2004-01-15 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 15, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
THOMAS SEGULJIC
RICHARD SANFORD
OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED RICHARD & KIM BENDER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: CARDINALE LANE, OFF PEGGY ANN RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 5.72 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 5
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 6-2002 TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-62 LOT
SIZE: 5.72 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
(Start of Tape)
MR. NACE-(Lost words) in the spring, to have a biologist look at the plan to see if there are any
lupine plants.
MR. MAC EWAN-You wouldn’t be doing that until, what, April or May?
MR. NACE-That will probably be late April. That’s correct. So, you know, if we can get any
other comments the Board might have, or concerns they might have, that we can address in the
meantime, and we’ll have to wait until we can do the survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-While we’re waiting, has anybody got any questions relative to it?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. This is more directed maybe to George or Marilyn than to the applicant.
I’d like to get an update on where the Town is with the Karner blue butterfly issue. I remember,
the last I could recall was we were given an opportunity to weigh in on our preferences
between Option A, B, and C, and we were told later it was B, but what does that mean? What
has been done? What are we waiting on here?
MRS. RYBA-I spoke about it with Chris yesterday, Chris Round our Director, yesterday, and he
said that he expects to have something in hand within the next week to forward to the Town
Board and the Planning Board about the management plan, and that’s all I know at this point.
C.T. Male is still working on it.
MR. SANFORD-Could you sum up what option, I went through my notes and stuff and I
couldn’t locate what Option B was, versus Option A. I know Option A was very minimal
involvement. Option B was a little bit more involved. Do you recall what it was?
MRS. RYBA-Option B was defining the recovery area boundary and looking at identifying the
more, some of the more important areas, I believe, and then there had been like a listing of most
important, next in line, and then the more outlying ones.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. SANFORD-So C.T. Male is going to look at the Town of Queensbury and give their
recommendation as to what are potential hot spots?
MRS. RYBA-Right. That’s part of it. The other part is putting together the protocol, in terms of
giving applicants direction, here’s what the Town Planning Board expects. Here’s who you
contact. This is the, here are some of the, if you do have Karner blue, then here’s the direction
you have to take. You have to go to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and I know there are a
couple of applicants who are definitely experienced, at this point, in doing these things. There
are others who will probably come forward who aren’t. So that’s part of the protocol. The
other is identifying who’s going to be doing management work, who is going to be, what some
of the management particulars might be, what some of the generic conditions might be,
depending on that zone, the most important zone, our outlying zone. That’s the way it was. I
know there was also another impact fee and mitigation fee structure. I think, though, that was
Option C. I don’t think that was Option B.
MR. SANFORD-Well, one of the reasons I’m concerned about it is we don’t seem to have in
place our plan of action.
MRS. RYBA-You’re right.
MR. SANFORD-And yet we have an applicant here who we’re hearing, you know, I’m not sure
how this got identified as a potential area. Was that something that was generated by Staff?
How did they come up with it? I mean, what caused them to generate that letter?
MRS. RYBA-Well, back, I think there was a presentation done at one point where when you
have a confluence of power lines that’s probably going to be an area where you have a greater
likelihood of Karner blue for a number of reasons, and that’s the situation here.
MR. NACE-Richard, to answer your question directly, there, I believe, was a previous Staff
comment that they were looking for a signoff from DEC regarding the endangered species,
which generated a letter from us to DEC and a response from DEC.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m just a little troubled because of the timeline. It seems like it could
greatly delay a number of these projects.
MRS. RYBA-I think we’re certainly much closer to that, to having that protocol in place, and I
know it has been a long process, and it’s been an education process for the different Boards that
have been involved, and I don’t know what to tell you at this point, other than it’s progressing,
although not as quickly as anyone would like.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask Tom a couple of questions. I picked up some stuff on the
drawing we could just go over real quickly. On S-2, the rim elevations on drywell three and
four, you take a look at those, they’re at 411.55, up on the top drawing.
MR. NACE-No, that’s the low point of the road. Okay. That’s the centerline of the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-The drywell rims should be.
MR. NACE-411.15?
MR. NACE-Yes, approximately 4/10ths smaller.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I looked at those, too, and I thought they were in coincidence, but that’s
the road itself.
MR. NACE-That’s the centerline, the profile grade line of the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, the next thing I looked at was the bottom drawing, I’m not sure,
when I look at Cardinale Lane, I come up with about 430 feet, yet this profile brings it out to
about 860. Is that?
MR. NACE-Well, it’s 430, it’s 500 up to the throat of the turnaround of the cul de sac, and back
around is 869 to the end, or 859.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but if you look at your bottom drawing, you’re at 40 to 1. Am I missing
something there?
MR. NACE-I’m at what?
MR. VOLLARO-Your scale is 40 to 1, and it looks like if you run that scale out, you’re up at 800
feet.
MR. NACE-Yes, I am, 859 feet is the end of the road. The profile grade line goes all the way
around the cul de sac and back to where it joins.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re taking that all the way around as part of the road length?
MR. NACE-Correct, yes, that’s part of the profile.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I guess that’s about all I had on that. I don’t have anything
else. I will say that I think this letter that came in from DEC is, when she says, I guess this was
Kathy O’Brien, recommends that a qualified person do this in mid-May. You mean that this
contractor or this applicant has to wait until the middle of May until we do a survey on a
problematical situation there may or may not be? If lupine is found then etc., etc.? I’m having a
tough time with that, as far as.
MR. SANFORD-Can I jump in, Bob, just for a second?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-We actually approved a very similar plan when there was one less lot on this
property.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. It was a previously approved subdivision with one extra lot.
This extra lot is now based on the fact that the zone changed.
MR. SANFORD-Where’s the extra lot? I mean, in other words, has the actual footprint of the
project changed?
MR. NACE-No. The entire property has remained the same area. We’ve just, when the zoning
changed to a smaller lot size, minimum lot size, we divided it out into an extra lot.
MR. SANFORD-So we didn’t have a problem with butterflies then, but we have a problem now.
MR. RINGER-That’s because, Richard, we weren’t notifying DEC whenever we had an
application in this area, but since we’ve had these problems come up, we’ve brought DEC in
this area of the power lines at Sherman Avenue. So we weren’t doing it before, and now we’re
doing it, and perhaps that’s why you’re seeing it now when we didn’t see it before.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m complaining about, Larry, is the fact that this letter from Kathy
O’Brien is very problematical.
MR. RINGER-Bob, I agree with you 100%.
MR. NACE-We were caught a little flat footed because we looked at it and said, gee, you know,
there really doesn’t look like there could be any out here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-But she feels, for whatever reason, that there is, and our hands are somewhat tied.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know that our hands are tied at all. My hands certainly aren’t tied
by that letter, I don’t think.
MR. RINGER-I don’t, you know, as much as I’d like to, I don’t think we can move on the
application without some kind of an inspection or survey done.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess where it stands from a legal point of view is I’m not sure how
you can adequately respond to the SEQRA question about protected, endangered, or threatened
species without this information, and I guess the only thing I’m going to add, having been here
for many months while this issue’s been debated, I guess I don’t exactly understand why at
least some members of the Board seem so incensed at the Department of Environmental
Conservation for providing this information. Larry’s answer, and it’s not because Larry
believes it should be, necessarily, but Larry Ringer’s answer is exactly factually correct. The
reason that DEC comes forward with a letter now is because now we have a new process. As a
result of the Federal and State Endangered Species Statutes, we now notify the appropriate
agencies of these applications, and the appropriate agencies make what they believe to be the
appropriate responses. That’s why the letter shows up. That’s exactly, I think, what Larry said,
and he’s exactly right.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m saying, I think that, I agree with what Larry said.
MR. SCHACHNER-We’re just stating facts. I mean, we’re not stating opinions.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I understand that, but the facts are, this letter, it says to my knowledge the
Bender site has not been surveyed for the presence of lupine. From an aerial photo of the area,
it looks like there may be clearings and canopy areas on the site that could have lupine. I’d like
them to be a little more definitive in their letters.
MR. SCHACHNER-They won’t because they can’t be. That’s my understanding. My
understanding is they can’t be. I don’t mean to be quarrelsome, but what they say, let me put it
this way, is that there is a certain field survey investigation component involved, and that they
can’t answer, my understanding is they can’t answer the question more definitively without
that field survey investigation being performed. They can perform it. Applicant’s consultants
can perform it. You can perform it. I mean, it doesn’t matter who performs it, but my
understanding is they can’t answer the question more definitively without the field survey data.
MR. SANFORD-That letter could apply to almost any site plan or project that we’re looking at.
The way they phrase that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it could apply to many. I wouldn’t say almost any. It has to be in an
area that may have lupine, and that’s not the majority of the Town, but many, yes, absolutely.
Again, I’m not taking a position on this. I’m just surprised at how surprised you are that this is
how DEC works, because I think we’ve discussed this on a number of occasions, and we’ve
tried, I think Staff and Counsel, has tried to educate you about how this process works, and this
is how the process works.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Better or for worse, this is all I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-But this is not the first time I’ve reviewed letters from Ms. O’Brien. I’ve seen a
lot of them, and I don’t think she’s definitive enough. That’s just my opinion.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, right, or just not definitive at all.
MR. VOLLARO-On a lot of this stuff.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And on those words hinge the fact that the applicant may have to wait until
May to get a survey.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re exactly right.
MR. VOLLARO-To me it seems onerous. That’s how it seems.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s extremely onerous.
MR. RINGER-I think everybody agrees with you, Bob. It’s just that our hands, I think, are
somewhat tied.
MR. SANFORD-The law is the law.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, did you have something?
MR. RINGER-Just the C.T. Male. Have you had an opportunity to, you have six?
MR. NACE-I have not responded with a written response to them, but we will comply with all
of their requests.
MR. RINGER-They weren’t major at all.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a quick question. I couldn’t remember. I had a note about a
deeper no cut zone, and I couldn’t remember how we had left that at the end of the last
discussion.
MR. NACE-A deeper no cut zone. Was that the previous meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-We didn’t discuss the, this is the first time it’s been discussed. We didn’t open it
at the last meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-This is the first time. You didn’t come for Sketch.
MR. NACE-No.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. RINGER-So he was scheduled for last month, but we never heard it.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. RINGER-So this is the first time it’s before us.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess then I’ll ask the question, the depth of the no cut zone that’s
on the proposed drawing.
MR. NACE-I’ll have to refresh my memory, to tell you the truth. It’s not labeled.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I asked the question, because it wasn’t labeled.
MR. NACE-Yes. I’ll have to measure that. I think it’s 25 or 30 feet, by the looks of it. If you’d
like, I’ll put a scale on it. Twenty feet, I stand corrected.
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty feet.
MR. NACE-It’s 20 feet, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have to table it. I guess the only thing I’m thinking right now
is we’ve elected to open up the public hearing and leave it open because we’re dealing with
such a lengthy period of time before you’re going to come back. So maybe the best course of
action would just be to re-advertise it when you get your material back together so we can put
you back on the agenda.
MR. NACE-Well, if there are any people here that had concerns, you know, we could
incorporate those.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I will leave it open, but I think it’s best if we re-advertise it again,
just to refresh things when we get to that point. Anything else that you wanted to see amended,
corrected or added, deleted? I guess that’s it.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE PREVIOUS SEQR
JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION:
TUTHIL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 AND 3.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 13-2001, AV 53-2003
TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 8.62 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE,
PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess we really don’t have anything to add. This application is back after
being tabled on December 16. It’s a two lot residential subdivision on Tuthill Road, as I’m sure
th
you’re all aware, which received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to create a lot
smaller than the required five acres. The applicant is before you again. We did receive some
additional comment this evening, in the form of letters, which I believe are in support of the
application, and when we get to the point of you reopening the public hearing, I can either refer
to those letters or read them. There are quite a few, but that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Matt Steves with Jeff Inglee, the
applicant. This is an application that I’ve only personally become involved in recently. As the
Board’s aware, they’ve already been to the Zoning Board of Appeals where an Area Variance
was granted for an undersized lot. It’s an approximately 8.6 acre lot which is proposed to be
subdivided into two lots, which is a relatively simple application before this Board.
Unfortunately this is one of those cases where the neighbors are extremely emotional about this
project. I don’t think that that is necessarily related to land use issues, but we’ll see where that
goes. An issue that came up before the Zoning Board was in terms of the character of the
neighborhood, and it was determined, they did a SEQRA neg dec, and it was determined that
this project would not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. The smallest lot being
approximately 3.5 acres, we’ll put in evidence that the average density of Mr. Inglee’s holdings
of all of his property exceeds the five acre zone that it’s in, even though this one lot would be
only three and a half acres. Essentially what he wants to do is knock down what’s really a
shack and replace it with two nice houses for his kids, and that’s really all that this is about, but
let me pass it over to Matt and let him walk you through the subdivision.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves. It’s a lot that currently exists on the east side of
Tuthill Road, being his existing house parcel. They were going to keep the existing house parcel
with 3.53 acres and the longer one running in an east/west direction will be the new house lot of
5.09 acres. Last time we were in here you asked for the two foot contours, which we have
shown, the perc tests, which we have provided, and on the proposed house lot only. We show
you that we can meet all the setbacks, and as Jon has stated, the proposed new lot is on five
acres, and the existing house lot will remain on the 3.53 acres. Mr. Inglee had a three lot
subdivision approved by this Board a year and a half or so ago I believe it was on the west side
of the road, it’s approximately 40 acres on that side of the road. So we’re looking at a total land
area of about 48 acres of property with five lots. That would be your total density with all of
Mr. Inglee’s land holdings.
