2004-06-22
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
ANTHONY METIVIER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JAMES EDWARDS
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re moving the agenda around a little bit, for Board members and Staff
and the public. So I’ll just quickly read them off, how we’re redoing things. Hopefully make
things move along a little bit quicker tonight. First item we’re going to deal with is Subdivision
9-2004 for Doris Farrar. Second item we’ll deal with is Site Plan 18-2004 for the McKernon
Group. The third item we’re going to deal with is Site Plan 30-2004 for Quaker Country Club.
The fourth item is going to be Dave Ehmann, which is Subdivision 10-2004. The fifth item will
be QEDC Subdivision 12-2003, sixth item will by Hayes and Hayes, Subdivision No. 7-2004, and
the rest of the agenda we’ll be dealing with Subdivision 2-2004, Dix Avenue Properties, and Site
Plan No. 14-2004 for North Star Donut.
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DORIS FARRAR PROPERTY OWNER: DORIS FARRAR/RACHAEL ALLEN
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.03 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO
LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 3.03 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66-02
TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 LOT SIZE: 4.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MR. MAC EWAN-A motion to table until our July 27 meeting. I’ll open up the public hearing.
th
I will leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it?
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 9-2004, DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Until the July 27, 2004 meeting.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 SEQR TYPE: THE MC KERNON GROUP PROPERTY OWNER:
JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE TO STORAGE
SPACE ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,760 SQ. FT. GARAGE INCLUDING
A FAMILY ROOM/GAME ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-00,
SP 74-00 [BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK] WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO.
226.12-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MR. MAC EWAN-They also are requesting to be tabled to our July 27 meeting. The public
th
hearing is open now. I will leave that open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004, MCKERNON GROUP, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Until July 27, 2004 meeting.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2004 SEQR TYPE II QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATES, LLC
AGENT: STEPHEN COTLER ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 2-6 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT PARKING AND LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO A NEW OFFICE/RETAIL USE. OFFICE AND RETAIL
USES IN THE HC-I ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 4-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04
TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-3 LOT SIZE: 8.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-040B(9)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-2004, Quaker Country Club Associates, LLC, Meeting Date:
June 22, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 30-2004
APPLICANT: Quaker Country Club Associates LLC is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to occupy a portion of the existing Glens Falls
Electric building on Country Club Rd., consolidate an existing curb cut on Country Club Rd.,
and add additional light fixtures and parking area to this property.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Quaker Rd., and
Country Club Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board
action is required.
PARCEL HISTORY: The Town Board rezoned this property on January 22, 2001 from Plaza
Commercial and SFR-1A, to HC-Int.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to move into the Glens Falls Electric building
and to create a third tenant space, which at this time is shown as vacant. The plans also show
new freestanding light fixtures, additional paved parking and the consolidation of an existing
curb cut on Country Club Rd.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Grading Plan
-
The applicant proposes to narrow an existing wide-open curb cut on Country Club Rd. and
include new street landscaping. The proposed work on Country Club Rd., is an improvement
over existing conditions, however, consideration should be given to consolidating the southern
curb cut on Country Club Rd., in favor of using the other two Country Club Rd. curb cuts.
The applicant proposes landscaping along both street frontages that appears to meet zoning
code requirements. Consideration should also be given to including exterior parking lot
landscaping to the west of the proposed parking expansion as required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to install new freestanding light fixtures, which appear to be cut off
fixtures. The applicant has included a grid lighting plan, showing light levels and averages.
The parking lot averages in the parking lot closest to Country Club appear to exceed the 2.5-
footcandle average requirement listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been submitted to CT
Male for their review and comment.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments
MR. HILTON-Okay. Quick summary, I guess, is as indicated on the plans, the applicant
proposes to somewhat consolidate a curb cut on Country Club Road, and although it is an
improvement over the existing condition, consideration should be given to consolidating the
southern curb cut. As kind of outlined in our Code, our access management section, the
landscaping along both street frontages appears to meet the Code. However, the exterior
parking lot landscaping west of the new parking lot expansion there is no landscaping there as
required by Code. The new light fixtures appear to meet Code. The western parking area, the
foot candle averages appear to meet Code. However, the eastern parking area, closest to
Country Club Road, appears to exceed the 2.5 foot candle average listed in the Zoning Code.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, and Jim Edwards from C.T.
Male is here to discuss that with you, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor,
and we represent the applicant. I apologize, but the applicant probably anticipated that we
would be later on the agenda. So Mike Grasso is not here at the moment. Maybe if we get to a
question that we need his input, we’ll have to defer and go on to your other business until he
does get here. With me is Steve Toler, who is the architect for the project, and Tom Nace, who
did the stormwater management plan. Basically this is a renovation, if you will, of an existing
building, a rejuvenation of an existing building, and I think a fortunate thing for the Town.
Quaker Electric has determined that they would downsize their business, at least the space of
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
their business. I don’t know their business plans itself, and we were able to work out a
relationship with them where we assume the ownership of the property. They will become a
tenant of the property, the most northerly portion of the property, and we will create two tenant
spaces to the south side. The tenant spaces to the south side will be office, and the building will
be renovated for a high level type office space. Basically, there are not a great deal of exterior
changes that we felt that were necessary. We got into discussions about definition of change
and definition of parking requirements. So we have redesigned some of the parking area, and
the portion, Steve, why don’t you run through.
STEVE TOLER
MR. TOLER-Okay. We actually reclaimed a lot of area that was either gravel or pavement, and
along Quaker Road, and turned that back into green space. The pavement, new pavement, is
down in this area here, and this is also returned to green in this area. This is a combination, this
gray area here, is a combination of gravel turned to pavement, asphalt pavement, and new
pavement. The question that came up about this ingress and egress, at this point in the
property, is, if we didn’t have this smaller area, then we would create a very long dead end
parking area, and since the two office building, excuse me, office tenants would be down in this
area, it would create some confusion and vehicular problems on the property, and we felt that
this was a better situation than currently exists. We also have planted some new plantings
around the building. Some new street trees along Country Club, and in answer to additional
plantings along this part of the property, there’s a lot of mature trees along here, and the
property goes down quite a bit further, and then the adjacent property is a Niagara Mohawk
easement or right of way that runs parallel to the bottom of the sheet. So there’s no public view
of that back area, and so we concentrated on the areas that would have public view.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll go down through our checklist. Anybody have any questions relative
to design standards?
MR. SANFORD-Just a quick one. When we did site visits, we went, obviously, to the site, and
we were wondering if you did any studies, or if you have any concerns about the entrance and
exit that currently exists on Quaker Road in the rear of the building. To be honest with you, we
expected it might be difficult to cross the lane there, getting out, and so we were wondering if
you thought it might make sense to have right in and right out at that particular location.
Although, when we left site visit, we didn’t have much of a problem getting across the road. So
I’m just wondering if you spent any time on that. Do you know what I mean?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we did. That’s also, I think, an exit that’s used by trucks. So
they must be able to get in and out of there okay. It was approved by DOT. Typically if you
have a significant change in a use, DOT will sometimes come along and say, all right, we want
to put up right turn signs or left turn signs or whatever is appropriate.
MR. SANFORD-It is awfully close to Country Club Road, though, and I didn’t know how much
more traffic you might expect there, than current, and I don’t know the density or how many
employees are going to be at these new offices. So we were just wondering if it’s going to,
perhaps, during the week be a problem if people want to go out on Quaker and take a left hand
turn, if they’re going to have a hard time getting out.
MR. O'CONNOR-If it is a problem, they can come around the building and go down Country
Club.
MR. RINGER-Our concern was you added 42 new parking places there, and you’ve got an
entrance that was already used, but used mainly for trucks and stuff. Now you’ve got 42
additional parking places, which, to us, indicates that there’s going to be a lot more traffic in
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
and out of there, and another exit just down on Country Club Road. It just seemed that they
were close together.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s not necessarily 42. I think that’s what we show on the sheet.
MR. RINGER-You show 42 on the sheet. Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but they presently park a lot of their employee parking back there.
MR. RINGER-Yes. It looked like a few spaces were there already, not marked off, but a few
places were there.
MR. O'CONNOR-They parked on the pavement, or the gravel already. I don’t know if they had
as many employees as we will probably have between the two places. We still do not have a
tenant, as far as I’m aware of, for the middle building.
MR. RINGER-It just seemed, you know, they were very close together, and it looked like it
could present some difficulties at peak hours.
MR. O'CONNOR-The intention is to have employee parking and have client or customer
parking in the front of the building. So we should be able to control those people, so that they
don’t have a problem. If is a problem, we can have them go down the Quaker Road, or maybe
go back and talk to DOT about signing the entrance.
MR. RINGER-If was employee parking, we could make that just an in, and you could instruct
the employees to go around, to get out.
MR. TOLER-That could be a problem for the trucks. The trucks normally come, will come
down and back in, and then turn out.
MR. RINGER-They come in off of Country Club and then come down and then back in to the
loading dock?
MR. TOLER-I believe they come in both ways.
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-That’s the way the docks are oriented.
MR. RINGER-If they come in both ways, they’d have to somehow turn around inside that
complex.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think they just go out the opposite way they came in.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Depending upon what loading dock they’re going to go to.
MR. VOLLARO-The way the docks are organized, he’s got to back into the dock, and he’s got to
go out. He can’t turn around in that space.
MR. HUNSINGER-How many trucks do you receive?
MR. O'CONNOR-Some place along the lines, somebody told me maybe two trucks a week. It’s
not a high volume.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t think so.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-These are the larger trucks. Smaller trucks, I’m not sure, you know, UPS
deliveries and that type of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They probably use the front, though, I would imagine, you know,
unless it’s a bulky item.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On that center island that’s up there, the reason we’d probably want to
remove that is to eliminate several curb cuts on Country Club, and it seemed to me that that
larger area worked much better than it would work with two narrows, two narrow
ingress/egress points. So I would be in favor of removing that center island and have a wider
access to that front. I think it gives people much more maneuvering room to go in on a wider
access like that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The problem with that is they (lost words) lighting store.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I mean, people can go in, that’s a wide enough entrance to
accommodate the two new tenants and the lighting store as well. It seems to be pretty wide on
Country Club.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they’ve looked at what we’ve done, and they actually would have
objection to us taking that out, as part of their lease arrangements with us, and this problem
down here is that you’re going to bring this. We’re trying not to bring the people all the way
down this line.
MR. RINGER-How about if you moved it, though, Mike, so it was more centered, took the first
one out and then centered the, made the first one centered, how would that work, and wider?
Wouldn’t that accomplish your goal?
MR. O’CONNOR-It may. I don’t know what you’re going to gain, necessarily, by that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing.
MR. TOLER-There’s some power poles that we’re trying to avoid. Some light poles that we
removed by the (lost words). The power poles would represent an expense that.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s also a fire hydrant located there, too.
MR. TOLER-I believe so.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the idea actually behind those curb cuts the way you have them
designed now is to show directional to each individual business, basically.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Kind of give it a flow.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the whole objective to what I was getting at was to eliminate several curb
cuts. Anytime I see more than one curb cut close to each other like that, there’s three of them
actually, you know, try to get rid of those.
MR. MAC EWAN-The thing that we need to consider is that if you just say, you know,
theoretically eliminated that middle island, just left a wide open access which is basically what’s
there now.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, which seems to work.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have a fire plug to contend with and a utility pole that’s sitting right
there to contend with, and I think part of what they’re trying to accomplish with this center
island is to protect those without having to relocate them.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thought that the curbing at the southeast corner was a significant
improvement, as opposed to having that open that close to that intersection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would agree with that. I like that a lot.
MR. RINGER-I think it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s really the tradeoff between allowing several curb cuts close to one
another, and, you know, if that’s the will of the Board, that’s the will of the Board. It certainly
isn’t something I would go for. Most of the time, when this Board sits, it looks at curb cuts on
main arterials like Country Club, and it tries to keep the curb cuts on roads like that down to a
minimum, and so I don’t know where the sense of the Board is on that one, but that’s up to.
MR. RINGER-I’d prefer, like you, Bob, to see one in the middle there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’d go along with your idea of moving that over.
MR. RINGER-But if it does present some problems, you know, they’re not changing the
structure of the building. I realize it’s an expense if you’ve got to move telephone poles and fire
hydrants and everything else to accomplish that.
MR. SANFORD-I wouldn’t think moving telephone poles and fire hydrants would be
warranted here. I don’t anticipate this being a high traffic area, even with the new tenants, even
though we don’t know what one of the tenants will be, but, you don’t typically have a ton of
people coming in to an insurance agency and, you know, I’m just not especially concerned
about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll go along with Rich on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Suppose we have somebody who wanted to put a horseracing thing in there,
then you’d have some traffic.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, OTB maybe.
MR. RINGER-I can live with it, but I would have like to have seen it better.
MIKE GRASSO
MR. GRASSO-If I could just address you for a second.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record?
MR. GRASSO-I’m sorry. Mike Grasso. I’m one of the partners in Quaker Country Club
Associates. I’m also a Vice President of Cool Insuring Agency, and we are going to be a tenant
in the project. We are probably 95% a commercial lines business. So of our entire book of
business, personal lines represents a very small amount of the business, and typically
commercial lines insurance agencies don’t have a lot of traffic. The service reps go out and see
the clients. People who have small personal lines agencies, like a State Farm or a Nationwide,
they have a lot of traffic, we don’t.
MR. VOLLARO-None of those tenants, including yourself, I would assume, are cast in stone? I
mean, we never know what’s going to be in there in the future, for example.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. GRASSO-We have ten year leases for two of the tenants. So at least for the next ten years,
you can bank on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Rest easy.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You said two other tenants. I thought there were three?
MR. GRASSO-No, two tenants. Cool’s got a ten year lease and Glens Falls Electric has a ten
year lease.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and I assume you’re going to be attracting some professional office or
something?
MR. GRASSO-That’s what we’re trying to do.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development? Stormwater/sewage?
MR. VOLLARO-I think the stormwater has been adequately covered by C.T. Male’s latest letter
on the subject. I think that Mr. Edwards might want to talk to some of that. Do we have a
response from Tom Nace on that?
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace. No. I have not had an opportunity to respond to it. I
have reviewed item, and we will comply with all the issues that are there. A lot of them are
coordination issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-No other questions on stormwater? Lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do have a question on lighting. Parking Lot A really exceeds the 2.5 foot
candles, and in both cases, with Parking Lot A and Parking Lot B, the average to min doesn’t
get even close to the four to one uniformity ratio that we look for, and so I want to just talk
about that for a minute. On the statistical area summary, we’ve got Parking Lot B meets it’s
2.41, but Parking Lot A is 4.03 on its average. So it’s much higher than our 2.5, and then when
you get to looking at the average over the min, which is what you do to get a uniformity ratio,
each one of those are much higher than four to one. We look for four to one uniformity ratios in
all our lighting plans. Whether that’s correct or not, or whether we’ll be trying to modify that I
don’t know, but right now those numbers don’t fit.
MR. TOLER-Are you aware of what’s there now? I mean, they have huge spotlights there now.
We’re taking these huge spotlights out.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I’m just saying what you’ve submitted.
MR. TOLER-It looks like the airport right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’m going along on your statistical summary, this portion of your.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can adjust the lighting so it complies with your four to one, and submit it
to Staff, or however you want to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s really all I have, other than the C.T. Male letter of 17 June. Mr.
Nace says he’ll be in full compliance with that letter.
MR. NACE-We can comply with all the issues.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping? Environmental? Anything I
missed?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add?
