parking spots per unit, and then they’ve got six,
and that’s what’ll do it. I’m not happy with it, but I don’t think I can do anything about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Comments, George?
MR. HILTON-No. I mean, it meets the Code requirements.
MR. RINGER-They’ll be parking in the street for sure.
MR. SANFORD-Did you ever research, George, remember I had an inquiry about when do you
reach the break point where you have to provide handicap parking for these types of
multifamily residences? I know when it was proposed to be a three-plex that hadn’t reached
the threshold, and now it’s a four-plex. What gives?
MR. HILTON-In my discussions with the Director of Building and Codes, the three-plex and
the four-plex both would not require a handicap spot to be provided. I don’t know the exact
number. I think it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 spaces, don’t quote me, but, again,
speaking with the Director of Building and Codes, he did say that one was not required.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater/sewage? Lighting design?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question on lighting, Mr. Chairman. On the light types at the
four locations, these are on the corners of the building, show different model numbers for each
corner, 24, 226, and 24, 225, and there are no cut sheets to identify what they are, and I’m just
wondering, is that a typo or are they all the same?
MR. RYAN-I think they’re just different styles for the front and back of the building. I think
that’s the only difference. Other than that, they are basically identical, in terms of lumination.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Landscaping, environmental, neighborhood character?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll use neighborhood character. Where is New Hampshire Avenue on the site
location map? Did anybody find that? I couldn’t find that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Site location map?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s a location map.
MR. RYAN-There’s a circle there for project location. There’s a vertical line there that basically
indicates New Hampshire Avenue off of Luzerne Road, the lower right hand corner.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It doesn’t say New Hampshire Avenue, does it?
MR. RYAN-It doesn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, the street’s not named.
MR. RINGER-There’s a circle there and project location above it.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-If you find the “N”, and the “S” in “Glens”, follow it due north, and you’ll
hit right into it.
MR. VOLLARO-I see, and that is New Hampshire Avenue?
MR. MAC EWAN-That is New Hampshire Avenue.
MR. VOLLARO-Everybody else had a name.
MR. MAC EWAN-Involved agencies? Anything I missed?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, have these properties been merged? Because I know, I mean, where does
it stand? I know you bought an extra piece of property, and so what are you going to?
MR. LAPPER-That one is under contract. They have to be merged.
MR. SANFORD-They do?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So what would we do, Mr. Chairman, if we went with an approval,
condition it or something?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. RADNER-You’re contract vendees now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that?
MS. RADNER-Yes. Just make a condition that the two parcels will be merged.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll submit the deed.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Involved agencies? Anything else I missed? Anything you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA, Chris.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NOEL D’LA BONTE, II, 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 24 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, before a motion is made, I’d like to just ask Staff, whether the
copy of an NOI to New York State DEC is required prior to issuance of a building permit on this
application. Since it’s under one acre, I have a question to myself, is this required for a plot
under one acre.
MR. HILTON-I don’t believe so.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not even close to an acre on this one.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I know you’re not.
MR. HOUSTON-No, since the disturbance is less than an acre, that process is not applicable to
this project.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I thought. So the only extra condition on this would be both
parcels would be merged. Is that correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-And a final signoff from C.T. Male. Are you ready for a motion, Mr.
Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 NOEL D’LA BONTE, II, Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Noel D’LaBonte, II, New Hampshire Avenue, Tax Map No. 309.9-3-85 and 86
Construction of a 2,116 sq. ft. 4-family residence.
WHEREAS, the application was received on May 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
material in file of record.
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 July 20, 2004 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. The applicant will obtain a final signoff from CTM.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate for a building permit that the two lots will be
formally merged.
Duly adopted August 24, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RYAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-One other item we’re moving up on the agenda.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 50-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II DR. DAVID J. BANNON AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): DR. DAVID J. BANNON, ARCANGELA
BANNON ZONING: PO LOCATION: 543 BAY ROAD, NORTH SIDE OF BAYWOOD
DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 900 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICE USES IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2004 ADIRONDACK AGENCY: N/A LOT
SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George.
MR. HILTON-As I’ve indicated, this is a relatively minor addition to an existing office, 900
square feet. The applicant has requested a couple of waivers, lighting and landscaping, and
again, relatively minor. The application has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and
comment, and with that, that’s all I have at this point.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name’s Jim Miller, landscape architect. The proposed
addition is a 900 square foot addition to house some MRI equipment for the doctor’s use.
We’ve received some comments from C.T. Male, which we’ve responded to, and basically, even
with the addition, all the current parking and the green space resulting after the addition all
meet the Town’s requirements. I guess with that, if there’s any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, just procedurally, why wasn’t this classified as a modification?
What was the threshold we hit?
MR. HILTON-Honestly, I don’t know. I guess something that may not have been proposed as
part of the previous plan. It was a new construction, requires a new site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Any questions on the design standards? Site development
criteria, vehicle access, etc., etc.?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to be. Stormwater/sewage?
MR. VOLLARO-No. It looks good to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? Landscaping? Environmental issues? Neighborhood character?
No other agencies? Anything I missed.
MR. VOLLARO-I just had a question. On the addition, is that going to be, is it going to look like
the existing building?
MR. MILLER-It’s going to match the existing building.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to match the existing building. That was the only comment I had,
other than minor comments from C.T. Male. Have we got a signoff on that?
MR. HOUSTON-So far we haven’t written a signoff letter. We just received, yesterday, a fax
containing the responses to each of our comments, and they’re satisfactory, as long as they’re
incorporated into the plans.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Really. This is this third application I’ve heard this tonight. Just as a note of
procedure, this is the third application I’ve heard tonight where you’re getting correspondence
the day of or the day before a meeting. Is that not correct?
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-What happened to our policy about cutting off communications at noon on
Fridays the previous week, prior to the meeting, the Friday before.
MR. HOUSTON-We’ve cut off communications going back to the applicant on that, but we take
and bring whatever we can to the meeting and can comment and talk about up here. If you
want to change that, that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Is it working okay for you?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re hoping to ease the burden. That’s all we’re trying to do here. Okay.
I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA.
MR. HILTON-Pardon me. It’s a Type II.
MR. HUNSINGER-Type II.
MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. Good deal. Would someone introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2004 DR. DAVID J. BANNON, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Dr. David J. Bannon, 543 Bay Road, north side of Baywood Drive, Tax Map No. 296.11-1-42
Construct a 900 sq. ft. addition to an existing office building. Office uses in the PO zone require
site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
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 Tuesday, August 24, 2004; 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
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
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 sign-off letter will be received by CTM as a result of this action.
Duly adopted Tuesday, August 24, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Jim.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD HENNESSEY AGENT(S):
JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): JOHN H. MICHAELS ZONING:
PUD HUDSON POINT LOCATION: 777 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 7,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL CENTER ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE HUDSON
POINT PUD. THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE HUDSON POINT PUD
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
RETAIL BUILDING CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 45-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
JULY 14, 2004 APPROVED ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE,
1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.00-1-14 AND 20 SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER, TOM NACE, & JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD HENNESSEY AGENT(S):
JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): JOHN J. MICHAELS ZONING:
PUD HUDSON POINT 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 POINT PUD REQUIRES
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CONVENIENCE STORE CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 44-2004 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: JULY 14, 2004 APPROVED ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT
SIZE: 1 ACRE, 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.1-14 AND 20 SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER, TOM NACE & JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really briefly, I’ll just touch on a few subjects, a few points here. As the site plan
indicates, there are two proposed curb cuts off Corinth Road, approximately 30 feet, I’ve written
in my notes, and in measuring that I went from closest point to closest point. That’s extreme
closest point to extreme closest point. If you go centerline to centerline it’s probably more like
90. Either way, it’s closer than the 330 feet required on an arterial of this type. Consideration
should be given to either eliminating the northern most curb cut, or limiting it to exit only. The
site plan shows the main access to these properties from an access drive to be built on Town
property. The Highway Department has provided comment on whether or not they will accept
this as a Town road, which they’ve indicated they will not at this time. I guess the question is,
has there been any official consent from the Town Board or the Town of Queensbury to build a
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
private drive on this property. The Town Board has found that this proposal is consistent with
the Hudson Pointe PUD. In addition, though, consideration should be given to constructing a
pedestrian or bike trail connection to the residential area. At this time the applicant does not
propose to construct a full vehicular connection, as was shown on the PUD, but some sort of
direct link to the retail shops from the residential area, as envisioned with the original PUD, is
something that the Board should consider. In looking at the lighting, the lighting indicates the
light levels underneath the gas canopy exceed the 10 foot candle average, and light levels in the
drive areas especially also appear to exceed zoning code averages listed in the zoning code. The
lighting plan doesn’t provide any breakdown of light averages for each section of the site, for
example for the parking area versus building exterior, etc., etc., at least not a complete listing.
The last comment here is that the applicant submitted architectural renderings for the buildings.
However, I’m not finding any for the gas island canopy. They should be provided as part of the
site plan. This has been referred to C.T. Male for their review and comment, and at this point
that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you read into the record, for everyone’s benefit, Marilyn’s memo of
today.
MR. HILTON-It’s a letter dated today, August 24, 2004, from Executive Director, regarding Site
Plan No. 45-2004. It reads, “Review of the earlier Hudson Pointe PUD file indicates that the
road R-O-W was provided to the Town to assure a connection between housing and the more
remote area of the PUD along Corinth Road for future commercial development. The PUD
agreement also allows up to 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial development here. It is my
understanding that there are a number of the public who do not want to see a road built along
the entire length of the R-O-W. in fact, there is Karner Blue Butterfly habitat at the point where
the R-O-W is close to the power line. It is also my understanding from legal counsel that the
Town Board is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Board pertaining to the road
area proposed on a portion of that R-O-W. The applicant would need to buy (at Fair Market
Value) the portion owned by the Town if the applicant were to provide a private driveway and
maintenance. The roadway (or driveway) as currently proposed would not be accepted by the
Town Highway Superintendent (see Rick Missita’s letter dated August 13, 2004). The Town
Board relies upon the Highway standards and the Highway Superintendent’s recommendation
whenever roads are offered for dedication to the Town. The Town’s Open Space Vision Plan
indicates a potential trail/path connecting lands along the river to Corinth and West Mountain
Roads (see Final Open Space Vision Map and also Page 15 of the Action Plan in Appendix A).
Note also that the County DPW will be providing a bike lane from the corner of West Mountain
Road and Corinth Road east. Over the next 2 years they will extend the bike lane north from
Corinth Road along West Mountain Road to Peggy Ann Road and Aviation Road. This may be
a good opportunity to assuage the concerns of the public regarding the road. The Planning
Board may wish to recommend that a trail/path be built to guarantee the connection intended
and agreed upon as part of the original PUD. If the driveway on the Town’s R-O-W is
recommended by the Planning Board there should be enough room to allow the continued
trail/path access onto Corinth Road. If the southernmost ingress/egress driveway along Corinth
Road is not recommended, then the trail/path should connect all the way to Corinth Road,
along with connections to the proposed convenience and retail stores.” And that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MICHAELS-I’m John Michaels from the Michaels Group. I guess the first thing is that
when we bought this property, this was previously approved as a PUD, and we took the PUD
specifications, and there was a print with that that pretty much matches the print that’s on this
table. We designed it as the PUD called for, and one of the specific things in there was that the
road servicing these lots shall be constructed to the Town’s standard by the developer of the
new commercial lots, over Town property. That’s why it was designed this way, and we did go
to the Town Board and showed them our plans, and they said, yes, pretty much this is
consistent with the PUD. So that’s what, this whole planning process has been based on a PUD
approval that was issued back in 1996, and we’ve been following that. Our opinion is that this
is nothing new. It’s just getting through these issues that we’ve got to address tonight. So I
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
think maybe Jim could walk through the site plan. I was just trying to give you a little history
of why we designed it like this.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. Jim Miller, landscape architect. As John stated, this plan was
submitted as part of the PUD, and this plan that you see actually consisted, the two lots, which
is basically going to serve as phasing also, where there’ll be a convenience store with a gas sales
in the front, and retail stores to the rear. The right of way that’s being referred to is along the
south side of the property, and this is a 60 foot wide right of way that extended back to the
Hudson Pointe community, and that was done at the time because there was only one access
road going in there, and there was a concern if there ever needed to be another one, this would
be the next best location. I don’t think anyone feels that’s necessary now, but as part of that
PUD, this area was looked at as a commercial development on the two lots, and at the time we
were required to develop a planting plan, and there was planting actually installed along the
north property line, and it was determined that we would have to maintain that 50 foot buffer.
So, you know, based on what was done through the PUD, what’s being proposed is basically a
road constructed to Town standards within that right of way that would access both of these
properties, and you’ll see, the rear property has no frontage. So if we didn’t have access to a
Town road on the south side, we wouldn’t have any Town road frontage. The Phase I is a
convenience store of 2100 square feet, with a gas canopy with two dispensers basically four
fueling stations. We propose a driveway entering, parking is along the front of the store. One
of the requirements with the PUD is that the stores would be located back against the buffer, so
that all the parking would be separated from the residential properties by the building itself and
there’d be no lights around the back of the building. The building would be served by Town
water and on-site septic, and the dumpster has been located to the rear. As far as landscaping,
we’re looking to maintain the woods along the southerly property line. A freestanding sign
would be located at the entrance and landscaped. Some additional landscaping both to enhance
the building and to provide some additional buffering is to the ends of the buildings by the
parking lot to basically screen the cars. In addition we’re proposing, in the buffer area, where
there’s no trees in the front, there was previously an existing home, we’re proposing additional
pine trees. Now there’s a second phase to this, the project would be extended, a second
building would be constructed, 7,000 square foot retail store up to four tenants. Typically this
would be a neighborhood type store, movie rental, that type of thing. The required parking is
located to the front. This area in here, we would have additional landscaping along the road,
and across the front of the building. Dumpsters would be moved to the rear of the property,
and I guess with that, in addition, we’ve received comments from C.T. Male, and we’ve
responded, yesterday. We haven’t had any other communication. There was some comments
about some of the drainage and some, they were some of the biggest concerns had to do with
runoff from the parking area. I believe at this point we’ve addressed those and the other
comments that they had. I guess with that, we’ll get right back to questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you address specifically the two comments that came from Staff
relative to the lighting and also eliminating that southerly curb cut?
MR. MILLER-Well, the reason, well, the southerly curb cut is actually the Town road, and I
think one of the reasons that we have that requirement is the site is only 200 foot frontage, with
a 50 foot buffer on the north side, we have a fairly narrow site. So one of the concerns we have
is access, especially for fuel deliveries, as to how they would get into the site and without
backing around, turning around in the parking lot come back out. So we felt that the two
entrances were necessary to provide access where they can come in on the south, pull into the
tanks and then leave back out on Corinth Road. I think we’ve had some discussion amongst
ourselves that if there was a concern that what would probably be a reasonable solution was
one that George suggested is that you do something like a right turn only exit on the northerly
drive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What about the lighting?
MR. MILLER-I’ll let Rich discuss the lighting.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
RICH HENNESSEY
MR. HENNESSEY-Hi. Rich Hennessey from Northeast Petroleum Technologies. I have a
revised lighting plan, if I could pass them out to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We will not take it tonight.
MR. HENNESSEY-Okay. We just received some of the comments. As far as the lighting
underneath the canopy, the 10 foot candles that they’re looking for, for a standard underneath
the canopy, is very low for that type of operation. When you go to the standard that the Code
even suggests, the low end of their standard is 20 foot candles. The maximum is 50.
MR. MAC EWAN-When you say “their standard” who’s standard?
MR. HENNESSEY-The Illumination Engineer’s Society of North America, which is the standard
that you reference in your Code. So we’ve got it down to a maximum, underneath the canopy,
of 15 foot candles, which is still less than there minimum in the low end on the standard. That’s
using four light fixtures, which puts one light fixture over each vehicle, and that’s also using the
lowest wattage available for a canopy light fixture. You can’t get it down to 10 foot candles.
