2004-05-10 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 10, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
LARRY RINGER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK
SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SDGEIS SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE AGENT:
LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: HC-1 LOCATION: 1213 ST. RT. 9, 1227 ST. RT. 9 THE
APPLICANT IS SEEKING PLANNING BOARD APPROVALS FOR THE SITE PLAN FOR
THE PLANNED FACILITIES, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AMUSEMENT
FACILITY IN THE HC-I ZONE, AND WAIVERS FROM THE I-87/ROUTE 9 DESIGN
GUIDELINES. AN AREA VARIANCE IS SOUGHT FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT. COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MATERIAL AND THE SDGEIS ARE
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE TOWN’S PLANNING OFFICE. PLANNING BOARD
MAY ACCEPT FEIS. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04
TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.40 AC., 4.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS & MEG O’LEARY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll turn it over to Staff to bring us up to speed with where we are.
MR. ROUND-It’s a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Final.
MR. ROUND-You should have received two transmittals from our office, transmitting Chazen
Company’s comments of April 27 and April 28. The applicant has addressed those comments
thth
in the document that you have in front of you. I’m trying to think what else. So you have a
document, and you should have gotten a memo transmitted to you last Friday by e-mail from
Chazen Company’s, identifying that, indeed all those comments were addressed and I think
we’re here to talk to you tonight just to see if there are any other issues in the proposed Final
that you’d like massaged or changed or otherwise, and if we get through that process and you
do accept the Final tonight, we would like you to start talking about the SEQRA Findings and
the elements of that. You should have received copies of those two weeks ago with the original
proposed Final EIS.
MR. SANFORD-What does accepting the Final Supplemental GEIS actually mean? In other
words, let me bring maybe my understanding to it, is there was a lot of public comment and
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
comment from Staff as well as the Board. The applicant heard all of that. We had some give
and take. I think what they did is they responded to those comments. Came out with a new
book, that we all received, addressing those issues, but when we accept this, are we accepting it,
as we’re comfortable with it, or are we merely accepting the fact that what I just said took place,
that they, in fact, responded, and yet we still may have some outstanding issues that, at least I
might have some outstanding issues, that I would like to further address. So what are we
accepting? The fact that we feel comfortable with this, or that they did, in fact, respond to
comments? Maybe not in a satisfactory manner, but in some people’s eyes maybe in a
satisfactory manner, but that’s what I need to know, and I’m unclear on exactly what we’re
doing. Are we endorsing the project at this point, or are we saying, wait a second, you know,
they responded, but there’s still some more work to be done?
MR. SCHACHNER-The short answer is Choice A. You’re the SEQRA Lead Agency. As a
Board, at this point, if you accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement as complete, you
would be endorsing that document as responsive to the comments that have been raised at the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement stage, not merely having physically been responded to,
but, using your term, and I think it’s an appropriate term, that you’re comfortable with the
responses. All the words you used, Rich, in Choice A, comfortable, endorsing, and all those
things, I think are fair characterizations of what your role would be this evening, or whenever
you do this.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how you want to go with this, but I’ll
jump out there a little bit. I’m comfortable with much of this, but not all of it, and so maybe we
could hear from everybody, and then we could see where we’re going to go, as well as the
applicant, but, and I could even bring up just a couple of items.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go to that point where we’re going to ask them questions, Stu, is
there anything that you want to update us on?
STUART MESINGER
MR. MESINGER-No. Chris gave the summary, and I agree with what Mark just said. So I think
that if you folks, as individuals or as a Board, have issues with this document, now’s the time to
talk about them. We, you know, as your consultants, are satisfied that it addresses all the
technical concerns. I just want to especially point out, with respect to stormwater, because that
was really the focus, especially of our review. We really spent quite a bit of time with LA, going
through the nitty gritty of that, and we’re satisfied we have a stormwater plan, now, that meets
the DEC’s Phase II guidelines.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Now, first of all, who took a stab at coming up with this Draft, I know it’s
stamped Draft, but the Finding letter? Was that done by?
MR. SCHACHNER-The Findings Statement, it’s called, and I believe that Draft was prepared by
the applicant. Correct? And that’s perfectly appropriate, and that’s, you know, that’s the
normal course of review.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, in reading that, and then I went through and I looked at the actual
document, there’s been one thing that’s kind of been a real problem for me to come to terms
with, and I think probably others as well, and that is in terms of the intentions of the applicant,
and the applicant in that letter talks about, they have little or no control over a number of events
that may take place, because Department of Transportation has to get involved with it, perhaps
the Town and what have you, and I’d like to point out, I mean, here’s the kinds of problems I’m
having with this. To me, it’s not a matter of who’s controlling this or what the intent might be
on the part of the applicant, good or bad. We could assume their intent is good, but it’s a matter
of the actual outcome, in this case a safety outcome. So if, after the end of the day, they’ve made
every effort, they’ve gone the extra mile to get all the approvals for all the things that we find
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
are very important to satisfy the safety requirements, but they fall short, then, in my opinion,
we can’t move forward. We can not allow a CO until, like for instance, the pedestrian bridge is
completed. Because our obligation is to the community, to the Town of Queensbury, to safety.
Now, the argument that they make in a lot of this is that we don’t really have control over it.
We’re going to do our best, but, if it falls short, you have to recognize that we’ve done our best,
and maybe cut us some leeway, and my point is, I don’t think we can do that. I think we have
to move away from intentions and deal with the reality of the situation and address the safety
issues right up front, and in my opinion they’re significant, and so, in terms of a Final impact, or
a Findings letter, I certainly still feel, as I did in the beginning, that we need to tie the operation,
the opening, the construction with the pedestrian bridge, with the hotel. So that’s one of my
major points.
MR. MAC EWAN-But by doing that, doesn’t necessarily tie your hands in consideration of
accepting this Supplement Draft, as being complete tonight. I mean, if it’s something that
you’re that concerned with, which you have been all the way down the road with this
application, that’s something that we can consider during the actual review during site plan, as
a consideration is tying it to a condition of site plan approval. What you’re doing tonight, go
ahead, Mark.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not going to interrupt, but I’ll go after you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re considering that they’ve answered all the questions that have been out
there, and that we feel comfortable with the methodology in which they’ve answered those
questions, and there may be still some loose ends we need to tie together, as a Board, to feel
comfortable with the project in its entirety, but I don’t think that should prohibit us, that one
hitch you’ve got.
MR. SANFORD-Well, there’s a couple of things like, Craig. I appreciate your point, but, I mean,
it’s also the lights. Like they want to have the lights at Glen Lake Road and at Round Pond
Road, but throughout the document they reference that the Town might have to do some work
with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the Town is.
MR. SANFORD-Well, and DOT ultimately makes that decision, and so I guess I scratch my
head. If none of these approvals take place, and this hotel is constructed, I’m going to feel
uncomfortable about having that kind of pedestrian traffic as well as vehicle traffic on that road,
and so what I’m trying to say is I appreciate the fact that some of these items are not in their
direct control. Believe me, but I’m not so sure that we can compromise our criteria because of
the reality of the unknown situation. So I would like to come down strong with this Board on
fine tuning this environmental statement to be very specific on the lights and the bridge. When
I read this, I compromised in a number of ways. I want Larry and others to recognize that. I
understand that you’re not moving to, you’re not going to be completing the southern part of
the ring road at this point, and we can discuss that further, but I’ve come somewhat to terms
with that. I think the northern part is a nice gesture, but along with that, we need to have that
northern ring road with the light and we have to have a light at that southern Glen Lake or
Round Pond Road, excuse me, as well as the pedestrian bridge, and we can’t go with the kind of
logic that’s in this statement where on Item Number C where they talk about it the way they do,
we have to have it much more definitive.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Mr. Lemery, can we get you to come up here, please.
MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I missed my chance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. I guess, there is some complexity to the procedure, and I think, in
light of Rich’s comments in particular, I just want to make sure the Board is all on the same page
procedurally. Your response to Rich, I think, was something along the lines of, and my words
not your words, that if Rich has those concerns, those concerns might not necessarily factor into
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
this stage, but could factor in later, if and when you come to this period of time where you’re
reviewing a site plan. Correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess I want to make sure that we all understand that to some extent,
Rich’s comments are germane to the SEQRA process, in that, for example, the Findings
Statement by law, if you approve what’s called a Positive Findings Statement, which would
mean a Findings Statement that’s supportive of approval of the project, that Findings Statement,
by law, must state that potentially significant environmental impacts have been minimized as
much as possible, and I’m not picking on Rich, but in light of the view he’s expressed, if you, as
a Board, if the majority of you feel that a certain result has to happen, on any issue, traffic,
stormwater, whatever, if a certain result has to be achieved, in order to make a Positive SEQRA
Findings Statement, then Rich is right. It’s not an exercise in popularity or in how hard the
applicant has tried. It’s not an A for effort type thing. An A for effort is great, but if you, as a
Board, the majority of you feel that a certain result has to be achieved in order to meet a SEQRA
goal, then now, and at the time of adoption of the SEQRA Findings Statement, it is appropriate
to inquire about those issues, and one thing that’s important to realize here is that the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and the Findings Statement draft are not unrelated, okay, nor
should they be unrelated. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and the responses to the
comments that the applicant has prepared are very supportive of the proposed Findings
Statement, as you would expect them to be, and if there is an element of them or a fact or an
issue that’s discussed in it that you, as a Board, the majority of you, are not comfortable with,
then it’s not appropriate for you to keep that discomfort for later in the process. If there’s an
element that you’re uncomfortable with, you need to deal with it at the FEIS and SEQRA
Findings Statement stage.
MR. MESINGER-If I could just add to that, then to drill down to the specifics here, the FEIS is
written in a way that supports the finding that the applicant would make every effort to
complete the pedestrian bridge prior to opening, but that if factors unforeseen prevented that,
they would prevent it, and the bridge would then be in place just as soon thereafter as possible.
If you did not want to make that Finding, and you wanted to take Mr. Sanford’s position that
the two should be tied, then we would recommend that you change the text of the FEIS
document to reflect that, as well as the Finding later on.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, because you want the two to be consistent. That’s important.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you give us an update where you are with DOT right now? Where
things are in engineering and so on?
MR. LEMERY-We have our bridge consultant here with us tonight. Are you speaking of the
bridge or?
MR. MAC EWAN-The bridge and the lights.
MR. LEMERY-The warrant has been directed to DOT by our traffic consultants, Creighton
Manning. We reviewed the warrant for the lights and it’s now, and has been sent to DOT. I
think we copied the Town Planning Staff with a copy of the warrant letter that went, asking
them to authorize the placement of the two lights, and we have to wait until we hear back from
DOT. Based on some of the traffic counts, lights are not warranted at Glen Lake Road and at
Round Pond Road. We have asked them, however, in light of what we’re doing, to basically
approve the two lights there, and I think the Town Board has participated in that discussion
and is also, by resolution, requesting that DOT issue the warrant to put those lights up. So
we’re going to do everything we can to direct the lights. We can’t determine what goes on
Route 9. We have also, in terms of the recommendation of our transportation consultants, that
if the light doesn’t go up, then there’d be a right turn in, and not come out the north end. They
would exit the Park at the southern end of the Park, at the end of the visiting day. So that it
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
would not have, it would be a right in only coming down, which is where 80% of the traffic
comes in to The Great Escape is from Exit 20.
MR. SANFORD-Where would it exit?
MR. LEMERY-It would exit down at the Round Pond area. The Round Pond area where it exits
now.
MR. SANFORD-Well, let me get that straight. That would be what I would say Round Pond
area where it exits now, that’s sort of not really Round Pond. That’s a little north of Round
Pond. Correct?
MR. LEMERY-Yes, across from Route 9. Correct.
MR. SANFORD-It’s the southern section of the ring road, which you’re not planning on putting
in?
MR. LEMERY-Correct. That’s right. We have the ability to put festival parking in there. So the
lots fill up and people exit the lot at all times during the day, and that’s where they would exit
from. That’s where they were exiting now, but that’s confusing, because if you’re going to
have the pedestrian bridge in place, then you’re not going to have entrance or exit where you
currently have because it’ll provide problematic situation. So if you get denied the light, you’re
going to still be exiting right where, near where the pedestrian bridge is, which is going to,
theoretically according to this statement at least, be fenced. So then it wouldn’t be fenced.
MR. LEMERY-We have lights there now, so that one of those lights will remain, presumably, to
exit the traffic.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, I understand that, but.
MR. LEMERY-So there will always be a traffic signal when they come out at the southern end of
The Great Escape.
MR. SANFORD-Your contingency plan is not mapped out or laid out very clearly, is what I’m
saying, in this document. We’re hearing it now from you, but it’s certainly not in.
MR. LEMERY-I respectfully disagree with that, Richard. I think it’s in there.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s not in the document.
MR. MESINGER-It’s in, it’s Finding D-10. Finding D-10, I think, lays that out.
MR. LEMERY-It’s in the Findings.
MR. SANFORD-No, but my point is it contradicts the pedestrian bridge discussion, which
suggests that when the bridge is built, they will close off parking lots with a fence, and there
will be no pedestrian, or any other exit or entrance from those parking lots, but now they’re
saying, oops, if we don’t get a light, we’re going to keep that open. It wasn’t explicitly stated,
by any means.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me throw a question to any one of you three. If we change the language
in this thing tonight, adopt it saying that the lights must be installed and pedestrian bridge
must be installed, and DOT issues a finding saying that the lights are not necessary and they are
not going to put them in, what does that do to things?
MR. SCHACHNER-If you’re saying that a condition of approval, which wouldn’t be tonight,
but a SEQRA Findings condition is that that particular mitigation measure is a condition of
approval, and the applicant is unable, through no fault of the applicant, to fulfill that condition,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
then the applicant would have to come back here and either the project would not be viable, or
the applicant would have to come back here and seek modification of your approval.
MR. LEMERY-Let me speak to that, because right now, based upon the Impact Statement that
has already been approved and the Findings that have already been made by this Board, we
have permission to build a hotel. We’ve come for a variance, because we needed a height
variance to put up a hotel that was higher than that allowed in the zone. So we came for a
variance, an Area Variance, which is why we supplemented the Impact Statement, and for
permission to build the northern portion of the ring road first, but right now, we’re not under
any obligation to put up that pedestrian bridge, unless, the Theme Park comes in here and asks
for more rides or attractions to go into the Park and at that point, the Planning Board can say,
we’re not going to give you any more on the east side until you put up the pedestrian bridge,
and that was the understanding. So we’re doing everything we can to get this bridge up, and at
a time when the traffic counts, even with the hotel, and the traffic counts for the hotel were
taken into consideration by this Board at the time we went through that whole two year
process. So, the problem, the traffic counts, even with the hotel there, do not justify what we’re
trying to do. So what we’re trying to do is accommodate and get this done, but we simply can’t
control it. If you make a Finding, or make it a condition of acceptance, that we have to have the
two lights before we can build the hotel, or we have to have the pedestrian bridge, you know, I
don’t know what the answer is.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I wasn’t suggesting that. I just want to hear all angles here, the what
if’s.