MR. RINGER-The only, I’ve still got some concerns with the two driveways, or the driveway on
Quaker and the three driveways on Country Club. I can live with the three on Country Club,
but I think there’s going to be a lot more traffic coming out of Quaker Road from that. I mean,
you’ve got 42 spaces there. If they are employees, then I can’t see why the employees can’t be
directed to go around and make that an in only. I don’t know why we need that to be an egress
there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we’ve said because of some of the truck traffic.
MR. RINGER-Yes, well you aren’t going to have truck traffic when the employees are going out
of there, and if he only gets two tractor trailers a week, I don’t see that as a problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would say we probably would not have a problem with having an internal
program where we direct the employees to come out Quaker Road, or come out to the Country
Club side. There’s an alleyway there between the two buildings. Does that get blocked with
trucks?
MR. GRASSO-Well, you’re correct in that there’s two tractor trailers. There are sometimes box
vans that deliver there also. So that’s, while there’s not a lot of large trucks that go in and out of
there, there are some box vans that do.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then a car wouldn’t have trouble because that box van isn’t going to be 48
feet long, or 40 feet long.
MR. GRASSO-No, but sometimes they unload in that other area right here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Sometimes they offload in front of the building.
MR. GRASSO-This is also a receiving area, and sometimes they’re parked here.
MR. RINGER-We’ve got an application that’s coming before us later tonight that’s going to be
on Dix Avenue and we’re really killing these guys for trying to put two driveways so close
together, and here it’s even closer than what’s proposed tonight. I’m just having a concern with
it.
MR. O'CONNOR-But there, Larry, aren’t you talking about a higher use, a more frequent?
MR. RINGER-Well, I’m looking at 42 spaces, Mike, is what I’m looking at, and I’m looking a
time, if there are employees parking, that the employees are going to be going out at the rush
hour on Quaker Road, between four and six p.m., or entering between seven and nine. I may be
all alone here. I just have a concern with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only concern is with cars trying to make a left hand turn onto
Quaker Road.
MR. RINGER-Right, absolutely. That’s what I’m having trouble with.
MR. HUNSINGER-If they’re exiting onto Quaker Road and taking a right, that’s probably the
easiest thing in the world to do.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. RINGER-Right. I have no trouble at all with the right only.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be satisfied if we added, as part of this, signage that said right
turns only?
MR. RINGER-I think that would be an ideal situation.
MR. GRASSO-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. RINGER-I have no trouble with that at all, right turn only out of there. I think it would be
best for you guys as well, those people trying to get out of there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-They will be internal signs on our parking. They won’t be DOT signs. I don’t
want to have to go through the process of getting DOT to signoff on something like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-All you’ve got to do is keep it out of the DOT right of way.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And put a sign up, no left turn.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I think it would work better for you guys, to tell you the honest truth.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything you wanted to add? Staff? I’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Talk about conditions.
MR. RINGER-C.T. Male and the right turn.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-No SEQRA. Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-There is no SEQRA.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2004 QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 30-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB
SEQR Type II ASSOCIATES, LLC
Agent: Stephen Cotler
Zone: HC-Int
Location: 2-6 Country Club Road
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
Applicant proposes to construct parking and lighting improvements related to a new
office/retail use. Office and Retail uses in the HC-I zone require Site Plan review and approval
from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: PZ 4-2000
Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-3
Lot size: 8.08 acres / Section: 179-4-040B(9)
Public Hearing: June 22, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04 ; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/18/04, and
6/22 Staff Notes
6/15 Notice of Public Hearing
6/9 Warren Co. Planning
6/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 22, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That there be full compliance with C.T. Male’s June 17 letter, that those corrections be
th
made to the drawings, and that no C/O is to be issued until such compliance is in place.
2. There be a sign located on the property adjacent to the DOT right of way, at the
driveway on Quaker Road, that signifies no left turn out.
3. Lighting will comply with the Town standards and will arrive at a four to one
uniformity ratio.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-With the following condition, that there be full compliance with C.T. Male’s
June 17 letter and that those corrections would be made to the drawings before they’re
th
approved.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to rephrase that, before a building permit is issued?
MR. VOLLARO-Before building permits are issued, yes, that’s fine, but now that requires Staff
to follow up on all of that. Am I right, George? When we condition something like this, and
there are a fairly heavy set of stormwater, there’s nine of them, you have to ensure that all of
those are in compliance, before a building permit is issued. Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-We would ask that it be before a C/O. We have a great deal of internal
renovations to make, and we have a short lead time.
MR. MAC EWAN-A C/O is acceptable, because before a C/O is issued, Bruce is going to go out
with his punch list.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay, and that no C/O will be issued until such compliance is in place.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you. When we get this sign, will we have to consider that a
modification of the site plan, or just ZBA?
MR. HILTON-It would probably be a directional sign, based on our Codes.
MS. RADNER-Talk to Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have a sign there that one tenant has a great deal of feeling for,
that we are trying to figure out how we will use it. If you go by it, you will see it. Thank you.
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, could I ask you to table Dix Avenue Properties and Dunkin
Donuts? We just got the C.T. Male comments and they’re just too lengthy to deal with them
today.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. LAPPER-Table it to one of the July meetings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Actually what I’ll do is because I’ve already got two tabled to the July 27
th
meeting, so we’ll table it to the first meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, we did a completeness review this week on July. We’re stacked
for July, just so know.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re carrying over Old Business, we’re going to bump the new stuff.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIX
AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A, HC-INT.
LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALDS APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 14.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND 13.35
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 3-2000,SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-
1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIX AVENUE
PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A, HC-INT. LOCATION:
DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALDS APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION
OF A 14.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND 13.35 ACRES. CROSS
REFERENCE: PZ 3-2000,SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1 LOT SIZE:
14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve just been requested by the applicant’s agent, Subdivision No. 2-2004 for
Dix Avenue Properties, they’ve requested to be tabled to our July 20 meeting.
th
MR. VOLLARO-George doesn’t know. We’re pretty packed.
MR. MAC EWAN-The 27 is our second meeting. So the 20 would be the first meeting.
thth
MR. HILTON-Either way, we’re going to be looking at eight, nine items.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we have some new items that have come on, we’ll have to look at either
adding on a third meeting of the month. I’ll get together with you guys at the end of the week
and we’ll sort it all out, but for now let’s put this on the 20 meeting.
th
MR. RINGER-I think we should consider a third meeting, because we’ve been bumping, last
month we bumped four. This month we bumped five. You’re never going to catch up if you
don’t have a third meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Someone move a motion to table Subdivision 2-2004, Dix
Avenue Properties. The public hearing has been carried over to tonight’s meeting. I will leave
the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISON NO. 2-2004 DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro, who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Until the July 20 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2004 SEQR TYPE: NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP PROPERTY
OWNER: DIX AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON ZONE: LI-1A, HC-
INT. LOCATION: DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2300 +/-
SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 2-2004 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION:
179-4-020
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Subsequently, under New Business, it would be Site Plan 14-2004 for the
North Star Group. The same applies, table it to our July 20 meeting. I’ll open the public
th
hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2004 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, Introduced
by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Until the July 20 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2004 SKETCH REVIEW SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DAVE
EHMANN ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 747 & 759 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 36 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF
3.6 +/- ACRES AND 32 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279-1-3 LOT SIZE: 38.6 +/- ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
DAVE EHMANN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2004, Sketch Review, Dave Ehmann, Meeting Date: June
22, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 10-2004 (Sketch Plan)
APPLICANT: Dave Ehmann is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 36 +/- acre property into two lots of
3.6 and 33 acres.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Route 149, east of Bay Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RR-3A, Rural Residential Three Acre and RR-5A,
Rural Residential Five Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: SEQRA review is not required for Sketch Plan subdivisions. At the time of
Preliminary and Final review; this item will be a SEQRA Unlisted action. A Full Environmental
Assessment form will be required with any Preliminary Subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no prior Planning Board or Zoning
Board actions related to this property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 36 +/- acre property into 2 lots
of 3.6 and 33 acres. The property is split zoned between RR-3A and RR-5A, with the majority of
the property being zoned RR-3A.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has indicated that he is requesting waivers from the following sketch plan
requirements:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
Grading Plan
-
Two foot contours
-
Existing vegetation
-
This 36-acre property is located off of Route 149, east of Bay Rd. The map submitted with the
sketch plan application shows the 3.6 +/- acre property, and some of the remaining land, but not
the entire property. As indicated on the subdivision map there is a stream on this property,
which also crosses the remaining lands of this subdivision to the north and west. A review of
GIS data available to the Town indicates the presence of APA wetlands on this property.
What are the plans for the remaining 30+/- acres of this property? If any construction or future
subdivision is planned, where is this activity planned in relation to the APA wetlands and the
stream on this property?”
MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got for Staff notes, George?
MR. HILTON-I guess a quick summary. I’ve indicated the waivers the applicant has requested.
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 36 acre property into two lots, two separate lots. Only
the portion along Route 149 is shown, and as I’ve mentioned, in looking at our GIS data, it
appears that there are some wetlands and streams farther north on the property. This is Sketch
Plan, and I guess, you know, the question would be, what are the plans for the remaining 30
acres, 30 plus acres, and is there any proposed construction that might impact these wetlands or
be adjacent to this stream. Beyond that, it’s a two lot subdivision. Because it’s in the APA it’s
before you, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. EHMANN-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us about your proposed project, please.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. What I have is I have 36 acres that I have two houses on. The lot out front
that I propose to subdivide off is already existing. It was built in 1845, I believe. I just want to
split that off with the land that is required by the zoning to have two separate deeds to two
separate houses. I don’t plan, I don’t propose any construction whatsoever. The reasons are for
appraisal values, comparables are very hard to find with two houses on one piece of property.
So there will be no changes whatsoever, except a new deed and two separate parcels for two
separate houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll open it up to Board member’s questions.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just curious. The 1.34 acres, on the south side of the highway.
MR. EHMANN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-What are you planning to do with that?
MR. EHMANN-Nothing. It’s pretty much worthless, as far as zoning goes, as far as acreage. So
I wanted to use that in conjunction with the additional acreage across the street to meet the
requirement for acreage for the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that the, when you get to Preliminary and Final on this, you’ll
probably want to show the entire 33 acres, so we can see that clearly, and then map all the
wetlands. Because, according to Mr. Hilton, the GIS indicates some DEC wetlands on the
property.
MR. EHMANN-Correct. There are wetlands on the property, and also Don Pigeon is in the
process of surveying the rest of the 36 acres. He rushed this out. There is, I believe, a site map
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
of the tax map and the proposed site that I’m proposing to subdivide off inside the 36 acre
block. It’s just off the tax map, and he is, like I said, continuing to survey the rest of the back
area.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you ever plan to do any subdivisions back there on that 36.13?
MR. EHMANN-I don’t.
MR. VOLLARO-How hilly is that?
MR. EHMANN-It’s not hilly at all. There’s one hill on, I want to say the south end, but maybe
20 feet in elevation. There’s significant wetland right there. I’m sure you’re familiar with the
area. It’s just as you pass where the old Cedar Knoll kennel was, on the left side there used to
be a huge pond, and now it’s just wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that the DEC wetlands we referred to?
MR. EHMANN-Yes, but there will be, like I said, there will be no building whatsoever. I’m just
looking to have two separate pieces of property, instead of one.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the future, some very energetic and clever developer will try to put
houses on that 36 acres, I guarantee you.
MR. EHMANN-Hopefully after my great grandkids are gone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. He’s requesting waivers for stormwater management plan, grading
plan, two foot contours and existing vegetation.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see any problem, for the two lot subdivision, for granting them waivers.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either, actually.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board’s consensus on having the wetlands flagged?
MR. RINGER-I think that he has to have that done for the Preliminary, under our guidelines,
doesn’t he, that, I mean, we just got that letter from Chris, to support them. So I would think
that that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. We just started that new policy. Yes. I agree with you. I’d
forgotten all about that new policy.
MR. RINGER-So when you come for Preliminary and Final, you’ll have to have your wetlands
flagged.
MR. EHMANN-Okay, then they’d have to be surveyed also?
MR. RINGER-Well, yes. If you’re going to have your survey, you’d have to have them show the
wetlands.
MR. EHMANN-Okay. My only concern is, well, I’m sure it doesn’t matter, is just cost. I’m just
trying to scrap together for the surveys.
MR. RINGER-I understand, but.
MR. EHMANN-Not a problem. Anything you need, I’ll take care of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. So you own this entire parcel?
MR. EHMANN-I do, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just that one says Lands of Dave and Charlene.
MR. EHMANN-That’s my wife.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other one just says Lands of Ehmann.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. It’s all one parcel right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-All one parcel.
MR. EHMANN-And then I own, I do own the four acres. That’s a separate parcel in the front.
It’s a completely separate parcel that’s in front of that.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that on the small map?
MR. EHMANN-It’s also on the tax map. It’s four acres that is just to the left. It says Ehmann,
but that has nothing to do with the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right there. If I could also ask, what are these, out of curiosity, these
crushed stone driveways, where do they go to?
MR. EHMANN-That goes back to the house, this crushed stone drive. The crushed stone drive,
there’s an 1845 built farmhouse that’s crushed stone. The dirt drive goes back to the barn, and
that’s all on the four acres. That has nothing to do with what we’re doing, and the crushed
stone drive that cuts through that goes back to my house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the one that goes to the north?
MR. EHMANN-Goes to the north.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s another house back up there?
MR. EHMANN-Exactly. That’s why I don’t want the two houses on the same parcel. So,
there’s two houses, I have two houses on this 36 acre parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The one that’s along the road.
MR. EHMANN-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is it, 149, one in back.
MR. EHMANN-One in back.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then there’s another house on the.
MR. SANFORD-Near the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Near the road.
MR. EHMANN-But that’s a separate parcel.
MR. SANFORD-This is the four acre one?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. EHMANN-Correct. It’s the one that says the two story wood frame house and the frame
barn. That’s a separate parcel altogether.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s 4.0 acres.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. It says 3.18 to 4.18.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Okay. You’re all set. Just make your application to
Staff and get on our next agenda.
MR. EHMANN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Okay.
MR. EHMANN-I just had one more question. For the next meeting, I should have the survey
done and the wetland?
MR. MAC EWAN-Delineated, yes.
MR. EHMANN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED QEDC
PROPERTY OWNER: WARREN COUNTY AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI
LOCATION: EAST SIDE QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE 72.4 ACRES INTO 10 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM
1.9 TO 11.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9 LOT SIZE: 72 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly. This application was tabled so that the applicant could address
C.T. Male comments. There’s been some exchange of letters back and forth. We did receive,
today, the most recent letter from Tom on the project, and that’s about it, really.
MR. RINGER-You got a letter from Tom today?
MR. HILTON-Addressing some of C.T. Male’s comments.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all set on the C.T. Male comments?
MR. NACE-In all fairness, Jim hasn’t had a chance to look at them. He just got them this
evening.
MR. EDWARDS-I just picked them up on the way in here. So I haven’t gone through them yet.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-So, I believe we have adequately responded to them. There was nothing there, I
discussed one issue with Jim Houston, and there was nothing there that gave me trouble
responding to, but they have not had a chance to review, in any detail.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. The biggest comment I think we had pertained to the permanent pond
and the grading around the pond. It had to be remodeled using hydrocad and had to have
some grades adjusted and some contouring re-shown, and based on my conversation, it looks
like he’s headed in the right direction with that. So we’ll go back and look at that, and address
the responses to our comments. Other questions are really about adding culverts to the access
drive there. I think that’s been shown, and a couple of grades had to be shown on the plans, so
they were consistent with the report, which I think was a .4%, typo type thing on the sanitary
sewer, and that appears to have been nailed down, too. So the biggest thing would be the
permanent pond, the basin, looking at the grading on that, and the hydrocad modeling.