MR. MAC EWAN-What did we do for Stewart’s on Ridge Road?
MR. HILTON-The Stewart’s on 149 was, now let me back up. You’re talking about the revised
plan shows four lights.
MR. HENNESSEY-No, even the first one shows for lights, 175 watts.
MR. HILTON-Okay, 175, yes. Well, I can tell you that the average came out to be, I think, just
over 10, somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 foot candles.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the Ridge Road site?
MR. HILTON-For the Ridge Road site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HENNESSEY-We’re at 15. They may have put the canopy higher. I can put a taller canopy
is.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that’s where the Board would be leaning, leaning toward
doing that, and the only reason why I’m suggesting that, on behalf of the Board, is that we’ve
taken a very hard look at lighting over the past few years, with commercial applications, and
when we get into more residential or very, how do I phrase it, outstretched areas of the Town,
where it’s not heavily commercialized, we’re looking for very low wattage on lighting.
MR. HENNESSEY-I understand that. If you look at the lighting standards that you’ve set for
loading and unloading areas, you’ve set a standard of 20 foot candles. That’s double what it is
underneath a canopy. Underneath that canopy you have residents filling their vehicles.
They’re loading with gasoline. They need to check oils and that sort of stuff. I don’t honestly
believe that 15 foot candles is out of, is too high underneath the gasoline canopy. It’s not like
we’re putting 400 watt super metal halide light fixtures up there. They’re 175 watt light
fixtures. It’s at the low end of what would even be considered in the industry. I mean, it’s just,
if this was a Mobil Corporate they wouldn’t have even considered doing 175 watt light fixture.
MR. VOLLARO-Then they probably wouldn’t be here.
MR. HENNESSEY-Exactly, and that’s why we are here.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask a question. On the LSI print, that Sheet One of One, dated
3/31/04, that’s the latest revision on that sheet?
MR. HENNESSEY-That’s the one that you have. I have another one now.
MR. VOLLARO-I know, but the one I have looks to me like the two light fixtures, BB, that are
on the building itself, is what’s supplying the light under the canopy. I don’t see any lighting
information under the canopy at all on this. In fact, when I looked at this, of course I have to
look at it in my little dining room, and I don’t have the benefit of all the stuff that you’ve got,
you see, so I’ve got to rely on this print, and this print doesn’t show me any lights under the
canopy at all.
MR. HENNESSEY-There are four, I don’t know if it’s on this drawing or not.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got two.
MR. HENNESSEY-There are four squares indicated underneath the canopy. Those would be
light fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what about, the other, that’s the only canopy you’ve got?
MR. HENNESSEY-That’s the only canopy that’s going on that site, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The others are just gallonage. So that’s 12,000 gallons. Okay. So those are the
lights. Now, do you have cut sheets for those lights?
MR. HENNESSEY-Yes. Those are, that is the Flat Lens Encore that you see on the right hand
side of that drawing. Again, it’s not a drop lens fixture. It’s a flat lens fixture, straight down.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s flush with the canopy?
MR. HENNESSEY-That’s correct. It protrudes from the face of the canopy about an inch. (Lost
word) trim piece there.
MR. VOLLARO-And you say they’re 175 watt?
MR. HENNESSEY-Those are 175 watt light fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-And this is an Encore series. It doesn’t go any lower than 175?
MR. HENNESSEY-Not in canopy deck lighting. All the canopy deck lights start at 175 watt
fixtures, and it doesn’t matter which manufacturer.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about the pole lamps that are labeled B on your lumination plan? On
your revised plan, did you reduce those wattages as well?
MR. HENNESSEY-On the revised plan, to try to eliminate or adjust some of the ratios of light,
we can actually raise those fixtures up to 20 foot, and increase lighting on the building soffit
itself, and that will adjust the ratio of light dramatically. I don’t know if that is what the Board
is intending, but if you look at the overall lighting plan that’s presented to you, this light, these
two lots are not over lit by any means. There’s very low lighting levels on these lots. You have
a couple of very, 15 foot candle portions underneath, directly underneath the light fixtures.
They’re forward throw fixtures. You see very little light cascading off of the site, and most of
the site, the average, inside of the lighting area, is three foot candles. That’s very, very low.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me just, the reason I raise the question is I’m concerned about the
magnitude of the light right at the entrances, blinding drivers that will be looking to turn out of
the site, because that’s a very dark area of the Town, and there’s really no other commercial
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
lighting or bright lights in the immediate vicinity, and there’s a project that we approved a
while ago where the plan met the new lighting requirement, but yet when you go to pull out, in
a certain direction, the overhead light that’s over the entrance does blind you from seeing in the
one direction, creating an unsafe situation, and, you know, I see light levels of 18.9 and 16.9, and
that’s why I raised the question. I would agree with you that the overall light levels, you know,
if you were to take the average over the whole site, I think are pretty low, but, you know,
there’s still some work to be done here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does your lighting plan take into account lighting that may be over door,
delivery doors and such like that?
MR. HENNESSEY-No, it does not, and the revised that I have does take into account.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the only reason why I was pressing for the lighting levels to be
brought down, when we get into the rural areas of the Town, and then what brought it to my
mind was the Stewart’s store up on 149 and Ridge Road, which is basically the same kind of
scenario this is. It’s a very rural aspect of Town, and the last thing I want to do is see light
pollution and brightly lit canopies in commercial areas in that portion of Town and that’s why I
think I’m trying to take a position that I’d like to see the levels come down a little bit. I know in
some areas on your lighting plan, the one we’re looking at tonight, it shows bleed off lighting
going off the property line, and you’re supposed to be down to zero at the property line or as
close to it as you can get. I mean, some areas you’re down to .1, .2, which is totally acceptable,
but other areas you’re 6.0, 4.9, 3.5, 3.9, 3.5, and as Chris pointed out, right at the main entrances
there you’re looking at foot candles of 18.8, 13.3, excessively high. So something needs to be
done to bring those light levels down.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Chairman, this is really all about a thing called Uniformity Ratio, and
that’s why we’ve got a four to one Uniformity Ratio in the Code. If you look at under your
canopy, your ratio is almost one to one, and how you get to that is you put the average over the
min to get your Uniformity Ratio. You’d have to look at our Code, and I can give you.
MR. HENNESSEY-And I understand that. That is correct, but at the same time, we all need to
keep in mind what’s actually happening underneath that canopy. We have women and
children, they’re getting in and out of vehicles.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to sound rude, but we’ve been down this road so many times in
the past with applicants that use the safety and criminal activity issue. There’s absolutely no
basis, there’s no data to support that lighting deters crime or safety. It’s just not the issue. I
mean, we’ve dealt with it with three different Cumberland Farms sites, two different Stewart’s
sites. Help me out here. What other sites have we been dealing with with light? We’re looking
to get the lighting levels down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wal-Mart.
MR. MAC EWAN-And while I understand that this is a corporate design and the corporate
wishes because that’s their corporate thing, the way I look at it, it’s our Town. We live here.
We’ll probably never see the corporate guy, 500, 600 miles a way who designed this site, and
what we’re looking out for is the best interests of our community, and we’re comfortable, from
past experience with previous applications that when you get the lighting levels down, it not
only serves the purpose of the customer, but it also fits in with the Town, and it’s not obtrusive,
it’s not blinding to the community, and I think that’s the direction we want to try to head for.
I’ll be the first to admit, we’ve made some mistakes in the past, with previous commercial
applications, and we’re certainly trying to correct them, and we’ve been doing so the last couple
of years.
MR. HENNESSEY-I understand that. At the same time, I mean, there may be something that
we can do about some of the particular hot spots directly underneath the fixtures, but at the
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
same time what that’s going to do is that’s going to lower the lighting level further in on the lot,
and at that point what that’s going to require is more light fixtures.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that if you could, and I’m only speaking on my behalf here. I
don’t know where the rest of the Board is going to go with this. If you could design your plan
around the lighting that was approved for the Stewart’s at 149 and Ridge Road, I think you’d be
well on your way. I mean, that was something that we worked very hard with Stewart’s over a
couple of meetings, and got it to be acceptable for their purpose and for our purpose, and I’m
keying in on that site plan only because it’s in a rural part of Town as well.
MR. VOLLARO-That happens to be a Mobil Station, too, by the way, just so you know.
MR. METIVIER-And that site does work very well, the lighting at that site is excellent, when
you come up to it, it’s not obtrusive. When you get there, and I was just there last night at 10:30,
and it’s sufficient.
MR. HENNESSEY-We’ll take a look at that. We’ll duplicate that set up.
MR. MAC EWAN-I also, in my packet, I did not have cut sheets for at least two light fixtures, in
my packet.
MR. VOLLARO-No, nobody did. The only packet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We would want those as well. I didn’t mean to get us off on the sidebar here
of dealing with lighting. Let’s jump back to our list here. Questions relative to design
standards, building design, layout?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing we need there is elevation drawings of the gas canopy
which are not provided. We’re going to need that.
MR. RINGER-I’ve got a question before, this was approved as part of the PUD, but the PUD
had the road going into the development.
MR. MICHAELS-No, that’s incorrect. This was a separate PUD approval. This wasn’t part of
the original Hudson Pointe approval.
MR. RINGER-Right, but it was approved after, as part of, with the road connecting into the
development.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, at the time that road wasn’t going to be built, the time that this went
back in, there was no intention of building that road, back in ’96.
MR. RINGER-I’m having difficulty here, I realize, you know, as part of the PUD, there’s no way
you could get a commercial structure surrounded completely by residential zones, and you
could only get commercial there because of the PUD, and you only got the PUD because of the
Hudson Pointe, and I wasn’t here when Hudson Pointe was approved, or this addition was put
into Hudson Pointe.
MR. MAC EWAN-This wasn’t an addition. This was part of the original plat.
MR. RINGER-No, it wasn’t. It came afterwards.
MR. MICHAELS-This was eight years after Hudson Pointe. This was a separate and distinct
PUD approval back in ’96, separate and distinct.
MR. MAC EWAN-We started reviewing Hudson Pointe in ’92.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MICHAELS-Okay, but it was separate and distinct. Yes, it was just for this lot. It was ACO
Property Advisors brought this in on behalf of basically NiMo at the time. It wasn’t, the
original PUD said commercial down there, but it didn’t say what, and they came back to the
Town Board and said, here’s what we want to do, and then they got a specific approval back in
’96.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. RINGER-As part of the PUD.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. You’re talking two different things here. I mean, this commercial
portion was part of the original PUD approvals. In order to get the commercial approval for the
site plan, it took site plan review to get that approval. That’s the approval that came in ’96.
MR. MICHAELS-No, that was Town Board in ’96. Town Board revised the PUD agreement for
this to commercial.
MR. RINGER-To include this piece of property.
MR. MICHAELS-As a separate entity. I’ve got the agreement here. It doesn’t talk about
Hudson Pointe at all. They amended the PUD and they rezoned one acre back to commercial
which wasn’t in the zone at that time. They rezoned it as part of the.
MR. RINGER-It doesn’t show on our zoning map that it’s zoned commercial. It’s zoned as
PUD. I’m just having difficulty with, there’s no way you could put a commercial property here
if it wasn’t for the PUD, because it’s all residential.
MR. MAC EWAN-I sat on the Board in ’92, much as I hate to say I’ve been around that long,
and I do recall this as being part of it.
MR. RINGER-But at that time, it was connected to Hudson Pointe.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-Now they’re just putting a commercial development on Corinth Road with a
connection possibly being the bike path, and no road connection.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall the specifics of what kind of a connection needed to be made.
All that was required, I think, at the time was that it needed to be connected to the PUD to make
it part of the PUD.
MR. RINGER-I can’t imagine that the Town, you know, would approve a commercial zone in
the middle of a residential one, unless it was part of a, connecting to the PUD.
MR. MICHAELS-We’re hoping that there’s some kind of connection. I’m just going to tell you
the revised PUD does not call for any kind of connection. It doesn’t talk about any road to
Hudson Pointe. All it says is that the applicant will build the road servicing this to Town
standards.
MR. VOLLARO-John, does our legal have a copy of that, that document that you’ve got?
MS. RADNER-I spoke to my partner Bob Hafner this morning, and he was trying to get his
hands on all of the original deeds and documents to determine what conditions and how the
property was taken, and we haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, Bob I think certainly was there at the meeting when we went to the
Town Board to see if this was in compliance with the PUD approval. Bob was at that meeting.
We had that meeting at the Town Board.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-You say Mr. Hafner was there?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and they passed the resolution that basically said that this is in
compliance with the PUD.
MS. RADNER-That’s not my understanding. My understanding is that they were looking for a
recommendation from this Planning Board as to whether this Planning Board thought that road
was still a good idea at this point or not, particularly in light of Rick Missita’s indication that he
will not accept it at this time as a Town road.
MR. MICHAELS-Okay. Well, what the resolution says is that the Queensbury Town Board
hereby affirms that the proposal by Michaels Group and Northeast Petroleum to construct 2100
square foot gas station and convenience store and 7,000 square foot commercial facility on two
commercial lots on Corinth Road is consistent with the Town of Queensbury Hudson Pointe
PUD as approved and amended by Resolution 118.94 and one other one.
MS. RADNER-But there’s no reference of the road at all in the resolution, correct?
MR. MICHAELS-No.
MS. RADNER-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-No, the road is not (lost word).
MR. HUNSINGER-I have the same concerns as Larry. I mean, the whole concept of a PUD is to
create sort of a self-contained kind of neighborhood where you can walk from your house to the
commercial stores without having to get into your car. I mean, this is exactly some of the
concepts behind all this smart growth ideas, you know, cluster developments and everything
else, and, you know, without a connection, I was just real confused as to where we’re going
with this, and what the history of it is.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, we’re hoping that there’s some kind of connection, but we know the
people of Hudson Pointe don’t want a road. That’s a given. They don’t want a road. So I think
there was a mention earlier about maybe a bike path or a trail, you know, that might serve as
the connection that you’re talking about, that we’re certainly willing to do, if we can sort out
how we get over Town property.
MR. MILLER-I think some of the discussion that went on at the time when we went in in ’96
and basically presented this plan was that, you know, even though it may not directly be
connected, that with Hudson Pointe and some of the other development that’s happening in
that area, in fact, there was no convenience stores or, you know, a place for a movie rental or
something like that, that the population was such that it would be warranted, regardless of
whether or not the road went through, and that, and they looked particularly at the plan and
addressed the issue of buffers and planting and that type of thing because it was in a residential
area.
MR. NACE-And I think it’s very parallel to your neighborhood, you know, you brought up the
Stewart’s station. This is very similar to your neighborhood pods up along 149, where there is
commercial development proposed.
MR. RINGER-And it’s zoned commercial up there, Tom. It’s not zoned residential.
MR. NACE-Well, but through the PUD, this is zoned commercial.
MR. RINGER-And that’s what I’m getting at. I’d like to see the site plan of the PUD showing
how that was part of the PUD and if a road is shown in there.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s something we’ll let Staff and Counsel work out and dig into it
and see what the original approvals are and how it may have changed or evolved over the
years, and it’s different than what I recall.
MR. RINGER-I’d just like to see it. I mean, right now, I would say no on this thing, because I
think it’s in a residential zone.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, Larry, I think before we say no we should.
MR. RINGER-No, I said right now, Bob. I think we’ve got to look at it. I’m not, without, you
know, further, I’d like to see that PUD and see what that looks like and see what they approved.
If it came by itself, I’d say this is a residential zone and.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, the only map that was provided at that last amendment was a map
showing essentially what you’re seeing here. There was no map showing the whole PUD of
this amendment, but certainly that’s part of due diligence, and we’ll provide it, but when you
buy a piece of property that has a PUD approval for a commercial zone, you have, it’s approved
by the Town Board for commercial uses. I wouldn’t consider it residential at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m also confused about a couple of comments that you made. You said that
there was no reference to this piece of property in the Hudson Pointe PUD.
MR. MICHAELS-I said, when they came back in ’96 to get this site plan basically approved by
the Town Board, the map that was shown was essentially that map.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When you read the resolution from the Town Board it specifically
referenced the Hudson Pointe PUD.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that confused me. So, I mean, is it or isn’t?