MR. LAPPER-One thing I should have mentioned is that in late fall the neighbors asked the
Zoning Board to reconsider their Area Variance, and they made a presentation before the Board,
and the Board decided not to make any change to that variance.
MR. INGLEE-Hi. My name is Jeff Inglee. I am the applicant here this evening. I’d like to start
out by stating that all three of my children are here this evening. My daughter Carrie who is a
registered nurse at the Glens Falls Hospital, my son Jeffrey who has just recently taken a job
with a surveying company in Albany, and my son Joshua who is employed with my
construction company North Country Custom Carpentry, presently, and will be employed by
the Warren County Sheriff’s Department as of April. I would like to just take a minute to clarify
a couple of issues first off. After reviewing the minutes and some of the correspondence, I have
to honestly say, Jeff Inglee, nor any of his children, have any intentions whatsoever of starting a
bed and breakfast at the top of the mountain on Tuthill Road. Secondly one of the issues I’d like
to clear up is that Jeff Inglee does have all the intentions in the world to deed these properties
over to his children. One of the correspondence from one of the neighbors, and I may point out,
this is a gentleman who I’ve only met but maybe three times in passing, and I’ve only spoken
with him three times. He writes in his letter, Jeff Inglee’s claim to subdivide the land for his
children is nothing but a ploy to gain more rental properties. Well, excuse me, but this man
does not know what is in my heart for my land, nor does he know what is in my heart for my
children. I’d like to submit a photograph to the Planning Board, and I’ll explain it very briefly.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
The lower portion of this photograph has two red dots on the right side of the red line. The red
line represents most of my property holdings. The two dots represent the location where my
daughter would like to build her house. The other second dot on the lower portion of the photo
represents the existing house with the arrow pointing into the new location where my son
Jeffrey would like to build his house. The two blue dots on the left side of the red line represent
Mr. Gomes’ property and Mrs. Beames’ property, and as you will see by the photograph, I
believe, there’s no way that these two new homes are going to hinder the Beames’ or the
Gomes’, let alone the 60 some odd signatures that Mrs. Beames has on a petition, especially with
the names from Saratoga, Fort Ann, Whitehall, Troy, and so on. This is the photograph that I’d
like you all to take a look at, in regards to, which will portray the density of my properties. I
also have three other photographs, and I’ve labeled them Photograph One, Photograph Two,
and Photograph Three. Photograph One and Two are portraying two of the most recent homes
that were built in our neighborhood. Very beautiful homes I might add. Photograph Three is
going to portray my old home where I live now and have lived for the last 27 years. We have
agreed with the Zoning Board that if this application is approved, this old house will, in fact, be
torn down, upon the completion of the new home for my son and the new home for my
daughter, and I don’t see where tearing this old home down would be out of character with the
neighborhood, especially when you take under consideration the new homes that have been put
up there. This would not only increase the value of our land, my children’s and my land, but
the surrounding lands as well. I believe that’s all I had to say.
MR. LAPPER-I guess we should also put in the record, Matt prepared a map that shows, in the
five acre zone, there are five other lots that are smaller than five acres that have homes on them.
MR. STEVES-This is just the printout of the Queensbury tax map, current tax map of the area.
Outlined in the center is the five acre zone, and then outlined around that is the ten acre zone,
and everything in blue would be lots that would be under the acreage within those two zones,
and I’ll pass it on to the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open up the floor for questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had said one of the houses would be demolished, is that what you’re
saying?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the existing house?
MR. LAPPER-That’s a condition of the Zoning Board variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve gotten Zoning Board approval.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve gotten a variance to create the undersized lot, the three and a half acre lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. METIVIER-Are there any assurances that we won’t see the lot sold, subdivided, not
subdivided, excuse me, sold off, once it’s subdivided?
MR. LAPPER-Well, you’re going to convey them to your kids.
MR. INGLEE-Absolutely.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. LAPPER-So, as a condition, what that’s worth, since that’s what’s going to happen, he’s
going to convey them to his kids, whether his kids some day sell them, who’s to say, but
certainly he’s going to convey them to his kids, and if the Board wanted that as a condition, for
what it’s worth, we certainly wouldn’t object to such a condition.
MR. METIVIER-I just, we approved a subdivision last year, same, basic same situation. It was a
larger lot. They were going to convey it to their kids. Four months later, two houses went up
and they both went up for sale, and we knew it, and obviously it leaves a sour taste in your
mouth that, you know, you have somebody sitting up, and it’s not you, obviously, and I’m not
pointing fingers at you, don’t get me wrong, but I’m just saying, you know, they came up and
said, yes, we’re going to give it to our kids. It’s what we want to do, and there was no intention
there.
MR. INGLEE-Well, Tony, I guess the way I could address that question is that over the last 27
years of my life, I have toiled and labored very, very mightily to not only create this piece of
property that’s on the east side of Tuthill Road, but to maintain it, and, yes, if I was going to sell
it, I’m in the process right now, I’ve got my foundation in, up at the top of the mountain where
I’m going to build my retirement home. If I was going to sell that property, I would sell it off
and probably no doubt make enough money to finish my home within a year, but after being
up there for 27 years, I truly, in my heart, want to turn this property over to my children, so
they can, in fact, raise their children in the serenity of that mountain. Money is not an issue
with me. If it takes me the next five years to build my new home, that’s what it’ll take, but at
least I’ll know in my heart that each one of my children can raise their families on that
mountain, and I guess that’s the only assurance I can give you, other than the fact that if this
application is, in fact, approved, Jon and I are going to be sitting down, and he will be doing the
leg work to deed these properties automatically over to my children. I hope I answered your
question.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you want to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CARA BEAMES
MRS. BEAMES-Hi. My name is Cara Beames. I live on Tuthill Road. My land adjacents to Jeff
Inglee’s. Basically, we have a map to show you of the neighborhood. Jeff will be in yellow. The
neighbors that are against this and signed the petition and sent letters are in pink. Can you see
it, basically, from there okay?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Continue, Cara.
MRS. BEAMES-Okay. Basically all I’m going to do is go through a brief summary of what we
went through, what I had gone through with the Zoning Board, and it’s just barely, go through
the Area Variance guidelines that were sent to me. I believe that some of these do follow what
you will need to make your decision on this project. Number One, the undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood deals with not only the zoning but I do believe it deals with
the planning. Forty-two neighbors who signed the petition against the subdivision and the
development feel not only will it give the atmosphere of a development, but it would be
harmful in maintaining the ecology of the mountain. There are neighbors that would be
affected, and they live near the vicinity of the development. Pictures are very, sometimes,
deceiving, and I know you’ve all probably been up there and seen the lot. Two houses on that
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
lot, in an open area, is really against the character of that neighborhood. Number Two, having
another option to pursue a way to build two houses on eight acres, he does have land that is
adjacent to the Queensbury property in Luzerne. I’d also like to point out, if you do approve
this, I hope that you will address and clarify the resolution from the Zoning Board, and be sure
that it states that he will have to take down the existing house before the second one is built,
because it is not in the resolution. The way it reads now, he could have three houses on this lot,
and believe me, it’ll be three houses as long as it possibly can. I have a copy here, on the Town
of Queensbury website. I just want to hand out to you. This is on the website for any people
who are looking to come to this area. They purchase their homes, you know, after looking at
this. I think that if it’s out there for people to look at, and they think that this is what the rules
and regulations are in buying a home in Queensbury, you know, I really feel strongly,
especially when it’s advertised on the Internet, that it should be upheld, which leads me to
Number Three, being substantial important and necessary. He already has enough lots for his
children to build. One could be living in his house across the street. However, he chooses to
rent it instead. So how important is it? I’d like to remind you that he runs a rental business. He
now rents out his house when he has an overflow of interest from the house across the street.
This summer he lived in the trailer on top of the landing across the street when he rented out
his home. We live in this neighborhood and we know, and we know what is important.
Number Four deals with the affect and the impact that this would have on the physical and
environmental conditions. We would like to see the ecology of the mountain preserved. Have
you noticed the black tar, in the summer, that runs off of his driveway in the summer? The
slightest digging affects the existing wells that lie below Tuthill Road. The people who live on
the lower part of Clendon Brook have had problems with their wells, and one has already had
to have been re-dug. More construction also decreases wildlife survival. We paid more to live
in a unique area in Queensbury. We moved up there because of the zoning. To be surrounded
by wildlife, not buildings. Sitting in my living room, you can see his house. I’ve asked the
Planning Board, and I know I’ve been told it can’t come up and talk to me, but if you’re in my
yard, you can see his house. If you build another house that’s going to be closer to my
property, it’s definitely an eyesore. We need to preserve this area by enforcing the zoning that
is in place, one dwelling to five acres. Finally on Number Five has to do with self-created. Of
course it’s self-created. Last year he was approved for the subdivision to make his dreams come
true. He is now back with more dreams. He has enough lots for his children. That’s what you
approved last year was for him to have his children build across the street. That was his dream.
His children can grow there. His grandchildren can grow there. Nobody has any beef about
that. He has great kids. He has enough land already. We don’t need to be breaking up and
making exceptions. Please keep in mind, when you make this decision, it affects everyone on
this map. The majority is against it, the subdivision development that Jeff has requested. It
would only benefit one if you approve it, and it’s not the people living in the community. It
would only benefit him. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DAVE STEWART
MR. STEWART-Hi. My name’s Dave Stewart. I own property adjacent to Jeff, about 60 acres.
When we bought up there it was zoned eight and a half. People before us got it down to five,
which we opposed. Now we’re talking about going lower. I’m definitely against it, and I’ll just
throw out that recently my sister-in-law has approached me about buying a chunk of land from
me to build on off my 60 acres. She recently contacted the Town and the APA and was told
she’d have to have 10, and we’re talking down on Clendon Brook Road, probably 1,000 feet
below Tuthill. So we’re talking property adjacent to this, where she’s now been told she’ll have
to have 10, and I’m just wondering, you know, how far does that go, if she pursues this, and this
is approved, does she have the idea that somewhere she’s going to get less? I’m just wondering
how this is going to be enforced, if everybody’s treated the same or not. We haven’t done
anything yet. It’s my intention that whatever she needs for property, should she ever decide to
build there, is what she’ll have to have, but if we’re talking a piece of property that is adjacent to
his, and they’re talking about 10 acres, and they said something about the wetlands have
something to do with it. Well, the only wetlands on that piece of property are a creek that’s
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
probably 1200 to 1500 feet from where she’d be building, and if I’m not mistaken, there’s a creek
a hell of a lot closer to where Jeff wants to build, than there is to this piece of property. So I’d
just throw it out to the Board, you know, how consistent are we going to be? Are we going to
enforce it? Are we not going to enforce it? Are we going to open it up to other property owners
to do whatever they want? I don’t think it’s right. We built up there for a reason, and that’s
what we would like enforced. The reason we built there, even though it’s now five instead of
eight and a half, I’d hate to see it start going lower than that. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
CHARLES HUPPERT
MR. HUPPERT-Charles Huppert, 229 Clendon Brook Road, which is located approximately a
quarter of a mile north of Mr. Inglee’s property. I just want to say in the outset that I am the
person who had written saying that I thought that his desire for subdivision in part was so that
he could rent property out. That’s the way I feel, of course. That’s my opinion, and I’m stating
what I think I believe. The second point I would like to make is that when I bought my
property, it was zoned the same as it is now, five acres, one dwelling. Before I could get clear
deed to that property, I had to deal directly with the APA, at which time I had to signoff saying
that I fully understood that once I bought that property I would not be able to subdivide it into
smaller building lots. My argument is why should we allow Mr. Inglee to build a home on 3.53
acres, when I had to do mine on five acres, and everyone since I bought my property up there
has had to comply with the same thing. Thirdly, if the Board does allow this subdivision
request, I expect to live there for another 20 years. I’m shooting for 96, and I do not want to see
that neighborhood change, so that homes can be built on less than five acre lots, because it will
open up that whole stretch. The other pieces of property up there, as you well know, are all 10
acres or more now, that face on Tuthill Road. So who’s to say, if somebody with a 15 acre piece
wants to subdivide into five acre lots, that might be all right, at least one home per five acres is
not too bad. I wouldn’t want to see it happen up there, because, as the previous gentleman
said, I bought because I wanted elbow room. I would hope that you would stick to the present
zoning regulations as they stand for that neighborhood. It’s a beautiful area. Let’s not ruin it.
Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN MERRY
MR. MERRY-Hi. My name is John Merry. I live on 342 Clendon Brook Road. I’ve lived there
about 17 years now. Since we’ve moved in 17 years ago, our road itself has doubled in size, as
far as the residences go, and I don’t have a problem with that. Everyone has conformed to the
five acre zoning, and that’s all well and good. I understand before I moved there, this acreage,
this area had been rezoned from eight and a half acres to five acres. My guess is that the Town
fathers, back when they zoned it eight and a half acres probably had some thoughts about
water, septic systems, etc., and this should all play a part in your decision. There’s only so
much water to be had. Every time somebody drills a well and taps into an aquifer, that’s just a
little less water that somebody else gets, and there’s no plan for the Town to run water lines up
there in the event that we’ve overbuilt up there and start drawing too much water off our
aquifer. It’s coming off West Mountain. You know how tall the mountain is. You know where
the houses are on Tuthill Road. It rains only every so often and this water has to seep down, get
into people’s wells, and they use it. Since I’ve been living there, the last two to three years, I
have noticed a drop in my water. My neighbor, the Laughlers, had to drill a well because theirs
dried up. I think this should be part of the decision making process, for you folks as a Planning
Board, to really look at closely. Besides the fact that, again, these people that have moved to this
area, and this neighborhood, are looking for privacy. They’re looking for the five acres. They’re
looking for some elbow room, and if we allow this three and a half acre zone to happen here,
there are other people that are going to do the same thing, possibly, and I think we’re opening
the can of worms here, gentlemen. I don’t think this is a good idea. That’s all I have to say.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHY GOMES
MRS. GOMES-Good evening. Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I’d like to see the pictures that
were shared with the Board, if I may.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff has them.
MRS. GOMES-There was something said about dots on a map showing where my property and
the new houses are. That’s what I’m particularly interested in. I’m sorry, what was the color
coding for the dots?
MR. INGLEE-The upper blue dot is your place, and the lower blue dot is the (lost word)
property, and anything to the right side of the red line is my property, and anything to the left
side of the red line is (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m apprehensive of having these conversations go back and forth without
being part of the public record.
MRS. GOMES-I’m sorry. I just didn’t know what the color code was. Thank you. I do want to
point out the map that depicts the area residents who signed the petition. There were 42 of
them, and that is an awful lot of pink surrounding the yellow area which is Mr. Inglee’s
property. The blank hash marked area opposite the yellow is Mr. Inglee’s other property. So,
you see a lack of pink on that side. That’s because he owns that property as well, but if you
look basically almost all of the properties immediately surrounding his are filled in in pink as
people who have signed the petition indicating that they’re opposed to the development of this
land. I’d also like to address the question of letters that have been brought up, as I did before
the Zoning Board, in past years when I’ve come to meetings with this Board, this Board has
been very thorough in examining letters that you’ve gotten, and even examining people
speaking before you and asking what their relationship was and they sought to, would be
benefiting in some way if the application was approved, and the letters that were present in the
file at the last meeting, I understand there are some additional ones that have come in, but the
ones that were present in the files the last meeting in favor of Mr. Inglee, one of those letters
was from Glen Batease who is a contractor and excavator in Mr. Inglee’s employ, and does
serve to benefit from this being granted. He does not live in the immediate neighborhood of
this project. Another one of the letters was from a Mr. Michael Ringer from Holden Avenue,
which is one block from the Glens Falls City line and not in this neighborhood. Another of the
letters was from Jean Hoyas who does not even live in the Town of Queensbury. Another was
from a Mr. Santucci, who does not even live in the Town of Queensbury. They live in Luzerne,
and I feel that these people certainly can write letters. That is their right. They can speak to
their friendship with Mr. Inglee, their support of him as a friend, their belief in what he wants to
do, but they cannot speak to the impact that this project will have on the neighborhood because
they don’t live in the neighborhood. The people up there in pink are the majority of people
who do live in the neighborhood, and I think they have spoken very clearly to you as signing
that petition, and saying that they feel this development is out of character with the
neighborhood. The third thing is when you’re making your decision and there’s certain things
you need to consider, the impact on aesthetics in the neighborhood, the impact on open space,
the Open Space Plan, the impact on the community and the neighborhood. I do feel this is out
of character with the neighborhood. There was even discussion at past meetings, Mr. Strough
himself stated that he feels this is out of character and contrary to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and Open Space Plans of the Town of Queensbury. He also stated that he was concerned
that this would set a precedent for development of smaller lots in this area. My husband and I
own 63 acres of land on this street. We have been approached repeatedly by developers, as
have other of our neighbors, asking us to sell them our property because they want to put
developments up there. They want to build tracts of homes up there, and the people I know
who have gotten these solicitation letters have all said no, but if we set a precedent of three acre
lots up there, I’m afraid about what’s going to happen to that neighborhood. I’m afraid of
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
what’s going to happen to the character of the neighborhood and of the mountain itself. It’s a
beautiful area. I would hate to see it overdeveloped. I’m not saying that’s what Mr. Inglee
plans to do, to put in a development. That’s not what he’s asking you for, but I think it sets a
dangerous precedent for that neighborhood. The plan that is underneath our map, I feel is
missing some elements that are important. There is nothing on there showing where the
driveway for the house will be on the new lot. If you don’t mind, I want to just go look at the
map for one second. This is the existing house. This is the new proposed house. There’s no
driveway indicated. I believe your application requires that that be indicated where it’s going
to be, but it’s not on here. There’s also no location indicated on this map, which is the official
map for the location of the proposed hose on Lot Five, nor is there a location for the driveway
for that new house on Lot Five indicated. So we are left to kind of assume where that
structure’s going to be, where that driveway’s going to be, and on this lot to assume where the
driveway’s going to be as well, and I, for one, would like to see, if this goes ahead, more
detailed plans with that information on it. Mr. Inglee provided you with this picture, and I’d
like to point something out on it. If you look at the blue dot, which is our house, and you follow
down in front of that dot to the road, you see our driveway. The new proposed house, our
house, the new proposed house, it is across from the bottom of our driveway. The driveway’s
the clearest piece on our property. Obviously no trees or shrubs. So, we do have a view. We
are also, our property is higher in elevation than Mr. Inglee’s, so we look down on his property.
So we do have a view. Before we moved here, we spent three and a half years looking at
property and went through two different realtors, because we had very specific requirements,
and zoning was one of them. I have a book with me that we used, it’s called Country Bound,
Change Your Business Suit Blues for your Blue Jean Country Dreams. That was our research
tool when we decided to relocate. There are numerous chapters in that book devoted
specifically to purchasing land in a more rural area and zoning, and they stress the importance
of looking into zoning. We turned down numerous pieces of property because of the zoning.
We chose this property because of the zoning. We were told it was five and ten acre zoning.
When we bought our property, we examined maps of the surrounding properties with the
realtor. The piece across the street from us, at eight acres, according to the zoning, could not be
divided further. So we knew that the view we have across the street from us would always be
the view we would have, or so we thought. That’s in question now. If you look at this picture,
the view we are about to have is of a new house and maybe a driveway. I don’t know. Maybe
they’re not going to have a driveway. The map doesn’t show it. I have a front porch. I don’t
have a back porch. I have a large picture window in the front of my house looking out on that
porch. It pretty much looks right out along the driveway that looks right out over Mr. Inglee’s
property. My view now from my front porch and my front picture window, which is, by the
way, right where the fireplace is inside and right where we spend most of our time sitting. The
view now is of field and of trees in the summer of flowers, at night the twinkling of the lights
down in the city. That will no longer be my view if this project goes ahead. That will be part of
my view, but also in that view will be a house and whatever else is built to go along with that
house, and I feel that that, if the Town allows that to happen, that you are breaking a promise
that was made when I bought this property, when I looked at the zoning and very carefully
researched it, and that will impact the neighborhood. It will impact us and our house. I would
very much like to know, though, more specifics on that plan, because from what’s there, it looks
like that will be the case, like the house and the driveway are directly below ours. There’s been
some mention tonight of Mr. Inglee’s other property. Some of you were here when subdivision
of that property took place, and it was very clear that no further division of that property would
take place. I don’t think it is fair to consider the acreage of that property when you’re talking
about this property. So when you’re being told, well, the overall density of all the property he
owns is 40 acres. So I have one house on 63 acres. If I own another 100 acres in another part of
Queensbury, does that mean the overall density is one house to 163 acres? No, they’re separate
pieces of land, and your regulations require you to consider them separately, not jointly.
They’re two separate projects. I appreciate, as I said at the last meeting, that Mr. Inglee wants to
have his family living with him. That’s a noble goal. We know his children. We have no
problem with his children. He has three children. He has four lots already. He’s asking you for
a fifth lot. He has, on the record at the zoning meeting, stated that the reason he wants that fifth
lot is so that he can maintain a rental. I don’t believe that rental units are in the character of our
neighborhood. I don’t believe that having people we don’t know always living next door to us
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
is in the best interest of the people living in this neighborhood, nor in the best interest of our
children or of our property values. Over Christmas, my husband and I went to visit relatives
for a short period of time, a very short period of time, and in that time our house was broken
into and robbed. We have two large dogs that are usually always present on the property. We
happened to take them with us when we went to visit these friends, and within that short time
that we were gone, someone broke in. I think the character of our neighborhood has already
been impacted. I never used to even have to lock my house. Now I don’t leave without locking
it. Now I won’t leave without alarming it. We don’t know who’s in our neighborhood
anymore, and I think that clearly impacts the aesthetics of our neighborhood and the character
of our neighborhood. On the current application, there are requests for granting a number of
waivers, including landscaping and clearing. I would ask that those not be granted, because I,
for one, would like to know what clearing and landscaping would be done. Mr. Inglee stated
that his agreement with the Zoning Board requires that the current existing house be destroyed.
That is not in the Zoning Board’s motion. It’s not there. That was why we asked the Zoning
Board to reopen. Because we pointed out that though they discussed that at length at the
meeting, they did not put it in their motion. It’s not there. There’s no requirement that the
existing house be destroyed. To find that you would have to go back and look at the minutes
of the meeting, which is legally useless. So if you do decide to allow him to develop these lots,
my request would be that you very specifically require the removal of that existing home.
Furthermore, I would request that you require the removal of that existing home before
construction of a new home begins, not after construction of the new home is finished. Mr.
Inglee has stated, in the record, that the construction of each of these homes may take as long as
three to four years. If he is able to begin construction on the new house while the existing house
is still there, that means for a period of three to four years, we would not only have two houses
on eight acres, but we would have two plus whatever stage the construction was in, and once
that house is built, however long it takes to get a CO or any of that, we’d be looking at three
houses, and that’s certainly out of the character of this neighborhood. I have many questions
about the impact of rentals on our neighborhood, more so now than at the last meeting, since
we’ve been robbed, more so now that I am getting notices, in accordance with Megan’s Law,
from the school district on a regular basis informing me of sexual offenders that have moved in
to the Town of Queensbury. When you have a rental next to you that’s a day by day rental, you
have no such assurances. You have no such protection from the people in that rental property.
You don’t know who they are. You don’t know if they’re registered offenders under Megan’s
Law. You have no way of knowing that. If you move into an area where there are rental
businesses established, if you choose to buy a home next to a hotel, that is your choice and you
know that’s the decision you’re making. That’s not the choice that we made. We chose to live
in a residential neighborhood where we would know our neighbors. I would like that to be
how it stays. By granting Mr. Inglee a fifth lot, you are basically sanctioning his ability to have
not only a home for each of his three children and himself, but also that rental home that he has
on that record said is why he needs the fifth lot. So if you are sanctioning that, then whether it’s
legally possible or not, I would hold this Town liable for any ill that comes to us as a result of
that. I think when you do your balancing test, you have to look at the impact on open space.
You have to look at the impact on the character of the community. You have to look at the
colors on that map and the overwhelming amount of pink on that map, and the fact that those
are the people currently residing in that neighborhood. They’re not the people saying, at some
point down the line they’ll reside there. They’re not the people saying we’re friends with him.
They are the people who actually reside there and will be directly impacted. I think this picture
showing that the new house would be directly below us shows that our property would be
impacted. You’re welcome to come sit on my front porch anytime you want and check it out for
yourself. As I said, if this goes ahead, I feel like this Town has broken a promise that you’ve
made to me and to every other member of that neighborhood, and I don’t think that that’s
appropriate, and I would like to see my questions, with the map and what is or is not shown on
the map addressed. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a couple of letters.
MR. HILTON-I’ve got eleven letters. I can read them all, or I can just read the names. They
basically say the same thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give us a summary of basically what they say and give us the names.
MR. HILTON-I can give you the names. They’re all in support. Seem to have no objection to
the proposed subdivision, and I can give you the names. David C. Seymour, 37 Tuthill Road;
Christine Kobol, and her address is not identified in the letter; Michael Ringer, 10 Western
Avenue; Eugene Hoyas, and I am not seeing an address; Darrow and Linda Maille of 394
Clendon Brook Road; Joan Mahar, I’m not seeing an address on this one; Lee Jarvis, West
Mountain Road; Glen Batease, I’m not seeing an address;
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be Big Boom Road.