MR. VOLLARO-What question was that, in your letter, Mr. Edwards?
MR. EDWARDS-On June 17, it was Item Number Six, and the issue really was making sure we
th
actually had a permanent pond within that stormwater basin. The way it was graded before, it
appeared that it would take the storm event and basically drain most of the water out of the
pond and not retain much water in the bottom of that, of the basin. So we’ve adjusted some
elevations to make sure we do have a permanent pond, inside. I haven’t looked at it in much
detail, the response. So I have to go back and make sure it’s been.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just for my edification, why would you want a permanent pond?
MR. EDWARDS-As part of the stormwater treatment for this site. I think Tom can probably go
into more detail as to his intent there.
MR. NACE-It’s looked at as a means of treating the water that comes in. It gives some aquatic
growth in the water. Makes more of a little wetland marsh in your treatment, or in your pond.
MR. SEGULJIC-Some more of a filtering.
MR. NACE-Yes, exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. NACE-No. I think we’re just at Preliminary. My hope is that we could get past
Preliminary, and that would give Jim a chance to review the final responses here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d just open it up for general questions, seeing as how this has been in
review for a while now.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering whether it would benefit QEDC to merge these properties
at this point. It would give them, there’s certain properties that they have that are not part of
this.
MR. NACE-Well, no. The QEDC is buying only a portion of the property from Warren County.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was that northern portion that had high bedrock levels that were just
totally unsuitable for development. We had talked about that the last time he was here.
MR. RINGER-Lot 10.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about the lands to the east, there, I think.
MR. NACE-If you want to take a look here.
MR. VOLLARO-It says something about other lands of Warren County.
MR. NACE-Correct. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-This is, I’ll turn it on its side so you’re oriented the same way as the other set of
plans. Originally, we had a line that was directly across here and, or, I’m sorry, across here, and
QEDC was buying everything to the south, and the land up here toward the north is relatively
high bedrock. Warren County also owns this piece, under its separate deed, but the QEDC only
wanted to buy this portion to the south. Since that original time, we have bumped out this one
lot, Lot Number Seven. We’ve bumped out the north border of that to accommodate the
National Guard Reserve station that is looking at that piece of property. They wanted
additional space, and it didn’t matter to them if some of it in the back was high bedrock,
because it would be used for at grade storage facilities.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess what I was looking at was trying to cut down the length of that cul de
sac somewhat and having the second access, but now I can see that, see, I was under the
impression that Lands of Warren County might have been synonymous with the QEDC, but it’s
not. All right. I noticed that in one spot the road crosses into the AOC wetlands just a hair. Is
there anything that?
MR. NACE-There’s less than a tenth of an acre there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you don’t.
MR. NACE-It falls into the Nationwide, and we’ve had the Corps of Engineers up to look at the
property, to assist in flagging the wetland.
MR. SANFORD-Could you just clarify, you know, what has changed since we first saw this? I
remember vaguely it was in front of us a while back, and now it’s in front of us again, and
what’s different now?
MR. NACE-The only thing really that’s different is as I described to you, the one lot has become
larger. We’ve been responding to engineering comments mostly. We’ve also, you’ll notice on
the most recent plans, we’ve incorporated a dual type of sewage collection system. So for the
development of the first couple of lots, as long as it’s practical, they can use grinder pumps on
the individual lots, and pressure sewers, then as there becomes enough development in here to
support it, they will construct the pump station here. They will have gravity sewers already
installed to that pump station, and it connects the same place that the pressure sewer will be
connected to the new Queensbury system up on County Line Road or Queensbury Avenue.
MR. SANFORD-So was the intention tonight to have more of these engineering back and forth
questions resolved, and it just didn’t happen?
MR. NACE-No, we have had them resolved. There was a, I don’t remember the date of it.
MR. SANFORD-Because I thought there was something that was just received tonight, that you
haven’t had a chance to comment on or?
MR. NACE-No, there was.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. EDWARDS-Vice versa. I just got their responses to my comments from the 17.
th
MR. VOLLARO-He got the C.T. Male response, and he just got it tonight. So he can’t say.
MR. NACE-The submittal you have in front of you was a response submitted in May to an
earlier C.T. Male comment letter from late winter.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. So this is a clean up of those other comments that there’s still a few left of,
and we’ve addressed, just in what we’ve given Jim tonight.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m clear now. Jim hasn’t had the chance to spend time with that.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. EDWARDS-(Lost words) we’ve just gone back and had a few more comments to add,
actually, to kind of check the list off, to see what’s been addressed, and that was the 17 of June.
th
I got the letter tonight that hopefully addresses everything else, in the 17 letter.
th
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So what do we do with it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Condition it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got one other question. Is there a NiMo easement required for you to pass
your road over the NiMo property?
MR. NACE-Yes. We are in the process of applying for that. We have verified that there’s
adequate clearance. It’s just a matter of the long process with NiMo at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, how do they plan to put the utilities in? Do they plan to put the utilities
underground on this one?
MR. NACE-They have to.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing was left open. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is this Long or Short?
MR. NACE-There was a Long Form submitted.
MR. HILTON-That’s what I thought.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. RINGER-It probably is a Long, for a subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s our prerogative if we want to use a Short Form, isn’t it?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it’s Unlisted, isn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to use a Short, go ahead.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 12-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
QEDC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-The only condition I heard was we need to get a C.T. Male signoff. Anything
else?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it. The Draft Resolution carries some stuff that’s been provided,
grading, landscaping, Sketch Plan. So there are no waivers, I don’t believe, that we have to
grant. Now, the response from C.T. Male, will that significantly alter the, it probably will, the
drawing, I would think. There’s a lot of elevation stuff.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. EDWARDS-I looked at it real quick on the way in. It’s mainly adding contouring,
changing some spot elevations and re-grading that pond.
MR. NACE-These have to be resubmitted for Final anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So all of that will be on the Final.
MR. NACE-Correct, on the Final.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll follow through from that. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2003 QEDC,
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. 12-2003 Applicant: QEDC
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Warren County
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering
Zone: LI
Location: East side Queensbury Avenue
Applicant proposes to subdivide 72.4 acres into 10 Light Industrial lots ranging in size from 1.9
to 11.4 acres.
Tax Map No. 303.12-1-9
Lot size: 72 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs
Public Hearing: January 27, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received 5/17/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/18/04, and
6/3 Meeting Notice
5/17 Resubmission of plans and stormwater management report
1.27 PB resolution: tabled
1/27 Staff Notes
1/20 Notice of Public Hearing
1/8 Wastewater Dept. comments
1/3 Meeting Notice
12/29 Water Dept. comments
12/19 Capt. M. Murray (NYS Div. Of Military and Naval Affairs) from Nace
Engineering
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
1/27/04, 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
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted and is subject to
the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board
Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. Waiver request(s) are granted [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]
2. C.T. Male will signoff on all engineering issues in Mr. Nace’s letter dated June 22, 2004.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. NACE-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE HAYES & HAYES AGENT: VAN
DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED
OFF OF DIXON ROAD (EAST OF I-87) INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 0.46 TO 0.72 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-2003 TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2
LOT SIZE: 8.50 ACRES SECTION: A183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, as I’ve indicated in my memo, there have been no new changes to
the plans, to get copies of all the information that was submitted at the public hearing, either to
the applicant or to the Board, and we do have additional public comment this evening, written
comment. I guess that nothing has changed and we’re just still in the process of reviewing this,
or the Board is, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m from the law firm
of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant tonight, and with me at the table is Mickie
Hayes, and in the audience is Jaime Hayes. With me also is Cameron Stewart, who is the
consultant that we used for the environmental emissions issue, and also for the noise study, and
also with us is Tom Nace, who is the engineering consultant for the project. I think the last
meeting you left the public hearing open. I’d like to make just a couple of comments for the
record. This is an 8.47 acre parcel, and if you deduct the portion we have for the road, which is,
I think, 1.26 acres, you end up with 7.21. The density allowed for that, and this is an SR-20,
20,000 square foot per lot ,we believe that we could have 15 houses on that, if we were to try to
fully develop it. What has been requested is 12 houses, and to me that’s 80% of the density
build out, which I think is a good attempt by the applicant to make this a project that you can
support. There are a couple of other things which history repeats itself or doesn’t, but if you
remember, and you wonder how this became SR-20, or SFR-20, and you weren’t around during
the 2001 or 2002, when we did the rezoning or redid the master plan, I think it was summed up
by Chris Round on Page Two of this paper, which was circulated throughout the Town, that re-
drafting the Ordinance was a monumental undertaking that required countless meetings of a
volunteer group that, with the help of an expert consultant and thousands of persons hours of
works, including that of Town Staff and volunteers, I am confident that the effort put forth is
evident in the quality of the document we produce, and he wanted to thank everybody
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
involved. If you look at Page Five of that document, this property is mentioned specifically,
and it’s described and it’s got a picture of it. It’s on Page Five in the upper, right hand corner.
MS. RADNER-I’m going to need one of you to make sure that a copy of that gets to Staff, as a
supporting reference.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll give mine to Staff. I had previously told the Chairman I would abstain
from the discussion on this project, because I have a potential conflict.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Chris. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-The property is shown as 7B. Just to the east of I-87 in this vicinity is a land
area that is currently zoned as Parkland Recreational 42 acres, which is recommended to be
changed to Single Family Residential 20,000 square foot, SFR-20. Lot sizes will be closer in size
to those of the surrounding area, and that’s of recent vintage, after a lot of study and a lot of
different comment and different plans by neighborhoods and what not. The actual lots that are
proposed here are larger than the SFR-20. So again I think that there’s an effort here to make
this a quality subdivision. A quality subdivision, but probably one where the houses will be
less expensive than the average that was experienced last year. I think if you look at the real
estate sales information, new housing last year was like $243,000 or $247,000. The intended
offering on these is going to be between $185,000 to $225,000. The other issue that came up last
time we were here is noise, and I don’t know if you all saw the article that was in the Post Star
about Lake George Village, when they adopted a sound ordinance of recent, but specifically
they referred to their residential areas as being a 65 decibel during all hours of the day, and they
went on how they looked at 20 different municipalities from around the State as to the
ordinances that they’ve had as to decibels for residential neighborhoods. They targeted 10, we
narrowed it down to 9 or 10, and 65 was their level, with no exceptions. Mayor Blaise says he
looked at five or six other communities, and to be certain that 65 decibels would be appropriate
for the Village. Just an example of maybe another understanding of noise and levels that are
acceptable in a residential neighborhood. In our particular area, we showed you what the noise
was at the north end of the property, and that was 65 decibels, and that was at Site Four, which
actually was right next to the Northway. I’m sorry, it wasn’t the north end. What we did look
at was the site at the north end of our site, northeast corner. That was at 59 decibels, and that’s
a pretty well open area. It’s an area that’s not going to be, or the rest of the site, even with full
development of 12 houses, is not going to be any more open than that, and we’ve projected that
probably what you would have, even at full build out, at a minimum, and most conservatively,
would be that 59 decibels, which again is within the range of DEC’s recognition of not being
significant because it’s an increase of less than three decibels. That’s without discounting
anything for the structures that actually will be constructed. The other issue that we talked
about or we’ve heard about, was, and I don’t know if this is necessarily here, because we aren’t
asking for an increase in density, but you’ve talked about the burden that residential housing
will put upon schools. Mickie has contacted the Principal of Kensington School. This is in the
Glens Falls School system. It’s not in the Queensbury School System. Their enrollment has
dropped 23% in the last five years. They would welcome students to fulfill their classes, to the
levels that they had five years ago. So I don’t think there’s an issue here of what we do or don’t
do, although it’s 12 houses, as to any impact that we’re going to have on schools. In addition to,
and I don’t know how much detail was given before I got involved in the application, Mickie
has some information as to what they’re going to do for construction within the house itself for
noise abatement, if you will, and, Mick, why don’t you do that.
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-Mickie Hayes. Basically, being the location being what it is, being in proximity to
the Northway, from a marketing standpoint and for the enjoyment of the homes, we anticipated
to have some sound dampening within the structure of the home itself. I did some research.
There’s some ratings. There’s an STC rating, an NRC rating, a rate sounds transmission
through walls, or structures. So I got some data from the manufacturers, and we came up with
a plan to install some noise dampening material, which is basically kind of like a paperish,
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
fiberish thing to absorb sound energy, and with addition to this of a two by six construction,
which these homes will be, you can reduce the sound transmission rating, STC rating, by 48%,
and we also did some research when we selected the windows to reduce the amount of sounds
transmission to find the best possible window to achieve that, and we found a window that
would achieve 11.1% reduction beyond the norm, to keep the houses, the interior as quiet as
possible for enjoyment, and for the marketing of the homes, so people could quietly enjoy their
homes, you know, obviously it’s a concern. The Northway is there. There’s no secret. So we
try to address those issues. Some people have asked, a lot of people have asked about it, and
they like the idea of having noise dampening properties within the homes, and they also love
the fact they’re in the Kensington School District. The Principal said that I could bring
perspective homeowners to the school to tour the school so they could show off their facilities,
which is exciting to us, because Kensington School has a lot to do with the viability of this
property, and we have a tremendous interest for people to move here for that very reason,
being the Kensington School District, and I have some data sheets for the windows and for the
noise dampening board, from the manufacturers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Did you also want to have an idea of some of the designs?
MR. RINGER-If Tom could answer C.T. Male’s comments. I don’t know if you want to do that
in order, but I just mention.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not trying to avoid it.
MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, Tom Nace. We responded, this morning, to C.T. Male’s letter
of June 17. I’ll go through it real briefly. There have been a significant number of percolation
th
tests and soil tests on the property. We’ve had the Health Department officials on the property
twice, because of the change in their review process from Glens Falls to Albany. That’s all
shown on the plans now. There was a note in C.T. Male’s letter regarding the use of drywells in
the roads, and there had been a previous meeting, and agreement between the Town and DEC
that the Town could use drywells as long as they were in Town roads and they were being
maintained by the Town without any pre-treatment of stormwater. One of the comments was
that, because of our road elevation, some of the road is being built up above the existing grades,
and suggested we show proposed lot grading for the lots, said instead I’d rather, and what I
have done is to specify garage floor elevations, and the garage floor we’ve set at a minimum of
a foot and a half above the adjacent road centerline elevation to make sure the house and
corresponding site work around the house is raised up above the road. There was some issues
with labeling and clarification of the plans for stormwater facilities for infiltration trenches and
equalization pipes. We’ve complied with that. We’ve added an extra pair of drywells, in order
to cut the surface flow length along the road to less than 350 feet. We’ve shown the locations for
proposed erosion control facilities on the drainage plan.
MR. RINGER-Tom, are you reading from the June 17 C.T. Male letter?
th
MR. NACE-I’m responding to those, yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. He didn’t have as many comments as you’re referring to, that’s all. I was
just curious. I’m trying to follow his letter and you, and he only had a few comments, and
you’ve got.
MR. O'CONNOR-He incorporated his April letter.
MR. NACE-Well, yes, there are two letters.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I was just trying to follow you, and I was having trouble following you.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-April 16 and the, okay, the June 17 letter refers to Items One through Six of April
thth
16 letter, and those are what I’ve been responding to at this point. There was a question about
th
the separation between the bottom of the drywells and the groundwater. We’ve responded to
that, that because of some of the safety factors used, we weren’t able to achieve, because of the
standard size of drywells, standard depth of drywells, we aren’t able to achieve the full three
feet of separation in all cases, but because of other safety factors, we feel we’re more than
adequately protected from any groundwater mounding that might occur. There was a question
about utility easements that’s shown on the road. It’s a standard easement for power, gas,
cable, telephone, etc., and I just made a note that a lot of the perc tests were somewhat less than
a minute. So we have changed the septic systems to a modified soil, septic systems to a
modified soil, septic system. So I don’t know. Jim, have you had a chance to look at those?