MR. MICHAELS-I was talking about the map. I think Larry asked me about the map.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-No, it certainly was intended, the original PUD, to be commercial, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could chat about this all night, but you dig your archives. We’ll have
Staff dig our archives. I’ve got all the PUD stuff for Hudson Pointe at my house. I’ll dig
through my archives. Somewhere along the line we’ll come up with an answer.
MR. RINGER-I’d just like to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move on down our list. Site development criteria, vehicle
access, traffic patterns?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I’ve got on that, vehicle access, is that these two curb cuts,
and I think George alluded to them, if you go center to center, you’ve got 97 feet. If you go curb
to curb, you’ve got 30, when the spec is 330, for arterials, which Corinth Road is, and I would
propose to eliminate the northern curb cut or, see, I see here, I’m talking to the Board now,
shades of Dunkin Donuts on Dix Avenue. We’ve got two curb cuts sitting right up next to one
another on Dix. We’ve got two curb cuts here, and we consistently don’t look at that 330 foot
for separation. I think that’s wrong. So I would probably bend a little and say make it as
George recommended, or maybe you did, Mr. Miller, that to make that a right turn out only, but
we’ve been, you know, we keep getting squashed for specific reasons why curb cuts ought to be
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
right up against one another, and we go flat up against the Code all the time and I just don’t see
it. I think on a main arterial like that, I think you shouldn’t be doing it.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think part of the problem is that you look at the widths of some of the lots,
you don’t have the 350 feet. Our lot’s 200 feet wide.
MR. VOLLARO-You know what, you know what I say to that? Maybe you shouldn’t be doing
it. See, that’s part of what the Code tries to legislate against. That gets to be the pound and a
half in the pound bag, a pound and a quarter in a pound bag, maybe, but that’s where you are.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other avenue to look at, as well, and I agree with where you’re coming
from, Bob, but you’ve got two significant curves there, too, on Corinth Road.
MR. VOLLARO-You have two significant curves on Dix, as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why they’re sitting, one right next to the other. If you remember, Mr.
Chairman, you and I were the only ones that voted no on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m aware of that. I’m just pointing out that it’s not just the issue of the curb
cuts being located that close to each other. You also have to look at the overall picture of
Corinth Road, and you have west and east, two significant bends in the road, you know, and
although it’s 45 miles an hour on Corinth Road, I defy anybody to drive 45 on that road, and I
know it becomes an enforcement thing, but, you know, our job here is to try to do the best we
can for public safety.
MR. HENNESSEY-Mr. Chairman, we do have approval from the Warren County Highway
Department for those cuts.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Final approval is here.
MR. HENNESSEY-I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine and dandy, but we have the last word on this thing. All
right. Anything else on vehicle access?
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask a question here. You have this project proposed in two phases,
correct?
MR. MICHAELS-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you stated earlier that the second curb, well, the problem was the gasoline
filling trucks being able to turn around. So that’s really one of the reasons why you need the
second curb cut.
MR. HENNESSEY-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-So at what point since the Phase I, Phase II line goes right through, you know,
the center bisector, when would that be constructed?
MR. HENNESSEY-When would the center?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, theoretically you’re just going to construct this, the west side of the map.
MR. MILLER-Well, but we could build as much of that road, we could build all of it, in the first
Phase, or certainly build it so we would have access through that driveway.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-So you may just build it up to this?
MR. MICHAELS-No, we would build it down, all the way down.
MR. SEGULJIC-Build it all the way down, and then at what point would you do Phase II? What
would be the trigger?
MR. MICHAELS-If we had it rented.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just getting a lease. Okay. Well, I guess where I feel on the situation, I’ve got to
believe that you’re laying a lot of asphalt just to allow a truck to turn around. You’ve got to be
able to figure something out.
MR. HENNESSEY-For safety reasons, it’s better if that truck doesn’t have to back up at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the truck be able to make these turns?
MR. HENNESSEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-These are pretty tight.
MR. HENNESSEY-We actually have them laid out on the drawing. We have it, they are, by
law, forbidden to back out onto the highway.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, they could turn around up here, back around up in the middle.
MR. HENNESSEY-But then again he’s backing up, and he’s backing up where there’s
businesses and residences and it’s so much safer if.
MR. VOLLARO-A good compromise here would be let them make a right out here only so the
truck would come in like so, get up to the gasoline, put his fuel in there, and go out this way.
MR. HENNESSEY-That does show the truck.
MR. VOLLARO-So he can make it. If it’s a right out, he can get out here and have no
interference coming in if you make that a right out only, it seems to me.
MR. HENNESSEY-And that’s why it becomes so important to have that other exit, so that, you
know, for safety reasons, they can exit off of that property, safely.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d want to compromise on that and make the northernmost exit a right turn
only. I mean, that’s just one Planning Board member’s position here, and I can see where you
lay the truck out and the truck can make the turn. So, it sounds okay to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on vehicle access, parking field design, emergency
access? Stormwater/sewage?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have, well, of course the C.T. Male letter of August 18 deals somewhat
th
with the stormwater problems, or the stormwater on the site. I just wanted to ask a question. Is
a SPDES permit required for this property?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, definitely. Commercial, more than one acre. Certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just wanted to make sure. I had it as a question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was in the C.T. Male letter, Bob.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Was it? I didn’t see that. I have one other question, and that’s on the drain
field replacement areas. What are we going to do if we’ve got to replace one of these leach
fields at some time? I don’t see any place on the drawing where I have a replacement area for
the leach field.
MR. NACE-They’re done in accordance with one of the recommendations from DEC, which is
to space the laterals at eight feet, so that you have room in between laterals for 100%
replacement field.
MR. VOLLARO-I see, okay. Those are eight foot between each one of those?
MR. MAC EWAN-Noted right on the plan, right on SP-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, stormwater, sewage? Lighting I think we pretty much
hit on that, unless anybody else has any other questions or comments.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to say one thing on the lighting, if I could. If you go to our Code
179-2-010, and you get into Page 17938 of the Code, and that’s Chapter 179, all right, and where
it describes the Uniformity Ratio, and that Uniformity Ratio is designed so that when you’re
coming from a bright area, you don’t immediately run into a dark area on the site, because now
you’ve, you know, you get that step function in lighting, essentially. What you want to do is be
at least four to one so that these two devices in your head here can adjust to the lighting. That’s
what the four to one ratio is about, and I usually look at these drawings to make sure that they
get close. So when you’re doing your lighting design, keep that in mind.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have on lighting, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else got anything on lighting to add? Landscaping?
MR. VOLLARO-I think they did a good job on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Environmental? Neighborhood character?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think we kind of talked about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Involved agencies? Anything I missed?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we got everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Renderings or color schemes? Would you want them?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-This is the color of the elevation drawings? Is that what we’re talking about?
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? I’d ask you to give up the table for
a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HARRY TEGLER
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. TEGLER-My name is Harry Tegler. I live at 50 Kettles Way and I’m an original purchaser
of property at Kettles Way. When I purchased my property, I was never informed of any
potential road going out the other side onto Corinth Road. I have never seen an overall site
plan of the situation that was there, just for the record. The other questions I have is, Larry
Ringer, I can speak for probably all the people on Kettles Way. We do not want that road to go
through. I don’t care if it’s commercial or if it’s PUD or who it is. They’re going to have a
rebellion on their hands if that road goes through. We agree with John Michaels that we’re all
in favor of the convenience store and the situation as it is, provided the road doesn’t connect
down to the existing Kettles Way. That’ll make Kettles Way a through street, and we have a lot
of children, you’ve heard the same song all the time, a lot of children on the street, this, that,
and the other thing, but I bought my home, and I thought I knew what I was buying that it was
a dead end street, and I wanted to live on a dead end street, and again, I have never seen the
overall master plan when I purchased my house. The other questions I’ve got is in the file
there’s a letter that was stated from the Superintendent of Highways or whoever that they’re
going to treat that south road, in essence, as a driveway unless it is built to standards, and I
don’t know whose standards, State, County. Can anybody help me on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be Town’s standards, and what he’s referring to is where the
driveway ends, which would be to the right of the plan. If that driveway was to continue all the
way on into Hudson Pointe, the extra thousand, 1500 feet, whatever it is, that portion of it be
built to Town specifications, including that drive you’re seeing right there.
MR. TEGLER-Now, is that drive to Town specifications? Can anybody tell me that?
MR. MAC EWAN-What they have now?
MR. TEGLER-Why don’t you, don’t put it to Town specifications. We at Hudson Pointe do not
want that road to go through. If there’s, it’s totally, we own the property on both sides of it. If
we were looking at it for a commercial end, the property behind the service area, or the second,
Phase II, is 200 foot lots, 200 foot deep back there, and we own all of that property down to the
existing Kettles Way. We don’t want to develop it. We don’t want the road in there. We want
to leave it just the way it is. So all I can say is I want to thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-How about a pedestrian or a bike path in lieu of?
MR. TEGLER-Well, I can only speak personally. We’re having an awful lot of problems with
the ATV’s now, and the existing trails that we’ve got down there. There’s laws, but nobody can
enforce them, and we’re only playing games. By the time the sheriff gets there, they’re gone.
They’re tearing the existing trails to hell. If I had my way, I wouldn’t want an access there
because it’s only going to be taken over by ATV’s and two wheelers and dirt bikes and
everything else. My own opinion. I can only speak for myself on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask you a question, just so I understand. You said you don’t want to
see your street become a through fare because you’re afraid there’ll be increased traffic.
MR. TEGLER-Well, I know there will be increased traffic.
MR. HUNSINGER-But where would the traffic be coming from and going to?
MR. TEGLER-Well, the traffic would be coming from the entire 91 homes in Hudson Pointe,
and it would be coming on I think they call it Sherman Island Road, over there where Tim
Brewer lives, and all that group would be using, instead of going out on Corinth Road, to the
convenience store, they’d hustle through Kettles Way and go in the back way, actually, and
there’s really, with the exception of access to Kettles Way, there’s really no need for the road at
all. I mean, if I’m going to patronize the, if we’re going to patronize the store, we’re going to go
on the front, and we agree wholeheartedly with John that we don’t want the road through
there, and I just want to thank you for listening to us.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you have
anything in the files, letters or anything? No? Do you gentlemen want to come back up? All
right. I was jotting down some items that I was sensing the Board would probably be wanting
to ask for or requesting. Let me run them down and add to them, delete, or whatever. A
revised lighting plan, inclusive of the cut sheets for the lighting, for the light fixtures, elevations
of the canopy.
MR. VOLLARO-We want color elevations for those.
MR. HUNSINGER-Color schemes for the elevations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rendering and color of the architecture, right. You’re looking at the northern
curb cut to be a right out only.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right turn only.
MR. VOLLARO-Right turn out only.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Right turn out only. C.T. Male comments of 8/18 need to be
responded to and addressed adequately to C.T. Male’s satisfaction, and the Staff and Counsel
are to review the PUD commercial site history for this. Mr. Michaels is going to go through his
archives.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, until that’s completed, though, I don’t know how we can
make any decisions on traffic patterns. Because if this was intended to be a road through all
along, there’s no need to do a, well, I guess you could still do a right out only onto Corinth
Road from the northern access point, but, I mean, that really changes the whole traffic flow and
traffic pattern. Am I the only one that feels that way?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, even if there was, supposing the PUD stayed, I’m just making
supposition now, that it did, it’s not necessary that we make any road. In other words, do we
have to, are we a slave to do that if the PUD says that? I believe it doesn’t say that.
MS. RADNER-And in fact the Highway Superintendent has indicated he won’t accept it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe otherwise.
MR. VOLLARO-You think it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-I sat on this Board in ’92.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying the road is more probably part of that PUD than not?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Times change and positions evolve over the years, and what was
thought of as maybe a great idea, you know, 10 years ago, may not be a great idea now.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess my question is, if it is a road, as part of the original PUD, are we
obligated to make it a road?
MR. RINGER-I wouldn’t think we would be, but if it isn’t, if we don’t make it a road, then is the
commercial development there right for the area? That’s what I’m getting at. I just can’t see
putting a commercial.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the gentleman said, that was here a minute ago, said they would
patronize both these stores, but they would come out onto.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. RINGER-Yes. They want the stores, but they don’t want the road in their neighborhood. I
understood that, but I’m saying, you know, it’s a residential area.
MR. MAC EWAN-What you’re saying is if the commercial parcel is not physically connected to
the PUD, how could it follow in the PUD designation and be part of it.
MR. RINGER-Right, then it’s single family and let them go for a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something Counsel’s going to have to answer. That’s all.
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. SANFORD-I think what Larry is getting at is that if those circumstances hold up, then
maybe it shouldn’t be commercial.
MR. RINGER-Right. That’s what I’m getting at.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a task for Counsel to figure out.
MS. RADNER-Remember, that the PUD designation becomes that the zone for the PUD.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MS. RADNER-So it’s not that there’s a commercial zone within the PUD. It’s what the entire
PUD plan contemplated, and we’ll have to go back and review it, but it is my understanding
that there was a contemplation for commercial in this area of the PUD. The question with the
road becomes, it’s my understanding it is now Town property. So the Town Board then can say
build it, don’t build it. The Town Board is definitely looking for a recommendation from you
folks whether you think there should be a bike path, whether you think there should be a
private driveway, whether you think there should be a road, and as Marilyn Ryba put in her
memo, there’s different ways we can handle it. We can have the developer purchase the
property back from the Town, if that can be done, and again, we need to review deeds to just
see exactly how that was done, or we can enter into some sort of an agreement setting forth
what the developer’s responsibilities are, insurance, maintenance agreements, etc. There are
ways we can do it, but it has to be dealt with.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On the canopy, are you going to have, is the canopy itself going to be
lit, for signage? Please say no.
MR. HENNESSEY-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve taken a position on that. We’ve tried to keep ahead of the
curve. If I’m alone on this, let me know, but in previous applications, the Board has not
supported canopies being used as advertising.
MR. HENNESSEY-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we, at this point, discuss if we want to see a bike trail or a pedestrian
trail there?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we ought to actually hold off and see what the legalities are of it from
Counsel’s standpoint. I mean, my history going back with this thing, early on when we first did
the PUD, there were three things that stuck out in my mind for the PUD. Part of it you were
going to have a phase in the inner portion of the development for multifamily housing. That
was eventually taken out and replaced with single family housing. There’s going to have the
daycare/community center, which became part of it, and it was also going to have the
commercial aspect of it which was going to be on the Corinth Road near West Mountain Road
portion of it, and that’s how it was connected back into the PUD, but things change.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MICHAELS-The only thing I could add to that is that, subsequent to that, not us, Niagara
Mohawk, who owned those pieces, went back and got a site plan basically approved from the
Town Board doing it this way, which was different than what we had proposed. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s the other thing I need to look at, because my understanding is
the Town Board wouldn’t have the authority to approve a site plan. It would be this Board.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, that was a site plan review to amend a PUD to allow that use. They
needed a map. It’s not a site plan, because normally site plan is done here, but I’m just saying,
after that was all done, we forgot about the commercial piece. We didn’t even think about it.
NiMo owned the land. They went back to try to clarify it so they could find a buyer. They went
to the Town Board and got this thing amended, and that’s, subsequently, what I ended up
buying.
MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, I did the plan for the rezoning, and what happened is we went to
amend the PUD. The Board specifically wanted to see a more detailed layout of how a
commercial property would work there, and we kind of went back and forth at several
meetings and workshops and came up with a plan pretty similar to what you see here, and then
that, at that point, they amended the PUD, but that plan was developed because they didn’t
want to give just a blanket approval without having some kind of a conceptual plan on how it
would lay out, and that’s how we got to this point.
MR. RINGER-And that’s on file with the Town?