MR. HILTON-Kenneth Santucci, 537 Beartown Road, Lake Luzerne; Carrie Inglee, who is in the
letter identified as Jeff’s daughter; and Jeffrey Inglee the second, who is obviously Mr. Inglee’s
son. All 11 letters are in support of this application, and that’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments, and I don’t know if
Matt or Jeff do, but in terms of the character of the neighborhood, the existing house, as was
pointed out, is right at the road, so it doesn’t comply with the setback, and the new house to be
built on that lot would comply with the setback. So in terms of the character, that’s on the five
acre lot. So the house would be far less visible from the road than the one that’s there now,
because you couldn’t build a house, nor would they want to build a house.
MR. MAC EWAN-The existing house is on the three and a half acre lot.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. I’m reading it wrong. It is the three and a half acre lot, exactly. So if
you’re looking at that map, the house is right up against the road on the three and a half acre
site. There are no wetlands on the site. That was something that was mentioned, and the five
acres and the three acres, the eight and a half acres is certainly sufficient to construct a septic
system and a well. Matt also pointed out, when we were listening to the comments, in terms of
the minimum lot size, that if you were going to do a cluster subdivision in this zone, you are
allowed to do one acre lots. I mean, just in terms of the character, you can have one acre lots as
long as you have the land to do a cluster. That’s obviously not what’s proposed here, but that is
permitted. Beyond that, I think that 90% of the comments that we heard address the zoning
issue, which has already been determined by the Zoning Board, and obviously what’s before
you is the subdivision issue, in terms of where you would divide it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you a question? Who owns the property that would be behind Lot
Number Five, the three and a half acre lot, which would be to the east of it?
MR. LAPPER-Down the hill, you mean?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Dave Stewart.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you approached Mr. Stewart about buying some of that land to make
your lot five acres, in conforming?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. INGLEE-Well, you heard Mr. Stewart’s reaction this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking you.
MR. INGLEE-No. I have not approached him. No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. RINGER-I had a question for Counsel. ZBA did a SEQRA. We’re going to have to do a
SEQRA, too. Our SEQRA, we could have a different finding than the ZBA, on the SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true. Is that the question? Yes, that’s true.
MR. RINGER-That’s the question.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s true. As long as this was not done by way of coordinated
review, which it sounds like it was not, because if it was then you wouldn’t have separate
SEQRA determination.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, yes, that’s one of the reasons agencies wanted to coordinate a review is
to avoid the possibility of inconsistent results, but there can be inconsistent results.
MR. RINGER-I can see that happening here, and that’s why I’m bringing the question up.
MR. SCHACHNER-That can happen, yes.
MR. RINGER-I have a question, also to Counsel, I guess. In a general sense, to what degree are
we bound by the Zoning Board variance?
MR. SCHACHNER-You are completely bound by the Zoning Board variance to the extent that
you could not, for example, deny the application based on the lot size not being in conformity
with zoning. To use that as an example, that’s a determination that the Zoning Board of
Appeals has already granted an Area Variance to allow creation of these lots at substandard
size. So, you can’t, I don’t believe lawfully, you could not lawfully deny the application based
on its failure to comply with the zoning minimum lot size. You have a somewhat related but
separate set of criteria for reviewing subdivisions. So I don’t want to mislead you and suggest
that because the ZBA approved something you have to approve the application. That’s not the
case, but you couldn’t, you are bound by their determination on the issue that they granted the
variance on. Does that make sense?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-But, could we say, going back to the character issue, could we say, as one of the
problems we might have with the character, could that be lot size?
MR. SCHACHNER-Since character is one of your criteria, I guess, you know, that’s probably
one aspect of character that you could reference and that would probably be defensible. I’d be
concerned if that was the only ground for a motion, but if you’re suggesting that be one of the
grounds for consideration, that’s probably defensible. That’s a good question. It’s a fine line
here.
MR. RINGER-Could we also, Mark, we’ve had, this is probably the fourth or fifth application
we’ve had for this area, for subdivisions. Many of them have been for reduced lot sizes. We’ve
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
rejected every one of them that I know of. A couple of them called for clustering. We’ve
rejected the clustering even. Can we, if we did come up with a denial on this, could we use as
part of our reasons for denial, our past history in this area of denying these?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-In addition to the neighborhood character.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because one of the things that you as a Board are supposed to do, by
the way, not unique to you, but any Board, you’re supposed to try to be consistent in your
decision making. So, if one factor you could weigh in, and again, I wouldn’t suggest this be the
only factor.
MR. RINGER-But a combination of the neighborhood character.
MR. SCHACHNER-A factor your could weigh in to your decision making. It’s perfectly
appropriate to weigh in to your decision making as one factor. What your past response has
been to similar proposals, and by the way, that statement I just made is not specific to this
application or this applicant or this situation. That’s generally true. In any context, you’re
supposed to try to rule as consistently as you can. So it’s perfectly appropriate for you to factor
in how you have reviewed any application, I mean, any similar application in the past, in the
context of any application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bear in mind the Planning Board doesn’t have to make any decision tonight
either.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely. This would be a difficult one to do.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s certainly true, to get the wording correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-One of the comments was with regards to water concerns. What is the general
nature of the water up there at this time?
MR. STEVES-It’s all well water.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is it? Has there been issues with regard to the well water there that you’re
aware of?
MR. STEVES-None that I’m aware of. Mr. Inglee has, what, three at this time, correct?
MR. INGLEE-I have one well on my present property.
MR. LAPPER-What’s the story? How deep is your well? Any problems?
MR. INGLEE-No. None whatsoever. It’s been there for many, many years.
MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t know of any water problem at all?
MR. INGLEE-None whatsoever.
MR. LAPPER-Just in terms of septic and well, even though the zone is five acres and we’re
talking about, you know, two houses on eight and a half acres, those are still relatively large
lots. In the Town of Queensbury you can have individual septic and wells on one acre lots or
even smaller on half acre lots. So, in terms of the Health Department, this doesn’t even make an
issue.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-The impression I get is you own land across the street, then?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-He has a total of 40 acres that he owns.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not use a part of that then?
MR. LAPPER-Well, there are three lots across the street. He has three kids. He’s building his
retirement house, and one house is a rental house, income property. So he’s looking to have
five lots on 40 acres, which is an average density of eight acres per.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. You’re splitting hairs here. You’re talking about parcels on
two sides of the road.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they’re adjacent. They’re across the street from each other. I mean, we’re
talking character of the neighborhood. You’re talking about, you look at the whole
neighborhood.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s 40 lots on the other side of the street?
MR. LAPPER-There’s 40 acres, including the eight and a half acres on this side of the street.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and on the other side of the street, then, there’s three lots on the 40 acres?
MR. LAPPER-Three lots, yes. No, it’s 40 acres in total.
MR. VOLLARO-47.71 acres, that’s the three lots that were proposed the last time we split that
time, and that happened to be on the 22 day of October 2002. \
nd
MR. STEVES-The total property, real briefly, on the other side of the road, on the west side,
would be 47.71 acres, 16.41 of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the other side of the road is immaterial.
MR. LAPPER-I certainly don’t agree, Mr. Chairman, that it’s immaterial. When you look at the
neighborhood, you look at all the lots. I understand where you’re coming from, but I mean, I
think that this is important because I see where this is going. What some of you are arguing, I
guess, is to protect, the two neighbors each have 60 acres, and they don’t want to look at any
houses. I look at houses. I know where many of you live, and you look at houses. We often get
into the NIMBY, I don’t want anything on the lot across the street from me, but in terms of
taking down a house that’s built right at the road, that’s not attractive, and replacing it with two
modern homes that would be set back, and having the Zoning Board already made a
determination that this is within the character of the neighborhood and granting the variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-How long has the existing house been there?
MR. INGLEE-I’ve lived there for 27 years, and prior to that I believe that house was built in the
late or mid 1900’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Pre-existing, nonconforming use.
MR. INGLEE-I’d like to just point out one more thing to the Planning Board. If you’ve noticed,
during the course of Mrs. Beames’ presentation and Mrs. Gomes’ presentation, it’s very obvious
that the issue here is looking at another house, and consequently I spent over $50,000 to buy the
property across the road from my existing house, so I didn’t have to look at another house
across the road, but it cost me $50,000 to do that.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-What was the zoning when you bought the property?
MR. INGLEE-Which property?
MR. MAC EWAN-Across the street, this parcel you’re talking about.
MR. INGLEE-Five and ten acre zoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you knew what the zoning was when you bought the property.
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct, but I also approached Craig Brown three years ago, before I even
started this application, and I asked Craig, this is what I’m attempting to try to do. I asked him
before I even bought the property and turned it into a rental cabin if it was possible and if it was
legal with the Town, and everything was okay with that. When I asked Craig how to go about
this, he is the one who portrayed to me, handle the subdivision on the west side of Tuthill Road
as a separate identity. Don’t confuse the issues. Take your chances with the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and put an application in for a variance on the east side of Tuthill Road and take your
chances, and consequently I presented my case to the Zoning Board and they voted in my favor
to allow me to do this, but again, the whole issue here is the Gomes’ and the Beames’ don’t
want to look at another house. Well, if Mrs. Beames is looking at the brown boards of my
house, I can assure you I’m looking at the gray boards of her house.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think the Board here is listening to the people, what they’re looking at. I
think the Board is looking at the overall character of the neighborhood, and not particularly
about one house here and one house there. I think we’re looking at the character, Jeff.
MR. LAPPER-But Jeff did get the variance, Larry, I mean, in terms of the minimum lot size.
MR. RINGER-I understand that, but we’re going to do a SEQRA on it, too, Jon, and we might
not feel the same way.
MR. LAPPER-And it sounds like it might be up to a court to decide.
MR. RINGER-That may be. Those are things that happen.
MR. LAPPER-That happens. So it goes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have one comment. Rather than go forward on this
application, I’d like to recommend that we take our allotted, I think it’s 45 days to take a look at
this and then draw a resolution at the end of that period of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sixty-two days.
MR. RINGER-We’ve got to do a SEQRA first.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine.
MR. SCHACHNER-Larry, I’m not sure what you mean by you have to do a SEQRA first. I
mean, you don’t have to do that tonight.
MR. RINGER-We don’t have to do the SEQRA tonight?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. Absolutely not. I’m not saying don’t, but I just want to make sure, I
think you’re thinking you have to do that tonight.
MR. RINGER-I’m thinking we have to do it before we go to a motion.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s true, but you don’t have to do it tonight. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. RINGER-And I’m struggling how we’re going to get through a SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand.
MR. RINGER-And if we can’t get through a SEQRA, then we’ve got to go for, what, an EIS?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you don’t reach the conclusion of a SEQRA negative declaration,
then that’s correct.
MR. RINGER-It certainly would be difficult for an EIS.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the pleasure of the Board, what do they want to do?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve given you my statement. I’d like to take our allotted period of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-An informal poll. Do you want to move forward on a SEQRA tonight?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two don’t’s.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just procedurally, I think you still have your public hearing open.
MR. MAC EWAN-I closed it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-We’ve closed the public hearing, now we’re on a timeframe, though, aren’t we?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And the timeframe is what, Mark?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sixty-two days.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it 62 days?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s supposed to be, under State law, although our Code says 45 days. So
I’m going to say 45 days.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would be tempted to agree with Bob. I’m not sure logistically and
procedurally how we would do that, how we would come about drafting a resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think each Planning Board member, in my view, has to take a good look
at this by themselves, knowing what the situation is, having heard testimony from the public on
it, and each member possibly try to draw up a resolution on their own, and see which one of
those resolutions would come forward at the end of the 45 days.
MR. RINGER-I would lean more toward two people getting together with Counsel and Staff to
draw up the resolution to present to the Board.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. That’s another route.
MR. RINGER-I mean, I’d hate to see seven. That would seem to me it would complicate it,
whereas perhaps two people with Counsel and Staff could draw a resolution to present to the
Board and it might be a smoother operation than having seven resolutions. Just a thought, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s certainly a viable position. I’d go along with that.
MR. RINGER-I’m just having trouble with thinking of drawing the resolution before we do a
SEQRA. That’s what I’m struggling with.
MR. SCHACHNER-And it’s correct that you can’t act on a resolution prior to doing a SEQRA.
MR. RINGER-We can draw one up before?
MR. SCHACHNER-You can write one up any time you want.
MR. RINGER-All right. Then I don’t have any trouble. Bob, I agree with you, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about just the SEQRA issues. We’d move forward with the
SEQRA tonight. Do you want to delay it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess it would be best to delay it.
MR. METIVIER-I just have one question, which could actually determine SEQRA a little bit.
What’s going on with the house that’s down there right now?
MR. INGLEE-Pardon me?
MR. METIVIER-What’s going on with the house that’s down there right now?
MR. INGLEE-The existing house?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. INGLEE-That’s where I’ve lived for the last 27 years.
MR. METIVIER-So you’re living there right now?