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. Both Jim Houston and I looked at the response to the comments, and I
think the one comment, Tom, with regard to the separation between drywells and water table,
and we looked at that in a little more detail, just to see that we do concur with your factor of
safety that you’ve put in to these. You said you added a couple of new drywells, too, that
weren’t shown?
MR. NACE-That’s correct, that weren’t in the calculations.
MR. EDWARDS-Okay, but they’re shown on the plans, though?
MR. NACE-They’re shown on the plans.
MR. EDWARDS-Just not calculated, as far as your model is concerned.
MR. NACE-They weren’t included in the hydrocad calc’s.
MR. EDWARDS-Okay. That’s really, as far as my potential concerns remaining on stormwater
management. I want to look at that one comment in a little more detail, and if we have
anymore comments on that, we’ll get back to Tom directly and work through that.
MR. VOLLARO-The bottom of those drywells, we’re talking three foot now. That’s what you’re
looking to make sure that you’ve got groundwater that’s?
MR. EDWARDS-We know we don’t have three feet, in some cases.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve looked at a couple of these test pits at 15, 16, 18, 30, 25, I’ve taken a
look at a lot of those test pits, and just generally it seems that, and this is from mottling
techniques. This is not doing it in what I consider to be the right way. So I said, it says in here
perc rates are assumed to be less than 1.5 minutes, and will be verified prior to final approval,
and my comment was, why wait until the dry part of the summer? This data should be part of
the stormwater report, I felt.
MR. NACE-Well, to respond to that, Bob, we have done perc tests. We were waiting for the
Health Department to come out, okay, which took a while for them to schedule. We have done
perc tests. The perc tests varied between 30 seconds and one minute, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this relative to all the test pits that are indicated on drawing S-4?
MR. VOLLARO-S-3. S-3 on the Utility Plan shows mottling.
MR. NACE-Okay. They’re detailed on S-4, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was going to be one of my questions. I don’t have anything in my
packet relative to any test pit data.
MR. NACE-The data, yes.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. If you go to drawing S-3, I believe the Utility Plan shows the
mottling. It shows the test pits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thanks.
MR. NACE-Yes. It is on the Utility Plan. It’s S-3. You’re right, Bob. Okay, but to respond to
your question also, Bob, the drywells are located in the areas where there is a deeper depth to
mottling, okay. They aren’t in the areas where there’s, you know, 18 inches or two feet to
mottling.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just, you know, when I look at test pits and see the quantity that’s below
three feet here, it’s a concern.
MR. NACE-Well, the quantity below three feet was because we were trying to define very
exactly where the area was that was less than two feet. Okay, and we did, if you look at the
plans, there were quite a few test pits back in the back of the lot, or back in the back of the
property, away from where the drywells are.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and did you want to go through, Mr. Chairman, did you want to go
through the development criteria thing? Do you want to go through your checklist, or are you
still taking?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re far enough along on this thing. Just leave it open to ask
questions.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, I’ll just ask a question on that. I measured this cul de sac two
ways. I measured it all around the perimeter using your numbers, and I got 1233, going all the
way around, and then I measured it on the end to end basis, and I got 1051. So in both cases I
get over 1,000 feet, but that may not be your definition of the length of it, because you stop
before you get to the circle, and I don’t know, you know, anybody that’s, take the uninitiated
who doesn’t understand all of the vagrities that we deal with here, and ask him how long is
this, they would probably measure it from end to end, and it seems to me that’s the way it really
ought to be. I think that measuring it to the mouth of the circle doesn’t take into consideration
the circumference of that circle and its diameter from the middle.
MR. NACE-Can I respond?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure.
MR. NACE-Okay. The purpose of your regulation is to limit the length of road over which
there’s only one access direction. Is that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. So let’s take that cul de sac and make it into a huge circle, okay. When I get
to that point where the two roads converge back upon each other, now I have a choice. I have
two directions, two ways of access, okay. So my interpretation of your regulation has always
been, and I believe most of the Staff’s, and previous Staff’s interpretation, has been that it is the
length up to the point at which you have a choice of.
MR. VOLLARO-Either left or right.
MR. NACE-Of access directions. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-In other words, you can go around the cul de sac to the left or go around to the
right.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-So there’s only that length up to the throat, over which you’re limited to one access.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s something we ought to really look at in our Code and see that we
agree with that. Because I don’t agree with it.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess, I don’t know, I know of no determination or otherwise that Staff has
said that it goes to the throat. I mean, I understand where you’re coming from and what you’re
saying but I guess I do agree that it probably needs some clarification, because the regulation
says, or the part of the Subdivision Reg’s says 1,000 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would seem to me that the most appropriate way to measure that would
be to the edge of the Town, of Dixon Road right of way, where this new road is going to start, to
the farthest centerline on the back side of the cul de sac. It would seem to me that would be the
length of measurement you would use.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I measured.
MR. NACE-Your regulation says length of dead end road. Once I get to that throat, it’s no
longer a dead end road.
MR. O'CONNOR-If we brought a boulevard, for the first five lots, and a road on each side of
this centerline, you wouldn’t begin counting until the end of that boulevard. The only
difference is you’ve got a somewhat similar physical type thing on the end that’s
characteristically the same, should be the same for whether you count it or don’t count it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think our Code needs adjusting. I would agree with Tom’s analysis, but
I think our Code is wrong. Any person that’s, again, not familiar with the vagrities we deal
with up here, ask them to measure that, and they’ll measure it end to end.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I would want clarification on it, honestly. I mean, I don’t necessarily
agree with your comment if you had a boulevard there that separated. It’s still a cul de sac. It’s
still 1,000 feet long or whatever that you’re using for your measurement.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve done them. You’ve approved them.
MR. NACE-Yes. You’ve had several that have been.
MR. O'CONNOR-Put in a boulevard and you don’t begin counting until the end of the
boulevard portion. The idea of this is two way traffic.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if you have practically attained that, or achieved that, I think you should
be given credit for it.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying if we put a boulevard in there, then the road effectively gets
shorter.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. No, I mean, the boulevard doesn’t count as a dead end.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it on the road for the minute?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s it. I guess maybe I just don’t see it that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we jump back to the test pits for a minute? Just give me some
clarification on this, Tom. The test pits were done by Charlie Maine on 12/19 and 1/3/03, right?
And I’m assuming that means 1/3/04, not 1/3/03.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-I’m sorry. We’ve been out there several times. Yes, I believe you’re right. Yes. No,
that was, unless Charlie made the typo. Was that our first? No, our first venture out there was
January 4, ’03.
MR. MAC EWAN-And then you didn’t go out until the following December to do it again?
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-You waited almost 12 months before you went out there again to look at it?
Okay. Now you said the Test Pits One through Eight were witnessed by Glen Bruso.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And he witnessed them on those dates. Is that what you’re saying, is that
what Charlie’s saying?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because I don’t have a copy of Charlie Maine’s report in my packet.
MR. NACE-Yes. I’m wondering whether Charlie, I’d have to go back and look at my calendar,
okay, because I’m not sure whether maybe Charlie made the typo here.
MR. MAC EWAN-But what he’s saying in this report, on December 19, those three, and
th
January 3, ’03, which is actually backwards. He went January 3, ’03, then went out in
rd
December, almost a year later.
MR. NACE-Yes. We’ve been back to the spring.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you also have a date on here of March 11, ’04.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m confused on the upper portion. That’s why I’m asking the questions.
What you’ve got noted on here, it says test pits by Charlie H. Maine on 12/19/03, and 1/3/03.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Underneath that you have listed pits one through eight, witnessed by Glen
Bruso. Did Glen Bruso witness those test pits on those dates that Charlie’s referring to?
MR. NACE-I believe, okay, looking at Charlie’s report, I must have a typo there, because
Charlie, Test Pits One through Eight, which I believe, yes, I’m sure are the ones that Glen
witnessed, were done December 19, 2002.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a correspondence from DOH that says that they were there?
MR. NACE-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, how did they do it? When they go and witness test pits, do they
signoff on them or something?
MR. NACE-We don’t get anything from them. They just, they make their own notes. I can get
verification from Charlie, if you’d like, but there’s Charlie’s letter, and December 19 was the
th
first of the test pits, and the second were January 3, ’03. It was December 19, 2002. I made it
2003. That’s a typo.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So it should be 12/19/02.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-’02, and 1/3/03.
MR. MAC EWAN-’03.
MR. NACE-Okay. Now Glen witnessed One through Eight, which were on 12/19, okay. He did
not witness, Charlie went out by himself on January 3, ’03, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, normally these test pits should be somewhere between, and I recognize
that Charlie’s an expert, so he’s allowed to do it at a different time of year, but it seems to me
that that’s always done in the dry season. We should be looking at test pits somewhere
between March and May, I think, isn’t that what it says in our Code? I’m just going from
having read it.
MR. NACE-Unless it’s done by a Soil Scientist.
MR. VOLLARO-Unless it’s done by a Soil Scientist. Then it can be done anytime.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. NACE-And that’s why we used Charlie.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why you used Charlie, but it seems to me that to get really good data,
you know, I would like to see those, I notice that most of the time when Charlie does his work,
I’ve been watching that, it’s mostly in the dry season. Very seldom is it in that window of
March to May. It’s normally.
MR. NACE-We were just out in May with Charlie, back on the same property.
MR. VOLLARO-And were the test pits different then, or the mottling different?
MR. NACE-No. They were very, very close. For instance, if you were, the latest pits you don’t
have on your plans, because they were just added very recently. For instance, I did Pit 15, I
believe it was, on 3/11/04, and mottling was at 32 inches. Pit 22 was just done and witnessed by
Jim Meachem of the Health Department, and that was in early May, and mottling was at 37 and
5 inches, and they’re in close proximity. Fourteen I did in early March, and mottling was at 38.
Twenty-three was right beside it. Jim witnessed and Charlie did, in May, and it was mottling at
36. So, no, there is close correspondence.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what’s the septic spec on it? Is it two feet higher than groundwater, 24
inches, is that the specification on that, do you know?
MR. EDWARDS-On septic?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you originally supply Charlie’s report as part of our packet?
MR. NACE-We’ve never been asked to. I can certainly supply those if you’d like them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going out on a limb here. I’ve got concerns, and it may not be the most
appropriate thing to say, but I have concerns with this individual’s ability to do work.
MR. NACE-Are you looking at me?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. Charlie Maine. No, not you. Charlie Maine. I have concerns,
because I’m aware of at least three other projects in Town that he’s been involved with that now
there are water problems and cracked foundations on those things. So that’s why I’m asking
the questions. I’m not comfortable at this point, I guess.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, the one set of, two sets of test pits Charlie did, actually three, including
the ones in May, the one of them I did, and I don’t always agree with Charlie either, but, you
know, I just reviewed with you those ones in the back. They were within inches of each other.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve always looked at mottling as an art as opposed to a science, Tom. That’s
how I see it. Some people can see it. I, for one, have been out on those, and I can’t see them.
They say, but can’t you see it, it’s right there. I’ll be darned if I can see it.
MR. O'CONNOR-But somebody who’s qualified to see it is supposed to be able to better tell
where the groundwater is than trying to just.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the premise, yes. I agree.
MR. O’CONNOR-Because I think, scientifically, it’s accepted, from an engineering point, as
another way of determining groundwater mottling.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s an acceptable.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes. Mottling is not black and white. You’re correct.
MR. NACE-Okay. One other thing to look at, okay, is that I was out there in early March, okay,
groundwater was fairly high early this spring, and we were back out in early May. Early March
I was there by myself. Early May, the Health Department, Jim Meachem was with us, and
Jim’s fairly critical. Jim tends to be even more conservative than Glen Bruso was looking at the
soils, and all of that data fits fairly well together.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, what’s your professional opinion on when we have groundwater that’s
let’s say, 36, 37, 39, in that area that we’ve talked about, when we start putting houses in there,
are you going to have full foundations in these buildings?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You are. Well, what’s your professional opinion on what happens to the water
table when we set these houses in there? Are they going to be going down? The water’s got to
disperse somehow or other. You’re going to be able to get down into that. You’re going to
maybe have to dewater to get it in and so on. There’s a lot.
MR. NACE-You’re not working with a confined black box, okay, that you’re trying to sink this
foundation into.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I know that, but water will spread. It will spread. When you start doing
that, it starts spreading out. It’s got to go somewhere.
MR. NACE-Sure, and that was one of my comments, or responses to C.T. Male’s comments, that
the soil here, as we got down deeper, was actually a courser soil, okay. At the surface it was a
relatively fine sand, loamy sand, and turned into medium sands, fairly uniform as we got
down, and in those uniform medium sands, the water moves laterally, very easily. So our, first
of all, we’re not going to be putting our foundations down into the groundwater, and, you
know, we’re going to be keeping the foundations up above groundwater, and, you know, we’re
going to be keeping the foundations up above groundwater.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ll have to do some filling in there to do that.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. NACE-Yes. Absolutely. That’s one of the reasons for the garage elevations and keeping
things up above the road, to keep all of our construction above groundwater. So no, we’re, as
far as having an effect on groundwater, very little. I mean, we’ve gotten into this discussion
before even regarding septics and what impact they have on groundwater, and when you start
looking at even a development on 20,000 square foot lots, the effect of that little bit of water that
you put into the ground is spread over such a wide area that it’s infinitesimal.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was just looking at this letter from Marguerite Demboski, you know,
dated April 21, 2003, talking about the wet conditions in this proposed subdivision. She went
on and on to talk about when houses were built, other houses had problems with water in their
basement. Now, that’s from, that’s a letter of opinion. That has nothing to do with fact, I guess.
MR. NACE-Also, if you look at some of those adjacent lots, their basements are set fairly low. I
mean, the houses aren’t raised up above grade very much at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about the Hughes Court?
MR. NACE-Adjacent to the back portion of this property, in Hughes Court, these houses are set
pretty much at existing ground level, with basements down in. So I wouldn’t be surprised that
their basements are in groundwater.
MR. SANFORD-So if you build up, is it possible that you’ll be displacing water into Hughes
Court?
MR. NACE-What do you mean?
MR. SANFORD-Well, I notice when I drive up Ridge Road, which I do quite often, there’s a
very nice home built, really built up, high up, and I also notice a pond has been created close to
Ridge Road that wasn’t there before, and my feeling is that obviously the buildup and the
construction of that home had something to do with the creation of that pond.
MR. NACE-Those are much different soils than on Ridge Road. That’s a clay soil.
MR. HAYES-Excuse me, Tom, but we built that house, and we dug the pond for a decorative
feature. That’s water table. That’s groundwater. We dug that, we’re going to rock it. It’s going
to be a decorative feature to set the home off.
MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry?
MR. HAYES-We constructed that home I think you’re referring to, the green house on Ridge
Road?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if it’s your home or not, but, yes.
MR. HAYES-It’s up on the hill. It’s like a farmhouse style.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the place.
MR. HAYES-Next to the cabin, the old cabin to the right?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. How high did you have to build up that land from where it was before?
MR. HAYES-The foundation is about, we lifted it up about two or three feet, because as you can
see, it pitches down, and we lifted it up for effect as well as there’s like a coursing of water
underground channeling water there. It’s about four feet below the surface on Chestnut Ridge.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
There’s like an underground, I don’t know what you’d call it. I’m not really a, but we dug the
pond for a decorative feature. It’s going to be all rock walls and stuff. That’s for effect.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s two or three ponds on Country Club Road that people have dug out.