MR. COLLINS-Can I just make one quick comment? What Stu said in reference to D-10, which
is our alternative if we don’t get approved for the northern light, which is at Glen Lake Road, if
you want that verbiage to be clarified, it does say that we will have right turn only in, but
exiting will occur at the existing southern exit, which is right across from the main gate.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I understand, but what I’m saying, John Collins, is that that then goes a
little bit contrary to what you stated in your document about what happens when the
pedestrian bridge is built, which is the close off of the lots, but, look it, let me tell you my intent.
My intent is I’m pleased with how this project is going. We need to fine tune a few things. I’d
like to do it in a cooperative manner with you. I think that what I heard either from Mark or, I
think it was Mark, made a lot of sense to me. I think we need to go with the presumption that
we’re going to have these lights. We’re going to have this bridge, and then, if there is a major
problem, you could come back to this Board and we work it out so that safety’s addressed, but
nobody, I don’t think, wants to shut down this project, at least, I mean, that’s a pretty clear
understanding that I have, but we want to make sure that it’s done in an appropriate manner,
and I think that’s reasonable. You’d have an opportunity to come back and say look it, the
hotel’s ready to be operational, we’re all tied into the sewer and everything going, but we just
can’t get around these couple of things, and then we would work on it at that point. I think that
that’s reasonable. If we can’t get that meeting of the minds, and you keep going back and trying
to hang your hat on the traffic studies, etc., etc., I will try to refresh your memory back at an
application where, Mr. Lemery, I think you were in front of this Board on, I think it was the
Cracker Barrel, and you commented at that time that you could get a traffic report to read any
way you wanted. I mean, they are not an exact science, and I don’t have the quote in the
minutes, because I didn’t research it, but I do recall it myself, but the point I’m trying to say is, I
think that of all the engineering and studies that we see, and that come across us, the ones that
are least tangible in a lot of ways are the traffic studies. There’s a lot of a vagueness to them,
and I don’t necessarily, wouldn’t want to go down the road to re-examine those thresholds or
where you are in, visa vie those thresholds. Instead I’d rather work with you, and go with this
modification aspect, which would be that.
MR. LEMERY-We’re not going to take a situation and put up a $40 million structure and be
hostage to what DOT decides to do. Let me read exactly what we asked in our Findings. The
Planning Board would find that The Great Escape shall use its best efforts to complete
construction of the pedestrian bridge prior to or concurrently with the opening of the hotel
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
water park. Best efforts shall mean that The Great Escape must pursue construction of the
pedestrian bridge vigorously, and provide the Planning Board with clear evidence on an
ongoing basis that the bridge approval and construction process are proceeding with all
appropriate speed, taking into consideration any factors or development outside of the Park’s
control. So long as The Great Escape has provided evidence to the Planning Board that it has
met its obligation, used its best efforts, and pursued the timely completion of the pedestrian
bridge, there will be no delay in the opening of the water park. If the Planning Board finds that
The Great Escape has failed to use its efforts in pursuit thereof, the Planning Board may
suspend issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel until the Planning Board is
satisfied that The Great Escape has used its best efforts to remove any remaining obstacles to
the completion of the pedestrian bridge. Now I don’t know how we can do more than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I think we know where you’re coming from. Let’s hear from some
other members, see what they’ve got to say.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Craig, just maybe 30 second rebuttal here. When I opened up my
comments, I spoke in terms of intentions, and I appreciated the fact that you don’t like to be
held responsible for things that are not within your control, but the reality of it is, things that
aren’t within your control, in regards to this project, could very well impact the community and
safety issues, and unfortunately, that’s where our responsibility lies, and so I kind of disagree
with you on this.
MS. O’LEARY-Mr. Sanford, I do have to point out, though, that, One, we haven’t heard any
technical criticism of our traffic report.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, your name is?
MS. O’LEARY-I’m sorry. It’s Meg O’Leary. I’m an attorney with Lemery Greisler. So we
haven’t received any traffic technical criticisms or report for which we can respond to. In
addition to that, when we met with Mark Kennedy from DOT, one of the factors that they
consider when deciding whether or not to issue approval for a traffic light is safety, and
essentially we have very safe intersections, and even with the addition of our traffic for our
hotel, at least in the opinion that I heard expressed from Mark Kennedy at that meeting, he
doesn’t think it’s going to create an unsafe condition. So I guess my question is, you know,
Great Escape wants to support safety. That’s a given, and if you have fears that it’s going to
create an unsafe condition, the only way we can respond is if someone gives us a factual reason,
some sort of technical basis that it’ll be unsafe, that we can respond to, but we haven’t heard
anything of that sort.
MR. SANFORD-Do you live in this area?
MS. O’LEARY-I do. I live in Saratoga Springs.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if you lived in the Queensbury area, you would know that the Glen
Lake/Route 9 intersection and the Round Pond intersection have been horrible intersections,
pre-dating this project, and so I’m sorry that, you know, I don’t agree with you. I don’t agree
with that gentleman you referenced either. They’re horrible intersections that need to be
addressed, and this project would merely aggravate that situation. Let’s move on, like the
Chairman suggested.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to get into the document for a minute, and take a look at Page VI,
and I think at the end of Paragraph VI, it says, it’s The Great Escape and the Town of
Queensbury’s position that these signals can be moved since their original installation was to
accommodate both vehicles and so on and so on. The north signal will be moved to Glen Lake.
It sounds like, in that particular section, that you’ve got a fait accompli, as far as moving the
lights, and obviously you know that that’s not true. So I think that statement is misleading, on
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
Page Vi, and I would suggest that it be removed. Because we understand that there are
impediments to moving the lights, at least I do, and I think that Rich does. That statement in
the document is a little bit misleading.
MR. SANFORD-Plus, Bob, on Vi, since you’re on that page, under Finding, you talk in terms of
delaying things over the course of the next five years or longer. So, you’re stating, in this
Finding, is that some of these things might not take place for another 60 months or so.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Rich, that’s based on their 900,000 to 1.5 million in attendance, and
they’re doing some integration in that, but let me get through with what I’ve, because I’ve got
another point to make.
MR. MESINGER-Can we do them one by one, though? Because I have a suggestion on that one
that might help.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let him respond.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just saying maybe that, I would like to see that section removed, because I
think it’s ambiguous.
MR. MESINGER-What about if we changed the word “can” to “should”?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You shouldn’t remove it, because I would agree with Stuart. I don’t
think, Bob, the most appropriate thing to do is to remove the discussion, because the discussion
is about an issue that at least I think that you all are concerned about. I think your point is, to
treat it as, I gather it’s phrased as this is going to happen, and in fact, we’re not sure this is going
to happen. So you could, this may be semantics, but it’s probably important semantics. You
may want to say, it is the applicant’s intention that or, you know, it is recommended that, but I
think that’s more appropriate, as Stuart suggested, modification of that language is more
appropriate than simply removal of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. If you want to change the language so it’s problematical that that’ll
happen, that’s fine. Do you agree with that, Stu?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. That’s a good point.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to get down to the bridge itself. I’m going to read from my
notes, because I make notes and I want to read from, they’re my thoughts when I sit in my little
office there. to improve access to the hotel and water park, I think The Great Escape has elected,
and they use the term revise the sequence. Revise the sequence means you don’t necessarily
have to hold yourself accountable to the 900,000 to 1.5 million number. You’re going to elect to
build the northern ring road. Is that correct a statement?