MR. INGLEE-I’m living there right now. That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Tony, just to clarify. What he told the Zoning Board that didn’t get put in the
resolution was that after the house for his daughter is built on the new lot next door, his house
would be torn down.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And that would be something he would stipulate to if we got to an approval
resolution, which doesn’t seem like that’s where we’re going.
MR. METIVIER-I guess the question is, would you entertain demolishing the house prior to
your daughter’s house going up? And I mean, believe me when I say I’m not trying to throw
you out on the street. Especially tonight. That’s why I’m asking the question.
MR. INGLEE-Well, Tony, it’s like I expressed to you earlier. I could, in fact, complete my new
home on the mountain if I was to sell my properties and generate the revenue to do that.
Consequently, I’m going to attempt to build this house mostly out of pocket, which I’m
assuming is going to probably take me three, maybe four years, and so needless to say, until
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
that time that my new home is completed, you would be, in fact, throwing me out into the
street. I need that place to reside in, and once my new home is completed, and consequently,
yes, we’ll tear it down. Again, the neighbors are concerned there will be three houses on that
piece of property. I can assure you there will not be.
MR. RINGER-Well, you couldn’t get three houses on it anyway.
MR. INGLEE-Well, and Mrs. Gomes had pointed out that she wants an agreement that upon
maybe starting of the construction of the second home that the old house would be demolished.
We can agree to that, but as far as the first home being started, my daughter’s home, I think
she’s going to be first runner up. She’s got quite a pile of money saved up. She’s ready to start.
So needless to say, upon starting of the second home, which would be my son’s home, we
would, in fact, agree to demolish the old home and I would just have to hustle a long a little bit
to get my place finished.
MR. METIVIER-Because technically he’s waiting three plus years now before he gets started.
MR. INGLEE-Well, I’m trying to set the stage here. I mean, consequently I’m trying to get all
this preliminary stuff out of the way, and heaven forbid anything ever happened to me, but this
is why I’m going ahead and I’m trying to get the stage set so in other words I can go ahead and
automatically deed these properties over to my kids, within a couple of weeks time, if this
application is approved. I have no such intentions of commercializing our mountain.
MR. MAC EWAN-The sense I get, the majority of the Board doesn’t want to move forward on
the SEQRA tonight. So what we’ll do is we’ll table this application and I’ll assign Mr. Vollaro
and Mr. Sanford to be the committee from the Planning Board to sit down with Counsel and
Staff. Okay. So you guys set up a time convenient for you guys, and what we’ll do is we’ll be
ready to reconvene with our resolution. Obviously we’ll notify you. Mrs. Beames, I’ll have
Staff contact you. You can be the voice of the neighborhood and pass the word along if you
would, please. So that’s less people we’ll have to contact. Okay. We’ll do that. All right.
Okay. Thanks.
MR. INGLEE-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE MALCOLM
BATCHELDER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 36
CLEMENTS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.86 +/- ACRE
PROPERTY INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 15-1995, 11-1994, 2-
1993 APA TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.3 266.3-1-64.1 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This will be a brief overview of the application. This is a two lot residential
subdivision on Clements Road. The applicant is seeking Preliminary and Final approval this
evening. I don’t have my notes in front of me, but I believe we just had a question as to whether
there were any test pits done for the proposed septic. Beyond that, the application is what it is,
a two lot residential subdivision, which appears to conform to the zoning, the SR-1A for this
area, Clements Road, and with that that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Can I ask Staff a question before we start on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MR. RINGER-The other subdivisions that were approved, the SB 15-95, and 1994 and 1993, was
there any restrictions on further subdivision of any, in any of that, George?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. HILTON-I specifically checked that, and, no, there were not.
MR. RINGER-There were none. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Malcolm Batchelder on this application.
Very quickly, this is two lots on the south side of Clements Road, Lot A being the proposed new
lot and Lot B being the existing home of Mr. Batchelder. This would be, it’s the swan song as
far as subdivisions go. This is his last lot he wants to break off. It’s a one acre zone, 1.49 acres,
and the proposed new lot, and 1.37. The lot immediately to the east and west and south were
lots of previous subdivisions by Mr. Batchelder, at that time when those lots were created, being
Lot A and B was one lot of a previous subdivision, and when Charlie Main had done test pits
and perc tests on there and when the subsequent line, the severance and (lost words) were
broken off, again, test pits were done that’s all suitable soils until you get down, you know,
quite a ways to the east down toward the pond. So as far as septic systems and perc tests, we
have no problems with either one. Any questions from the Board, we’d be open to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open it up.
MR. VOLLARO-Location of the well versus septic on the flag lot. I don’t see a well anywhere
on there.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Well, it’s an oversight. We can add a well. There’s ample room.
MR. VOLLARO-Just for the distance, so that we know we’ve got 100 feet.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. It would be a minimum of 100 feet. It would most likely be about 150
feet on that lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just so long as we meet the 100 foot minimum. There’s no other way to
do this, other than to do it as a flag lot.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. VOLLARO-And to get the required acreage.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That shed on there that’s off the property, does that belong to Kotch?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I believe so.
MR. SANFORD-Why couldn’t you subdivide it this way?
MR. VOLLARO-The 1.37 would go away if you moved that line over just a little bit.
MR. SANFORD-No, but you’d gain it up on top.
MR. VOLLARO-Up on top.
MR. STEVES-But if you split it that way, you can see the draw that’s starting to come into play
on the southeast corner of the property. If you split it back, the front area next to Mr.
Batchelder, if you put a house right on the front there, that’s his current yard, so, and this is the
configuration he wanted it in. We met him out there on site and that’s where he wanted to
place the house that would be least obtrusive to anybody else around them. So that’s the way
we configured the property.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-But there would be a way to reduce the flag lot by moving that line over, as
Rich has stated here.
MR. STEVES-Which line is that, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-The 247.89 foot line. You could move that to the north.
MR. STEVES-That would just slide it up and shrink Mr. Batchelder’s current lot a little bit.
MR. VOLLARO-A little bit.
MR. STEVES-Whatever this Board would like.
MR. VOLLARO-Not much.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the issue you’ve got, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Flag lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STEVES-There wouldn’t be as long a drive into it, I think is what Bob is saying. Slide the
lot between Lots A and B parallel to Clements Road, closer to Clements Road. I have no
problem with that. I really don’t see what major purpose it serves, but I would gladly do that.
Like I said, either way, I have no problems with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saying move what would be the east/west property line?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the 247.89.
MR. MAC EWAN-The east/west property line, move it north?
MR. STEVES-That’s what he’s saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would be the object of doing that, just shorten up the driveway?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re at 232 now. What would you bring it down to?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. It’s up to the surveyor to put that on the map.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what would make you comfortable? You’d still end up with a flag
shaped lot.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, you’re still going to have it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And then you haven’t gained anything. All you do is shorten it up by 50 feet
or something.
MR. STEVES-Just shorten it up. I mean, we can put a triangular on the corner of it. I mean, if
you look at the property, the area where we propose the house is where you’re going to build
the house.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is his last parcel he’s got. I mean, you can’t subdivide it any further
than that. I don’t have the warm and fuzzies about doing flag shaped lots, but, you know, this
is a unique situation.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. STEVES-I would gladly, you know, if the Board wants, on that corner there, to put a 45 on
that, like 50 foot back on the west line and on the north line of Lot A, you know, to open that lot
up a little bit, Bob, if that would make you feel more comfortable.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just one member, you know, saying that. It sounds like the other side of
the Board doesn’t have much sympathy for that position.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would appear you have Mr. Strough’s limb tonight. Anything else,
Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, that’s it, sir. Any other questions or comments? All right. I’ll open up
the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MALCOLM BATCHELDER, 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.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2003 MALCOLM
BATCHELDER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 21-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Malcolm Batchelder
PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
FINAL STAGE Zone: SR-1A
SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 36 Clements Road
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 2.86 +/- acre property into 2 residential lots.
Cross Reference: SB 15-1995, 11-1994, 2-1993
APA
Tax Map No. 27-3-1.3 / 266.3-1-64.1
Lot size: 2.78 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: December 23, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/17/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/4/04, and
1/15 Staff Notes
1/5 Verification by B. Frank of subdivision sign posting
1/3 Meeting Notice
12/23 Staff Notes
12/23 Draft PB minutes
12/15 Notice of Public Hearing sent
12/5 Meeting Notice
12/03 Waiver request received
11/14 Waiver requests
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
12/23/03 and 1/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
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
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision.
2. Waiver request(s) are granted: Stormwater, Grading, Lighting, Landscaping and
Sketch plan.
3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution for Final please.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2003 MALCOLM
BATCHELDER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 21-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Malcolm Batchelder
PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
FINAL STAGE Zone: SR-1A
SEQR Type: Unlisted Location: 36 Clements Road
Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 2.86 +/- acre property into 2 residential lots.
Cross Reference: SB 15-1995, 11-1994, 2-1993
APA
Tax Map No. 27-3-1.3 / 266.3-1-64.1
Lot size: 2.78 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: December 23, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/17/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/4/04, and
1/15 Staff Notes
1/5 Verification by B. Frank of subdivision sign posting
1/3 Meeting Notice
12/23 Staff Notes
12/23 Draft PB minutes
12/15 Notice of Public Hearing sent
12/5 Meeting Notice
12/03 Waiver request received
11/14 Waiver requests
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
12/23/03 and 1/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with
the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Indicate the well location on Lot A on the plat.
2. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision.
3. Waiver request(s) are granted: Stormwater, Grading, Lighting, Landscaping and
Sketch plan.
4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION 7-2003 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ERNEST CENTERBAR AGENT: NACE
ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE
SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 63 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO 36 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.57 ACRES TO 17.50 ACRES
IN SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 NYS DEC [WETLANDS,
ENDANGERED SPECIES UNIT] NYS FISH & WILDLIFE, NYS DOH TAX MAP NO. 308.7-
1-3 LOT SIZE: 63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get Staff notes this week?
MR. RINGER-No. No, we didn’t get anymore Staff notes. All we got was a new resolution, but
I assume the new resolution has the changes that you had discussed with the applicant?
MR. HILTON-And Mr. MacEwan, yes.
MR. RINGER-They’re in agreement with that?
MR. LAPPER-We are in agreement.
MR. HILTON-The only other comment I guess I have is, and since we didn’t, the last time we
heard this, get to mention or bring up our comments or give our Staff notes is we had a
comment in there about some potential consideration for no cut zones from the existing
residential properties to the east, and within this subdivision, possibly some no cut zones
between lots to kind of provide a visual buffer between the backs of homes. That was
something that I intended to bring to your attention for consideration. Beyond that, yes, we do
have a revised resolution that I think the applicant has agreed to and I think we’re comfortable
with, and with that, that’s all we have.
MR. RINGER-We did SEQRA. We closed the public hearing. I think we did everything on it,
except the resolution.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right, Larry.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t remember. Did we do a SEQRA on this at Preliminary?
MR. HILTON-Yes, at Preliminary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why is the public hearing shown as tabled from the 23 if we’d
rd
already done the SEQRA?
MR. RINGER-I think we had closed it, but I haven’t got the minutes. I thought we had closed
everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because we got ready to vote, and the applicant.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we were ready to go with the resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-Generally speaking, if you’ve done your SEQRA review, you close it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We close it. So I’ll assume it’s a typo. Okay. Any discussion?
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t quite sure of what George had just said about his Staff comments. I’ve
got your Staff notes here. Which one are you referring to?
MR. HILTON-Well, I believe in there, and I’d have to go back and look, I made some, at the
end, I believe I made some comments regarding no cut zones, consideration that some no cut
zones be provided.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got a no cut buffer along NiMo lands to the south. I just want to, you
know, if it’s a concern of yours, I want to make sure we’ve got them.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Under my Staff notes from December 23, the landscaping and screening
rd
section, talks about consideration of no cut zones along behind the common property lines of
proposed lots within the subdivision. At the rear of Lots One through Four, which I believe are
the lots that back up to the subdivision to the east of this, again, just trying to provide some
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
kind of visual screening between existing homes and for potential future property owners
within the subdivision between the homes that back up to each other.
MR. VOLLARO-Talking about Lots One through Four?
MR. HILTON-Well, that’s one part of it, but also if you look at the subdivision as a whole, you
have lots in there that back up to each other in a couple of different places.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Lots 34 and 24, for example.
MR. HILTON-Well, for example. In those areas, as you have done with other subdivisions in
the past, and I’m not specifying a width, but, you know, maybe a no cut zone to kind of provide
some buffering for those future property owners.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. My impression is that a no cut zone along the line that composes
Lot One through Four is appropriate, but having them in the middle of the subdivision, I don’t
see that.
MR. RINGER-I agree, Bob.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what we had talked about last time.
MR. RINGER-Yes. That’s what I thought, too, One through Four.
MR. LAPPER-We really appreciate that, because within the houses that Rich is building back to
back we’d rather not deal with that. I mean, he’ll certainly do a nice job. They’ll be nice houses,
but there’s just one issue on Lot One where Tom just mentioned that in order to fit the septic
system in he needs I think the buffer that’s proposed, just on that lot has to be a little bit smaller
so that, because there has to be clearing for the septic.