MR. VOLLARO-Put fountains in them, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-For landscaping purposes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So these houses are going to have basements in them?
MR. HAYES-Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you had indicated, I’m sorry, Jim, that we need two feet for a septic
system?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 24 inches, I think, is spec.
MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-four inches.
MR. VOLLARO-See, what I see what we’re doing here, Jim, in my opinion, is we’re playing on
the margins on this subdivision. We’re on the margins all the time, and it’s a concern of mine.
When you play on the margins, you’re never really sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask you your opinion on construction of houses? Are they going to
impact the groundwater table?
MR. EDWARDS-The groundwater table? I don’t know that they will. Twelve houses
throughout the acreage is what, again?
MR. O'CONNOR-8.47.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, I doubt it, but there’ll no doubt have to be a good deal of filling going on
out there, to keep these foundations, these basements dry, and to grade this site properly. The
concern we had with contouring the site was just that. If the finished floor is built below the
road, that’s going to create problems, so the finished floor of the structure is below the road
elevation, you’re inviting problems, I think you’re inviting water problems. So with that, right
now the finished basement elevation’s at least a foot and a half above the ground, which Tom is
going to require probably a good deal of fill to be brought into this site, to make that happen.
MR. SANFORD-There’s no sewer up there. Correct? That’s on septic. So we’re dealing with
runoff off the roof as well as septic issues.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we just have to be more careful to make sure it’s done right, to mitigate any
potential problems.
MR. NACE-There’s no more runoff off the roof than there is existing rainfall hitting the forest
floor now.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it won’t be absorbed into the ground, because the house will be there,
though. It’ll have to go elsewhere, off to the sides. Can we move on to noise for a minute, or
do you want to stick with this?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we can go on.
MR. SANFORD-Are you the noise engineer? I notice in the letter, you work for a firm, and the
name of the firm is?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
CAMERON STEWART
MR. STEWART-I’m Cameron Stewart. Manager of Industrial Hygiene and Safety Services for
Adirondack Environmental Services.
MR. SANFORD-So your typical type of sound work that you might do, based on my
understanding of your name, is you might go into a factory, and you might assess what kind of
noise levels the employees are subject to. Is that typically what you do?
MR. STEWART-I do occupational noise exposure assessments, and I also do environmental
noise monitoring. I do compliance monitoring for the, for clients in the Adirondack Park
Agency for environmental noise.
MR. SANFORD-Is traffic noise one of the more prevalent exercises that you do, or is it
something that you do occasionally, but not as often?
MR. STEWART-I don’t do a lot of traffic noise, no.
MR. SANFORD-You don’t do a lot of it, because the reason, and I don’t know if anybody here
on this Board or the applicants took the time to go into the Town building and look through any
of these very useful documents that were supplied by a Carol LaPointe. We got a memo, and in
our packets, some of the information that we discussed last time was actually distributed, my
papers were distributed, and Mr. O’Connor’s information was distributed, but at the Town
building, there was a multitude of information that Carol LaPointe provided that had some
very useful additional arguments about noise and also air quality and air pollution associated
with close proximity to highways, which in your opening comments, you didn’t mention that
was also a concern the last time we met. It wasn’t just noise. It had to do with air quality issues,
but as I was looking through a lot of this information, I have three or four different documents
which talk about noise levels, and the reason I bring it up is that your noise levels on your tests,
which might have been averages, and I don’t know, there’s a lot of questions I think that maybe
other members might have, in terms of some of the specifics of your study, but they’re
remarkably lower than db levels that are documented in a number of these papers, where, for
instance, a truck, they have a db level of 91.
MR. O'CONNOR-What distance?
MR. SANFORD-This distance here they have, now how close is the proximity to your homes to
the highway, in your site?
MR. O'CONNOR-It varies.
MR. SANFORD-The closest, the closest one.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the closest one is the most northern one.
MR. O'CONNOR-The most northerly one, probably 200 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Two hundred feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Approximately 200 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. They have a diesel truck at 50 feet, at 90, they have heavy traffic, at 300
feet of 65. This paper that I distributed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you know the difference in how traffic or noise decreases every time you
double the distance?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the inverse square.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SANFORD-Sure. I’m also aware, based on this article, how, when you go from 35 to 65
miles an hour, the vehicle sound doubles as well, but again, I’m not an expert on this, but what
I’m looking at here is a pickup truck is 70. A medium truck, 80. A modified motorcycle, 90. I
guess what I’m trying to say here is there’s, and they all use different distances, and what have
you, but it seems like somehow or another, the Northway is a little bit quieter, if you have a
vehicle, it’s going to be a little bit quieter if you drive it on the Northway than a lot of these
other roads, and I just was wondering if your other studies that you’ve done bear this out.
MR. O'CONNOR-The studies, let me answer in part, the three sites are on the eastern side of
our property, in proximity where the houses are going to be. They’re actual measurements of
noise. So whether he has measured noise in industry or on the highway. The question, I would
think, would be, can you, what kind of instrument were you using, can you read the
instrument?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a lot of other things that go along with that. There’s time, wind,
weather, humidity.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, wind, atmosphere, humidity, which you can ask about.
MR. VOLLARO-And in the documents you sent, you sent two of them, that were documents
that I would think was attached to this gentleman’s study, and in there they say that when you
determine this, you must use time. You’ve got to use humidity. You’ve got to use temperature,
because all these things affect propagation, all of them do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I didn’t see any of that in that report. Now whether there was some
previous to the report I looked at, the one you just submitted, however, didn’t have anything in
it about that, you had the little scale that showed, I think it was 59, 58, 58, but I didn’t see what
the conditions at the time you took the noise data was.
MR. STEWART-In May 2003, basically the environmental conditions that I monitored, or
measured the noise were basically standard parameters that we follow when we’re doing noise
monitoring for noise compliance in the APA. Basically you don’t want to, or you can’t measure
it in high humidity, rain, things like that.
MR. VOLLARO-Molecules move faster in high humidity.
MR. STEWART-High wind as well, because it doesn’t have as much impact on noise as you
would think. However, it does have a tremendous impact on the equipment they’re using.
Wind blowing across the microphone is going to be registered as noise when it’s actually not.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Well, in that same report that you attached to your letter, it talked about
taking these measurements at the property line.
MR. STEWART-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I said, in my notes here, I said.
MR. STEWART-I’m sorry. The property line, I believe the measurements were taken at the
location where it was indicated where the cut line was going to be, basically where the back of
the.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s on the eastern edge of the property.
MR. STEWART-That’s correct.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. VOLLARO-And the western edge of the property is much closer to the Northway. So now
we’ve got this inverse square that Mr. O’Connor was talking about in terms of distance.
MR. O'CONNOR-One of those measurements were taken on the western boundary.
MR. VOLLARO-It was on the most northern plot.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, not the most northern, right in the center of the site.
MR. STEWART-No, almost the center.
MR. VOLLARO-Right in the center of the site? That I didn’t see.
MR. O'CONNOR-Site Number Four.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I think the sites were kind of targeted toward the eastern boundary
because I think the exercise started, what would be the effect of clearing upon the existing
residents that live along Hughes Court.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re also concerned about the residents that are going to buy the homes. I
mean, I think it’s a two fold thing that we’re looking at. It’s both, and I thought that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Next to the Northway, you take a look at Site Number Four, it’s 65 decibels,
which appears to be an acceptable.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s another, it’s a threshold, I think, because in this gentleman’s study, he
says that noise levels are not likely to exceed 70 db leq (24). That means 24 hours a day the little
thing on the bottom of leq, which is an average, and so it’s not likely to exceed 70 db. Now 70
db is getting to a point where the noise is objectionable. Now I’m going to take some quotes out
of this gentleman’s study. It says quantifying significant changes due to projected
modifications is extremely difficult. This difficulty is further compounded when sources of
noise involve different multiple moving sources. Then he says, I used a simple approach to a
very complicated problem. Now, you know, that’s incongruous to me. If you’ve got a very,
very complicated problem, you don’t approach it from a simplistic point of view. It’s got to be a
lot better than that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the simplistic approach was he took actual measurements.
MR. STEWART-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-As opposed to taking estimates along the westerly boundary, and then trying
to project what it would be, with the clearing, he actually took a measurement in the clearing
area, the area that’s already cleared, and then went along the boundary and said, okay, here’s
the other two points. The existing ambient noise at now 59, 58, or 58 and 56, the change from
the cleared area isn’t going to be more than three db. That’s the simplistic approach.
MR. VOLLARO-This data was taken in May of 2003. Is that correct?
MR. STEWART-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t even come close to our tourist season where the Northway gets
really packed up, but what I did see, in some of the studies that I looked at, I think the ones that
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
you supplied, perhaps, I don’t know whether they’re the ones you supplied or not, where a
truck was equal to X amount of cars.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I had that study. Yes. I think I’ve got it here.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you take a look at the 24 hour picture on the Northway, 55, 28 cars at 55.
If you look at the Northway on a 24 hour basis, it’s almost, almost end to end trucks, all out of
Canada and some New York trucks and so on, but trucking on the Northway is almost constant.
Where these homes are going to be, there’s a slight grade. I sat there for 45 minutes, and I can
hear them shifting down if he’s got a load going up north, I can hear him shifting down,
because he knows that hill is coming, and I can hear those diesels roaring. Now, I don’t know
their, you know, what the story is, but they’re trying to make that incline, with a load, and it’s
noisy. I don’t have an instrument. All I had was two ears, you know, that’s all, but I sat there
long enough to be able to see this, that it was truck after truck after truck after truck. I mean,
there’s a lot of truck noise out there.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I presume there’s the same amount of truck traffic in May as there is in
any other time. I mean, you started by saying, I thought you were going to say you needed (lost
words).
MR. VOLLARO-Well, compounding the issue may be the other automobiles that are mixed in
with the trucks during the season.
MR. STEWART-The vast majority of noise, for environmental purposes, is going to be truck
traffic. It’s, cars give relatively insignificant amount of noise. If you’re looking at truck traffic as
your primary source. So what they’re talking about in that study is basically if you have a
single truck driving down the Northway, it would take you 25 vehicles, cars, at the same time,
to equal the same decibel level. So it’s, the truck traffic is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s no question about it, truck traffic is the key element along that
road, as far as noise is concerned. I don’t have any doubt of that.
MR. SANFORD-Can I just make one further comment on noise? Again, I’m not sure if anybody
has spent much time with Carol LaPointe’s material, but she did have one article there, on a
New Hampshire town, which said no, the Planning Board said no to a new subdivision near
Interstate 293, which I guess is near Manchester, and that subdivision was for 11 lots, and you
read the article, one of the issues which the Town felt was significant is they concluded that
down the road they may be forced to build a sound wall, and I guess when I think of a sound
wall, I think of the wall that you see when you get off of Exit 7 on the Northway and you’re
heading towards the Troy area, that big wooden thing, and they basically were concerned that
that would be, that could very likely be, in their case, a city expenditure of a million dollars or
so, or considerable money, and I guess there’s no way of knowing whether or not, if such a
subdivision here in Queensbury was approved, and it became problematic with the noise and
the air pollutions and what have you, what might happen. I don’t know if you can speak to it
from a legal point of view, but there could potentially be, based on this article at least, liability
issues facing the Town of Queensbury and remedies that may, you know, costs associated with
remedies that may be incurred by the Town. Do you have any opinion on that?
MS. RADNER-From what I’ve heard this evening, I don’t see anything, because it’s not a
situation where you’re bringing in a new road. Anybody going to purchase the homes would
be aware that the Northway was there, and what the noise level was. So I don’t see where
you’re creating any Town liability, if that’s your concern. I don’t know what the New
Hampshire laws are that apply and what their analysis was there. So I can’t speak to that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, that was one of their concerns was that they felt, they warned if
homes are built, these homeowners may one day be demanding the city erect a fence to dampen
noise from the interstate, and again, I know it is New Hampshire, but as I look at this.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MS. RADNER-And that’s possible. I mean, if you have 11 angry voters, you never know how a
Town Board is going to respond to those voices, and so, in that sense, yes, you have the
potential that down the road this becomes an expense for the Town, but in terms of litigation
liability, somebody’s going to sue you for approving this, I don’t see where they’ve got a leg to
stand on.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, no. I wasn’t saying they’re going to sue us for approving it. I’m saying
that they may very well be successful in having the Town expend significant amounts of money
to minimize a problem based on perhaps an inadequate Planning Board decision. I guess as I
look at this application, just let me kind of weigh in and I’ll let others speak, you know, I think
Mr. Vollaro’s point was very well put. There’s a number of issues, and they’re all on the
margins, as you put it. We’ve got sound issues. We’ve got water issues. We have cul de sac
road issues. We have, I don’t know if I said noise or air pollution, but I need to get both of them
in there, and I think that it’s a highly problematic application that I don’t feel particularly
comfortable about, and I’ll leave it at that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just ask you a question? The article you refer to from New Hampshire.
Did they say how close the houses were to the road?
MR. SANFORD-No, not that I can see, Tom. No, they don’t.
MR. O'CONNOR-New York State has done a survey as to whether or not a noise barrier would
be required on the, I believe it’s the west side, right in that immediate area, and has dismissed
the analysis as being unnecessary, and that’s in 1991. Now this is not speculation. This is an
actual DOT study. I don’t have the whole thing with me.
MR. VOLLARO-In ’91, we didn’t have the kind of traffic on the Northway that we’ve got today.
MR. O'CONNOR-’01. March of ’01.
MR. VOLLARO-’01. I’m sorry.
MR. HAYES-George, I believe you have that document, the whole DOT study that you could
probably provide to them.
MR. HILTON-It’s in the older, previous subdivision file, I believe, but we could.
MR. HAYES-The whole I-87 corridor was done, that study was done up and down the
Northway, and other major thruways, to see if the feasibility of barriers with elevations and
noise levels, it’s been done by the New York State Department of Transportation.
MR. EDWARDS-Typically DOT will not build barriers unless they are doing a project that
pushes the noise source closer to existing properties. In this case, I would think that people are
going to be well aware, when they go to purchase a house here, the Northway is right there.
That’s more of a buyer beware type thing, I hate to use that word, but it’s more of a buyer
beware type situation. Our concern was the houses on Hughes Court. What impact would this
clearing have on Hughes Court, and I think, you know, through a simplified model, they
attempted to address that, and quantify that.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess in the model, I have one question, and it’s the model that appears on
our Adirondack’s Page 04, and that’s your grid model, where you have 59, 58, and 56 db, the
three, site one, site two, site three, you’re on top of that. Is that considered, those numbers, are
they considered steady state noise from the Northway?
MR. STEWART-That is a seven hour average.
MR. VOLLARO-A seven hour average. It’s not leq 24. It’s leq 7.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. STEWART-Seven. That was the average noise level over the time period monitored, which
was seven hours.
MR. SANFORD-Starting from where, and ending where?
MR. STEWART-It started, I believe, in the later part of the morning and included the lunch and
evening rush hour, the evening rush hour.
MR. VOLLARO-So the answer to my question is that these, 59, 58, and 56, can be considered
steady state noise sources?
MR. STEWART-That’s correct, an average noise level.
MR. EDWARDS-And their average every 15 seconds or something, and the meter collects the
data every so often?
MR. STEWART-Well, it takes a reading every 16 of a second, averaging, I believe, was, I’d
th
have to go back in the original study.
MR. SANFORD-What was the single high reading? Since you’re talking with averages, did you
have anything approximating 100?