MR. MILLER-It should be. If not, I’ve got a copy. I’ve got a file on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The one thing, Mr. Chairman, do you want to put down that a SPDES permit
would be required for this application?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone introduce a motion to table, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2004 AND SITE PLAN NO. 45-2004 RICHARD
HENNESSEY, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
For the following information:
1. Revised lighting plan and cut sheets for light fixtures.
2. Elevations of canopy.
3. The north exit is to be a right out only.
4. CTM comments of August 18, 2004 to be addressed.
5. Staff and Counsel are to review PUD commercial site history.
6. Renderings and color of outside architectures are required.
7. SPDES permit is required.
Duly adopted this 24th day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MICHAELS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to the bottom of it.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MICHAELS-That’s all right. That’s what we came here for.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 SKETCH SEQRA TYPE: NO SEQRA AT SKETCH AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENGINEERS OWNER(S): HAYES CONSTRUCTION
GROUP ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF RIDGE RD., 300 YARDS
NORTH OF MEADOW DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 12 +/- ACRE LOT
INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 +/- ACRE TO
APPROXIMATELY 3.28 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 15.06 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 297.13-1-33 AND 37 SECTION: 183 SUBD. REGS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & MICKIE HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, as I’ve outlined, and touched on in my notes, the applicant
proposes to subdivide a 12 acre property into 9 single family lots with access off of Ridge Road
and a cul de sac off of Ridge Road. Sketch Plan indicates the location of recently flagged
wetlands which appear to follow somewhere roughly around the 55 contour. In keeping with
the Town of Queensbury’s wetland policy, recently adopted policy, a copy of the jurisdictional
inquiry to New York State DEC and Army Corps, along with correspondence describing the
delineation, should be provided, should this move forward to any preliminary subdivision
review. I’ve also outlined that a SEQRA Long Form EAF will be required at Preliminary, along
with the other requirements listed for Preliminary plats. As I’ve mentioned, the lots appear to
meet the minimum lot size for the zone, and with that, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Mickie Hayes. This
was on previously for Sketch Plan and the Board requested some changes. The density,
proposed density, has been dropped now from 12 new lots, plus the existing house, to 8 lots
plus the existing house. The driveway for the existing house would be relocated so that that
curb cut on Ridge Road would instead be located on the new driveway. So it would be a
replacement of the subdivision roadway replacing the existing curb cut that’s there now. Tom
did soil tests and as George mentioned, we had Charlie Maine flag the wetland in the back.
Hopefully the Board sees that this is certainly not a subdivision that’s maxing out the density.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d just open it up to general questions from Planning Board members.
Anybody?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just a general clarification. The site plan, I’m confused, I guess, when
you look at the detailed site map, and then you look at the detail in the corner, the site is
different. For example, the detailed site map doesn’t extend to Cronin, but the drawing in the
small corner does.
MR. NACE-Blame Matt Steves. He forgot to change it. Originally, if you’ll remember when we
were back here originally, there were two separate properties, this one here and this property.
This is Cronin. This is Ridge. There were two separate properties. We were going to use both
properties and come in with a road off of Cronin. When we revised the layout to come in off of
Ridge, it made sense to keep the cul de sac and the road system up on the higher ground. We
eliminated the use of that lot. So that’s why you’ll see, this was evidently not changed from the
previous submission, and it should have been.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, who owns that part, that property that’s not part of this now, I guess?
MR. NACE-It’s a separate deed.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, there’s a house under construction on that lot, somebody else owns it.
MR. SANFORD-But that house that’s under construction, because we drove by, and, boy, they
were having a hard time. They’re putting it on slab and there was a lot of water. I thought that
might have been, Jon, on one of these other two lots. They’re not, I had no way of referencing
them, I guess, but the two lots that are drawn there adjacent to it. I thought that’s where those,
that new house was being.
MR. NACE-You’re talking about these two lots?
MR. SANFORD-One of those two, right. No, that’s not correct? Okay.
MR. HAYES-Yes, Rich, Mickie Hayes, for the record. The lot right next to it is Britton
Explosives, the one, the angler. So you know where you are there.
MR. SANFORD-That’s the commercial business there?
MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s Britton Explosives.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. HAYES-And there’s one more house up to the, I guess that would be the east, then the new
house that we constructed on the corner from there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. HAYES-There’s no explosives there, though, he says.
MR. LAPPER-Essentially the re-design was to stay away from the wetland. That that’s all the
way, the wetland is the non-usable part, all the way on the east side of the lot. So it stays away
from the low part of the lot, the west side, excuse me.
MR. VOLLARO-So, I guess Staff has to correct this drawing as well, because this drawing
shows the same thing as the low right hand corner.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Correct me if I’m wrong. Was there like a two lot administrative
subdivision, I think, to carve that front piece off?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right, boundary adjustment.
MR. HILTON-Yes. So the parcel date, at this point, I mean, we all (lost word).
MR. LAPPER-It was already a separate lot. So it was a boundary adjustment.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-All right. What would be helpful, I’m sorry, Tom, do you have anything else?
MR. SEGULJIC-Not now.
MR. SANFORD-What would be helpful, and I think in reading, I don’t know whether it was
subdivision of land, or zoning, I guess it was subdivision of land, if we could also have a
drawing which would show who are the owners of the land that are bordering the site.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-At Preliminary, that’s a requirement on the plat.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes, that’s what I was reading, it was required.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is a requirement at Preliminary.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Rich, a lot of, the ones on Ridge Road are the ones that Mickie’s already
developed that were just constructed in the last year.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That I’m familiar with, but the property that’s not on a road, that’s
adjacent to this, I know, I guess Lot One is the former or the current, I’m not sure, Dr. Bannon’s
house.
MR. LAPPER-That’s former. This was all Dr. Bannon’s property and they purchased it from
him.
MR. SANFORD-Right. Okay. Yes, I’m familiar with it, the property, and I guess you’re looking
to put a road coming off to the side of that property, of Ridge, right?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now where, you have another development, heading to the south on
Ridge, if you put a road in there, how many feet is that curb cut from this curb cut?
MR. LAPPER-That was the Mike Cantiello subdivision from about five years ago. That’s a two
lot subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And the two houses that are off the road, that’s a private drive. That’s not a road.
MR. SANFORD-That’s not a road?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s not even paved.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I didn’t know if that was a road or not.
MR. LAPPER-That house is the next, there’s the next house, and then there’s that drive, on the
other side of Bannon.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m wondering about the issue that we’re talking about about the
number of feet separating them.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and I guess the answer is that that’s a private drive, but, I mean, Tom can
tell you what the measurement is.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Again, you know, the first time you were in front of us, which I think
might have been some time in, what’s it, February, I personally, and I think other Board
members had concerns about the water on the property, and in May I think we walked the
property, and it was extremely wet, and we were coming in from Cronin Road, and we walked
pretty deep into it, and I guess, I’m not knowledgeable enough, but I want to make sure, if this
goes further, that there is a comprehensive look that’s done, in terms of the kind of soil that
we’re dealing with. I have concerns about septic systems failing on anything that you do here,
and I do appreciate the fact, I think you scaled this back from where you were by maybe as
many as three or four lots, but I would like our engineers to spend quite a bit of intention on
that, as well as where the pits were, in fact.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. LAPPER-What you’re saying is true, and if you walked in from Cronin, that is the lower
side of the property. So Tom Nace was out on the site with Charlie Maine and two engineers
from DOH when they did the soil tests that are shown on the map, so, I mean, you’re right, and
there are parts in the back where you shouldn’t put septic systems, and that’s why this was
redesigned, reduced the density, and to put the septic systems where the better soils are, and
that’s the change that’s happened since you’ve seen it.
MR. MAC EWAN-At the time the test pits were done, there was someone from DOH there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. NACE-Actually three people.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at the test pit data on pit, four, five, seven, eight, nine and ten,
all of those show a seasonally high water at less than three feet. Now, I guess that was through
mottling techniques as well. Most of the time that’s done through mottling techniques, which,
Tom, I guess you feel at time the mottling technique works against you because the water is
never that high or?
MR. NACE-Well, all that mottling tells you is sometime historically the water has been there for
an extended period of time.
MR. VOLLARO-Why do we use mottling techniques then? I mean, it’s not a good indicator of
what the depth is.
MR. NACE-Well, it’s normally a worst case scenario. There are a few times, in certain soils, that
it’s not, but in soils like these that are fairly loamy and silty, mottling is a very good indicator.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me what happens is that technique, and this Board will probably
get irritated with me on this one, but that technique really mitigates against you when you
come up against SEQRA. SEQRA starts to talk, in it’s Part II, about less than three feet, and now
this Board looks at those, or at least I do, and I know the rest of the Board does, looks at the less
than three feet requirement. Now we’re between a rock and a hard place as to what, first we
have to say yes. You can’t get away from that, and secondly, we have to decide whether it can
be mitigated or not.
MR. NACE-Well, and, you know, it is mitigated through following the Department of Health
standards. They recognize that, you know, they can build what they call a, or term a standard
system, where you have at least two feet of natural material to mottling, and that’s what we
were doing. Just as a side note here, these test pits were done April 28. So that was at a high
th
groundwater.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Of course, when the test pit is done, April 28 wouldn’t help you with
th
historical mottling. I mean, that mottling mark may have been there, and, April 28 or not, it
th
sits there and the water could be at a much lower depth, is what you’re saying.
MR. NACE-That’s true.
MR. VOLLARO-The exact science of this bothers me somewhat.
MR. NACE-We’re required by the Health Department to utilize the mottling.
MR. SANFORD-Just to reference Section A183-35, which I think is speaking in terms of the
Planning Board could require clustering. Now, I don’t know how applicable clustering is in
something like this, which is a rather small development, but they speak in terms, in that article,
of some of the problems that would necessitate clustering, which means, you know, issues like
what we’re talking about, and they do talk, they give some parameters, and they’re talking
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
about perc rates, and they give a min and a max perc rate there, and they talk about bedrock.
Now I know if you go to the north of that site is loaded with bedrock, okay. North of this site is
filled with bedrock, all Ridge Meadows area is bedrock.
MR. NACE-Ridge Meadows is south.
MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. South. I’m sorry, you’re right. You’re right.
MR. NACE-As you get down toward Quaker Road you do run into bedrock.
MR. SANFORD-Tons of bedrock, and in fact, the land right next to this, which is what I refer to
as the horse farm in the upper elevations of that, it’s all rock, too, and so I’m wondering if, to
what degree there’s bedrock here, but it does mention that if you have bedrock within 18 inches
or less and it’s over 25% of the site, it’s a problem. They talk about 40 inches, if you have soils
with a depth to seasonal high water table of 40 inches, over 25% of the site, you’ve got issues,
and so there’s a lot of criteria they’re talking about which bring up, in my opinion, flags, and I
would think you probably, on Item Seven, you probably don’t have that kind of 40 inch depth
that’s referenced in that article.
MR. NACE-To mottling, but we do not have any bedrock, okay, and we still, you know, we’re, I
think, achieving some of the goals of clustering by bringing all of the development up to the
upland or higher portion of the site, and we’re still able to meet the zoning requirements.
MR. LAPPER-One other point. This is in the SFR zone where clustering is not a permitted
option.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I thought actually, no, I’m just going on my basis of the fact that many of
the criteria that they’re listing is indicative of problem areas to build on, Jon, but I actually
thought that we did actually revise the clustering to now apply to Single Family One Acre.
MR. RINGER-That was a recommendation, but it hasn’t been done.
MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t been done yet.
MR. SANFORD-It was never done yet?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s still in the Code as it is now.
MR. SANFORD-Is it? Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But I guess Tom’s response was that we’re essentially “clustering” the septic
systems and the houses in a better land, and it’s still, because these are two and three acre and
one acre lots, it’s not a dense development, but we’re using the good soils. So it accomplishes
those goals. Clearly a case where we’re trying to work with the Board and not try and push this
to get more lots than will suitably fit.
MR. SANFORD-I’d be also interested in knowing exactly where the house placements are going
to be, and again, going back to other applications that we’ve recently had, I know how wet this
is now, then of course if you’re going to be bringing in Town water, you’re going to be
contributing, you know, making a wet area wetter as well as also stormwater. So I think that
we have to take a comprehensive look at all of that, to try and see if we can become comfortable
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
with this property, but all these houses, I assume, are going to be placed in close proximity to
this road, rather than deeper into the lots, or has that been decided?
MR. NACE-The septic systems on the lower side of the road, the septic systems will definitely
be front yard septics.
MR. SANFORD-I see.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll have house placement, proposed house placements, on the Preliminary
stage.
MR. SANFORD-You know, I know this how this land slopes from Meadow Drive to Cronin
Road, but I’m not as sure as to how it slopes from Ridge going down along Cronin Road
heading towards the west, but you can tell by Cronin Road that it drops off, that it drops down.
MR. NACE-There’s contours right on the plan there.
MR. SANFORD-So I would assume Lots 8, 7, and 9 are a little drier than the other ones, based
on my.
MR. NACE-They’re all pretty tough. The contours are shown on the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, I think that’s pretty evident down on 9, 8, and 7. The perc rates there are
two minutes fifty-nine, one minute thirty-one, and three minutes fifty-one. So they’re pretty
good per rates down there.
MR. NACE-Yes. It’s a loamy soil, okay. It’s just that it does have a mottling layer that’s up in
the two to three foot range, but it’s really, when you get back in there, there’s sort of a plateau in
here, and then it gently slopes down. There’s nothing that’s very steep.
MR. VOLLARO-But, just one other question on the slope down. Describe the function of that
shallow retention basin. It seems that if it sits higher than the flagged wetlands, at 60 feet
versus 50 feet, but I guess what you’re doing here is that shallow retention is taking everything
from the bottom of this drawing, essentially.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we diving too much into engineering data here with only a Sketch Plan
review?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want to make sure that when they come to us with the Final we
don’t have questions on this shallow retention basin and how it’s working.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re going to be coming to you with Preliminary, not Final.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Preliminary, I’m talking about, you know, Preliminary is pretty close to
Final.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily.
MR. NACE-This basin, yes, it does sit above the wetlands, okay, and it’ll provide storage and
detention, and it will have, you know, there will be some infiltration in the bottom of the basin,
but there will also be some shallow broad crest (lost word) overflow toward the wetland, but
we want to keep it separated from the wetland a little way to give additional treatment.
MR. SANFORD-Now that wetland that’s flagged, again, it was flagged in May of ’04. How far
does that wetland travel to the west, or don’t you know?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. NACE-I think somebody saw a Town wetland map, whether it was Bob or somebody had,
but we will get DEC to come and take a look and flag it for their purposes and then they will see
whether it’s jurisdictional, whether it’s connected.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m just wondering if it goes all the way to Halfway Brook, because it’s
around the same elevation as Halfway Brook.
MR. NACE-No, it can’t, well, between this and Halfway Brook you’ve got the apartment
complex, you’ve got Meadowbrook Road.
MR. SANFORD-You don’t have the apartment complex. It’s on the other side of it.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. SANFORD-No, I mean.
MR. NACE-Halfway Brook comes up from Quaker Road on the east side of Meadowbrook
Road, crosses Cronin, and doesn’t cross Meadowbrook until up at the Scout camp.
MR. SANFORD-No, no. I’m referring to Regency Park apartments on Meadowbrook.
MR. NACE-There’s a small brook that crosses there, yes. That brook is approximately up here,
on the map, and it probably does connect with that brook.
MR. SANFORD-Right. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not Halfway Brook. That’s a tributary.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I guess not. If you’re going to request any waivers,
obviously put it in writing to us, and you’re going to get that jurisdictional from you to DEC or
Army Corps, right?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2004 SKETCH SEQRA TYPE: N/A AGENT(S): N/A OWNER(S):
TERRY KARANIKAS ZONING: UR-1A, SFR-1A LOCATION: SWEET RD. & COUNTRY
CLUB RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 16 +/- ACRE
PROPERTY INTO 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.5 +/- ACRES TO
13.66 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 10.09 ACRES, 6.62 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.15-1-18 AND 24 SECTION: 183 SUBD. REGS
TERRY KARANIKAS
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George.