MR. NACE-The septic would be 10 foot away from the property line there. okay, but that’s just
a small area on the very top of the hill, and it’s not really an area that would be a screen
problem because it’s up high. It’s just that particular lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would the buffer be on Two, Three, Four?
MR. NACE-The buffer on Two, Three, Four could be, twenty feet would be no problem on Two,
Three, Four, and really, you know, on the southern half of Lot One twenty feet would be okay.
It’s just on this very little portion on top of the hill where the septic is that it would be a
problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments?
MR. SANFORD-Just where did we leave the land that, last time I was here on this, the applicant
wanted to deed over that parcel of land to the Town and there was issues as to who would
maintain it, and.
MR. RINGER-That was the reason for the tabling was for Counsel and the applicant and Staff to
get together with the application, or with the resolution. I assume they got that in the
resolution.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-And how did it finally get resolved? I could read it, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in there, Rich. Didn’t you see it?
MR. HILTON-Condition Number Eight.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. RINGER-Well, does it satisfy Staff and Counsel? Does it satisfy you, Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Well, my feeling was, I never thought it was appropriate for Rich to have to
maintain that anyway. I thought deeding it over was fine, and I didn’t know how it was ever
really find.
MR. LAPPER-It is Number Eight.
MR. SANFORD-It’s Number Eight.
MR. LAPPER-If the Town doesn’t accept it, a conservation easement will go to DEC. We’re
pretty confident the Town will accept it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, you’re not going to have any future connection to that really, once
it’s deeded over?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and that’s the way I think it should be.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Me, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I had just one question that when the DEC in their letters, and there are three of
them, I guess, one is from Fish and Wildlife. One is from Deb Roberts. One is from Kathy
O’Brien, and you go a little buggy reading those three letters, frankly.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a good pun.
MR. VOLLARO-And to try to, yes, it was meant to be. They keep referring to the nectar source
mitigation area. I can’t find it defined that way. I think they’re talking about the proposed
mitigation area up here.
MR. NACE-No, it’s the nectar source mitigation area. It’s on L, what is it, L-M One drawing. It
should be in your set. One of the things that Staff had commented, and we will have on the
drawing before it’s signed, is that that area be shown also on the subdivision plat itself. It’s
along the roadway connecting to the subdivision to the west, and it’s along.
MR. VOLLARO-The Schiavone property?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-It’s a 50 foot strip, on the south side of that. It’s right there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, all right. Well, I’m glad it resolved itself the way it did because I
was prepared to show, through all the letters that I’d seen and read, page by page, all three
letters, that it showed in there that this project, for example, it is our understanding that
Schermerhorn Properties will not be responsible for the clearing and restoration of this lot, and
that theme goes through all of those letters, and I wanted to make sure that that was carried
forward. Apparently, Rich, you’re satisfied with it. Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Are you satisfied with Condition Number One, as far as putting the money in
the escrow until a future time for the road to be done? I mean, what’s the future of that? Is that
this year, or is that?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. NACE-We had talked to Staff about that. Maybe I missed it. I thought there was supposed
to be a reasonable time limit on that.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I would hesitate to vote on that. I mean, you could be talking years.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the connecting road to the Schiavone subdivision?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Theoretically considering where Schiavone is in the pipeline right now,
probably a year away.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t particularly think that it’s fair to Rich to make him put money in escrow
for that much time. Unless you offer interest on it. I mean, escrow you would think would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not an unusual thing. It’s not something this Board has a lot over the
years. I can tell you the last time I think we ever did an escrow account was Queensbury Plaza,
when we had so many problems up there trying to get that thing to come into compliance.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I think it’s a difference between a problem site and Rich’s site. I mean,
you know, I just don’t particularly care for that, you know, point. I don’t know. I just think that
money could be sitting there forever, because there’s no stipulation as to time.
MR. VOLLARO-I would tend to agree.
MR. METIVIER-I think we should add at least a reasonable time, one year. I don’t know.
MR. LAPPER-Well, one way to look at it might be that if some period of time goes by, and the
other subdivision doesn’t get built, then, you know, at some point the other guy across the
street would have to build the whole interconnection.
MR. SANFORD-What’s the magnitude of that amount, though? What’s the magnitude of that
amount?
MR. NACE-That’s, I think in the resolution it says it’s to be determined.
MR. LAPPER-No, but can you give an estimate?
MR. NACE-The estimate? Approximately $100 bucks a foot for the road, okay, and you’re
talking however many feet of road it is. That’s the real rough estimate.
MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with Mr. Metivier on this. A time limit should be set on that. I
don’t see that dragging out forever.
MR. HILTON-Yes. That’s fine, and my discussion with Tom, over the phone was that we
would discuss this very time limit. One suggestion that was just brought up here at the table is
perhaps a letter of credit. If you’re uncomfortable with a lengthy time period of money sitting
in escrow, perhaps something like that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’d certainly be agreeable to that.
MR. METIVIER-I would be in favor of that more than I would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go that route, then. Anything else? Anything you wanted to add,
comment on?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it? Anybody?
MR. METIVIER-We’re just working on something here. This is just Preliminary right now?
MR. RINGER-No, this is Final.
MR. METIVIER-It is Final?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision 7-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn
FINAL STAGE Property Owner: Ernest Centerbar
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering, Jonathan Lapper
Zone: SR-1A
Location: South side Sherman Avenue
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 63 +/- acre parcel into 36 single-family lots ranging in size
from 0.57 acres to 17.50 acres in size.
Cross Reference: UV 47-89, AV 47-89
NYS DEC [Wetlands, Endangered species unit]
US Fish & Wildlife, NYS DOH
Tax Map No. 308.7-1-3
Lot size: 63 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: November 18, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/17/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/14/04, and
1/15 Staff Notes
1/8 Fax to K. O’Brien from MR
1/3 Meeting Notice
12/24 Fax to R. Schermerhorn from MR
12/23 CT Male engineering comments
12/23 Fax to T. Nace: revised resolution
12/23 PB minutes
12/23 Staff Notes
12/5 Meeting Notice
11/25 Final stage application received
11/19 Letter of Transmittal: PB resolution to applicant, etc.
11/18 PB resolution: Preliminary approval w/conditions
11/18 Notice of Public Hearing
11/18 Staff Notes
11/18 CT Male engineering comments
11/17 Nace Eng. Response to CT Male comments
11/12 E. Centerbar from D. Hatin: Barn
11/13 CT Male engineering comments
11/11 Notice of Public Hearing
11/3 Meeting Notice sent w/project id marker
10/16 D. Roberts from D. Stilwell, US Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife
10/14 Mr. MacEwan, from K. O’Brien from NYSDEC Endangered Species Unit
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
10/9 CR from Nace Eng., Lupine Mitigation Plan
6/2 R. Schermerhorn from C. Brown: request for more information
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
November 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted / denied and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. There is a 10 foot buffer on Lot No. One, and 20 foot buffers on Lots Two, Three,
and Four
Re: Western Road Connector
2. Prior to filing of the subdivision, the applicant shall:
Obtain conceptual approval from NMPC to cross NMPC property allowing
??
vehicular interconnection to the west.
This planned interconnection to the west will be reflected as a reservation on
??
all maps of the subdivision.
One-half of all costs (i.e. legal, engineering, labor/materials) to build the
??
NMPC R-O-W portion of the road shall be placed into escrow until such
time as future public access is to be built, as directed by the Town.
The applicant may coordinate construction with the adjoining property owner but
the applicant shall remain responsible for construction costs for the portion of the
roadway on its property.
Re: Western and Southern Road Connector
3. Concurrent with the dedication of proposed streets to the Town of Queensbury,
lands to be used for a future vehicular interconnection to the south and west shall be
dedicated to the Town of Queensbury. Timing and coordination of future
interconnection is to take place at the time of future development of lands to the south
and west. This planned interconnection to the south will be reflected as a reservation on
all maps of the subdivision.
4. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any and all necessary permits from
NIMO for construction of proposed roadways beneath NIMO power lines and must
obtain such permits prior to any site disturbance, clearing or construction of the
roadways proposed on NIMO lands.
5. The applicant shall install barrier fencing at the terminus of the western and
southern access roads until such time as roadways are constructed. The intent of such
fencing is to prevent unauthorized access to NIMO land. Fencing shall include gates for
authorized access to the property. Prior to construction of such fence, the barriers and
gates are acceptable to NIMO and Planning staff.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
RE: Roadways
6. Areas proposed as Town roads shall be built according to Town of Queensbury
Highway Department standards and offered for dedication to the Town Board.
Re: Deed Restrictions/Easements
7. All property deeds shall contain a restriction prohibiting dumping, dumping of
yard clippings, and unauthorized access of any kind (including, but not restricted to
motorized access) to NIMO lands, Town of Queensbury lands and “Potential Future
Mitigation Lands.” Similar language shall be included on the final plat issued for
approval.
8. The property shown as “Potential Future Mitigation Lands” shall be deed
restricted to prohibit any future development or subdivision. Similar language shall be
included on the final plat issued for approval.
9. The lots indicated as “Proposed Mitigation Area” and “Avoidance Area” will be
combined/conveyed as one property under one deed. The applicant agrees that if, for
any reason, the Town of Queensbury does not accept the “Proposed Mitigation Area”
and/or “Avoidance Area” for dedication, the applicant will grant a conservation
easement to NYS DEC in lieu of such dedication to the Town.
10. Lots 4 through 13 shall contain a deed restriction prohibiting property owners
from clearing within the no-cut zones.
11. Lots 1, 21, 22, and 23 shall contain a deed restriction requiring the property
owners of those lots to maintain any trees planted as a part of the subdivision, and
require that if any trees die, or become diseased, they shall be replaced in kind and size
as those trees originally planted.
Re: Fencing, No-Cut/Buffer Areas, Signs
12. Prior to any clearing or disturbance of the parcel identified as “Avoidance Area”, Lot 12,
or Lot 13, a fence shall be installed along the common property line between the parcel labeled
“Avoidance Area” and Lots 12 and 13. The fence details shall be subject to the approval of
Planning staff.
13. Prior to any disturbance, clearing or grading of Lots 4 through 13, temporary fencing
will be put in place at the edge of the no-cut buffer areas, and signage shall be installed
identifying the 25 ft. no cut zone at the rear of the property. Sign language shall be subject to the
approval of Planning staff.
14. Prior to any disturbance or construction activity associated with this subdivision,
fencing along the “Avoidance Area” property and permanent signage indicating that no
access is allowed to this property shall be installed. Fencing shall include gates for
authorized access to the property. The fence, gate and sign details shall be subject to the
approval of Planning staff.
Re: Disturbance, Clearing, Construction Activities
15. No disturbance or clearing of the ”Avoidance Area”, “Proposed Mitigation
Area” or “Potential Future Mitigation Lands” shall take place without expressed written
permission of the Town of Queensbury, NYSDEC and USFWS.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
16. Land clearing on Lots 12 through 15 shall be restricted during butterfly flight
season unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the NYS DEC/USFWS and the Town of
Queensbury. Details are to be determined by the NYS DEC/USFWS during a pre-
construction conference to be held with the applicant and the Town of Queensbury
representatives.
17. Prior to any disturbance, clearing, grading or construction on this site, the
applicant shall coordinate construction and clearing activities, as part of a pre-
construction conference, with representatives of NYSDEC/ USFWS and the Town of
Queensbury. As part of this pre-construction conference, construction activities in the
area of Lots 4-16 shall be coordinated with NYSDEC and USFWS representatives. Any
determinations or agreements that result from discussions held during the pre-
construction conference shall be submitted to NYSDEC, USFWS and the Town of
Queensbury. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this subdivision, all site
work shall be determined to be in compliance with pre-construction conference
agreements.
Re: Recreation Fees
18. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot for 36 lots are applicable to this
subdivision.
Re: Other
19. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant,
with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
20. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by
Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
21. A “Nectar Source Mitigation Area” as indicated within the “Avoidance Area”
shall be shown on the final plat with a note to read, “Planting of nectar species is to be
supervised by the NYS DEC. Planting shall be the responsibility of others as identified
by the Town of Queensbury.”
22. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot provide verification
of the basement floor elevation above seasonal high ground water level.
23. Prior to the acceptance of the streets proposed as part of this subdivision by the
Town of Queensbury Highway Dept., a letter of credit shall be set aside by the
developer, in an amount to be agreed upon by the Town of Queensbury Highway Dept.,
for the future construction of the vehicular interconnection to the property to the west,
as shown on the proposed subdivision plat, for a period of five (5) years.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. METIVIER-One half of all costs, i.e. legal, engineering, labor, materials to build the Niagara
Mohawk Power Corp. right of way portion of the road shall be placed as a letter of credit until
such time as future public access is to be built as directed by the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-And you have to change Number Twenty-two as well.