MR. LEMERY-Revise the sequence means build the northern portion before the southern
portion.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. LEMERY-Which changes the sequencing from the original Impact Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but none of those things would happen, really, if you hadn’t hit your
marks, of 900,000 to a million and a half.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And you haven’t.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have no obligation to do that.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-But you’ve elected to do it.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s an election that you’ve made. Now, my point is, in the event a warrant
for the light at Glen Lake Road is not granted, and the entrance is one way, and you state that
that would happen, it would be a one way entrance, you’ve also stated that 80% of the traffic
would come from Exit 20, and I believe that that’s also a true statement. However, it seems to
me that when you take a look at, whether it’s an entrance only or not, a companion to building
the northern ring road, to me, has to be that extra right hand turn lane on Route 9. They go
hand in glove, from a safety point of view, and the fact that you’ve elected to do the northern
portion I think has to assume, has to take upon itself the burden to build the right hand turn
lane only, and that’s a position I’m taking.
MR. LEMERY-You’re not speaking of the road all the way down. You’re just speaking of the
right hand turn in.
MR. VOLLARO-No, the right hand turn in, but there if you take a look at your drawing, I
believe it’s P-4, you look at P-4, is that correct? Am on the right drawing? P-4 shows the right
hand turn lane, and I tried to scale it off. I’m looking at another member of the audience here.
It tried to scale it off but you can’t because it’s a reduced sized drawing. So it looks like about a
300 foot line, according to something which you’ve got in your statements. So I’m saying that
that really goes hand in glove with the northern road. It really does.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, we agree with that.
MR. COLLINS-Not the Gurney Lane section.
MR. LEMERY-Not the whole thing all the way up to Gurney Lane. That comes at the 1.2
million traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about what the drawing P-4 shows. P-4 shows a right hand turn.
MR. COLLINS-From about the middle, from Gurney Lane to the Samoset, from about the
middle, roughly, of that County property to Samoset. That section you’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. COLLINS-Is a right turn only into the property, that is correct. The intention is to complete
that with the ring road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that would be, that then.
MR. COLLINS-Even without the light.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. COLLINS-If we just had right turn, that still would be complete.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That wasn’t very clear in this document. It didn’t really state that very
clearly and the Findings didn’t pick it up.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. MESINGER-I find it as a response to a comment, and maybe what we need to do is make
that into the Executive Summary, because that’s a couple of you who’ve pointed out that it’s not
clear, and I find it, but I agree it’s buried, and we could pull that out.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It didn’t jump out at me when I read it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was pretty clear. I don’t want to be argumentative. I thought it
was right, pretty clear on Page Six, right above where you just cited.
MR. VOLLARO-Page Six?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It says to improve access to the hotel and indoor water park, the north
ring road will be constructed, a limited turning lane will be built, north of the Samoset hotel
entry.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess maybe I missed that, or didn’t interpret it against the drawing.
MR. MESINGER-Well, it doesn’t address the limited ingress and egress in the event that the
other improvements aren’t made, and that’s the other point I’d like to see pulled out.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I just have a question on Roman Numeral Seven. What are your
attendance projections for 2005? Given the hotel and the water park, versus the hotel and the
pool? Do you have some feel for what your forward projections are going to be, now that you
have a water park replacing a garden variety pool?
MR. COLLINS-I can’t give those numbers. I can give you the actual attendance per what’s
requested, but I’m not allowed to forecast for you. Okay. We’ve used the traffic analysis to do
that, but if you’re asking for Park attendance and things, I give a summary as where we are,
but I really can’t give you that right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-It’s a public company and it can’t make forward statements.
MR. VOLLARO-I assumed that, but I had to ask the question anyway.
MR. COLLINS-Well, thank you for asking.
MR. VOLLARO-Next question is that the schedule dated March 30, 2004, incidentally, I think
that they refer to that schedule in the document as a perc schedule. It isn’t a perc. It’s a PERT,
and I’ll give you the acronym for PERT. It’s Program Evaluation and Review Technique, and
what it does, it enables you to look at the critical path analysis when you’re building something,
and it shows you how to recover from a loss. That’s what PERT does. It’s not just a (lost word)
chart. It’s a recovery program. How do I get out of this fix. So, not that that’s going to be a
point, but I just wanted to make sure people understood what I meant when I said a PERT
chart. Okay. Back in March 19, Stu Mesinger wrote a rather lengthy letter, and in there he
th
talked a little bit about, and his words were that, it was to the effect, and I can get the words in
here, they’re in the document, but he said that it might be appropriate for the Planning Board to
tie the Certificate of Occupancy to the completion of the bridge. I think there was a statement in
that 19 letter right up front that said that, if I recall correctly. Now, I support, personally, I
th
support linking the Certificate of Occupancy to the hotel and water park completion of the
pedestrian bridge. Now, if I were on that side of the fence, in order to ensure that this thing
happened, whoever the bridge contractor is, and I understand that he’s here, so I’ll say this so
he can hear me say it.
MR. COLLINS-I’m sorry to interrupt. Just the bridge engineer. Not the contractor.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then he wouldn’t be speaking for the company, but I understand BBL is
your prime contractor on this job. He’s your general contractor, BBL, is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, get to your point.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Not necessarily for the bridge. He is the contractor, BBL.
MR. COLLINS-For the hotel.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For everything. Okay. My Chairman has asked me to get to the point.
The point is I would like to see that contract have an incentive clause in it, that says, in effect, if
you deliver early, you get X. If you deliver on time, you get the target profit. If you deliver late,
we reduce your target profit by.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s out of the realm of this Board’s authority.
MR. VOLLARO-It might be out of the realm.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is. I can tell you unequivocally, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just saying that there are ways in which the applicant can help
himself, and I would have liked to have seen him say that. That’s all. As far as the Special Use
Permit is concerned, I would like it to contain a condition, essentially, as follows, and I think
this is within our purview, if we wanted to issue a Special Use Permit, we can condition it. Is
that right, Mr. Ringer? Can we? Issuance of a permit for an amusement facility shall be
specifically for this application only, and shall not establish a precedent for any future
application on the west side of Route 9. All future applications shall be confined to Area A,
which is the traditional location for amusements, and in addition, this Special Use Permit shall
contain language on how the admission of the non hotel guests would be administered, and I
think that was also contained in Mr. Mesinger’s letter of the 19 of March.
th
MR. SCHACHNER-Question. I thought, correct me if I’m wrong, but the applicant has
withdrawn the request that non hotel guests be admitted to use the water park.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. LEMERY-No. We were asked to leave it in. So we have left it in.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s in.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I need some clarification here, because I was present, me, personally,
at a meeting. I was present, me personally, at a meeting where the applicant withdrew that
request, and I have been operating under the understanding that’s no longer part of the
proposal. If I’m wrong, somebody needs to explain that to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re wrong.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What happened?
MR. MAC EWAN-That very same meeting, we convinced them to leave it in.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not the meeting I was at.
MR. LEMERY-You might not have heard, but we were asked to leave it in, and we said we
would leave it in.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-The same meeting.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Vollaro suggested that the applicants tended to agree that they would go
his way. There was further discussion. The way I felt it was left was, Mr. Vollaro really
withdrew his suggestion and that they were going to proceed with it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t care what Mr. Vollaro said. Applicants do get to drive the train, to
some extent, and I was at a meeting where the applicant withdrew that portion of that request.
I heard the applicant say that very clearly, very specifically, and very unequivocally, and just so
this Board knows, the other Town Board reviewing this project and other entities have since
been told that that request has been withdrawn. If that’s not the case, you need to clarify that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the minutes should show. Do we have the minutes?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to need to take a look at the minutes.