MR. HILTON-Well, the subdivision proposes six residential lots in a split zoned property. It’s
zoned SFR-1A and also UR-1A. The proposed subdivision shows flagged DEC wetlands, along
with disturbance with the construction of a road which was previously signed off by, for the
house in the rear, which was previously signed off by New York State DEC and Army Corps.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
The new construction, however, on Lots One through Five will require, it appears that they will
require a New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit as well as a Town Freshwater
Wetlands permit. The plat shows a stream to the west of the property which flows through a
culvert under Country Club and then appears to stop, and I guess the course of that stream
should be shown. In addition, it’s quite possible, based on our review of some data, that there
could be additional, another stream on the eastern portion of this property. If that’s the case, it
should also be shown, and again, per the Town’s wetland policy, copies of the delineation,
along with copies of jurisdictional inquiries to DEC and Army Corps will be required at the
time of Preliminary review of the subdivision, as well as an NOI, as the overall plan would
involve the disturbance of greater than one acre. As proposed, the subdivision shows lots that
do not conform to the parcel size requirements of the UR-1A zone. The applicant has indicated
his intent to cluster, and if clustering is, in fact, the proposal, any areas to be retained as open
space should be identified on the Preliminary plat, along with the density calculation
considering wetland areas, open space areas, etc. As proposed, Area Variances are required for
Lots One through Five, as they do not have the required street frontage, and should the
Planning Board approve of this layout, consideration should also be given to providing access
from Lot One, to the proposed driveway, as opposed to right on right off of Country Club Road,
and I guess the question, has Wastewater Department provided any comment on the
applicant’s proposal to connect to the municipal sewer system, and furthermore, will the Lot Six
be connected to the system, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. KARANIKAS-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. KARANIKAS-Terry Karanikas.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment here, before we get started?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-My first question in my notes was, why is the pre-application conference sheet
blank? There was no pre-application. It’s a fairly complex Sketch Plan, and there wasn’t, there
was never a pre-application conference on this. Should there have been, on Sketch, or not?
Because it shows it on, as far as our data’s concern, it says in Sketch Plan. Sketch Plan Pre-
Application Conference. It’s written right on the top. I guess that’s the first question that the
Chairman might have asked, is this required for a Sketch Plan, and it’s right on there.
MR. HILTON-Yes, typically with all applications that come before the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t this done?
MR. HILTON-Good question. It’s at Sketch Plan. I think the decision was made. We get it
before you, you know, if you have any concerns, we can outline them now before we go to
Preliminary, but to answer your question, no, pardon me, a Pre-Ap was not done.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, a lot of the times I would have said it wouldn’t be necessary. This is not,
when you get into this, this is not a simple.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. I’ll make a phone call tomorrow and ask the question. I’ll
just open it up to ask questions from anybody on the Planning Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know how it qualifies for clustering.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. HILTON-Well, in the UR-1A zone, as you know, clustering is allowed, but then when you
look at the cluster provisions, you know, it talks about provisions for open space and shortened
driveways, and.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but it’s five acres of zoning for each lot, which would require for six lots 30
acres for clustering.
MR. HILTON-I’m not sure I follow you.
MR. RINGER-The requirements for clustering is one lot for every five acres.
MR. HILTON-No, I think the requirement is that you have to have five times the minimum lot
acreage.
MR. RINGER-Right, five times the minimum. So one acre zoning.
MR. HILTON-You would have to have at least five acres to cluster.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to have five, Larry, to do this.
MR. RINGER-All right. I read that wrong then.
MR. VOLLARO-But on the site plan, on the proposed Sketch Plan, one half of Lot Two is in the
SFR zone, which is not subject to clustering, and yet that lot is part of the clustering
presentation, and it shouldn’t be. Because half of it is in the SFR zone which is not subject to
cluster. So that’s the first thing. That’s in 179-11-040B.
MR. KARANIKAS-Would that be a lot line variance or? This is just a Sketch Plan. I know I
have to go for that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In order to get that whole lot into a cluster, you’d have to go get a
variance and probably go to ZBA, just for your own reference, take a look at the Code and read
Page 180-28. That is 179-11-040B, which talks to that subject.
MR. KARANIKAS-Right. I guess the reason I did that is I worked with Planning Staff, with
Craig, and he said that if I went for.
MR. VOLLARO-If you worked with Planning Staff, then how come there is no Pre-Application
Conference sheet here if you’ve worked with anybody at the Staff on this?
MR. KARANIKAS-I worked with Craig Brown a little. I’ve got the letter from George.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. You’ll call about that in the morning, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I will.
MR. VOLLARO-One other thing, I guess, in 179-11-050C, it says an alternate Sketch Plan, the
Planning Board may request an alternate Sketch Plan to conform with the zoning if required,
and I think we’d like to see both, at least I would like to see an alternate plan that conforms to
the zone. That’s a requirement that we’re allowed to ask for, under our Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are all these lots going to be served by that one drive?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, a shared drive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who would take care of maintenance of it?
MR. KARANIKAS-My back lot.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a requirement in our subdivision that you can’t have a shared
driveway for more than two lots?
MR. HILTON-I don’t think that’s the case. I’ll take a look here, but I’ll point to a subdivision
recently we looked at at Sketch Plan, off of Oakwood Drive, where we had multiple, I think four
lots off of one shared driveway. I think, you know, as long as the easements are there and the
agreements.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’ve got a Preliminary next month.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll bring it up next month. I won’t support it. I’ll tell you flat out right now.
I won’t. I just think, conceptually, it’s a bad idea. For emergency, fire access, it’s a bad idea.
For ownership rights it’s a bad idea. For property owner’s individual rights it’s a bad idea, and
I’ll categorically tell you I won’t support it.
MR. KARANIKAS-Well, the only reason I did it is Craig said there was a precedent, I guess, set
already for it.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no such thing as a precedent when you get in front of the Planning
Board.
MR. KARANIKAS-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my position. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. I just, I see
problems, just too many problems arising out of serving a subdivision of this size, that many
lots, with one common driveway feeding them all. I see all sorts of red flags popping up.
MR. VOLLARO-The other thing I don’t understand is the setbacks from the flagged DEC
wetlands is usually 100 feet, and all the proposed setbacks here are 75. Is DEC setback 75 or
100?
MR. HILTON-No, it’s kind of a complicated explanation, but they have a 100 foot regulated
area. Anywhere within 100 feet of a wetland they require a permit, they being DEC. The 75
foot setback is a Town setback. That’s a building setback for that zone from a wetland or a
water body. However, anything within 100 feet also requires the Town, 100 feet of a DEC
wetland, requires a Town wetland Freshwater Wetlands permit. So it’s very confusing.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s a whole bunch of permits applicable to this?
MR. HILTON-To say the least.
MR. MAC EWAN-You had mentioned, George, in your Staff notes, when you read them off
earlier, about that you think it may require some variances, Area Variances, is that what you
said?
MR. HILTON-Yes, from the lots not having frontage on a Town road.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s another bad idea.
MR. HILTON-That requires a variance.
MR. RINGER-Wouldn’t it be a better idea for the applicant to go back to Staff and sit down and
have a conference and come up with all the problems?
MR. VOLLARO-I would think so.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. KARANIKAS-Well, what I had done is I had a flagged lot one and they said you frowned
on that. So I don’t know how that would work, but it still is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe this is one of those cases where the land just can’t be developed to its
maximum desire. I mean, you know, I see, from my position I see issues with surrounding the
wetlands, the fact that you need to have variances for the shared driveways, and I’ve already
stated my position on why I think it’s such a bad idea to have shared driveways for that many
building lots. It’s so many potentials for a catastrophe in here, to me it’s just, I just see it as a
plan that’s not suitable or desirable, but that’s just me. There’s six other bodies up here.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that.
MR. RINGER-I think there’s other things with this, and maybe he should sit down with Staff
and go over all the things and rather than have us hunt and peck this thing, and not be sure of
Code. So I’d just say, let’s send them back to Staff with the Sketch.
MR. VOLLARO-Let him send them back to Staff to essentially a Pre-Application Conference,
that should have been done to begin with, and then come back.
MR. RINGER-Right. Yes, because he may have a lot of changes in this before he even comes
back with Sketch.
MR. VOLLARO-Exactly.
MR. HILTON-I guess, I don’t want to, certainly, like I said, a Pre-Application Conference is
required, but I’m not sure what input or how that’s going to change anything or would change
anything. I mean, we can certainly point out, as part of our Pre-Application Conferences what
we do is we point out the Code requirements and we point out what’s required to be seen on a
plan, but that may not change what any applicant would propose.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re looking for Staff to sit down with the applicant and help design his
subdivision? That’s not what Staff’s there for.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I understand that.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but Staff could tell him what’s needed and variances that are needed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he already knows what’s needed. I mean, Craig has already indicated
to him that he’d need to have Area Variances because of the shared driveways, because they
don’t have frontage. He’s already been given that information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a sense for what the total impact is on the wetlands?
MR. KARANIKAS-The impact is only the part where it’s colored for the back lot. That’s already
been approved by DEC.
MR. HUNSINGER-DEC already approved that? It didn’t have to go through Army Corps?
MR. KARANIKAS-And I went through Army Corps also. So the only thing that’s impacted is
the 75 foot setback, and that’s just driveway going through, it’s being carefully kept away from
the delineation. So, there’s no driveways that are really required by the DEC to review, other
than what was already impacted. The reason that I did the subdivision in front, I probably
never would have done it, is because the sewer came down the bike path, and I was, I do have
the Town saying that I could do a grind pump up to it. So there is, you know, and it being the
clustering possibility, and that you have done shared driveways before, I didn’t think that
would be singled out for.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. HILTON-Again, I know it’s kind of a confusing explanation, but the 75 foot setback line, I
just want to be clear, so that everyone maybe understands, the 75 foot setback is a building
setback, Town building setback from the wetland. Any construction or disturbance within 100
feet of a DEC wetland requires a DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit.
MR. KARANIKAS-Construction or driveway?
MR. HILTON-Driveway, construction. Yes, so again, I mean, if you’re assuming that, for
example, the house on Lot Five.
MR. KARANIKAS-The driveway hasn’t changed. The driveway, so, basically probably the
three lots that you’re, the first one isn’t going to be, the third and fourth and the fifth would be
probably required for them to look at. Is that what you’re saying, because of the disturbance
that way?
MR. HILTON-Well, I’m saying that, you know, in looking at some of the lots, it appears that
there’ll be some sort of DEC, additional DEC review required.
MR. KARANIKAS-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Well, George, I’m a little confused. We’ve had applications in front of us who
have gone for a Town Freshwater permit, and that’s 100 feet, and they’ve built right up, I mean,
right within that 100 feet. What happens to the 75 foot setback in that case? We just throw it
out the window?
MR. HILTON-No, not necessarily, that 75, that building setback is different for each zone.
MS. RADNER-The Town applies to any wetland, DEC is only jurisdictional wetlands.
MR. SANFORD-No, I’m not talking that. I’m talking our Town Freshwater permit is required if
they’re going to be building within 100 feet of a designated wetland.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-And so that’s 100 feet for our Town, and then we have a 75 foot Town wetlands
setback. Why the inconsistency?
MR. HILTON-I can’t answer that, but certainly it’s an inconsistency.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s a good answer.
MR. VOLLARO-The way this drawing is shown now, the houses on these Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5
would have to be behind.
MR. KARANIKAS-That would come in the next, if I was approved for Sketch.
MR. VOLLARO-I have another question, which nobody has raised, so I’ll raise it. This
proposed house down at the bottom here, this 14,375 square foot house, what is that?
MR. KARANIKAS-It’s a castle.
MR. VOLLARO-A castle, and that castle is going to be right behind Bill Griswald’s place, 135
from his property line. You’re going to build a castle.
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, it’s not over any height variances, I don’t believe. There’s a lot of tall
trees back there. I don’t think I’ll even see his house. I’ve walked out there. You can’t even see
that far, unless I start clearing it out, which I don’t see me doing that.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, my drawing shows 135 foot from your proposed house.
MR. KARANIKAS-I don’t think that proposed house is to scale. The actual house is being
designed by an architect, and it’ll show up probably on the, probably the next, if I can get that
far, for the next plan. It’ll be the actual, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s still 14,375 square feet.
MR. KARANIKAS-If we haven’t changed it, yes, I think the house hasn’t changed. It might be
16.
MR. VOLLARO-Sixteen thousand. That’s my only question, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have
anymore questions on this. I think Mr. Ringer has made a very good suggestion, though. At
least they ought to make a stab at going back. I really feel that Larry is correct that they ought
to go through the steps of the Pre-Application Conference, so that we see on paper what Staff is
thinking.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve pretty much already seen what Staff is thinking.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to see a piece of paper that says that, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that going to change your position, how you feel about this subdivision
layout?
MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to waive the Pre-Application Conference, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I’m asking you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m asking you. Are we going to waive that Pre-Application Conference?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t think we should waive it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token, if you’re asking the applicant to go sit down with
Staff and come back to us with the same plan that you’re already giving the thumbs down to,
why go through, put everyone through that exercise?
MR. KARANIKAS-Because I did that two months ago.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different story.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing conflicting things. Did you sit down with Staff or did you not sit
down with Staff?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, I did.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why now are we saying he sat down with Staff?
MR. HILTON-Well, you know, it sounds to me like he met someone on our Staff, and, you
know, whether or not those notes were put into a Pre-Application Conference or if that was
even a Pre-Application Conference, I can’t answer it, but based on review of the materials,
there’s no Pre-Application page. So I’m under the assumption that no Conference took place.
MR. RINGER-When you sat down with Craig, did you have a completed application?
MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, I had everything. This is not my first time doing this.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. RINGER-Craig is very thorough. As we pointed out before, when he sits down with
somebody, he makes notes.
MR. KARANIKAS-And I did sit with him a couple of times with different ideas, and he’s kind
of the one that gave me the direction to go in so I wouldn’t waste my time, or your time, with
different things that come from the Board. Like I said, I wouldn’t have probably come to this
conclusion if that sewer wasn’t up the street and was able to tap into it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me do this. Let’s take an informal poll, right down the Board,
starting with Rich. Can you embrace this concept or not?
MR. SANFORD-I’m with you, Craig, on the shared driveway. That seems like that could have
significant problems down the road. In other words, you would be taking care of that
driveway? And that begs the question, what happens if something happened to you. So I feel
uncomfortable about that right off the get go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’d take it a step farther, too. Any time that you have to seek variances
to create a subdivision, there’s a problem there.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll buy that argument as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m with you on that. Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have trouble with it, but I also have trouble with the length of that driveway
and getting fire apparatus into there and with the type of building he’s proposed.
MR. KARANIKAS-That one’s already approved, the one in the back.
MR. RINGER-Approved by who?
MR. KARANIKAS-By the Town.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I’m thinking of emergency vehicle apparatus getting in there.
MR. KARANIKAS-This is a subdivision I already did. This has already been approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got a lone lot here.
MR. RINGER-He could get a right, I realize he’s got a right to put that in, but I have trouble
with the lots, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, that was going to be my question. What would be stopping him
from building that building.
MR. RINGER-He could build it on one lot, the building.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m in agreement with you as well.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just have an issue that, you know, Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, any one of those, you
have this driveway going through their lot, deeded or otherwise. What’s not to say if the
person at Lot Two got angry and closed down access to 3, 4, 5. Then you’ll never get to your
house, and you say to yourself, well, that’ll never happen. I’ll tell you what, it’ll happen. So,
you figure out a way to, you know, get a deeded right of way off of those lots.
MR. KARANIKAS-So you’re saying basically have those, and this is what I would do with the
Staff, obviously, when I did, is that the edge of the driveway would be edge of property line,
but I guess this one would become a flag lot like it is, and they’d share the driveway,
inadvertently, but it would have its own right of way.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t think that’s what we’re saying at all.