MR. METIVIER-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Just use Highway Department where it says funds. Just insert letter of credit
be set aside by the developer.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. LAPPER-I wonder if we should still say five years or something, just so it’s not out there
forever.
MR. METIVIER-A letter of credit for five years?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can do that.
MR. METIVIER-Can you do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel?
MR. SCHACHNER-You want to impose a timeframe, is that what you’re saying?
MR. METIVIER-I think we should, particularly.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. If you’re asking can you, legally, you certainly have the
authority to.
MR. METIVIER-On modification number one, will state that letter of credit be placed for no
longer than five years.
MR. SCHACHNER-You might want to add some clarity as to five years from when.
MR. METIVIER-Well, five years from approval.
MR. SCHACHNER-You have lots of choices, that’s all.
MR. METIVIER-Five years from today.
MR. LAPPER-When would the letter of credit go, would it go in when the Town accepts
dedication of the road? When would you want that, in terms of a starting point for when you,
would it be at subdivision mylar?
MR. SCHACHNER-The proposed condition that I think is part of the motion that’s being
crafted says prior to filing of the subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-Just for consideration, in general, when the road is accepted for dedication by the
Town Board is when you’d be putting up a letter of credit for the top coat, if it wasn’t top
coated. Until that happens, the Town, you know, there’s no road to connect to.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want it to be from the start of construction of the road?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think the letter of credit should be put up before the dedication of the
road is turned over to the Town. As a condition, an acceptance of the Town Board.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fair, because at that point there is a road to turn over. So there’s no
timeframe concerns involved in that.
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds reasonable.
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to amend it.
MR. METIVIER-One half of all costs, i.e. legal, engineering, labor, materials to build the Niagara
Mohawk Power Corp. right of way portion of that road shall be placed, as a letter of credit, at a
time prior to the road being dedicated to the Town.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds good, Tony.
MR. METIVIER-Okay, and for a period of no longer than five years. I still have Twenty-two.
Prior to the acceptance of the streets proposed as part of the subdivision by the Town of
Queensbury Highway Department, a letter of credit shall be set aside by the developer, in an
amount to be agreed upon by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department for the future
construction of the vehicular interconnection to the property to the west as shown on the
proposed subdivision plat.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-With a time period of five years.
MR. METIVIER-For a period of five years on that.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-That was a unique way of doing it. Good.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-First up, everyone received an e-mail, except Larry, relative to the American
Planning Association’s annual conference in Washington D.C. Last week of March, first week
of April I do believe it is. Anyone interested in going, because if there’s someone that wants to
go, we need to make arrangements post haste to get in front of the Town Board for approval.
I’d love to see someone go down to it.
MRS. RYBA-A resolution will be needed for the Town Board for the 26, which means that
th
Tuesday we have resolutions prepared. So, I know I had sent an e-mail out, last week. It
doesn’t give anybody much opportunity to think, but, by the way, just one, not everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I said, I’m looking for a taker. Operative word here is singular.
Rich? Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve lived in that Town too long. Don’t want to go back.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re only going down for four days.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? Larry?
MRS. RYBA-It’s April 24 through April 28, in Washington D.C.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to be in Philadelphia.
MRS. RYBA-Well, you could take the weekend to think about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Great opportunity for some of the newer guys. See how things are done
across the country. Especially the mobile workshops.
MRS. RYBA-And I made a good friend last year down in Washington, Mr. Matts is his name.
He gives tours now, but he used to be a Planner for Washington D.C. So he really knows the
community.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why he’s in the tour business. Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-If anybody’s interested in going, think it over and get back to Marilyn no
later than close of business on Monday. Okay.
MRS. RYBA-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
MRS. RYBA-I wanted to mention, too, while we’re talking about continuing education
opportunities, I had also sent out an e-mail in reference to an audio zoning conference, February
18, to take place in Colonie. So if anybody is interested in doing that, I think it’s from four to
th
five p.m. That’s sponsored by the Lincoln Land Institute and the American Planning
Association. I know that there is one Zoning Board member going to that, and so there will be
somebody going down, if anyone’s interested in carpooling.
MR. SEGULJIC-You said an audio conference?
MRS. RYBA-It’s an audio conference.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of those teleconferences.
MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s not televised. It’s just a speaker phone kind of thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-And when is that again?
MRS. RYBA-That is February 18. It’s in Colonie, and I’m looking for my.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those same lines, when is this, I saw it in the paper, William Kuntzler?
MRS. RYBA-That was last night.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Never mind. Moving right along.
MRS. RYBA-Well, that’s what that Chris told me. I don’t know. I didn’t see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-The one at ACC? He was speaking at ACC.
MRS. RYBA-Was he? Okay. I didn’t see that. You don’t know? I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was like the last week of this month.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. I can check on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-At Scoville Learning Center. He’s actually been in Saratoga Springs two or
three times.
MRS. RYBA-He lives there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Especially when they had that big development going on down there. He’s a
very prolific, I guess, authority on urban planning. Okay. Subdivisions.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Well, this is more than just subdivisions. Cluster zoning and cluster
subdivision. When we had our Town Board, excuse me, when you had your Planning Board
workshop December 4, we were looking at the idea of including cluster to be allowed in Single
th
Family Residential and the Board was in agreement with that. Part of what pushed that was the
Meath proposal to have cluster subdivision off of West Mountain Road. At that time there was
some thought to, well, take a look at the rest of the Ordinance and see what kind of changes
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
could be made at the same time. As I got into it, I could see that there were numerous changes
and inconsistencies in the subdivision and the zoning and the recreation fees, and then also in
looking at our Open Space Plan, how we might want to go about making some other revisions.
So the thought was to look at that a little bit more closely. In the meantime, however, I think
what I would suggest is going back to my original thought which is, let’s go ahead and make
that zoning change very simple for single family residential to allow that cluster, and then come
forward with any changes that have been, recommendations that have been put together by a
steering committee. This way, too, even with some of the simple language changes I was
looking into, we’d still have to go wait for the Adirondack Park Agency and that could take
some time, and I have a concern that if somebody did want to come in with a proposal for doing
cluster and single family residential that they would be held up on that. Although my
understanding is Meath is coming in with a zoning change proposal the end of the month to,
once again, look at a professional office zone for that corner, and that was based on what the
Town Board hearing had been.
MR. MAC EWAN-The end of the month, or do you mean today?
MRS. RYBA-End of this month. The zoning change schedule’s quarterly. So it’s a little bit
different timeframe than applications. So I need two things, then. One, I would need a
recommendation from the Planning Board to go ahead and make that change to allow cluster
and single family residential, and make that more of a formal recommendation because the
Town Board is asking for those formal recommendations before they would move ahead with
the public hearing. The second would be to see if there are one or two people who would be
interested, from the Planning Board, who would be interested in serving on a Steering
Committee to look at these issues more closely. I would, I was thinking about it, in putting
together a schedule. I think it’s something that we could do within a six month period. I’ve
been working on framing, you know, some of the issues and the questions, and that’s how I
would do it. I want to keep it as simple as possible, so that before each Steering Committee
meeting I would certainly have, here’s the questions to think about, and timeframe, or place and
time dates. That would really be dependent on whoever comes forward on the Committee. I’ve
also sent a copy of that memo to the Town Board to see what they have to think. I know this is
something that John Strough was interested in moving forward, and I know when we did the
zoning change, a couple of years ago, even though I first came on Board when that Steering
Committee was already in place and had had some discussions, at the end of that process, that
Steering Committee really struggled with cluster, with the Planned Unit Development, with a
number of things, and so the intent was always to look at it more closely at a later point in time.
Well, it seems that that later point in time is now, and I have some thoughts, too, on how we
could combine the cluster, and a planned residential development so that we could do some
bonus density work, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want out of us tonight?
MRS. RYBA-Two things. One is a recommendation to just go ahead with the single family
residential, allowing cluster in that zone. The second is seeing if there were a couple of people
interested in working on a Steering Committee.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll take the second one first. I’ll volunteer to be on that Committee.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Good.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. My question I have for you is that, this memo we have tonight is
not the same memo I looked at a week or so ago that had a lot of definitive conditions you
wanted to put in to allowing consideration for a cluster development in an SFR-1 zone. Your
memo specifically talked about questions like, should they provide all these different things
with their application at Sketch. It should be mandatory that they do it at Sketch Plan.
MRS. RYBA-It’s already required. It’s just that the Planning Board often does waivers for
Sketch Plan.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I know the e-mail that I sent back to you, my thoughts are, if
anybody wants to do clustering in a single family zone, that, one, Sketch is mandatory. Two,
along with the proposed cluster development that they want to do, to show the conventional
development as well in a separate map, and if they meet all the criteria, as far as preserving
open space, vistas, wetlands, in those situations, I would want to know depth to bedrock or
groundwater to assure that clustering would work if it’s a non-sewered area.
MRS. RYBA-That’s already in there.
MR. RINGER-It’s all part of the clustering.
MRS. RYBA-It is part of the Subdivision Regulations, or part of the clustering, and I’d have to
go and look at my notes to see if it’s in the subdivision. That could be clarified. My main
concern, though, is, if we start getting into those language changes, it has to go in front of the
Adirondack, it has to go to the APA, and that could take a while for what we really started out
with wanting to do a very simple change.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to make a very simple change, don’t you want to have all your
ducks in a row, too, to assure that you’re not going to start doing over development in areas
that can’t handle it?
MRS. RYBA-Well, that’s a choice this Board has to make, and if you’d rather wait, I can just say,
okay, we won’t make any changes until we look at all of these other items, and just for
clarification for the rest of the Planning Board, I looked at this closely, but I sent it to Staff and I
sent it to the Chairman only, just because I didn’t want to present the Planning Board with too
much to look at that might, that Staff hadn’t had an opportunity to take a look at first, and as a
result, there were numerous questions. So, I’m not hiding anything from anybody. It was just
trying to keep your lives as uncomplicated as possible. Because I know when you start looking
at zoning changes it can get complicated quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can go along and, tonight and say that it’s appropriate to make a
simple amendment to the zoning subdivision regulations to allow clustering in the SFR-1A
zone. I think we can make that recommendation, and then when we look at anything that
comes up, as a cluster in this Single Family Residential, then we take a look at the situation,
whether the groundwater situation, the Open Space thing and so on.
MR. SANFORD-I think what the intent was, at least when I was looking at this, was that we
could, namely the Planning Board, request it as an alternate to a conventional site plan, but not
have to entertain it if it’s presented to us, should we prefer the more conventional. In other
words, you know, if someone comes in, I don’t want them to say, well, you allow it so you have
to, you know, accept, you know, I don’t want to be hurting our case. I like the idea that if it
made more sense, we could recommend to the applicant that they come back and show a cluster
and so I’m not, you know, I don’t want to get somebody that comes in with a cluster we don’t
really like, and then we’re in a difficult, you know, we have a difficult time saying no we really
don’t want to approve this. So I’m not sure if there’s a down side to this. I didn’t think there
was when we were first talking about it. I thought there could only be an upside, but.
MRS. RYBA-No. I think I understand what you’re saying. I agree that you want to make it so
it’s a cluster really is a cluster, and I think that’s part of where Staff had some questions coming
in. For example, I did a couple of scenario drawings, five acre subdivision and how much is
wetland and looking at the density and we have a lot of questions, in terms of what’s buildable,
what’s unbuildable. These definitions of common open space, and there’s some language that
talks about maintenance and ownership issues that gets confused with open space
requirements, and I’m not so sure, I think those issues need to be separated, Number One.
Another is, there’s some confusion in terms of density to calculate number of lots and what’s
buildable, you know, what sections are buildable, what should be set aside, but in doing those
scenarios, came up with the fact that here we are talking about open space and having some
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
preservation, and yet the majority of the time, we’re looking at recreation fees, and for a five lot
subdivision you’re getting $2500 in recreation fees. Yet, if you look at some of this open space
land criteria, or, not criteria, but with that intent of the cluster, or actually the recreation
impacts, you’ll see that, in exchange, the developer initially could be and should be offering
10% of the land. So if it were 10 acres here, it would be one acre of land that could be dedicated
to the Town, and, you know, is the Town missing out? It could be getting one acre of land
versus twenty-five hundred dollars in rec fees. I mean, those are some things that need to be
thought about, and I don’t mean to ramble, but I’m trying to give some examples of some of the
things that, some of the considerations that came up in looking at all of this.
MR. SANFORD-Can it be conditioned that, almost like the Planning Board at its discretion may
allow for a residential cluster? You know, in other words, it’s not necessarily just a permitted or
an allowed, I don’t know what the right word is, scenario or whatever, but we could, at our
discretion, recommend what we’d like to entertain. In other words, I think that was a perfect
example with the Meath. They came in and part of the concern that I had was that they would
put in apartment complexes and things of this nature, rather than single family. They claimed
their intent was just single family, but they weren’t allowed to do that because we didn’t allow
single family clustering, and so if we approved it, we might get something that we didn’t really
want, which would have been maybe the apartment complexes or whatever. So what I’m
trying to say here is it would be nice if the Planning Board could have in their tool box the
option of recommending a cluster from an applicant, rather than having a cluster come in here
and having a hard time defending against it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess a good example would have been the Valente subdivision.