MR. LEMERY-May I ask what other Town Board you’re referring to?
MR. MAC EWAN-The ZBA.
MR. SCHACHNER-And others as well.
MR. LEMERY-We were asked to leave it in, and I think the ZBA very clearly knows that it’s
part of what we’re requesting.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have Staff review the minutes and confirm it. This Board, as a
majority, is under the impression that it was left in.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I’m not sure what the minutes review is going to show.
MR. MAC EWAN-The discussion asking them to leave it in is part of the application.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and if the minutes show that the applicant withdrew that, and that
that’s what the minutes show, then I take it that it’s off the table?
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’ll find in that very same set of minutes, I’m sure, that we’ve
convinced him to leave it in.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if we don’t, what’s the Planning Board’s feel?
MR. MAC EWAN-Then it’s off the table, and he’ll have to reintroduce it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Fine. That’s what I’m suggesting.
MR. ROUND-Just clarify here tonight. You’re all here.
MR. LEMERY-We’re asking that it be considered and that you issue the Special Use Permit.
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s the clear understanding.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think it’s the position of this Board, you’ve got a majority position up
here that’s under that impression that it was left in.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Then I guess all I’m going to say, as your Counsel, is, and I want
the applicant to hear this loud and clear.
MR. LEMERY-We hear you, Mark. We hear, loud and clear, whatever you have to say.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t said it yet.
MR. LEMERY-You don’t have to say it loud and clear. It’s not an adversarial proceeding. So
we hear you. Just go ahead and make your comment, but we hear you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, apparently not.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, we do hear you. We’ve heard everything you said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen. Let’s keep it moving along here.
MR. SCHACHNER-My comment, for the benefit of the Board, and the applicant can take it or
leave it, I don’t really care, is applicants do get to control certain aspects of applications, and if
an applicant withdraws a portion of an application, legally, it’s supposed to be considered
withdrawn. So it’s very important that everybody involved, not only on this Board, but other
reviewing entities, understand what’s going on. If those minutes say, we changed our mind.
This is now part of the application again, and it’s only a few minutes that it was off the table, no
problem, but if those minutes say what I think they say, then we need to clarify it here, tonight,
and I think it’s also important to issue some sort of memorandum to the other reviewing entities
clarifying, because I can tell you that I’ve given advice to other entities that that portion of the
request has been withdrawn, and the reason I did that is because that’s what the applicant did
at that meeting. I don’t care how it comes out. That’s irrelevant to me. I just have to give you
legal advice.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve all heard your message. We’ll have Staff research the minutes to see
that they indicate what we think they indicate. They’re on record as saying that they want it
part of the application. This Board is under the impression, taking into consideration it’s part of
the application. The glitch in all this is making sure the ZBA is on the same page we are.
MR. LEMERY-So long as there’s no mistake, we would like to have that special permit be
issued, and to the extent it’s not in the other minutes, and it may not be, because it happened at
the end of the meeting, during a very general discussion when we were asked to leave it in, that
we make that specific request, and I’m sure that Mr. Round will notify the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the same thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Since I was the Board member who raised that issue, I have to agree with you,
Mr. Lemery, I think it was. I recollect you got just a little bit concerned, to put it mildly, about
my comment, and you withdrew it probably without prior thought, and, well, that was my
feeling when you said it, but then it got back on the table again rather quickly. So I agree with
the Chairman that it’s still in, and I always thought it was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s keep things moving.
MR. SANFORD-No, but I think, Mark, if you read the minutes, and I haven’t read them, but my
recollection is t hat there was definitely a statement we withdraw it, which is what I think Mark
is referencing, and then we did have sort of an informal understanding, but I’ll bet you there’s
no express statement that’s going back and saying we want it in.
MR. LEMERY-I think that might be so.
MR. SCHACHNER-All I’m trying to tell you is that, it doesn’t matter what the Board thinks. It
doesn’t matter what, no disrespect intended, it doesn’t matter what Mr. Vollaro, it doesn’t
matter what impression you’re under. If an applicant withdraws an application or a portion
thereof, legally, it’s withdrawn.
MR. RINGER-Craig, I wasn’t at the meeting that this took place. So I read the minutes, and I
read them more carefully than I would normally read the minutes, and I remember the
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
withdrawal, reading that, but I don’t remember bringing it back in. So maybe it would be, in
order to make a motion to bring them back in.
MR. MAC EWAN-If Staff researches it, that’s the best we can do right now is to have Staff
research it.
MR. RINGER-But why not just make the?
MR. LEMERY-I don’t think you’ll find it in the minutes, either.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-Because I think it was a discussion, at the end of the discussion.
MR. RINGER-Yes, I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t in the minutes. Why don’t we just make a
motion to put it back in? And then you’ll eliminate any further discussion on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cover it when we consider this resolution. All right?
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Next, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Most of my next comments are probably on the Findings Statement. After
having read the Findings Statement in some detail, I don’t know whether I can agree with a lot
of it or not. I guess I’ve got to ask Stu the question, Mr. Mesinger the question. All of your
letters of April 27 and April 28, and the 30 memos, have they all been incorporated? You’re
ththth
satisfied that all your comments are now in this document?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. We’re satisfied that all our questions have been answered and concerns
raised.
MR. VOLLARO-Because a lot of the things that you suggested be deleted from this document of
April 2004 are still in here, and you probably have a later version than I have where they have
been deleted. Is that a correct assumption, on my part?
MR. MESINGER-No. You’d have to be specific with me. There were certain comments that,
after further discussion, we withdrew or modified our request, and a lot of the specific things
that we had to say, related more to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan than the
document, but I don’t think there were too many things that we said, take it out, and they didn’t
do it without there being a good technical reason that we were satisfied, and the short answer
is, yes, we’re satisfied that this document addresses our concerns.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would have to take time, now, to go back in and look at this. I know I
put marks in here where they haven’t been deleted, and I don’t think it was, none of those were
material, I don’t believe. So rather than go through the dog and pony show, try to find it, I’ll
take your position on it, that they’re all in.
MR. MESINGER-And if I can, just because you raised it earlier, just to clarify our position with
respect to the bridge, you know, we haven’t given you advice or position. We simply raised the
comment that you ought to talk about it, because we knew that Mr. Sanford, had wanted to talk
about it, and obviously he’d done so. So I just wanted to clarify.
MR. VOLLARO-I just took that as a degree of license to talk about it a little bit more.
MR. MESINGER-Just so you didn’t license me to do anything else.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Now, my understanding is that the Findings document is really a Planning
Board document. Is that correct?
MR. MESINGER-No. As Mr. Schachner says, it is, yes, but so is the Final EIS.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s not uncommon, and I understood Mark’s clarification on that. It
is not uncommon for the applicant to write the Findings Statement?
MR. MESINGER-It is common.
MR. SCHACHNER-It is neither uncommon nor inappropriate at all, for the applicant to prepare
drafts for your consideration.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this draft, essentially, is a step off document for us to take a look at?
MR. MESINGER-That’s right. You are free to modify it as you choose.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now how does that modification take place? We have a seven member
Board here. There’s a considerable amount to these Findings Statements. I think it’s 11 pages.