MR. KARANIKAS-Well, I was just saying, you’re saying through the property lines. I’m just
saying if you put it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what the Board is saying is that we’re not embracing this plan at all as
you’ve got it. The fact of the matter is you have to get variances to create a common drive, it’s a
bad idea to have a common drive serving that many lots, without having the lots have their
own frontage on the main road, or a cul de sac or something like that, a dedicated Town road
serving them.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. I mean, if you could get, somehow do a dedicated Town road, it’s
certainly a lot better than this.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something like eliminate Lots Two, Three, Four, and Five and have Lot One on
one side of the road and Lot Two on the other side over there.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t think we should be designing the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not. We’re giving him input.
MR. METIVIER-We’re giving him the message that this is just unacceptable that way it is. I
mean, it truly is not, I mean, we just couldn’t, I couldn’t consciously approve this.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing we can suggest is that maybe you should sit down with Craig
and get some input from him. I’m going to make a phone call to Craig in the morning, and see
what his line of thinking was on this.
MR. KARANIKAS-I think what he was saying was what he was saying, that you’ve done it
before, and that’s why he was going with it. This is a, I did come with two other ideas and he
said this was the one that’s been done before and would probably be okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. KARANIKAS-Okay. So it doesn’t really matter if it’s been done before anyway. This is the
Board this time. Right?
MR. MAC EWAN-I can only tell you from my personal experience on this Board, I don’t recall
ever being involved in giving an approval to a subdivision that has shared driveways with
more than two lots.
MR. RINGER-There’s no advantage to the Town to clustering, either. There’s generally an
advantage to the Town to cluster. There’s no advantage to the Town, no land.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. VOLLARO-He has to get a variance to cluster here on Lot Number Two at this time. Part
of it’s in the SFR zone, which is not subject to cluster.
MR. RINGER-Even if he got it, there’s still no advantage to the Town to allowing cluster.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re reinforcing what the Chairman said here that there are a lot of variances
required on this particular application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. KARANIKAS-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II WOLFRAM J. SCHILLE AGENT(S): N/A
OWNER(S): WOLFRAM J. SCHILLE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 382 CLEVERDALE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD 154 SQ. FT. TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA (LAKE GEORGE
CEA) REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 34-2004, BOH 16, 2004 (SEPTIC VARIANCE) LOT SIZE: 0.14
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-58 SECTION: 179-4-30
WOLFRAM SCHILLE, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a new attached garage to an existing home
on Cleverdale Road. The garage would be built in place of an existing kitchen area/storage area
of the home. The applicant has requested the waivers I’ve listed, stormwater management,
grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan, and as I’ve noted, on August 16 the Town Board
th
approved a septic variance to allow holding tanks to be used at this location, and with that,
that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SCHILLE-Good evening. I’m Mr. Schille.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed application?
MR. SCHILLE-What I’m actually doing, I’m reducing the square footage of the house and
taking basically where a shed is and where a bedroom is, take one story down and trying to
make out of that a garage, and for that I need a little bit more room on the lower floor of about, I
believe, 154 square feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This seems relatively simple, I think. I’ll open it up for questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, this is the, for lack of a better term, dilapidated house. It’s in
need of a serious repair.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The one that we said it couldn’t be.
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Do you plan on tearing down? I guess I’d like to sort of hear what your plans
are, because when we took a look at this, you’re planning on putting the small addition on a
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
building which looks like it’s in such a state of disrepair that you’re probably going to be
eventually taking down the whole structure.
MR. SCHILLE-Okay. Where the garage is, that’s the part that has to be taken down, since it
needs a footing and everything else. The rest of the house I can’t change, since I can’t do that.
I’m not allowed to change it. So the remaining house stays the same, except the back portion
where I want to put the garage, as I’ve shown in my blueprints, that has to be completely torn
down, yes.
MR. RINGER-What’s happened to us many times is an applicant has come, such as yourself, to
put an addition on, and then he starts and all of a sudden the foundation or what isn’t there and
the whole building comes down and he’s got a new a structure, and that’s one of the ways to
get a new structure and get around the zoning where he couldn’t do it if he was to build a new
house, and that, I think that’s what we’re asking. What happens if you start and the whole
thing comes down? And it looks like it may come down.
MR. SCHILLE-I’m not sure how that can come down. It’s straight, the surrounding part of it is
straight, and I was told by the Board already that I cannot make any other changes, and that’s,
the footing has already taken care of it on the front, where it’s all been rotted out, and so that’s
basically straight. I just wanted to make sure that I had more room to park cars, rather than
putting them on the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, just clarification. If he was to just start his renovation and the
structure did fall down, under the Ordinances, he’s only allowed to replace the existing
footprint, and I say that because I remember Takundewide. We had a problem up there, and
the same thing happened, and they were going to replace the footprint.
MR. RINGER-We had a couple of others very similar to that.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think if you have an existing structure and something happens,
structurally, where it collapses or whatever, you are able to rebuild on the, you know, you’re
able to rebuild what you had. If you’re going to willingly teardown and rebuild, you have to
meet the setbacks.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. METIVIER-Well, don’t you have to take that a step farther, and actually save a wall or
something? I mean, you hear that all the time, we’re going to save this wall, build around the
house, you know, and be happy. So it would be more of a renovation as opposed to a
teardown.
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess in this case, we have a structure that’s received side setback,
shoreline setback, floor area ratio relief, all the variances have been granted for the setback. So
this new addition, if you, you know, he’s already received the ZBA approval. So I guess that
might be a little different scenario.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the two scenarios you’ve got here is that if it did fall down while
he’s renovating, he’s okay because the ZBA already gave him his variances, his setback variance
and what not that he’s sought, or, if it was to collapse, now we’re starting from Ground Zero, so
to speak, and he now has to conform with all the side yard setbacks.
MR. SANFORD-No, if it was to fall down, he would be able to use the existing footprint. It’s if
he tears it down.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-You said fall down. If it falls down, he can rebuild on the existing footprint. If
he demolishes it himself, then he has to meet all the codes.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. HILTON-The setbacks.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s an awful lot of gray area there, isn’t there?
MR. METIVIER-Well, why would the Town not say to him, you know, you can, not rebuild, but
renovate on the existing? I mean, would they flat out say, no, you wouldn’t, you can’t do that,
if you have a structure that’s destined to fall down? I mean, how can they say you can’t rebuild
or reconstruct areas that are, you know, in disrepair? I understand the difference between
demolishing and starting over, but if you’re in an area that there’s no other option.
MR. SANFORD-Tony, I think it happens like what you just said. I mean, I think, typically what
happens is they come in and they want to put an addition on, and it turns out that they keep the
addition and they do another renovation or another, and before you know it you have a new
home.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I think that’s how you get around it.
MS. RADNER-The Section of the Code that’s at issue is 179-13-050 regarding destruction of a
pre-existing, nonconforming structure. It reads that any structure which is nonconforming due
to a setback violation or in the case of multifamily housing due to greater intensity than would
be allowed this Chapter which is destroyed wholly or in part by fire, flood, wind, hurricane,
tornado, or other act beyond the control of man, shall be allowed to reconstruct according to its
original dimension and intensity within 18 months of said destruction. I don’t recall a case,
under this Town Code. I recall a case I had under a similar provision in another Town’s Code
where there was a destruction during construction, and it was interpreted as being an act
caused by man. They did, in that case, allow rebuilding on the footprint, though. I don’t know
that it’s come up under our Town Code. As you were suggesting, though, if the person were to
rebuild on the footprint one wall at a time, provided they got the applicable building permits,
they could do that and continue to maintain an existing structure, but they can’t decide to tear
down an existing structure and rebuild.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does that clarify it for everybody?
MR. VOLLARO-I have a basic problem. I can’t get, you know, there’s several drawings here,
lots of drawings, some plan views, some architecturals, and I’m working primarily with the
plan view drawings, which is after and before, and I have worked these numbers on your
drawing every way known to man, and when I do that, I can’t get to 154 square feet, for the
addition. I see what you’re doing. I see what the plan view shows, and I’ve taken all your
dimensions and tried to analyze down to 154 square feet. Now I don’t really care whether it’s
154 or 155.
MR. SCHILLE-Actually it is less.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, whatever it is. The thing that it impacts on is the area of permeability. I
mean, you get into your other form, and you’re talking about permeability, on site development
data. You’re talking a reduction of 900 feet, and that reduction of 900 feet is supposed to get us
to the proposed addition of 154.
MR. SCHILLE-No, not really. What it means that right now I’ve got, in front is all tar, behind
the house is going to be all grass. So what before was slate and cement is now going to be grass,
and that’s where the drainage comes from, that I improve the drainage. So that has nothing to
do with the garage.
MR. VOLLARO-Has nothing to do with the garage.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SCHILLE-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because it says paved gravel or other hard surface areas. The garage, I
thought, the 154 square feet from the garage, because it was only 154 square feet, you had a
reduction of the hard surface. This just didn’t make sense to me. I worked it every way I knew
how, and I can’t come up and make these numbers play.
MR. SCHILLE-The hard surface reduction is on the left side of the house and the right side of
the house. Right now where there is the septic tank or where a future one is, this is all cement,
okay, and it’s all tile, all the way down, almost 57 feet, okay, and that is now going to be grass,
with new tanks there, and so that has nothing to do with the garage. The other side where you
enter into the garage, that at this moment is also tar and cement, and that is going to be changed
to some part of it is going to be grass. Obviously the driveway going in there is not going to be
grass. So that was subtracted from that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So out of the 1250, you’re taking 900.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how you get down to your 350?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m still, I still can’t get to 154, though, using your before and after
drawings, and all the dimensions that you’ve supplied, I have a hard time getting to that
number. Now maybe it’s a moot point. Maybe it’s 154. Maybe it’s 150. Maybe it’s 145. Maybe
it’s whatever. I just can’t get this from those drawings. So, you know, I just don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what are you asking?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would have to, in all good conscience, I would have to either
abstain or vote no on this because I can’t get to the number. When I can’t get to the numbers in
my house, with the information provided by the applicant, then I just can’t get to the numbers,
and if I can’t, I can’t satisfy myself, and that’s my position. So that’s the way it goes. There’s six
other members on this Board that can vote up or down for it, but I can’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-So you obtained a variance to use holding tanks instead of a septic system?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, since there’s no room for the septic system, according to the Town.
MR. SEGULJIC-How much can those holding tanks hold?
MR. SCHILLE-I think they’re 1500 gallons each. So there’s 3,000 gallons.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how often are they going to be pumped out?
MR. RINGER-There’d be an alarm on it, wouldn’t there?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes. It has a septic system which is working. It was a big argument at the last
meeting why it was even had to do all that, since I have had as many as 10 people there for the
last 20 years, and used to five bedrooms with all the bathrooms, and it never failed. Okay, but
according to, I wanted to do it right, I drink the water. I live next door, and I figured I have to
do something. So I offered, if the system which might be 50 years old or 80 years old, even
though it has not failed as of last year, when the last person rented the place, I said, okay, I’ll
put the tanks in, and that’s the way it started, but it was (lost words) and I think the Board went
along and said, no, we held you up a year now anyway on that whole thing, you know, we’re
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
going to approve it. That’s the way we got to that. This is about a year that I’ve been working
on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s 50 or 80 years old, it’s not a septic field or a septic tank. It’s a cess pool.
MR. SCHILLE-It’s a cess pool. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cess pools don’t fail. They just leach into the lake.
MR. SCHILLE-Well, I’m pretty sure that I have a cess pool and everybody next to it, the whole
road, except the other tanks, which have cess pools. So since mine hasn’t changed either, and
I’ve got a 4600 square foot home with five bedrooms and four bathrooms, and it hasn’t failed
either, and I haven’t changed it since I owned it in 32 years, and I go the other way, I’ve got six
other ones, and I know all the septic systems, and I used to be on the committee for about 15
years, until we gave up, since nobody wanted to make any changes, as far as the sewer system.
That’s the reason the house, I let go, since I was waiting, that we’ll get the sewer system. That’s
the only reason that it got to that point. Otherwise I would have changed it 20 years ago, since
I’ve owned it 28 years, and it has been rented every year until a year and a half.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in any event, they’re not letting you use it, and they’re putting you on
holding tanks, which is a whole other thing.
MR. SCHILLE-No, no. They did not. No, no, no. They did not say I can’t use it, okay. I mean,
that’s been occupied. It has electric. It has gas, it has a fireplace.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, no. I’m talking septic system now. They said you had to go to a
holding tank?
MR SCHILLE-That’s what we agreed on, okay. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because, you know, this is a .14 acres in a CEA in the APA in a WR-1A zone,
and you’re sitting on .14 acres. Boy, it’s a tight site. I’ve got to tell you.
MR. SCHILLE-That’s the reason I reduced it from five to two bedrooms.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve said what I had to say, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Where am I seeing the Board leaning here? Rich,
where are you?
MR. SANFORD-I think, we just, I mean, I saw the, there’s two properties here, as I understand
it, right? There’s property that is right next to it which you own, and then there’s the run down
property. That’s what we’re talking about?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-And I think, it’s nothing that this Board could probably do. I think, to me, it’s,
I’m uncomfortable with the idea of putting an addition on a building that’s ready to fall down,
okay. That’s the problem I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the prerogative of the property owner, though, you know.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, I agree. I just think there’s something crazy about how the regs read
on this, a property should either be improved or torn down. Anyway, I don’t know how I feel.
I’m not as hung up as Bob is on the dimensions, if that’s what you’re talking about.
MR. RINGER-On the surface I would say a 154 square foot addition is nothing. Having seen the
property, I think it’s going to fall down, too. I know you’ve said it isn’t.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SCHILLE-The only thing is, I would like the Board, I’ve still got, I can raze what I’ve got
and leave some bedrooms up there. I mean, I volunteered to take them down. Okay. I mean, I
did not have to reduce the square footage of it. I mean, the living space is what I’m reducing,
okay. The only thing I’m asking for today is two stories, or part of two stories, with a bedroom,
and a shed underneath, and part of the kitchen, which is going to be, that’s going to be a garage,
and then I’m moving that one wall out, not near the road, but on the other side move that out
to get enough room for putting two cars in there. So, I mean, I even moved the other wall over,
too, and gained it, which I didn’t even add to the square footage, but I don’t know what else I
can do. I mean, obviously I can bring it up, and I still, I don’t even need, to my knowledge,
approval, since the walls are there. So I even can go over the shed with extending the bedroom
and make a bigger bedroom out of it, but I have no intention of doing that since I don’t want to
run a rooming house. I mean, it’s going to stay in my family, and I have no intention to drink
sewer water either, but I’d like to get the cars off the road, since I already built garages at
apartment houses, but I would like to get more room there and get them off the road, rather
than the shed and the kitchen, and the bedroom basically is not used. It would be good for a
garage. So it’s not really adding anything to it. Yes, I’m going to change the whole house,
obviously, I hope it looks better.
MR. SEGULJIC-This is a list of all the (lost words). It sounds like you’re going to be essentially
changing the whole house.
MR. SCHILLE-No. I’m changing all the windows, changing all the doors.
MR. SEGULJIC-Replacing studs as needed, replacing piping as needed, replacing roofing as
needed.
MR. SCHILLE-Everything has to be changed there. I mean, there has to be a new roof, I’ve
already got three quarters of the roof (lost words). I mean, it’s.
MR. RINGER-Moving the kitchen, I mean, everything’s being moved.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an episode of This Old House. Chris, where do you stand on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with it. I bet the house is actually structurally in better shape than
we believe. I think a lot of, you know, when we drove by on site visits and looked at it, I think,
you know, we saw cosmetic stuff, you know, roof, sided, it was pretty rough, but he’s right.
The house wasn’t crooked. It’s not going to fall down.
MR. SCHILLE-It’s amazing how straight it is. However, when you look from the road where
the shed is, that’s in bad shape, but it’s really the only, and where the roof fell in the last, and I
let it go on purpose, since I said, somebody complains, too bad, maybe this way I’ll get a
variance.
MR. RINGER-When we looked at it, we didn’t think it was that house. We thought it was the
house next door.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHILLE-From the road side it looks okay. I mean, I built, I worked on the boathouse,
that’s another thing I did 25 years ago. Actually, I brought I don’t know how many truckloads
of dirt I brought in there since I razed the front wall, 50 feet by 50 feet in length, with railroad
ties, and brought about 25 truckloads of dirt in there in order to eliminate any possibility that
any septic could get in the lake since I’m drinking it.