MR. HILTON-I think clustering is designed, or intended to provide some flexibility. The Board
is really in no way obligated to approve the cluster, and with some exceptions, and those
exceptions are in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-11-50, and those are generally, if you have
extreme wetlands and shallow depth to bedrock and things like that. Then it says, the language
states that a cluster shall be provided, but in most cases if those criteria, environmental factors
don’t exist, I don’t think you’re obligated to. It’s just something that, for flexibility,
consideration.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, could we change the wording this way, and maybe it would help out, we
believe it’s appropriate to make a simple amendment to the Zoning Subdivision Regulations
that may allow clustering in the SFR-1A zone. However, the applicant must supply a non
cluster subdivision as an alternate, and that way, if he wants to come in with a cluster, he has to
show us the other side of the house.
MR. RINGER-Don’t the clustering regulations say he’s got to show an alternate anyway?
Under clustering, I think it says that he has to show an alternate plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Does it say that?
MR. RINGER-I’m pretty sure clustering says that.
MR. HILTON-It says the Planning Office or the Planning Board may request the subdivider
provide an alternate plan. The language is already there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I knew I read it some place. Although I thought it said they had to, but it says
may.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I would like to make it a little more, just to say that they must, so that we
have two.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-We want them to provide a conventional subdivision layout, with his, along
with a submittal of his proposed cluster.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. So we have a chance to take a look at both, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve asked that of applicants in the past, too.
MR. RINGER-I’ve never seen a case where they’ve come for clustering and we haven’t asked for
it. Most of the time the clustering is always at the request of the applicant not at the request of
the Planning Board, all the ones I’ve ever seen.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know if you want an answer from me, but you always have the
right, my reaction to what I think you said, you always have the discretion, which I think (lost
words) you always have the discretion to ask an applicant to provide that (lost words), you
can’t force them to, but you can ask them to provide that in a situation where you may not be
ready to approve a conventional (lost words).
MR. SANFORD-Right, except that in the past single family wasn’t allowed to be clustered.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, which lead to some of these issues.
MR. VOLLARO-See, putting yourself in the applicant’s shoes, if he reads that he must supply a
new, a non clustered subdivision, then we tend to compress the timeframe a little bit, he comes
in with it right up front, as opposed to us saying, hey listen, we think we’d like to see that
presented as a conventional subdivision.
MRS. RYBA-But part of, my thinking is a little different, in looking at more of the long range
planning, which is, you know, how can we give developers incentives to do cluster, so that we
can see some more of this, you know, some of this open space, some of these connections, these
green way connections, these trail connections, which people in the community have told us
they want to see, and the way to do that, it’s not necessarily by what we have right now in our
language, because while there’s some flexibility that’s allowed for a piece of property that may
have some wet areas or some steep slopes, they’re still getting the same number of lots, and yet
things are condensed. So if we can condense things, get the open space, and then give the
incentive to the developer by making it into what I would call a planned residential
development, instead of a cluster development, then we can do this whole menu of here are the
community amenities and here’s the bonus density that you can get in exchange for that. So
that we’re allowing development in areas that might have a little bit more difficult time to be
developed, and I see that more of a win/win situation. The Town is getting something, in terms
of open space and trail connections, like with the Meath proposal, and the developer is getting
something. Right now, the incentive for the developer is, well, I’ll have a shorter road. I’ll have
shorter utilities, but that’s not always the case. Look at Schiavone for example. That’s not really
particularly in my mind a cluster because it doesn’t meet the objectives, and there’s a simple
language change in terms of objectives. Cluster design shall achieve the following objectives. I
would say put in shall achieve all of the following objectives. Development pattern, efficient
use of land, resulting in a smaller network of utilities and streets. Schiavone’s doesn’t result in a
smaller network of streets. It’s still, because all the wet area is in the front, fronts along
Sherman Avenue, but does it make sense to do a development there and cluster it the way he
has it to avoid the wetlands? Sure it does. So, those are the kind of issues to think about.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the benefits of clustering have, to me, in my mind, the benefits would
have to be geared toward the Town. Not the developer.
MRS. RYBA-Well, but the Town would still be giving a benefit, in terms of the density, because
that density has to correspond to an amenity that the Town desires, and that can run a whole
list of certain amounts of land, park area, recreational facilities.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I agree with you, but what we’ve been seeing in cluster developments
in the last couple of years has been, in my mind, borderline at best even meeting the cluster
intent.
MRS. RYBA-Right. So this is an opportunity to improve on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the clustering proposals that have been coming in front of us have
benefited the applicant, not the Town, in the end result. It’s kind of like putting five pounds in
a two pound bag, and that’s what they try to get out of it. Where, you know, and it hasn’t been
a concept of where it’s been preserving open vistas or, you know, offering a good park amenity
or.
MRS. RYBA-Well, there’s two ways of doing this. One is to provide incentives to the developer.
The second is to put money in a fund to buy the land, to get what we want to see, or what the
community has said they want to see, and while I understand the concerns about that intensity
of development, you’ve mentioned in the past where all the good land is gone, and we’re seeing
more conflicts, and maybe there’s a way to make it palatable.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Something’s got to be done to fix what we have, because I
don’t think it’s really working all that well.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if the lands that are available are difficult to develop, if I was a developer,
and you were going to offer me some credits, if you want, some bonuses for doing things right,
that would help me look at that land a little bit harder for development, and I see nothing
wrong with incentives to developers.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t, either. I don’t either. I guess what I was driving at, the
incentives I seem to be seeing, you know, just my viewpoint, the incentives are driven toward
the developer and not the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. This way you’ve be driving, you’d be giving them something, but
you’d be telling them, this is what we want to see, and if you give us this, we’ll give you that.
So there’s some quid pro quo there, between us and the developer.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you said Meath wanted to do with that parcel now, as far as
zone change?
MRS. RYBA-Well, the Town Board has suggested that they revisit a type of transition zone that
would include offices. So they’re looking at professional office again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Which is, I think, where the Board wanted to drive him toward.
Right? The Meath property at the corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road.
MR. VOLLARO-You talked about having the Town Board and Planning Board establish a
working group to examine the issues. Is that part of this Steering Committee?
MRS. RYBA-Yes, that would be the working group, and somebody from the Rec Commission,
for example, because part of this is rec fees. I mean, right now, at least the way I read Chapter
124 of the Town Code, is there’s all this language about setting aside land, but then it says, but if
the developer requests, the developer can just do a rec fee, and that seems to be, and is it really,
you know, maybe it’s an opportunity to increase rec fees, or as I said, an opportunity, it’s an
opportunity to look at it a little bit more closely. Because that part of the Code was adopted
some time ago, early 90’s, and it hasn’t been, the fees haven’t been revised since, and if that’s the
case, or, and there’s also some change in the thinking. I think originally it was, let’s look at
strict recreational facilities, although the language was in there for open space, but now we
have, I think, a more concrete definition of open space and some vision that the community put
in place about trail systems, and that’s where Meath’s proposal came right in on target with
that, you know, followed that idea for some trail interconnections. So, it’s the, as I said, to go
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
forward with allowing cluster in the SFR at this time, and forwarding that to the Town Board,
and then also requesting that the Town Board consider having a committee to look at this issue
more thoroughly or look at a number of issues dealing with cluster more thoroughly, and
seeing how we can address planned unit development as well as recreation and open space. It’s
intertwined.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many people do you want from the Planning Board?
MRS. RYBA-Well, this is, I think, if you form a subcommittee, you would need two, but it is, but
if it’s a Town Board that’s appointing a Steering Committee, then it’s up to the Town Board, the
number of people they want to have in place.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing the Zoning Steering Committee?
MRS. RYBA-The Zoning Steering Committee, I think, had two, two representatives from the
Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re talking two different committees now?
MRS. RYBA-Right. I reference the Zoning Steering Committee only because that was an
example of some discussion that had taken place when the Zoning Steering Committee was in
place. I don’t know if that Zoning Steering Committee still exists because I believe the
committees still have to be reappointed every year. So, I doubt if they do.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking for maybe two people from the Planning Board to work
with the Town Board, Staff, whoever else to make this adjustment in the Subdivision
Regulations.
MRS. RYBA-Correct, and you know, if it’s something that doesn’t fly with the Town Board, well
then I’ll let you know that and see where we can go from there, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to go that route first and then get back to us, or what?
MRS. RYBA-Sure, I can do that. I can do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Unless there’s another volunteer.
MR. SANFORD-Well, actually, if we’re to make a committee, and I think what I’m hearing, we
need to have two, but if the Town Board was to create a committee, one representative from the
Planning Board could be just fine.
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-So it may be a moot point. I mean, it’s going to be a committee of the Town
Board anyway, right?
MRS. RYBA-Well, give them that opportunity, only because, as I see it Chapter 124 is involved
with Rec fees. The Open Space Plan is involved. So it would make sense to include somebody
from the Rec Commission, somebody from the Open Space Plan Committee, to look at this. If
they don’t want to go ahead and do that, then it is something that the Planning Board could do
their own subcommittee and look at the issues.
MR. SANFORD-And then we would need two.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to go to the Town Board first and find out what their position
is before we decide whether we want the Planning Board subcommittee?
MRS. RYBA-Sure. I was just broaching the subject, just to see if there was anybody who was
interested or committed. I didn’t know which direction you wanted to go in. Part of what
we’re trying to do is, I mean, I can see, certainly, areas where there’s some work that needs to be
done, but I don’t want to go ahead and do a lot of work that isn’t going to have anybody saying,
well, this is a good idea or it’s not a good idea, six months down the road. I’m trying to say,
here’s what I see. Here’s some ideas, what do you think, and then move from that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you go the angle you need to go, and if the Town Board wants to,
you know, amass this committee from someone from the Rec Commission, from the Open
Space Committee, the Planning Board, and how many people they want, if we need to have
another member from the Planning Board, let me know, and I’ll look for a volunteer or I’ll
designate somebody.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. In the meantime, though, a recommendation to move forward with single
family residential one acre cluster, allowing cluster in that zone. I would like to have that
formalized, because the Town Board does want to see a recommendation from the Planning
Board before it moves forward with any zone change.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to move forward on a formal resolution?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have something for us by the end of the month?
MRS. RYBA-Sure, I can have something for you for the next meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. RYBA-It would take two minutes. As long as you agree. You could do a resolution now.
MR. RINGER-It’s a very simple resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, then, go for it, if you think it’s that simple. Do it.
MR. RINGER-All right.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY CONSIDER A
CHANGE TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW
CLUSTERING IN SINGLE FAMILY ONE ACRE ZONES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 15 day of January, 2004 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two closing points. Site visits, Saturday morning.
MR. METIVIER-I will not be here on Tuesday the 27. I have to be in Redding, Pennsylvania. I
th
do apologize.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 1/15/04)
MR. SANFORD-Where is the Town Board going on alternates?
MR. MAC EWAN-No action taken at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding they only have three or four resumes and/or letters of
interest, and they haven’t acted on them at this point. My second point that I wanted to make,
before I forget, you two guys, Staff, Counsel, find a day that you guys can get together and do
what you’ve got to do. Counsel, there was a draft resolution that John Strough had prepared
for this. Do you still have that? The last I knew, he sent it to you and asked you guys if you’d
critique it and make sure it’s what we need to have, and I think that’s heading in the direction
we want to go.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ll get us copies of that, and then we’ll bank off that, and then Rich and I
will get together, and with Mark.
MR. SANFORD-Right, that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-I have one thing that I want to just pass along to the Board real quick, so that
you’ve got a feel for it, and it has to do with our light industrial areas, and I’ve just given
Marilyn a copy of what took place down in Malta last week. I went down with John Strough.
When we were there, it looked like Joe DiMaggio at the plate. The boos and the yeas were
about the same. So there wasn’t, but I can tell you that the sense I got from the Board, listening
to people, that it’s going to go through. It’s 1230 acres, and it’s going to be devoted to basically
chip fab stuff, and they had a zones of influence, confluent around the epicenter there, 50 miles
away would be a major zone for support industry, and you’re within that 50 mile zone, and it
just looks to me like it’s going to happen. That would mean Exit 11 is going to be completely
redone to allow a turnoff into Luther Forest, and I mean, I talked, the Malta Exit is 12.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just the old GE site. Right?
MR. VOLLARO-This is the old GE site. This was the test site that they did ordinance testing on.
No, there’s some houses in Luther Forest, I didn’t realize that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Yes, Luther Forest on the south and west side is all developments.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this is 1230 acres of undeveloped land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually it goes back, even before that, it goes back to light industries back
from World War II when they were testing American version of B2 missiles down there. Right,
Malta Corporation.
MR. VOLLARO-But anyway, it looks to me like that’s going to happen, and that light industrial
area that’s remaining in Queensbury, we should really try and protect that. Because there’s
going to be support industry come in here that will have better paying job than McDonald’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47