If I’ve got comments, as a Board member, or any other Board members has comments on these
Findings Statements, and wants to modify some of the words, does that have to be done at a
meeting? Can it be done at a workshop? How does it happen?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, first of all, remember, a workshop is a meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Second of all, to use Chris’s phrase, it’s happening, but it can happen any
way you want. I mean, you can also do this in the privacy of what you like to refer to as your
office, and then come to the meeting with proposed changes. It doesn’t much matter. There’s
no magic to it, but basically it’s like any other document you review. A majority of you have to
come to a consensus on a certain point. Just a simple majority, by the way. You don’t all have
to agree.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, that’s in that 10 day window that this must take place, in other
words, after, we have a 10 day window to modify these items?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’re looking at the 10 days from the wrong side, Bob. It’s a
minimum of 10 days. You don’t have to do your job within 10 days. You can’t adopt the
Findings Statement less than 10 days after acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Because I was reading your statement on Page 18 and 19 and I
got a pretty good feel for that, and it is minimum. I understand that. Okay. I was just using
that as a characterization of a 10 day window. Other than that, I guess I don’t have very many
germane comments on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s it. My position here, now, Craig, is that I’ve read this. I think I
understand it, and that what I plan to do is to spend a lot of time in the Findings Statement. If I
have any disagreement in here at all where it’s not clear to me, I think I have the opportunity to
modify that in the Findings Statement. Do I or don’t I? I mean, I’m hanging on one of Rich’s
questions here, but I have some of the same concerns.
MR. SCHACHNER-You do and you don’t, and I don’t mean to be wishy-washy about it. You
can certainly clarify or confirm anything in the Findings Statement. Your Findings Statement
needs to be supported by the Final Environmental Impact Statement. So if the Final
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
Environmental Impact Statement says something is black, you can’t lawfully then in the
Findings Statement say, it’s white.
MR. SANFORD-Let me be very specific with you, Mark. I read this book, and they talk about
putting the pedestrian bridge in. They also talk about intentions and they talk about things
outside of their control. If we didn’t modify, or suggest that this be modified, but, in the
Findings Statement, we conditioned a CO upon construction and operation of the pedestrian
bridge, would that be incongruent with the Environmental Statement?
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think our feeling is, yes, it would be.
MR. SANFORD-It would be incongruent. So you can’t address just the Findings Statement
without modifying this.
MR. SCHACHNER-Inconsistent is the word.
MR. MESINGER-With respect to that one, and that’s just, hear me out on this, and I think,
Mark, if you disagree, please hop in, but this is really important. You pointed out, Bob, that you
might want to tweak, change, modify the Findings, and that’s fine, as long as they’re consistent
with the FGEIS, and that’s why the bridge one is important. If you chose to make bridge
conditioned on, or the CO conditioned on the bridge because the FGEIS does not say that.
Okay. It pretty clearly supports a finding as the applicant has proposed, for all the reasons that
the applicant has proposed, and so that’s, frankly, the only thing I’ve heard tonight, in the hour
or so of discussion, that’s substantive, you know, that we’ve talked about that’s really
substantive. So, you know, and I realize that we have five Board members yet to go, but that’s
one that you ought to try and at least among yourselves decide what the majority of you want
to do, because it does affect the Final EIS document.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I state that is, from a SEQRA point of view, when we get to Number
15 in the SEQRA where it says impact on transportation and the movement of people, this is in
the SEQRA document, Number 15, the Long Form. I’m looking at, when we have to go through
the SEQRA thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about a Long Form EAF?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not doing one, Robert.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You’re not doing that.
MR. SANFORD-You’re not doing the SEQRA, but you’re.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re doing a supplement to the original Environmental Impact Statement
that was done three years ago.
MR. SANFORD-But you’re considering SEQRA issues.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and two SEQRA issues are impact on transportation, and also safety.
Those are two issues in SEQRA that I’m looking at, and I’m tying those two things, in my mind,
back to this bridge.
MR. MESINGER-Right, and you want to look at the Findings, in particular you want to look at
the Findings because there’s two sections that relate specifically to traffic and specifically to the
pedestrian bridge that are in turn supported by both the Draft and the Final Supplement
Environmental Impact Statements. That’s the whole record that you’re looking at.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. I understand. Mr. Chairman, I think I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, any questions? Comments? Nothing? So what do you want to
do, folks.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know what I want to do. I want to make some suggestions in terms
of the revision of the FGEIS, in regards to the pedestrian bridge and to the traffic lights.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do them one at a time.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your position on the traffic, on the pedestrian bridge, as I understand it, is to
tie it in as a CO to the construction and the opening of the hotel?
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? Informal?
MR. VOLLARO-I concur with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-One, two. Two, from what I’m hearing.
MR. SANFORD-Well, as they saying that they’re comfortable with not having a pedestrian
bridge?
MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t speak for them, but by the fact that they didn’t voice that they share
your opinion, that they’re comfortable with the way it is, as it is proposed in the Statement.
MR. SANFORD-Let’s take it as a vote.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just did.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I didn’t hear them say yes or no. I mean, I didn’t hear how it went.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give me a yes or a no. The question is, do you support modifying this
Statement to be inclusive of the pedestrian bridge being tied in to a CO for the hotel, the bridge
being completed before a CO for the hotel is issued?
MR. RINGER-I don’t think we can. No.
MR. METIVIER-I think that when the bridge gets done, which they have every intention to do,
it’ll get done.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the language in the Findings Statement are strong enough.
MR. MAC EWAN-Five to two. There’s your answer. Okay. The lights.
MR. METIVIER-We can’t control DOT. Everybody said it. If they say, no, they can’t have the
lights, then they can’t do anything.
MR. SANFORD-But, Tony, the project could be unsafe.
MR. METIVIER-I understand that.
MR. SANFORD-And you’re saying that that will allow an unsafe project because the applicant
can’t influence it. That’s what you’re saying.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. METIVIER-No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m not.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, what we have to do here, Rich, is we have to weigh the evidence and the
concerns as they were put forth in this Supplement to the EIS, and that when traffic was raised
as an issue, pedestrian safety was raised as an issue, or traffic safety was raised as an issue, with
the concerns as we see the bigger two concerns with both Round Pond Road and Glen Lake
Road, DOT’s position is, as the applicant has already stated, there’s not enough traffic generated
on those roads and there’s not been enough of an accident history at those intersections to
warrant traffic lights. While we recognize that it goes beyond the issue of accidents to
determine the need for a traffic light, we’re looking for a smoother flow of traffic through there.
We also, we’ve also seen the need that we think, based on some other applications are starting
to appear in front of our Board, where we’re seeing development occur, especially at the Round
Pond Road intersection.
MR. SANFORD-You’re failing to incorporate cumulative impacts. There’s another hotel at the
corner of Round Pond Road that’s going to be under construction shortly.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just said that. I just said that.
MR. SANFORD-When I made my decision on how I felt about the bridge, I listened to some 40
people who spoke, almost all of who incorporated it. Larry wasn’t present at that meeting, but
he feels comfortable, I guess, taking a position that it’s not a major safety issue.
MR. RINGER-Don’t put words in people’s mouths. What I’m saying is, based upon the
information in their Final Statement, I think that what they’ve presented, the bridge will be
built, and we should go on that. That’s what I’m saying.
MR. SANFORD-But, Larry, you’re saying that their intentions are good and honorable.
MR. RINGER-And if it’s under their control, it’s going to be built, and it may not be under their
control.
MR. SANFORD-And if it’s not under their control, and you have 1,000 people at that hotel who
are jaywalking across that road, and you have a whole mess there with cars, they’re dodging
from the parking lots and everything else, but because they couldn’t get those approvals, are
you saying that all of a sudden it’s safe because their intention was good, or are you saying we
ignore safety?