MR. VOLLARO-Has anybody mentioned stormwater on this site at all? Is there any potential
on a .14 acre site for some stormwater to be leaching into the lake here? Or am I out in left field
on that thinking?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-There definitely is, but what I like is you get rid of the septic systems and go to
holding tanks, which I think would be a dramatic improvement.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SCHILLE-The stormwater thing is on the right side of that property from the road,
incidentally. I mean, the piping from the road going to the water is actually on that property.
MR. VOLLARO-This piping from the road going directly to the lake?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-It’s got to be an improvement over what’s there now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I think this is a perfect case where the Town just doesn’t work well in this
instance, I mean, you know, where they wouldn’t welcome him, you know, without going out
of bounds, tear down and rebuild, it just makes no sense, and, gee, I shouldn’t say it, but I hope
for the worst, I really do, because, you know, forgive me but it’s true. I mean, they’re not
allowing you to, you know, I wouldn’t say tear it down and build a monster house, but to be
able to repair the house would be a nice thing. So I’m fine with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s enough said, I guess. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2004 WOLFRAM J. SCHILLE, Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
To add 154 sq. ft. to an existing structure. Expansion of a nonconforming structure within a
CEA (Lake George CEA) requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
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 Tuesday, August 24, 2004; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted Tuesday, August 24, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Schille. Good luck.
MR. SCHILLE-I think I’ll need it.
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II EDWARD AND NOREEN SZMUL AGENT(S):
N/A OWNER(S): EDWARD AND NOREEN SZMUL ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION:
ROCKWELL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 4,300 SQ. FT. DUPLEX
ON A 4.8 +/- ACRE PROPERTY. DUPLEXES IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE:
4.84 ACRES SECTION: 169-4-020
EDWARD SZMUL, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a new home with a separate attached
dwelling on a vacant property on Rockwell Road. The current zoning of this property is SR-1A,
and two family dwellings are allowed in the SR-1A zone with site plan review and approval.
The applicant’s requested the waivers I’ve listed, stormwater management, grading, lighting,
landscaping. I guess our question is although a waiver from stormwater management plan has
been requested, we have questions about where stormwater and how it will be managed after
construction, will it be infiltrated, contained on the property, or will it flow off onto the adjacent
properties. With that, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SZMUL-Hi.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. SZMUL-I’m Ed Szmul.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your application, please.
MR. SZMUL-We own a really nice piece of property on Rockwell Road and we’d like to build a
house with a little apartment off the back. Should I address that stormwater question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you just give an overview of your whole project and we’ll bounce
in and we’ll ask questions.
MR. SZMUL-It’s basically a big main house about 2400 square feet. There’ll be a three car
garage, and then off the back of the garage there’ll be a one person apartment, basically for my
mother, 800 or so square feet for the apartment, but she can’t climb stairs. So that’s why it’s
going out instead of up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SZMUL-I think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for Board questions. Do you want to follow our
criteria? Design standards, regulations. I don’t think anything really applies here.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward. At least I can understand these drawings, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-It should be, he has an engineering background. Development criteria?
Nothing? Stormwater/sewage design?
MR. VOLLARO-The way I looked at this, this wouldn’t even be before us if it wasn’t a two
family situation. It would be just a plain house. So I guess I would like to see some test pit and
perc results before I would waive the stormwater issue, you know, just to see how wet the land
is. Is it very wet in there at all?
MR. SZMUL-Not really. There’s a seasonal stream, and even with all this rain, I haven’t seen
water in it, but I do have the perc test results now. Not here.
MR. VOLLARO-You do? You would have needed them anyway, to put your system in. I don’t
have any questions at all on this. This is a pretty straightforward site. The house looks good to
me and the drawings are self-explanatory. They make sense, and I don’t have any questions at
all on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had, I was having a hard time understanding exactly
where the site is, and recently when I was driving down the road, I noticed that someone was
building a shed.
MR. SZMUL-That’s the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought, but I wasn’t positive. So I wanted to ask that
question. What’s the shed for, which lot is the shed on, is it on Lot One?
MR. SZMUL-It’s on the same lot with the house.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. SZMUL-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? No? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARCY BALLARD
MRS. BALLARD-Hello. We’re Marcy and Scott Ballard. We live on 20 Howard Drive. Howard
Drive is actually just our driveway. It was deeded over to the Town back in the early, late 60’s
and early 70’s because there was the Austin Cemetery that is right there on the road. So I also
am a partial owner of the property, from my deceased mother, Kezia Howe, which butts up
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
against their back lot of the property. Behind the Grethers property. Our concerns over this
was first of all, when we received the letter, it states on here that you’re going to put this duplex
4.84 acres, and we just heard news of Lot One and Lot Two, and I was under the impression
that the whole property that they bought from Kathleen Poland was 4.84 acres. So where does
Lot One and Lot Two come from?
MR. MAC EWAN-Lot One and Lot Two is basically split. Lot One is 2.38 acres. Lot Two is 2.46
acres. So it’s not one lot. It is two lots, but for all practical purposes, for the purposes of this
review, we’re talking about putting a duplex on 2.38 acres.
MR. HILTON-If I can jump in here. Our tax map data, our current, I guess, official data shows
this as one piece. The applicant has supplied a deed that shows, or appears to show, that he has
deeds to two lots. We show it as being one. So throughout our notes and throughout our
notification process, we’ve been referring to it as one property, and it has been, the 500 foot
notification went out to everyone within 500 feet of both of these lots on the plan, but again,
what we show as one lot. So that, again, a little confusing, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, yes, it would be a lot confusing because also, not to cut off this lady
here, but you’re looking at a driveway that’s showing future access to a Lot Two.
MR. HILTON-And again, because we show it as one lot, this is a lot that has its own access
that’s proposing its own development. So we looked at it as conforming to the Zoning Code,
because again we show it as one lot.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s one or the other. I mean, they have Lot Two, and they have a
driveway where they’re saying that in the future they may want to build on Lot Number Two.
How could we find out if these lots were merged in the past or whether they stand?
MR. HILTON-Again, I spoke to the applicant the other day, and suggested that they go to the
County and try to rectify the situation with them there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t see us moving very much farther forward on this thing tonight.
MR. METIVIER-Actually, can I jump in for a second?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-What’s the relevance of that to this?
MR. MAC EWAN-The relevance is that fact t hat it’s part of the application. The application
has to be correct in what it’s indicating.
MR. METIVIER-Well, whether it’s two or four acres, I guess my point is that what’s in front of
us right now is a proposed home with a in-law apartment on parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if he’s showing this proposed home, okay, and he’s having access
coming off of Lot Two, crossing over into Lot One to gain access to the property, I have issues
with that. I mean, it’s just a matter of tidying things up, really. The reality is, I mean, if it’s one
lot, it should be shown as one lot and the deed should show it as one lot.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, if we approve this, are we approving these lots?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a subdivision. It’s a site plan.
MR. RINGER-We’re getting ahead of ourselves anyway. We’ve got a public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. This woman’s got some questions, and I don’t have all the answers for
you. Next question?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MRS. BALLARD-Also in the letter that we got it stated that it was for a 4300 square foot home,
and I do believe that he stated that the main home was going to be 2400, and an in-law
apartment of 800.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get it clarified.
MRS. BALLARD-Okay. Basically, I have to, you know, thinking this was all going on one lot,
we did not know that it was in two lots and what was going on, and I have not seen, you know,
the map, how that’s broken up as far as where it’s, you know, distributed. We’re very
concerned about the character of our neighborhood. It’s a very rural area, and we’re concerned
about having a duplex put on there since there is currently a duplex on Rockwell Road, but I do
believe that was there when I was a kid, and that was pre-zoning time. So we’re concerned
about the character of the neighborhood, and we don’t really want to see a duplex put on there,
but if he’s going to put a 4300 square foot home, nicely done, on the whole 4.83 acres, you
know, I have no problems with that, with a single drive, with no further development on the
site. We don’t want to see another duplex put on there and thinking about having, you know,
the rental issues there. It’s a very rural area over there, and that’s the way we like it, and we all
have large amounts of land and that’s where we live and we’re not selling it to developers,
because that’s what we want.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask him to clarify that when he comes back up.
SCOTT BALLARD
MR. BALLARD-Scott Ballard. I just have concerns of future development of that subsequent
Lot Two, if it does indeed exist, as a separate entity, and whether or not building of or approval
of a duplex on the first lot would, you know, set precedence for allowing a duplex on the
second lot as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll get it clarified.
MR. BALLARD-Thank you.
ALICE GRETHER
MRS. GRETHER-Hi. I’m Alice Grether. My husband and I live right next to the property on
184 Rockwell, and I echo what Marcy has said about our concerns. We welcome the gentleman
into the neighborhood, but I have a concern about the Lot One, Lot Two, and I really have a
concern about, not necessarily what’s going to happen now with his mother living in the
apartment, but what will happen if his situation should change, if, A, he should sell it, B, his
mother-in-law goes somewhere else. Could that apartment be rented and used as a rental unit.
Well, I really have a problem with that. As Marcy said, we want to keep our area rural and as
uncongested as possible, and with potential rentals having, you know, rentals coming in and
out, you just don’t know, and my major concern is that it will sort of lower the character and the
serenity of the neighborhood, and also again about the subdivision, Lot One and Lot Two. I
was told that if he wanted to develop Lot Two, he would have to apply for a subdivision, and is
the 4200 square foot house on the first lot, is that, is it zoned correctly for that first lot? Is it too
big, is it too close to the road? That driveway is going to go right in back of my barn, and the
variances, I’m assuming, have all been approved for the construction?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no variances required for this at this point.
MR. RINGER-He can have two lots on 4.83 acres up there. He’d have to be approved, the
subdivision would have to be approved, although it could be an administrative approval. It
might not be approved by this Board.
MR. SANFORD-Isn’t it one acre up there?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. RINGER-One acre zoning. He’s got four acres, so he could have two lots, he could have
more than that, actually.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s really okay with the zone, with the house the way it is on Lot Number
One.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay. That’s good.
MR. RINGER-He could go with the house but not with the in-law apartment.
MRS. GRETHER-I understand.
MR. RINGER-That’s what he’s here for.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay. I didn’t know any of this. So I just wanted to make sure.
MR. RINGER-I think conceivably he could have, I don’t think it would happen, but he could
have four lots there, the way it’s zoned. I don’t think it would ever come to that.
MRS. GRETHER-Right, and could each of those lots have rental units on them?
MR. RINGER-No, only one house per lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Only with site plan approval.
MR. RINGER-Or one unit per lot.
MRS. GRETHER-One unit per lot. So this present home that he has is considered two units?
MR. RINGER-It’s two family, and that’s why he’s here.
MRS. GRETHER-Right. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. So that’s all I have to
say. It’s really about the quality of the neighborhood that we’re really concerned about. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MICHAEL FINKOWSKI
DR. FINKOWSKI-I’m Michael Finkowski, and I live on Rockwell Road. My home is directly
across the street from the property in question, and I don’t have really too much to add to what
my other neighbors have offered, but I would just like to also express my concern about the
quality of our neighborhood and our desire that we not see subdivision happening on our
street, as we’ve been listening to through much of this evening, and I also would welcome Mr.
Szmul to build a nice home on that property, but as Mr. Ballard has said, I would be concerned
about a second lot being used for another duplex, and we’re glad to welcome another family to
our neighborhood, but aren’t looking for a mini-development. The folks on the street are
hanging on to their property because they want to keep it green and not selling to developers
and having it subdivided. So I hope that we could maintain that character. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Are you saying you don’t object to his having the small apartment, but you
wouldn’t want to see any further development of the two lots?
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
DR. FINKOWSKI-Well, we understand that it’s to be for a family member, for his mother, and I
certainly, as Mrs. Grether said, would be concerned, should that property change hands and
then we have a tenant.
MR. RINGER-And you understand that would be out of our control if that did happen?
DR. FINKOWSKI-Well, if that’s the case.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Just so you understand all the ramifications.
DR. FINKOWSKI-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you want to
come back up, please.
MR. SZMUL-So, some of the questions, I can’t remember them all, but the 4300 question, that
includes the garage. I did that for the permeability percentage, and I think that got put on the
application, but usually you don’t count the garage when you say I have a 2400 square foot
house, but in this application it includes the garage. So that’s not livable. Some of the other
things are, when Kathy Poland was selling that land, it was Alice’s house and all the land, part I
own and part Alice owns, and she thought she could get more money if she divided it into two
lots. So that’s why, I don’t think she tried to sell it as two separate lots, but she did have it
divided as two lots so that she could maybe get more money. That’s why the deed shows two
lots. I don’t know why the Town doesn’t show two.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you being taxed on the whole parcel?
MR. SZMUL-I get one tax bill.
MR. VOLLARO-You get one tax bill?
MR. SZMUL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You get one tax bill, you’ve got one lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-He did provide two separate deeds with the application.
MS. RADNER-It sounds like it’s an illegal subdivision, that it was never an approved
subdivision. So on paper he’s got two deeds, but it’s never been approved. So it doesn’t have
the necessary approvals. What you could do, if you were inclined to grant the application, is
condition it upon merger of the two lots into one by deed, which would be virtue of a correction
deed, or you could condition it that there’ll be no further development of any additional lots
without subdivision approval.
MR. SZMUL-I’m not sure if that’s illegal or not, because I think my survey says two lots, but
you have to have a common driveway.
MS. RADNER-Well, it doesn’t matter. If you didn’t come and get subdivision approval to
create two lots out of what was one, then it’s not an approved subdivision. You can’t just take
your land and divide it up without getting approvals in the Town of Queensbury. You might
be able to in some other parts of the State, but not here.
MR. SZMUL-Okay.
MS. RADNER-It’s not illegal like you’re going to jail illegal, but it’s not an approved
subdivision.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-A question for you. I’m directing this more towards Staff. Did we have a
Pre-Ap meeting with this gentleman? Where am I missing something here? If he came in and it
was under the pretense, in his mind that he’s got two lots, your mind he’s got one lot, but we’re
showing a map with two lots and this is a very distinct property line on it. We have a driveway
coming in on one lot, crossing a property line, going to a house on another lot that appears to be
sitting too close to the property line. Are you with me on all that?
MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, are you talking about the driveway being too close to the
property line?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a starter, and the driveway crossing a property line going to another
lot.
MR. HILTON-There’s no setback for a driveway. Well, let me back up here. If you’re asking
me, first of all, if I heard correctly, there are no setbacks for driveways on properties, okay.
Secondly, I guess, yes, I did have a Pre-Ap. Pre-Ap does say provide a copy of the deed. Again,
all our information available to us at the Town indicates that this is one property. So I’m
looking at a project that, even though the applicant’s map shows two parcels, I’m looking at all
our information that says it’s one lot, and, looking at this proposal, it meets the setbacks, the
accesses on the lot, the one lot that I know of, of record. So there’s no reason for me to interrupt
the process if you will. I mean, from the way I’m reviewing it, it’s a complete application, if you
will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me, okay. I understand where you’re coming from now. Let me ask you
a question. What kicks it into being a duplex is the fact that it has a separate entrance?
MR. HILTON-Yes, a separate living, a separate dwelling unit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Separate living quarters that’s inclusive of a bathroom, bedrooms and stuff?
MR. HILTON-Consists of that, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where would that delineate that from say just a wing on a house?
MR. SZMUL-My architect said the kitchen does that.
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, certainly I think kitchen facilities I think would be one of the main
factors.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ed, is there a design that you could come up with that would get you away
from the duplex aspect of the house?
MR. SZMUL-Well, I originally asked my mother to live, you know, in an upper floor or even on
our master floor and then we would live upstairs, but she didn’t want that, so we came up with
this idea. I mean, I deliberately made it one bedroom with a one car garage so that, you know,
she’s not going to be around forever, and I’m not stupid, I am going to rent it, but I don’t want
to have a lot of cars. I don’t want, I just, you know, I will rent it because I’ll have it, to maybe a
single person.