MR. STEWART-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’d have to take a look at leq 90. Do you have anything at leq 90?
MR. SANFORD-During Americade I’ll bet you would have had something over 100.
MR. STEWART-The study, if you take a look at my original, my first study that was done in
2003, you can actually see a printout of the noise levels as they occurred through the monitoring
period. To answer your original question, the duration wasn’t seven hours in every instance,
six hours and forty-six minutes in one case, once I, but you can, basically in that package you
can see the average numbers as they occurred throughout the monitoring period.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that would be, those numbers would be equal to leq sub 7.
MR. STEWART-They are individual noise measurements over, I believe, a minute, a minute
average. The problem that you can have with monitoring, environmental monitoring of this
sort, is that sometimes your highest noise level’s in a particular spot for a short duration, you’re
saying like for 100, it can actually be a bird sitting there, or it can be a bug that happens to buzz
near the microphone. So it’s that’s where you have to really look at what’s the long, you know,
extended period of time, and the averages.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s why they try to refer to leq over a 24 hour period.
MR. STEWART-Twenty-four hours in some cases. DOT uses 30 minutes. They measure it, to
do their modeling, they’ll measure just the 30 minutes and then move on to the next location.
So it’s really based upon the ordinances that have to be in the location. Some towns will require
a 24 hour monitoring period, but this at least captured what we were going to hope to be the
loudest noise levels that would occur through a workday.
MR. SANFORD-Now you were testing, as Bob pointed out, typically your concern at the time
was really what kind, you were looking at the eastern part of that parcel, which was closest to
Hughes Court. You weren’t looking towards the western most property. Now, the property
would be not even the house structure, but the property line would be how close to the edge of
the Northway?
MR. O'CONNOR-The building setback is 295 feet.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SANFORD-Building, but the lot line. I’m talking if somebody’s out having a barbeque in
their property.
MR. O'CONNOR-Two hundred and sixty-five feet. Do you want more noise study, or are you
unsatisfied with the qualifications of our expert? Where are we going?
MR. SANFORD-I’m just trying to understand some of these readings here.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, it’s nice to read.
MR. SANFORD-And I’ll be honest with you, I’m reading a diesel truck at 50 feet is 90, and I’m
just saying, you know, there’s a lot of diesel trucks going up and down that Northway. So, I’m
just curious.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to be honest with you. My concern is, I don’t have as many concerns
with noise issues, per se, as I do with potential water problems, high water table problems.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me finish with noise. I think you’re totally discounting the fact
that they’re going to use a noise attenuation board, which at least in the interior of the house,
you spoke about, let’s worry about the houses. He’s going to reduce the normal noise by 48%.
Those houses are probably going to be quieter than your house on Glen Street, or your house on
Coolidge Avenue. Well, that’s a fact. That’s what’s offered.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got sound absorption material. I understand (lost words).
MR. O'CONNOR-The other comment that was made is that I didn’t address emissions. I
thought we addressed the emission issue adequately at the last meeting, that the testing that we
did showed non-detect of any emission coming from the Northway to the east line of the
property. I don’t know where you have any finding or any information contrary to that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s what’s concerning to me, because as I said, Carol LaPointe brought
in volumes of information that was readily available at the Town office for anybody who
wanted to review it. Many of those articles spoke exactly to that point about the health issues
associated with living in close proximity to major highways, and apparently, you didn’t read it.
MR. O’CONNOR-I read part of it and said that there’s not a taking here. This is not a taking of
property. The Town is not going to purchase this property. It’s zoned for Single Family
Residential, and let me anecdotally, and I think her comments, unless we know, we have a
fellow that went out and made measurements. Unless you question his qualifications, I think
that’s the proof that we have here on the table.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I see that as the steady state noise at the eastern boundary. That’s
what’s all blocked in my mind.
MR. SANFORD-I’m talking air pollution right now., and again, I don’t know, as far as I’m
concerned, I would like to revisit that to see how extensive that study was.
MR. O'CONNOR-Here’s your opportunity. Anecdotally, I drove from Chestnut Hill to Natick,
on Route 9, in Boston, probably about six weeks or eight weeks ago now, and I’ll tell you, those
houses are 50 feet from the pavement. That’s two lane traffic, steady, most of the day, because I
went back and forth from a house to a hospital, back and forth.
MR. VOLLARO-But, Mike, that might not be good, you know.
MR. SANFORD-That’s not a good thing.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’ll tell you, the real estate market doesn’t seem to support it. I mean,
they’re all million dollar homes, 50 feet from the highway.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, as Jim said, there’s a buyer beware quotient in here that I suppose gets
figured in to this whole thing, but let me say something that was in, it says, on Page 16 of the
May 17, 24, this is really your second transmission, Mike, that you had two of them very close
thth
to each other. It says, situations in which no noise evaluation is even necessary. Now here’s
where we’re going to take a shot at the Town, I am, at our Zoning Code. It says the right of use
is presumed that noise has been addressed and established in the zone, and on my parenthetical
note here, it says this would be the basis in support of an Article 78 if this subdivision was
denied based on noise alone.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is where you’re talking about the DEC guideline on noise that I
submitted.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and in there it says that if the zone allows it, you don’t do any detection,
period, and I think our zoning is not correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Also there’s a statement in there that says you don’t do noise for residential
developments.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can’t buy that one. I mean, you know, we’re trying to protect people
here. There’s a volume of information out there that says, fundamentally, it’s not good practice
to put houses next to major highways, just not good practice to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why do we do it all the way from Albany to Montreal?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if it’s being done that often now, and this is an opportunity where
we can exercise good planning, and I recall, I think you were there as well, Mr. O’Connor, at the
workshop meeting that was held with the Town Board and the Planning Board where
Supervisor Stec and Councilmen’s Boor and Strough emphasized that if we come across and
we’re reviewing applications that are marginal or not perceived to be in the best interest of the
Town, they all expressed an interest that they would prefer us to say no than to have a
development go in that we later regret, and, you know, this is such a development in a lot of
ways. There are so many items that are questionable here. To me, it just represents not a very
good plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t think there’s any statistical, factual information before you that
leads you that way. If there are some areas that you want us to flush out further, that we have
not indicated that we’re not willing to do so, and I would defer to your Council as to whether a
generalized statement like that is one that would be supported, because I think you still have to
look at our Town Zoning Ordinance, and you have to apply it in a logical manner, with reason,
and you can have any gut feeling you want, but I don’t think a gut feeling’s going to go very
far.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just summarize maybe our volley that’s been going on back in here,
back and forth. It’s not a matter of any one of these members up here, including myself, trying
to be an engineer and analyze every piece of data. It’s us as Planning Board members trying to
feel comfortable with the data that’s presented to us to make a decision, because ultimately it’s
our vote that counts, that makes an approval or a denial, and I think that’s what we struggle
with from time to time, and as we’ve seen development in this Town encroach more on what I
would label marginal property in the Town, where there’s a lot more environmental issues and
concerns and potential impacts that are associated with that application, that’s where we start to
get concerned, and that’s why we start asking a lot of questions. One individual spoke a couple
of weeks ago at that Town Board forum there, during that public forum, that, you know, it’s a
laborious effort to come in front of the Town Board. Well, you know what, sometimes it is a
laborious effort because we’re dealing with issues associated with applications that have a lot of
constraints to them, that have a lot of potential problems with them. In order for us to do good
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
jobs as Planning Board members and look out for the interests of this Town, we want to be sure
that we’ve got everything crossed, all the T’s crossed, all the I’s dotted, and I think that’s
reasonable for us to ask those questions and feel comfortable with it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no objection to that. I have not objected to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not just a matter of the Zoning Ordinance. It’s a matter of SEQRA that’s
involved. SEQRA plays a big role in what our zoning.
MR. O'CONNOR-SEQRA’s part of our Zoning Ordinance.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, and there’s a lot of different phases to it. It has to do with the
Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Open Space Plan. I mean, it all goes into the mix
here, and we have to feel comfortable with it.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan says that this should be zoned to 20,000
square feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The Comprehensive Land Use, this article recommends, not should be,
recommends, and there’s a big difference in the wordage.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan does throughout.
MR. MAC EWAN-It makes recommendations.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not change any zoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-It is a map for zoning, to be followed by the Town Board, and was followed
by the Town Board in this instance.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll go back to saying what I’ve been saying for more than a year now, as
we’ve seen these applications start to come in. Not every piece of land that’s left in the Town
can be developed to the maximum potential what the zoning says could be done.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, this is not to the maximum.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, maybe it’s too much still. Maybe it should be cut down a little bit. I
don’t know. I don’t have the answers for you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thought with the no cut zone that’s allowed along the edge of the
Northway, with the no cut zones that are on the particular lots, with the fact that he’s only
looking for 80% of the density that he might be able to squeeze in at this parcel, that he had
made an offer that was reasonable.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s where you feel that you’re being reasonable, and we feel, I think,
as a Board, we need to feel comfortable with it, comfortable with what’s being provided.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have to ask you the basic question, if you had eight houses there, what is the
difference to those eight people as opposed to twelve?
MS. RADNER-Don’t answer the question, because the questions are supposed to go in this
direction, not that direction, and this isn’t supposed to be a dialogue where the applicant
questions the Planning Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-We get our opportunity.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MS. RADNER-You can ask, if it’s a hypothetical, but don’t expect an answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, could we jump back to these test pits here for a minute?
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is part of what I need to feel comfortable with. Did you say that you’ve
taken new test pits, you’ve just recently done new ones?
MR. NACE-Yes. There are pits 18, and I have that letter in front of me, 18 through 24.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eighteen through twenty-four, okay.
MR. NACE-Okay, were dug April 28 of this year. They were logged by Charlie Maine. They
th
were witnessed by myself and by Jim Meachem of the Health Department, and they
concentrated in the back of the property, determining where that boundary condition between
two feet and less than two feet existed.
MR. MAC EWAN-And did you provide that to C.T. Male, the new data?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s what you haven’t had a chance to go through yet, Jim, and
respond to, or that’s the stuff that was funneled here today?
MR. NACE-Yes. It was just submitted late this morning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Late this morning. So you haven’t had a chance to digest it, and go through
it yet?
MR. EDWARDS-No, I haven’t gone through it, in any detail.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Where do we go from here? You’ve got letters? Okay.
MR. RINGER-There’s still concerns from C.T. Male that haven’t been answered, we can’t move
forward on it until we.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. What I’d like to do is get, we need to come to a conclusion on this
application. We’ve been dealing with it for long enough now.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’m satisfied with the noise issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It seems to be, I don’t know, where are you on noise?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with noise, actually. I have no problems with noise. My concern is the
water, and the only reason I say that, I’m just looking at the SEQRA here, and I have concerns of
declaring a negative SEQRA. That’s my only concern. Personally, I truly do feel that, you
know, the buyer beware is nine-tenths here. I truly feel that way. They know where they’re
buying. I’ve said that from Day One, and you ride down the Northway, and there are houses
much, much, much closer, and there’s people living in them, and I don’t even know if you
could do this, but take the sound deadening device a step further. Require central air in the
houses. So you’re not pulling in exhaust through fans. I don’t know if that’s something that
would help or hinder or what. Some people don’t like central air. You can’t mandate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some people, even if you mandated it, people are going to have to open up
their windows anyway in the summertime.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. METIVIER-That’s why I said, you know, I mean, what good would it do? Maybe some.
Maybe not. Who knows? Maybe it could be part of a, not our conditions, but, you know, a
buyer’s condition with the seller, with the builder, but, you know, I mean they are taking steps.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re comfortable with noise, and you’re not comfortable with the water?
MR. METIVIER-Personally, I’m comfortable with the water.
MR. MAC EWAN-We really can’t move on that anyway until we get some sort of response
from C.T. Male on that.
MR. METIVIER-That’s right, and the problem being is that it asks right here, the question asks,
you know, within three feet, we know that we have three feet. Can it be mitigated through the
plan? We don’t know that yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can fill it, Tony. That’s what they’re going to do to mitigate it.
They’re going to fill it, and that’s the simple answer. Am I right?
MR. METIVIER-SEQRA point of view asks the question, can it be mitigated through project
change. Yes, it can. So if we know that it can, then we could, you know, declare a negative dec.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, as far as this, you know, where are you on this?
MR. RINGER-On the noise, I think that we’ve got their expert, our engineer. I don’t have
trouble with that. Stormwater, I’d like to see a signoff from Male, because I’m no expert. I don’t
know, but if we get the stormwater, I don’t have any problem. I’d look at all the other property
in the area in the same proximity to the Northway, and I don’t see difficulties. Hidden Hills,
Greenway property. So I don’t have any problem in that area, other than signoff from Male on
stormwater, I don’t have any other problems.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s, what, 200, 250 feet from the highway? They’ve agreed, I can’t say they’ve
agreed to it yet, but they have buffering on their plan, which looks good. I think the water
issues can be resolved, but we have to be careful, and that’s what we have C.T. Male here for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to vote for this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SANFORD-I think there’s two things. I think on SEQRA, in my understanding of SEQRA,
is we’re talking about what kind of disturbance the project will make to the environment. It has
nothing to do with the noise level that the new people will experience if they buy a house there,
nor will, does it have anything to do with the inhalants that they’ll be breathing from the
pollution from the cars on the Northway. It does have to do with the water. That’s SEQRA. So
I think SEQRA really the only outstanding issue is, on SEQRA, is the water issue, and I think we
can’t resolve that tonight. We need to spend more time with our engineer reviewing. However,
when it comes to site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not doing site plan. Subdivision.
MR. RINGER-You won’t do site plan on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-There is no site plan on this.
MR. RINGER-These are homes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Preliminary and Final subdivision approval.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess I’m sorry, but subdivision approval, on subdivision approval,
which isn’t necessarily the same as SEQRA, I do believe that the air pollution and the noise
pollution are of paramount concerns from a good planning point of view and agree with Mr.
Vollaro that I can’t support it. I think this project can get through SEQRA, because that’s my
understanding of SEQRA, is that, given an absurd example, if someone wanted to build a
community on the foot of a volcano, an active volcano, it would pass SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-Potentially, you’re right.
MR. SANFORD-But for planners that’s a terrible thing to do, because all of a sudden, you know,
it may erupt and they’ll all get burnt to a crisp, and what I’m saying here, from a SEQRA point
of view, we can approve this if the water looks okay, but we’re basically giving our stamp of
approval to a project that’s not in the best interests of this community, and that’s why I would
not approve the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you also have to remember, too. To reiterate, I guess maybe clarify a
couple of points you made when you said that SEQRA we need to be concerned about water,
where also SEQRA asks about, relative to noise, and also SEQRA also asks relative to
neighborhood character, which would affect, that’s the neighborhood character effecting the
people on Dixon Court.
MR. SANFORD-Neighborhood character issue is in there, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, SEQRA is addressing all those issues as well.
MR. SANFORD-I think my point is correct, Craig, in that the noise level, and Mr. O’Connor
pointed this out at the last meeting, where they were focusing in on the point of departure or
the delta change in noise levels, given the project versus not doing the project and how it might
affect Hughes Court, and that is even debatable because anything over three db’s becomes
something we really need to look at, but I think that more important isn’t the SEQRA. It is does
the subdivision make good planning sense for the Town to move forward, and that has to do
with character. Is it in keeping with the character of this Town. As you mentioned earlier,
Craig, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, etc., etc., to approve a subdivision, but right next to the
Northway, and in my opinion, for all the reasons that we’ve discussed at length, the answer is
no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a couple of points I hear, I guess, maybe to think about, because
obviously we’re going to table this thing again tonight, is that we’re looking for C.T. Male to
review the additional information that Tom had faxed over to him this morning. Additionally
what I think I would like to do is this data sheet for the db sound deadening boards, George, I’d
like that passed on to Dave Hatin and his staff down there and maybe give us a
recommendation. I mean, when the Hayes are talking about using this stuff, I mean, is it a
recommendation that you’d only put it on the front of the building facing the Northway or is it
the whole building is wrapped in this stuff? I mean, what’s the most cost effective way, not
only for the builder to do this, but that’s going to be beneficial to a homeowner? Maybe if
they’ve got some thoughts on that, if they’ve had experience with it in the past.