MR. RINGER-Richard, I’m saying that even if they did nothing, they could get two million
people there, and they would have had to build that bridge. The hotel isn’t going to generate
that extra traffic.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hold up for a minute, folks. The issue here is not only what our position is
here, our position is here, the issue is that we have a third entity being involved in this mix, and
that’s New York State DOT. Who views things in their criteria for issuing warrants to put
traffic lights up is different than the way we see it because we live here locally. We see the
impacts. They don’t see the impacts, from their position. I don’t agree with their position, but
we can’t force the State to put the lights in.
MR. SANFORD-I understand that, and I’m not saying we do. I’m saying what we need to do is
we need to move away from intention. Intention doesn’t count for anything here. We need to
move it away from DOT, and we need to say to ourselves, what constitutes a safe project? And
that’s what we need to use as our point of departure, and I’m saying a safe project means the
bridge. The absence of the bridge, by definition, means a not so safe project, under which I
don’t feel comfortable in evaluating SEQRA and saying, well, if their intentions are good, then
we’ll deal with an unsafe situation. I posed this question to our lawyer, who’s dealing with it
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
from a legal point of view, and he said it was a valid point, and now I’m hearing here it doesn’t
really matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, what you’re hearing is that five of us feel comfortable with the way that
they have responded to it, and we’re comfortable with it. We respect your position, and I wish
you would respect the other five.
MR. HUNSINGER-If the hotel opens, in the winter months when the Park isn’t open, why
should we tie a Certificate of Occupancy to the hotel, when there isn’t going to be anybody
crossing the street? I think they can be mutually exclusive issues, and if the pedestrian bridge is
built before the high season, you know, they don’t necessarily have to be tied together, and
that’s why I think the intent of the applicant is clear in the Findings Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would just move that we get on with this. We could debate
this for a long time. Obviously there’s differences of opinion on this Board, and I’d have to bow
to the other five people, and I think we should get on with it. There’s no sense in debating this
very much further. I don’t agree with the other five members, but that’s life. That’s why there’s
seven people up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why. Does somebody want to move it?
MR. MESINGER-If by moving it, you’re moving acceptance of the FGEIS?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I think will happen.
MR. MESINGER-There were two things that, remember, that we wanted to revise. So, in your
motion, you might want to note one is on the revision in page VI, eighth line from the bottom,
“can” is replaced with “should”. All right. We’re good on that one. The other one was
somewhere in this Finding, and maybe we can just have the language be general, we need to
have the language from Response 3708 about limited ingress and egress. I’ve got to just look
how to do this. Bear with me. Sorry. I’d like the language in 3708 moved in to the Executive
Summary, the response language in 3708 moved into the Executive Summary, and if you all will
give us license to do that, we would do it.
MR. VOLLARO-If you want to just direct me to that. Which one are you talking about?
MR. MESINGER-It’s Page 3-58, the response language under 3.7.08.
MR. ROUND-It reads if New York State DOT does not approve the placement of a traffic signal
at the intersection of U.S. Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, the northern entrance to the ring road
will be limited to ingress only traffic. In this case traffic will exit the Theme Park areas only
from the existing southern exit.
MR. MESINGER-I would like to see that moved into.
MR. ROUND-Can we clarify that, that that’s currently a signalized access. I think that was a
comment we made previously as well, to a signalized access, an existing signalized access point.
MR. MESINGER-That would go into Section 5E2.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it was Response Number 3.7.08?
MR. MESINGER-Right. Actually, put it in 5E6.
MR. VOLLARO-Stu, as long as you’re going to make some changes in this, and I don’t know
whether this is a substantive change or not, on Page 3-75, there’s a comment in there, a
comment that states that they would like to see a “Perc” Chart, or a time or line construction of
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
events. I’d like to have that changed to a (PERT) Chart, called a Program Evaluation and
Technique Review, so that it’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Construction schedule.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether that’s germane or not. Just, either that, or strike the
word, because there is no such thing as a Perc Chart.
MR. MESINGER-Let’s get it right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-I would like to just make a comment for the record, if I may, at this time. I
received a call, just before this meeting, from a Mr. Paul Derby, and I’d just like to go on the
record as stating that he told me he had an earlier conversation with Chris Round, and was
under the impression that tonight’s meeting, the acceptance of the Final Supplemental GEIS
Statement was not, in fact, what he later found out in questioning Counsel what it would be.
He was under the opinion that it was a formality, that they had answered questions and that
after a minimum of 10 days, that would be discussed further, and I just want the record to show
that he was confused, to some degree, based on his conversation with you, and he had a
conflict, wanted to be at the meeting, but wasn’t aware that by accepting this, we’re basically
agreeing with the applicant’s comments. He was lead to believe that that wasn’t the case. You
could comment if you wish, but that was his understanding.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to comment.
MR. SANFORD-It was by Mr. Round he spoke with, not by you, Mark.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe it just needs to be reiterated, and seeing we’re in a public forum, it’s
the perfect opportunity to do it. Anybody on this Board, who’s sitting on this Board, as a
member of this Board, during any review of any application that’s currently or potentially
going to come in front of this Board should refrain from talking to anybody outside this public
forum about any project, application, pending application, period. Not only is it inappropriate,
it is just not doing your civic duty by doing it. You conduct your business here, in a public
forum.
MR. SANFORD-And I did. The extent of my conversation was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would have been, I can’t discuss this, Mr. Derby, but thanks for calling. That
would have been the extent of your conversation.
MR. SANFORD-Fine, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that goes for everyone, myself included, who I’ve told people that we
don’t partake in it. With that being said, does somebody want to move it?
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AS COMPLETE, FROM THE GREAT ESCAPE HOTEL AND
INDOOR WATER PARK, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Supplemental Draft Generic
Environmental Statement (“SDGEIS”), which was prepared by Great Escape Theme Park LLC
(“Great Escape”) and deemed complete by the Planning Board on February 10, 2004, came to a
close on April 8, 2004 following a 59-day public comment period that included two public
hearings held by the Planning Board on March 2, 2004 and March 25, 2004 and one public
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
hearing overseen by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, an involved agency, on
April 6, 2004.
WHEREAS, Great Escape submitted a proposed Final Supplemental Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (“FSGEIS”) to members of the Planning Board on or about
April 30, 2004 for their review.
WHEREAS, earlier drafts of the FSGEIS had been reviewed by the Board’s consultants,
Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co., P.C. (“Chazen”) and revised in accordance with
Chazen’s preliminary comments.
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Staff and Chazen have recommended that the Planning
Board accept the FSGEIS as complete for distribution to the other involved agencies for their
review.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the FSGEIS
for the Great Escape as complete in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff with
the following changes:
1. Page VI, on the right hand column at the end of the bottom paragraph, change the work
“can” to “should” cause, and
2. The language from Response No. 3708 be moved into Executive Summary Section 5E6,
and
3. On Page 3-75, the reference to a perc test is actually a performance evaluation review
and technique test, which is basically a construction schedule.
RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby requests that the
FSGEIS be distributed to all involved agencies for their review in accordance with SEQR.
Duly adopted this 10 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. Can you back up to the first condition? We think we’re on a
different wording. Where did you have that first one?
MR. MAC EWAN-Section 6, VI.
MR. HUNSINGER-Roman Numeral Six, the right hand column, the top paragraph.
MR. SCHACHNER-We’re in the bottom paragraph.
MR. VOLLARO-The bottom paragraph.
MR. HUNSINGER-The top paragraph is where it says that the north ring road will be used for
The Great Escape patrons and will cause significant reduction in the traffic south of the ring
road entry. Isn’t that the reference where will should be changed to should?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not what we were proposing to change. No.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the last paragraph in that, starting with, It is The Great Escape and the
Town of Queensbury’s position.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, the last paragraph.