MR. RINGER-Do you have any intentions of ever subdividing this?
MR. SZMUL-Well, in my opinion, it already is. My intention is, yes, in the future, I would like
to possibly build my own house in the back, yes.
MR. RINGER-Subdivide it and sell it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So if we go that scenario, then now I see all sorts of flaws in this.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SANFORD-He has to come in front of us for a subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’d have to go to the ZBA first.
MR. RINGER-It’s a two lot subdivision. He wouldn’t have to come before us.
MR. METIVIER-That would be administrative, if it was a two lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wrong. This, right now, according to Town records, is one lot. He’s talking
about if he wanted to build a house on the back portion of this lot, I don’t know that he can
build a second dwelling on one parcel, without subdividing it?
MR. HILTON-Well, if there’s a variance required, which in this case future subdivision
probably would because access would be from not your principal parcel, that would apply for
the two lot administrative. It would be a regular subdivision and an Area Variance.
MR. SZMUL-When you say regular subdivision?
MR. HILTON-Regular meaning one approvable, reviewable by the Planning Board.
MR. SANFORD-But we would have to approve this?
MR. HILTON-Based on that driveway configuration.
MR. METIVIER-Take that driveway configuration out. If he wanted to do two lots?
MR. HILTON-Take that driveway configuration out. If you have, it’s administrative.
MR. RINGER-It’s administrative.
MR. METIVIER-That’s where I was going.
MR. SANFORD-So right now it’s pretty well safe to say that this is not subdivided? He believes
it has been because of what his deed reads, but we have it on the tax maps as one piece of
property.
MR. HILTON-Again, I can only say that we show it as one piece.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-If we condition this on merging the two lots, for a total of 4.84 acres.
MR. METIVIER-But you can’t do that because we don’t know where it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Stop. We’re not merging two lots.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s only one lot there.
MR. METIVIER-There’s only one lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-From the Town’s standpoint.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just following what Counsel had to say.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel says that it’s one lot. Right?
MS. RADNER-My suggestion was that if what you have is what appears to be an illegal
subdivision, you could condition it on merger back into a single deed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, from our standpoint it is a single deed.
MS. RADNER-No, there’s two deeds. You’ve got two deeds, even though there’s only one tax
map number, and it was never an approved subdivision. In other words, the person who sold it
to him, as he indicated, wanted to maximize their dollars, did her own subdivision, apparently,
but never got the appropriate permits for it.
MR. VOLLARO-But now he could get himself free by merging the two lots.
MS. RADNER-Correct. He could do a correction deed for (lost words) merge the two lots.
MR. SANFORD-How does this preclude, in the future, for him then going in and asking for a
subdivision?
MS. RADNER-Absolutely, nothing precludes him from doing that now.
MR. SANFORD-Right. So what we could do is condition approval of this on him going and
getting the deed clarified with the merged properties.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I would do here. Just merge these two lots for a total of 4.84 acres
and use the correction deed to do that.
MR. RINGER-That would get him started for now, but if his plans are to subdivide that, then
he’d have to come back and start all over again.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a whole different issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, but let’s talk about that, though, for a second. Let’s not do bad
planning. Let’s think about the future. So, ten years from now, he comes down and decides he
now wants to subdivide it.
MR. VOLLARO-Wait a minute. Have we made this one lot now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Under the pretense that we’re asking him, as a condition of approval, merge
it back and make it one lot, legal.
MR. VOLLARO-One big lot, got you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make it legal. So in the future, if he or the next property owner wants to
subdivide it.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, what’s that going to do for his setbacks here as he’s illustrated on this
plan?
MR. VOLLARO-Pre-existing, I would think, at that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SANFORD-He has a problem with the driveway.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. METIVIER-If was thinking creative, good planning, he wouldn’t do that. He’s move that
house over.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. That’s where I was going with this. Move the footprint of the
house, because if you look at the plat he has now in front of us.
MR. METIVIER-Is there a reason why it’s in the place that it is?
MR. SZMUL-Where would you move it?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’d have to move it deeper into your lot.
MR. METIVIER-Deeper into the lot.
MR. SZMUL-So it’s way over?
MR. MAC EWAN-Hypothetically, unless I’m wrong on this, if I was looking at your
hypothetical property line you have on here now.
MR. METIVIER-It will not work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hypothetically, if that was to be your second wish lot, the lot you want to
subdivide, I’m looking at setback issues right now, that you couldn’t create that other lot,
because what you’d be doing is making the setbacks you have on your existing lot not meet
Town Code. Do you understand what I’m trying to say?
MR. SZMUL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if you had the house sitting back here some place, you wouldn’t have to
worry about setbacks because you’ve got plenty of side yard on either side.
MR. VOLLARO-All he’d have to do is contend with a long driveway.
MR. SZMUL-Yes, which is a pain.
MR. MAC EWAN-Six of one, half dozen of the other.
MR. SANFORD-If the properties are all, it’s one lot now, and if he wants to do what he’s
proposing here, I don’t see a problem with it, and then if he wants to subdivide down the road,
maybe tough luck on him. In other words, maybe he wouldn’t be able to get the subdivision,
which wouldn’t be the end of the world anyway, because of the things you’re talking about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but you know, it’s telling him what the realities are because he’s
telling us he’s envisioning maybe sometime down the road he wants to do that. The way it’s
laid out now, I don’t see that being done easily.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, I agree with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you.
MR. SANFORD-As I was saying, I didn’t want to be rude with it, but I mean, that’s his problem,
is the way I was putting it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have concerns with the duplex portion of it, in and of itself.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay. I don’t really.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, considering that part of Town, I mean, some of the comments that the
neighbors made, it is a very rural portion of the Town.
MR. SANFORD-Unfortunately, you know, yes, it is zoned one acre. It’s not zoned three acres.
MRS. BALLARD-Right across the street is zoned three acres.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this is in a one acre zone, right now, both these two lots.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I mean, I didn’t have the warm and fuzzies, to use your expression,
about Ridge and Cronin. Sometimes you’ve got to live with reality, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there any way that you could take this out of the duplex role? I mean, in
other words, your mother-in-law can’t climb stairs. Is that correct?
MR. SZMUL-My mother, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Your mom.
MR. SZMUL-I mean, I could hack it off, and then it’s not a duplex.
MR. VOLLARO-For a small increment of cost and design, you could put what amounts to a
small, these elevators they use to get up and down. They’re not that expensive, and you lop this
off, and that’s it. It’s a single house, we’re out of here.
MR. METIVIER-I disagree with that. I think at this point, I mean, if you look at the plan itself,
the house plan, this is a nice house. It’s not an apartment building. It’s not across the street. It’s
someone’s house that just happens to have an extension off the back with a kitchen on it. Take
the kitchen out, and it’s an extension.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that. That’s not it, Tony. I mean, five years from now he could move
to another state, and now it’s rental property.
MR. METIVIER-I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not his intention right now, it’s to be shared by family members, but
that may not always be the case, and what we have to deal with is what the intent is here, and
that’s why it’s in front of us because it’s a duplex.
MR. SANFORD-He even stated that once the mother-in-law isn’t expected to live forever, or the
mother isn’t, and then he would rent it. So, yes, you’re right, Craig, we have to assume that
eventually it would become a rented one bedroom apartment.
MR. METIVIER-But is that honestly a crime?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MS. RADNER-You’re not allowed to legislate whether a person owner occupied or rents the
property, whether he uses it in 20 years for his college student to have an apartment, or rented it
out or used it as, it becomes an in-law apartment, you can’t condition it on that.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t think a duplex, in and of itself, is that big of a deal. I appreciate the
public comments, but I think the public comments also mentioned there was a duplex on the
street already. Isn’t there?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to have an exchange with the public. Someone did mention it.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. SANFORD-Do you know?
MR. SZMUL-I don’t know.
MR. SANFORD-You don’t know. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-One of the commentors did mention that it was there. They thought it was
there long before the zoning was ever established in the Town.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-But if we merge these two properties, then that driveway he’s got there is on
his own property. It’s all one. The thing turns out to be fine. All you’ve got to do is merge
these two. Down the road, if he wants to do some subdivision, he’d have to come and fight that
battle then, but right now we’re trying to do things way out into the future here that we don’t
know anything about. I’d say just merge these two lots together, and then you have a perfectly
valid plan here.
MR. SANFORD-Agreed.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see anything wrong with that. We’re trying to talk about doing good
planning, I understand that, but, you know, you don’t have to.
MR. RINGER-I don’t even see why he has to merge them together, why can’t he have the house
on the two lots?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because he has an illegal subdivision.
MR. RINGER-It isn’t a subdivision. We consider it, he’s got a deed for two lots, but as far as
we’re concerned, it’s one subdivision, or one piece of property. Why would he even have to go
through that? I guess I’m asking Counsel. Why does he, legally, have to do that, Counsel?
MS. RADNER-My recommendation would be that you do that to prevent the situation getting
worse, so that if in 15 years he’s passed away, it’s a new owner, they’ve got two deeds and they
sell just one of them, and the fact that it sat there with two deeds of record for that long, you’re
going to have more problems. Now while you’ve identified a problem, if you require the
correction deed, that gets filed with the courthouse, that can’t happen.
MR. RINGER-You’re saying clean it up now, instead of clean it up later?
MS. RADNER-Clean it up now.
MR. RINGER-Because last month we had that Ridge Street subdivision where the same thing
happened where they had sold the two lots or had two lots, sold them both.
MS. RADNER-Right, and once they come under separate ownership, it becomes a real
nightmare to try and go to the Supreme Court to get them merged back into one.
MR. RINGER-I just didn’t want to run an applicant through any expense that he didn’t have to
run through.
MR. VOLLARO-A correction deed isn’t all that expensive.
MS. RADNER-No, it’s not, because they can take the existing deeds, just as a deed from himself
to himself, correction deed, files it, there’s no additional taxes or anything like that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s being taxed on the full property now.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MS. RADNER-Right, I’m saying there’s not mortgage taxes or things like that involved when
you do a correction deed.
MR. METIVIER-Can I make a suggestion? Why don’t we table this so we can clear up this
whole problem with the two lots. If it is in fact two lots, he’s going to have to get a variance or
move the house anyway. If it’s one lot, then he can come back and we’ll approve or deny the
duplex.
MR. VOLLARO-Why can’t we merge these two lots?
MR. SZMUL-That’ll be like in another month?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Two months, probably.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll tell you what, it’s better than where you’re going right now.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t understand. There’s something I don’t understand here. Why can’t we
just merge these two lots and then the house is in perfect shape? He’s now on 4.84 acres.
MR. METIVIER-If he’s willing to do that. That’s fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you willing to do that?
MR. SZMUL-My wife’s not here, but I would say yes.
MR. VOLLARO-He puts a corrective deed together and we’re finished here. I just don’t see
why we’re struggling with this. The future is the future.
MR. METIVIER-I assume you want to get started, is what it comes down to.
MR. SZMUL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-George, I know we had this discussion earlier, but clarify for me again, what
makes it a duplex, the fact that there’s a kitchen?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I was just looking that up. It is the kitchen. The kitchen in each dwelling
unit, yes. Separate facilities.
MR. SEGULJIC-So serve your mother dinners downstairs.
MR. SZMUL-Well, I was actually told not to put in the kitchen, do it later, but I didn’t want to
do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-You want to hold on to the kitchen, then?
MR. SZMUL-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s being honest about it. I respect him for that.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for me to make a motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a public hearing open. We’ve got a SEQRA to do. So, no, it’s not
appropriate.
MR. METIVIER-No SEQRA. It’s Type II.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Type II.
MR. SANFORD-Type II.
MR. SANFORD-You’ve still got the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what I’ll do, in all fairness, I’ll give these people who have been
waiting around one last take, if you want to make one more comment. Then I’m going to close
the public hearing.
MRS. GRETHER-I have a question, more than anything. If Ed needs to, you had mentioned, Ed,
that the plan building cost was getting more expensive. If he has to change his building plan,
does he have to come back for another approval?
MR. MAC EWAN-To what extent would he have to change it? I guess that’s kind of a leading
question. If he was making minor changes in it, that would be something that would just be
contingent upon his building permit, and part of that process.
MRS. GRETHER-Square footage isn’t an issue?
MR. MAC EWAN-If he was increasing the square footage.
MRS. GRETHER-Or decreasing, probably, more likely.
MR. MAC EWAN-If he was decreasing, probably not. If he was increasing, he’d have to come
back and ask for a modification. He may have to come back and ask for a modification either
way.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-If he was going to say, only build his mother a 600 foot apartment instead of
the 800 square foot apartment, it would require him to come back for a modification to the
approved site plan, even though he’s downsizing.
MS. RADNER-That depends on the discretion of our Director of Code Enforcement. If he felt
that it was still in compliance with the approval that was given, the building permit could be
issued so in keeping with the approvals given, then it would probably not require, but if it’s
major enough that he feels you’re no longer complying with the approvals.
MR. MAC EWAN-So maybe the tendency would be, if he was going to downsize it, they would
administratively say, okay, it’s not a problem.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if he was going to add another 500 feet to it, they would say, you’ve got
to come back in front of the Planning Board and ask for a modification.
MRS. GRETHER-Okay. I just wasn’t sure how that worked. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-I would think if he’s going to move it, he’s probably going to move it back.
Because if he’s got plans to subdivide that further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to comment?
MRS. BALLARD-I was looking at the house plans, and I’m sorry, I wasn’t necessarily listening
to what she asked, or what your comments were on that, as far as if he did consider it to be one
lot, you know, on the 4.84 acres, and then in the future come back and try to subdivide it, is the
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
problem coming from the fact now that the offsets and everything, where the house is situated
in that front property? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be more difficult for him to subdivide it in the future after, if this
was approved, I would think, because based on what he’s showing on his plan, just what I’m
looking at, what he’s got there, you’d have setback issues that may require variances in the
future. It may be a different lot configuration to avoid that.
MRS BALLARD-And for him to get those variances, is that something that is done with a public
hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MRS. BALLARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone within 500 feet would be notified.
MR. SANFORD-That would be zoning, wouldn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. RINGER-For the variance, but if he moved his house, he might not need the variance. If he
moved it, then he’d just come to us for subdivision.
MR. METIVIER-If that’s not an administrative subdivision.
MR. RINGER-If it’s not administrative.
MR. METIVIER-And really the difference is, the administrative versus site plan review, is that
he typically has the right to subdivide because of the acreage, and it’s only one lot. So it would
be administrative. So it doesn’t have to be on record, but you don’t have to be notified.
MRS. BALLARD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-He’d have a lot of options, especially if he moved the building back.
MRS. BALLARD-Yes, because I just wanted to make one more statement on the fact if, you
know, our neighborhood and the way it looks, and that is a fairly large home with a three car
garage, and according to the plan, that only looks like it’s less than 100 feet off the road. There’s
only one really house that is like that, and that was built probably over, you know, it’s her
home, and everybody else’s house on that road does have a long driveway, and we do deal
with those, and that’s, again, the way we like our, where we live, because of the setbacks. We
don’t want to walk down and see, take our walks and see somebody’s front yard right there,
you know, people right outside. That’s why we like where we live.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t do a SEQRA for Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-Can I make the motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you may.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2004 EDWARD AND NOREEN SZMUL,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/24/04)
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Edward & Noreen Szmul, Rockwell Road, Tax Map No. 290.5-1-76
Construct a 4,300 sq. ft. duplex on a 4.8 +/- acre property. Duplexes in the SR-1A zone require
site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
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 Tuesday, August 24, 2004; 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, 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. The merger of the two lots, Lots One and Two, as shown on the drawing, for a total of
4.84 acres, that this be done by method of a correction deed.
Duly adopted Tuesday, August 24, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. MacEwan
MR. MAC EWAN-I just don’t think it’s appropriate to have duplexes in this part of Town, in
this very rural area of Town. You’re all set, Ed. Any other business? We’re done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
69