MS. RADNER-You still have a public hearing open.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know that. I’m going to get to it. I’m just trying to think of things that
we’ve been talking about, while they’re fresh in my mind.
MR. METIVIER-I guess, you know, we keep sending them away.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to do. I want to wrap this up in July.
MR. METIVIER-We’re just not getting anywhere with it.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can’t move forward, I don’t see us moving forward on SEQRA
tonight anyway on this thing, even if we wanted to, because we don’t have this information
evaluated by C.T. Male, which will hold us up, and also, for the benefit of the two members at
the other end, I’m thinking if we get something from Staff on this, from Building and Codes,
relative to the sound deadening board material, will that maybe help them in their mindset,
regarding noise and being able to adequately diminish the noise levels for potential
homeowners and how that affects, I mean, that’s a decision they’ve got to make. I’m just trying
to help move the cause along here, for everyone.
MR. METIVIER-Before we let them go, I mean, does anybody have anymore questions on
sound or emissions?
MR. RINGER-Yes, I mean, if we’re going to table it, of course we still have to have a public
hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to get to it, yes.
MR. RINGER-But if we’re going to table it, we should table it for one or two specific items, and
not rehash the entire thing all over again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. That’s why I’m trying to flesh all this out.
MR. RINGER-This has been about the fifth, or sixth or seventh meeting. We ought to resolve it.
We should resolve it rather quickly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the problem is what happens when stuff goes back and forth at such
late hours. We don’t get an opportunity to review it. Staff doesn’t get an opportunity to review
it.
MR. RINGER-But we’re down to two items. Again, we’ve got the public hearing. There may be
some comments there, but we’re down to one or two items. If we table it, let’s limit it to one or
two items.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I’m asking the questions, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we’d have to make it clear to ourselves.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do I understand, or dare I understand that most of the majority of the Board
is looking for a signoff by C.T. Male on stormwater and groundwater issues?
MR. RINGER-It seems like you’ve got three that are possibly, Craig didn’t give his opinion, but
I think he is looking for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s pretty obvious that’s what I’m looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, one thing that I just was discussing briefly with Mr. Vollaro that
we would like to throw out for discussion, and I appreciate the frustration the applicant must
be experiencing here, as we are as well, but, you know, we talked about process and how we
might change the process, and one of the steps is having you sit in on the meetings. It was also
discussed that you have more of an active role, other than just reviewing material, and I don’t
know where it would go here, but, you know, Mr. O’Connor did mention, you know, if you
want additional studies, you know, let’s hear what you have to say, and I guess I would kind of
look to you in terms of the quality of air and noise, for some input on that, and perhaps it would
be appropriate to have another test done on those issues, as well as the water, so that we’re not
dealing with the same old issue of whether or not the information is reliable, and that would
mean, to me, true independent work up of these issues, and I think it’s appropriate. That way
we can be best assured of not having or approving a project that turns out to be a mistake.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, hasn’t C.T. Male already signed off on water, or on noise?
MR. MAC EWAN-In all honesty, Rich, I think that’s a topic I want to take up when we do our
workshop. That’s part of my thoughts for us to see what we can do to fix the system.
MR. SANFORD-Well, this is a perfect example of.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that this is an example of trying to fix the system or adding
more to the system.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know, Craig, you know, I spent a lot of time reading, and
everything that I read talks about how inadvisable it is to have these houses available located
right next to a highway, and we’re right at the threshold. You go just a little bit higher on noise,
and all the articles basically say you shouldn’t have it, and then you go to the pollutants. Their
reports say.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what you’re saying, and this is where you, as a member, need
to be able to take the information that’s put in front of you and feel comfortable with it, and if
you don’t feel comfortable with it, then you go where your heart tells you to go. However, and
this is important to remember, is that I don’t ever recall, at any time, during my entire tenure on
this Board, asking any applicant to foot the bill, foot the cost for an independent analysis from
someone not related to the project. I mean, it’s not fair, at this stage of the game, to ask this
applicant, or anybody else we’ve got going on the agendas, these past few months. That’s part
of why I want to have this workshop. I want to look for ways to help make the system work
better without being more cost prohibitive.
MR. SANFORD-You may feel that way, but others, including our elected officials, have actually
addressed that head on and stated that they thought it wouldn’t be the worst idea to have that
done, and that our Code actually provides for the reimbursement of costs for those activities,
and so, sure, I suppose you need to have a comfort level, or we all need to have a comfort level,
but I can’t think of a better application that certainly needs some clarity on these issues,
because, you know, these noises and pollutant issues and water issues are all controversial here.
MR. RINGER-It seems like the only issues left, Rich, are stormwater.
MR. SEGULJIC-And groundwater.
MR. RINGER-And groundwater.
MR. SANFORD-As far as you’re concerned.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but we’ve gone through, if we’re going to table this, we’re going to table this
for a couple of things. We’re not going to rehash the whole thing all over again.
MR. SANFORD-I appreciate it, and I don’t want to go out and, you know, state, you know.
MR. RINGER-You mentioned you feel sorry for the applicant. I feel sorry for the applicant to
some degree, but I also feel sorry for the public, because we’ve brought them in so darn many
times, and they’ve had to stay until midnight or eleven thirty, and we haven’t done anything.
We haven’t resolved it. So it’s more than just the applicant that I feel sorry for. I feel sorry for
all of us, and are we dragging our feet on this.
MR. SANFORD-I read the information that puts up all kinds of flags on this, and I can’t say that
everybody here has read all the information.
MR. RINGER-It’s the same information, Rich, that keeps coming through and coming through.
The information hasn’t changed.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, you haven’t read it. You haven’t read it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So is there any other information that any Board members are going
to want from the applicant, that they have not already provided? Okay. I’ll ask you to give up
the table for a few minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. O'CONNOR-Craig, on your referral to the Building Department, you have two different
sheets. You have a data sheet on windows and a data sheet on the fiber board.
MR. RINGER-That’s right. I think you passed them out.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. Just so you refer.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know if you gave them to Staff, but I assume you gave them to Staff.
MR. O'CONNOR-And do you have the board?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I have the board right here, and the windows, yes. Anyone want to
comment on this application?
PAUL DI PHILLIPS
MR. DI PHILLIPS-My name’s Paul DiPhillips. I think you remember me. I was here the last
time. I was also at the Town Board meeting. I think some of you were there as well. I came
tonight just to, once again, show my support for a project that we planned on moving in. The
good news is, from our last meeting, the bank pre-approved me for a $400,000 mortgage.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure where I’ll be spending that. I do live in Hidden Hills. I understand
your concern for noise. I was outside during Americade barbecuing. I do live within that 200
feet, Mr. Sanford, and you can hear the motorcycles, and so, for those of you who don’t know, I
would tell you, what’s more of a noise impact than the cars and the trucks is when it changes
from asphalt to cement when it goes over the bridges. None of that was as loud as my two 14
year old daughters who are being scared by a 14 year old boy who had a frog. The Northway,
you learn to live with it there. The 293 Route that was brought up tonight is downtown
Manchester. It’s a major arterial that connects New Hampshire, which has no taxes, to Boston.
It’s one of the largest growth areas in New England. Taken out of context, I can imagine that
that would have an impact. The issue of the water that you bring up, once again, I think is
pretty reasonable. I think anyone who is from this area, who’s been there, recognizes that there
is some water there. I know that the house that I plan on building, if it’s approved, is on the
corner lot that’s in it. I plan on talking to the builder and making sure I have whatever it is to
prevent any water from being in there. It is an attractive piece of property. It does have Glens
Falls schools. It is in the Town of Queensbury. So you get the best of both worlds. I feel sorry
for the Board that keeps having to address separate issues here, but I think part of the problem
is that people who have certain agendas, it reminds me of the angry juror, where they’re trying
to convince everybody else. For those people who haven’t made up their minds already, I can
tell you that all of us who live in Hidden Hills know that there’s Northway noise, and it’s not, it
does not deter us from living there. As a matter of fact, the housing value keeps going up, up,
and up. Where I think there should be something probably to address that down the road, to
compare the Northway to the Interstates 293 or last meeting it was Erie, Buffalo, as I remember
correctly, I just don’t think that that’s fair, and I think it puts unnecessary duress on the guys
who are trying to get this approved. I offered to answer any questions, just trying to expedite it,
because I can see that it’s a hard thing, if you don’t understand what’s going on there, if you
don’t live there. I’m just going to wrap it up and say that, I’ve heard a couple of other, I’ve
listened, I’ve been, now, to seven different Town meetings, and I’ve listened to the process. My
own opinion, and once again, I’m not the developer. I’m just trying to build a house there, I
think it boils down to C.T. Male’s approval of the water, and I think that there should be some
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
kind of vote pending final approval from C.T. Male and get this thing over with. To me, it just
has kind of dragged on. It’s a little frustrating for me and my family. I’m getting paged right
now for the fifth time. The kids are home want to know what’s going on. We want to live
there. We don’t care about the Northway. The Romeos don’t care about the Northway. They’d
be our neighbors behind us. If it’s okay for them, I don’t see people selling their houses to get
away from it, and you can address the water with C.T. Male, as a condition. I don’t see any
other reasonable reason to say no. I could tell you this, though, in closing, it has been an
education for me. I’d be willing to come to any of the workshops, as an independent person,
and tell you as a homeowner. If it’s worth it, I would be willing to do that, but you talk about
noise level. I missed a six foot put at the Glens Falls Country Club this weekend because of the
Boomerang from The Great Escape, and that is a noise I’ve never heard before. So if you can
handle it there, I’m sure we can handle it off Dixon Road, the 12 homeowners that’ll be there,
and I hope I’m one of them. If anybody has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. I’m
hoping that anybody who’s on the fringe would understand that, you know, we do recognize
the noise and the water, and we’re prepared to deal with it as homeowners. We don’t go in
with our eyes closed. I would also, I know you’ve already tabled it, but I think I would
recommend a vote, based on C.T. Male’s approval of the stormwater. Two other projects
tonight had the same thing. That’s my recommendation. Of course you can do whatever you
want, but that’s my recommendation. If anybody has any questions, I’d be happy to answer
them. If you don’t, then I guess I’ll go home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JIM ROUND
MR. ROUND-Jim Round, 34 Pershing Road. I want to just remind you that Carol LaPointe and
I had a petition we sent in that was, or handed to you that had 70 signatures, over 70 signatures
of residents who were on the side of the Northway that this development is occurring on. One
of the major issues is noise. It’s not noise from the folks that are going to be living on that
property. They’re going to know what they’re buying. We don’t know what we’re getting.
Okay. The studies were done on the property to determine what the noise level is of the
property of the people that are going to be living there. One of the things I keep on hearing
about SEQRA is the noise level, the pollution, whatever, is it going to affect the surrounding
neighborhoods. Isn’t that one of the qualifications? Isn’t that in there, noise level?
MR. MAC EWAN-There are questions in there relative to noise, yes.
MR. ROUND-Noise and how it’s going to affect the surrounding.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s called Impact on Noise.
MR. ROUND-Yes. Impact on noise in the surrounding neighborhoods. I still don’t think that’s
been addressed here. I don’t think anyone has said how is the increased noise level by basically
clear cutting or cutting away 200 feet of 40, 50 foot high trees. If you’ve been out there, you
know how big they are, how is cutting that many trees, that number of trees, going to affect the
noise level on my property? Is it going to increase of 10 decibels? I live across the street from
Hughes Court. The study I gave you guys said 200 feet of trees will reduce the noise level by 10
decibels. That’s going to double the noise level on my property. No one’s addressed that yet.
No one’s come back and said, look, you really need to have another noise level done to see how
it’s going to affect, you know, the people on the other sides of the property, and that’s one of my
big concerns. I mean, you guys, if you’ve read the material, everything you read says you
shouldn’t build here, okay, but they do it all up and down the Northway. What’s the noise
level going to be in 10 years from now? Anyone think the traffic’s going to increase? Just a
guess it might. I hope it does. Right? What will the future bring, another thing, a lot of the
concerns of the people who live on that property, on Hughes Court, everyone knows what it is.
It’s water. They get the noises already. Americade, you don’t even want to know. That had to
triple the noise level on that weekend. I was out barbecuing. I’m about, how far would you say
I am from the Northway, guys?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. HAYES-Four or five hundred feet, probably.
MR. ROUND-Four or five hundred feet. It was, you know, three times the noise level. It was,
and, you know, do a study then. It’s not fair to anyone to have to judge it against the worst part
of the year, but now is. It’s the worst part of the year right now. I go out nights, and it’s very
quiet, and you go out on weekends, you know, on Sunday nights, it is just really, really loud.
One of the things, I’ll let you guys go, but I turned on the t.v. the other night, and I flicked on
Channel Eight, and I see the Town Board doing a review on the freeze that you guys wanted to
put on, and I just watched it for a little while, and one of the things that, one of the guys I saw, I
see Mike on t.v., and, you know, he made the suggestion that said why don’t we have the
developer, or why don’t we have an independent person come in and do some of the studies to
clear up some of the problems that we’re having, if that’s holding things up, and to me, you
know, Tony, the problem that I’m having, besides, you know, not living right on the property or
not having to live on the property, and, you know, buyer beware, well, I don’t have a buyer
beware clause in my, you know, when I bought my property. Didn’t say hey, you know, I
guess I should. I guess everyone has a buyer beware then, right? And my concern is, again, are
you going to double the noise level on my property, and the surrounding property? If you go
out to Spruce Court, it’s loud. I mean, you go all the way out, the noise is loud. I mean, it’s not
loud, loud, but the farther you go out, it’s less. So, again, my concern is really the noise level.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Jim, what you just questioned was answered, and I’ll give you the copy from C.T.
Male, and you can have this.
MR. ROUND-Sure.
MR. RINGER-His June 17 letter, in regards to your area.
th
MR. VOLLARO-With all deference to Jim, the only thing that Jim said in there that it looked
like an approximately three db increase over ambient. I think that’s what you said in your
letter, and you thought that was probably acceptable, based on ambience of around 59 or so.
MR. RINGER-And the revised plans that they’ve submitted.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct?
MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct. Based on the prediction that’s made by the consultant.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to clear that up, because I think Mr. Sanford has a point. I
wouldn’t mind seeing an independent engineer, like yourself or Jim Houston or somebody in
C.T. Male, or any other engineering firm that’s credible, do a noise study for us, that is not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, point of order.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s inappropriate for a member of the Town Board that appoints
members to this Board to address this Board on a subject. I think there’s a conflict of interest
there.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I already consulted legal on that, and they said it was entirely legal and
entirely fine.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MS. RADNER-Our Town Board members are also members of our community, and they don’t
give up their right to participate as citizens by accepting a position on the Board.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s solved.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll note that for the record.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s mine for the record. Okay. John Strough, 7 Woodcrest Drive,
Queensbury. I just want to review a few things, then I’ll get to the real meat here, of some
questions I have. The studies that I’ve downloaded, and other people are made aware of,
constantly repeat the same thing, the health hazards associated with being located next to a
highway. Constantly, over, and over and over again. Now you can read the EPA studies, the
Federal Highway Administration studies, or some studies from something else. They’re all
saying the same thing, and I’m saying, are they all wrong? Because if they’re not wrong, they
must be right, and caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I don’t think that’s the task that we
want to play here is saying, you know, if you’ve got small kids, it’s tough. They’re getting
exposed to potential carcinogenic pollutants. It’s tough. Caveat emptor, there’s something
wrong with that kind of thinking, and it’s not fair to the children, but anyhow, you know, you
can go over these reports again and again and again, and Richard’s mentioned some of them,
but you know, I get 450 feet to 750 feet as a range by some of these reports. One report said 450.
Another said 750. They do it in meters, but if you figure it out, that’s about what it comes, and
they’re saying, don’t locate residential homes within that range. It’s not healthy, and noise isn’t
the only issue. I mean, I have a list of things, you know, of my concerns. The noise study, and I
agree with Bob. Maybe it does need an independent analysis. I mean, here’s some of the
questions I have and, Richard, before I even get to this, the SEQRA, you don’t have to pursue
SEQRA. Your Subdivision Regulations says that the land to be subdivided shall be of such
character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from
fire, flood, or other menace, and here we’re talking about other menaces. You’re supposed to
take this in. I mean, in effect what it says is your job as Planning Board people, and I don’t need
to tell you this, I know you know it, is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community, not to allow a developer to have their proposal accepted, of course that’s what they
want, and there are such thing as property rights, but if I was to have a piece of property that
was 100 foot by 100 foot, was 100 foot square, and down the middle of it I had a Class A stream,
and Town Code says you’ve got 75 foot setbacks, could I develop that property, no. Sometimes
property is just not developable period. Now, I’m not saying this is the case here, but it
certainly is something to consider, that they may not be able to develop the property in the
manner that they’re proposing. In the sound study, now back to the sound study, were wind
screens placed over the decimeter during the testing? I’d like an answer to that, because if they
were, was the instrument calibrated using a wind screen? All right. One protocol that I read,
and it’s in this report, says that for nighttime levels, add 10 decibels. Why? Because your
ambient, your background levels, are much lower, and that makes the sound of the traffic much
more prominent. The perception to the human ear is much more keen to those noises. So some
states require that you add 10 decibels for nighttime activity because that’s how humans
perceive it, and we’re talking about noise that is going to be aggravated by truck traffic at night,
which is going to be further aggravated because the truck’s got to go up an incline, right where
this housing proposal is being proposed. All right. What was the height of the sound receptor
instrument? Was it placed at the height that these bedrooms are going to be located at? All
right. Did the noise study done by the applicant account for temperature and wind variations,
because if you, and I know Richard is one of them, has read the article submitted by Carol, it
talks about what happens when you have an area lower than the sound of the source, you can
get, depending on temperature and wind variations, you can get what we call shadow zoning,
which isn’t going to be a true read of the sound. Now what effect will treatment (lost words),
Jim brought this up, have on pre-existing adjoining residences, especially those residences
located on Hughes Court, Pershing, Bentley Place, Broad Acres and Griffing Place? Okay. If
this proposal is approved and built, will the public at some future date, and Richard brought
this up, and it was a concern of mine, be required to implement an expensive noise abatement
program, such as build a noise barrier, a fence or a berm, and another thing, the impulse
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
patterns. The impulse patterns. I mean, what we’ve been getting, and Bob brought this out,
were equivalents. We’re getting averages. We’re not getting peaks. Just an example. A normal
every day conversation is 60 decibels. A vacuum cleaner is 70. Now, I’m responsible for
vacuuming the house. A lot of times all I see is hands waving pointing to the telephone,
because, at 70 decibels, you can’t hear. I mean, it is an annoyance, and even the applicant
admits that his readings, and they may be faulted, but even those readings, are saying 70
decibels. That’s not pleasant. You have Jaime. Jaime’s always been very proactive. Okay,
Karner blue butterfly, I’ll give him credit, and I’ve supported the Hayes on their project on West
Mountain Road. They were students of mine. They’re great guys. I don’t think that feeling’s
going to be reciprocal after tonight, but, you know, the very fact that he’s proposing sound
abatement program and building his houses, suggests, or should suggest, there’s a problem
here, and there is a problem, but it’s not the only problem. You have particulate pollution. Yes.
The applicant has shown you carbon monoxide, but you know what, dust. If you read any of
these studies, it says dust adjacent to a highway is a problem. Okay. You’ve got tire dust.
You’ve got brake dust. You’ve got the normal dust. During the winter, you have the sand and
the salt, and then that dries and the swishing of the cars and the trucks, and where does all that
dust go? Well, it doesn’t go far, but it will go within 450 feet of the highway, and the busier the
highway, the more dust you get, and you know what, you think the Northway’s going to be
reduced in the way it’s being used? I think that it’s going to increase, and noise will increase.
In other words, what’s today, might not be 10 years from now. It’s going to get worse. I mean,
I’m saying bad enough already, but traffic’s going to get worse, and noise is going to get worse.
It’s not going to get better, and some people have said, well, look at what they did at Hidden
Hills. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and, you know, sometimes, you know, you do have to
use good commonsense in your planning. I don’t think I would have put a Burger King in
Downtown Glens Falls. Some things are just wrong. I don’t think I would have put a 191 units
in Indian Ridge. People complain at 75. It’s just wrong. Vibration. Vibration is another one
that hasn’t been addressed. Gaseous pollution. Yes, carbon monoxide was, but the other
pollutants that are listed in these studies, you’re saying the studies are lying? Then prove it.
I’m saying the studies by the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration probably are not
lying, and they’re also referring to butadiene, now I may be mispronouncing these, benzene,
formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, they did, aldahyde ketone, polycyclic
hydrocarbons and other hydrocarbons. Have all the impacts of those gaseous pollutants been
assessed by the applicant?
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you leave a copy of that?
MR. STROUGH-I will. I have a copy for everybody and the applicant, and the particulate
pollution study. Jim mentioned the effect of noise, the potential increase, and the guess, and
this is only a guess, is three decibel increase. That was a guess. What if it’s worse, and another
thing, are any of the particulate matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, don’t get angry at me, but can I get you to summarize, because
you’re well beyond the four minute limit we have?
MR. STROUGH-Well, if we use parliamentary procedure, since I’m an executive, I can use
special privilege. Right?
MR. O'CONNOR-I renew my objection to Mr. Strough as a member of the Board speaking to
this Board, which he just exercised.
MS. RADNER-It is not a hearing. It is not your opportunity to speak. The Chairman is leading
the meeting. The Chairman decides who may speak and for how long.
MR. STROUGH-Do we use parliamentary procedure?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking you to summarize.
MR. STROUGH-And I will accommodate you.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Wind taking down the trees. Is that going to have an impact on snow drifting,
on those areas? Home values. Are the adjacent home values going to be maintained, and
odors. Those two, diesel odors, etc., have not been addressed, and I will pass this out to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you could leave it with George, and he could certain copy them and put
them in everybody’s packet for next month, as well as I’m sure the applicant would like a copy
of them so they could respond to them.
MR. STROUGH-And I will do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Have you got letters? All I’d ask you to do is just tell us who
the letter is from, and then you can make copies and put them in our packets.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to acknowledge that we’ve received them.
MR. HILTON-Okay. There’s four letters in support. Dennis Miller, Bill Atamanchuck,
Margaret Cauley, and Dave Rabine. I will put them in your packet, but they are all in support,
as I mentioned, and for the most part touch on the issue of locating houses next to the
Northway and see that there’s no objection, since they live there anyway, but I will put them in
your packet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Take a minute to discuss a tabling motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the tabling motion, by certain members of the Board, is relatively simple.
We were going to table for having C.T. Male go over the information that was given to him by
the applicant. I think that was the only thing that this Board thought was necessary in a tabling
motion. That’s what I heard Mr. Ringer say.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, also the information on the sound deadening material and the window
(lost word) material from Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Whether or not the Building Department will accept that as an acceptable
building material.
MR. MAC EWAN-And recommendations as to what extent you’d have to go to install it. I
mean, would you install it on all four sides of a house, or just the side that faces the Interstate.
Those are the questions I’d want answered.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. HAYES-Craig, excuse me. Do you want me to call Dave and set up an appointment with
him, or how would you want to handle this?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re handling it through Staff.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. RINGER-A couple of questions came from the floor that, in regards to the receptors, where
they were placed and stuff like that. They probably should be entered.
MR. STEWART-The height of the measurements was approximately six feet, which was to
equate a person standing there. At the time, I didn’t know what kind of homes there were
going to be. So there was no consideration made for various, any kind of vertical
measurements. As far as the equipment, calibration was done in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations on pre and post calibration. It was calibrated without a wind
sock on it. There’s no way to properly calibrate a microphone with the wind sock on it. The
whole purpose of it is, the calibrator is not designed to calibrate with a wind sock on it, or a
wind screen. The impact of that, at least for our purposes here, is irrelevant, just for the sake
that we were making a comparative analysis, and all the equipment was calibrated the same
way. So any kind of differences that would occur should be negated by the fact that they were
all handled the same way.
MR. SANFORD-But the initial level might not be.
MR. STEWART-Without the wind sock, though. I’m sorry, without the wind screen, however,
you would induce additional air with the measurements that would not be reflective of actual
noise. Basically all I can do is stay within the manufacturer’s recommendation on how to
calibrate the equipment. I can’t go beyond that.
MR. SANFORD-I hear you. I think the vagueness and difficulty of getting our arms around this
noise issue is apparent when I hear an expert talk and express similar confusion on the topic,
but go ahead and finish. I’m sorry.
MR. O'CONNOR-Did you follow the standards of the industry?
MR. STEWART-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the standards of your profession?
MR. STEWART-Correct, and manufacturer’s recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing that the gentleman didn’t know was the height at which
he might take these readings. I mean, we have to, these homes are going to have bedrooms on
the second floor?
MR. O'CONNOR-Some will. Some will be single story and double story.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, just let me ask the applicant a question. Do you think that if you were
asked to raise the level to probably ten feet, would you suspect, based on your professional
opinion, would you suspect the noise to be any louder at ten than six?
MR. STEWART-It would depend upon the area that the measurements were taken.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about generally, though. Would height, knowing where you were,
six feet.
MR. STEWART-I would not expect there to be any significant difference at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because the Northway’s here, and you’re here.
MR. STEWART-The only one that that would have possibly impacted would be the western
one, but the houses are still, are far enough away from that point that I would not expect to see
any kind of appreciable difference.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So elevation is negligible, is what you’re telling me.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. STEWART-That’s correct.
MR. EDWARDS-Bob, typically the first floor finished elevation is used for monitoring a
receptor. That’s the fairly standard in doing the traffic noise.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s following standard procedure.
MR. EDWARDS-First floor is typically what you’d use for that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And also the second floor we’ve offered attenuation, which it was not
discounted in those figures.
MR. RINGER-Did you want to make an objection to the speaker for the record?
MR. O'CONNOR-I will, but go ahead. We have no objection to your tabling. We understand
the resolution. Let’s do that, and then I will, I have a request of the Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Do you want me to table?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
1. To get a report back and signoff from C.T. Male regarding the stormwater and
groundwater.
2. To refer the sound deadening equipment that’s proposed for these houses to our
Building Department for a review and recommendation or information. The
Building Department should inform us if the sound deadening should be around the
whole structure or just in the front facing the Northway.
3. Tabling will be until our meeting of 7/20.
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If we get a signoff from C.T. Male, I feel your consensus is that we’ll
go forward with the application as it presently stands, which is for Preliminary approval.
Would you have any objection to us filing the application, I guess it’s just the Final application?
This thing has taken a long history. Before it had Preliminary and Final, and then when it
didn’t get tabled, and the tabling was refused, somehow it went to Preliminary. We didn’t
follow up with the Final application. The Final application, as I understand it, other than, once
we have C.T. Male signoff, is not going to add very much to it.
MR. SANFORD-The applicant is asking for approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, he’s not. It’s a procedural thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m asking for permission to file.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, though, I shouldn’t say typically, that’s not the word.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MR. RINGER-Last month we had a very similar application that had gone on for a period of
time, and it was suggested at that time, that the applicant file Preliminary and Final at the same
time, to expedite the application. So it’s something we’ve done in the past.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I know, but the way he put it was if C.T. Male signs off, then it’s a done
deal, basically.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what he’s saying.
MR. RINGER-No, he didn’t say that. He said he’s got to go for Preliminary, and if Preliminary
is approved, normally Final is just pretty much a routine effect, but it has to be on the agenda.
So he’s saying, can he file.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-He’s requesting that we do the Preliminary and the Final in the same meeting,
which we do quite often, and George has got perhaps a question or comment.
MR. HILTON-No. I think it wouldn’t change, the material that the applicant would submit
would not change too much. I think the applicant also understands that you’re doing at your
own risk, submitting a new, or a Final application to accompany this Preliminary.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Do you have a date that you want me to submit that by?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve tabled this application to the July 20 meeting. How quickly can you
th
put a packet together? I would imagine it’s not a very big deal.
MR. HILTON-Friday the 25, this Friday.
th
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. How about a week and a half.
MR. MAC EWAN-A week and a half?
MR. HILTON-That’s Friday the 2, I think. I think the Friday after that is the 2 of July.
ndnd
MR. MAC EWAN-A week from this Friday, the 2, close of business.
nd
MR. NACE-That gives us time, if Jim has any comments, we can incorporate those.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I want to do, is give everybody time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you send a copy of the
minutes of Mr. Strough’s testimony before this Board to the Ethics Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to file an ethics complaint, that’s something that you would have
to do as the complainant to the Ethics Review Board. Is that what their exact title is, or
recommendation? There’s an Ethics Committee who recommends it to the Board, and that’s the
requirement you would have to do. If you feel that you want to file a complaint, it would be up
to you to file that complaint, not this Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have an obligation, as a Board, well, okay.
MR. RINGER-Council’s already ruled for the Board, that it was okay. So if you want to file, it’s
up to you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know what Council spoke of, spoke to.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/22/04)
MS. RADNER-I don’t think this is the proper place to have this dialogue. If you believe there’s
been a violation, then I encourage you to review our ethical rules and act as you see it
appropriate. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to engage in this dialogue.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I just think it’s totally inappropriate.
MR. RINGER-One caution, next month the Board, because we have alternates, so you’ve gotten
a pretty good idea tonight, but it could change very much next month, depending on who sits
on this Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-We might ask for an adjournment.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, just so you’re aware that the Board does change from time to time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? One final note. I am working vigorously with Staff,
with Council, with our Consulting Engineers, to do a workshop. Hopefully what we’re going to
do is one next Thursday night. Everyone will be notified as to time and place. So I would need
to know whether you or Mark could attend.
MS. RADNER-Next Thursday? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-A week from this Thursday.
MR. RINGER-That’s July 1?
st
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be July 1. Either Jim or Jim from C.T. Male, one of the Jims.
st
MS. RADNER-At seven?
MR. MAC EWAN-Seven, and I’m not sure whether we’ll be up here or whether we’ll be in the
Supervisor’s Conference Room, or we’ll be crammed like sardines in the Planning Staff’s
Conference Room. Okay.
MR. RINGER-Site visits are the 17.
th
MR. SANFORD-This is next Thursday, Craig?
MR. VOLLARO-The 1 of July.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-Next Thursday, yes. Everyone will be notified. It’s a matter of us being sure
that we’ll be able to notice the meeting in the paper, and making a room available. Those are
the two hurdles we need to jump.
MR. HILTON-Yes. We’re just, we’re working on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
58