MR. VOLLARO-That these signals, strike the word “can”, and include “should” in place of
“can”.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-So noted?
MR. HUNSINGER-So noted.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. Can I make just one comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-Certainly.
MR. COLLINS-I know there was a lot of discussion about the pedestrian bridge and our
commitment to do it, but in our Findings draft, we all along questioned whether the Certificate
of Occupancy should be tied to the bridge, but we’ve given the Planning Board that right to
hold that if they find that we’re not moving forward, in that Findings, and it doesn’t seem like,
five of you gave us credit for that. The verbiage is, if the Planning Board finds that The Great
Escape has failed to use its best efforts in pursuit thereof, the Planning Board may suspend the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is in there. So I just want to, I know in the discussion
it kind of got glossed over, but we have said you have the right to hold it if you find that we’re
not moving forward with the bridge.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I felt comfortable moving forward.
MR. VOLLARO-I read that. My only problem is, and I’m only on this Board now, for, I guess,
five years. I had not seen this Board’s ability to do that sort of oversight capability. It concerns
me that the Planning Board is an entity who sits here nominally two nights a month is going to
have the ability, unless Staff is the tracker. If Staff is going to track that, that’s fine, but this
Board does not have the ability to do that kind of monitoring, and we never have. That’s a
concern of mine. I don’t know, Chris, you might want to comment to that.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll take a five minute recess. Okay. I’ll call our meeting back to
order. Stu, did you want to make a couple of comments?
MR. MESINGER-Yes, just real quickly for the Board, the next step in this process, as we’ve been
discussing, is going to be the adoption of the Findings Statement, and you have the Draft
Findings Statement that the applicant has prepared, and we have a few comments on this one.
This does not represent our final concurrence, but we’re in substantial agreement with much of
it. I mean, I think it’s a pretty good job. It tracks, pretty closely, the FGEIS. So, your next step
in this process, at a future meeting, will be to review and adopt this. So you’ll have to spend
some time reading it, and I know Mr. Vollaro already has, and I think Mr. Sanford said he was
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
going to spend some time with it, and the rest of you need to, because this is sort of the final
step in the SEQRA process before you can then move forward with Site Plan Review. So I just
wanted to point that out. That’s where we are.
MR. ROUND-May 20 is the date we had set as a Special Meeting for another project and also
th
to place this project on that same agenda. So that was the timeframe that we were trying to
work with and trying to be cooperative in this project. So, keep that in mind as well.
MR. VOLLARO-My understanding, though, that there is very little that we can do to alter the
Findings Statement now that we’ve accepted the Final Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement. There isn’t very much we can really do now, because this document called
the Findings Document, pretty much has to track this other document. Is that correct, Mr.
Schachner?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, I tried to answer this earlier, maybe not very effectively, the
honest answer is yes and no. It doesn’t have to mirror it. It doesn’t have to be identical. What
it should not be inconsistent with, and those are, in my mind, at least, and I think in Stuart’s
mind, two different things. It doesn’t need to be the same thing. It doesn’t need to mirror. It
doesn’t need to use the same language, but it should not be inconsistent. I tried to give the
example of black/white. If the Findings Statement says something’s black, I’m sorry, if the FEIS
says something’s black, the Findings Statement should not say it’s green. There should not be
inherent or internal inconsistencies, but what I tried to say earlier is it’s perfectly appropriate to
clarify, confirm, expand on, you know, amplify.
MR. VOLLARO-But if you wanted to do this, Mark, we’ll be on the margins most of the time.
You’ll never get into substantive changes now. There may be words. There may be semantical
things you’re looking at, but you’re never going to get into the middle of it. You’re really going
to be playing the margins of this document. That’s how I view it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I wouldn’t put it that way. Findings Statements don’t need to track,
verbatim, FEIS’s. You should not, and in fact, there are Findings Statements that have been
inconsistent with FEIS’s, but if there’s nothing in an FEIS to support a Findings Statement, you
may have some legal exposure. Now, having said all that, remember, maybe I’m not making
this part clear, you know, two people voted against the acceptance of the FEIS. Those of you
who voted in favor of acceptance of the FEIS are not bound and committed to therefore rule in
favor of a Findings Statement. Maybe I took this as an obvious thing because I’ve done a lot
more of these than this Board has. The Findings Statement, at its bottom line, is a determination
that the potentially significant environmental impacts have been minimized and avoided as
much as possible. If, as a group, a majority of you feel that’s not the case, it doesn’t matter
what’s in the FEIS, you have to vote no on the ultimate Findings Statement. There’s such a
thing as a negative Findings Statement. That would be the flip side of a positive Findings
Statement, a Findings Statement that says despite the applicant’s best efforts, there are still
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that are simply not mitigated or avoided,
and if a majority of you felt that way, you’d have the duty to vote that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. MESINGER-So we’ll see you, I will see you at a future meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much, Stu.
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDING, LP AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: LOT 8 WILLOW
BROOK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80 UNIT ADULT
LIVING FACILITY ON A 12.88 +/- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON WILLOW BROOK
DRIVE (EAST OF BAY RD.). MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE PO ZONE. CROSS
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
REFERENCE: MANY TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.3 LOT SIZE: 12.88 ACRES SECTION:
179-4-020
JON LAPPER, LYNN SIPPERLY & R. SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to do Staff notes, tonight, Mr. Round?
MR. ROUND-What’s your typical?
MR. MAC EWAN-Summarize.
MR. ROUND-I know the project describes an adult living facility, combination of apartments
and cottage style facilities. We have, our comments, drafted by George, we talked about the
Board may want to look at the buffer that’s proposed along the property that has the single
family homes to the north. I think the plan shows a row of spruce and pines, and I think the
subsequent submission that we have here tonight for you actually tried to address some of
those elements. We also noted, and it’s really a moot point in this regard, a stormwater
pollution and prevention plan and NOI are required by DEC. We have a copy in our file of the
NOI that was sent to DEC. What we will be requiring on this project and any and all projects,
where an NOI is required, is that the DEC return a verification letter to the applicant and to the
Town that the NOI has actually been received, and that’s something that’s new to all projects,
and I think this project will endeavor to comply with. We had identified traffic issues. There’s
a letter in our files from Creighton Manning, identifying that this project is consistent with the
previous traffic analysis performed by Creighton Manning. We have lighting plan and the one
comment that we talked about with lighting, we think, in the estimation of Staff, that the
lighting plan is in compliance with the Town’s guidelines and standards. However, the
submission is not probably as detailed as you’re used to seeing. We used the example of the
Wal-Mart lighting plan, and you’re really not seeing Iso Plus on the ground, and a grid lighting
values on the ground, like you would typically see, but we don’t think that the project’s going
to have an issue with that. One concern that we did raise in the clientele that this particular
project is serving, it’s a 55 or older tenant, and the applicant had provided a letter, a
performance, or excuse me, a policy and procedures statement, and vision statement for the
Willows Adult Living Center that addressed the significant issues of that, is that we wanted to
be sure that the project was compliant with the Fair Housing Standards Act, and Housing For
Older Persons Act. The statement is basically extracted from their records. We had suggested
one change, and that was under Item 5-3, to this policy, that we suggested that this occupancy
survey, which is a survey that would identify that, yes, the people that are living there are
actually 55 years or plus or at least one of those, if it was a multi-family, or multi-individual
house, that at least one of those folks was 55 or plus. We suggested that that verification be
mailed to the Supervisor or our Fair Housing Officer, and I think that was the extent of our
comments. I think thee engineering comments have been addressed by C.T. Male, and the
applicant, we’ve already had a volley of comments between the two, and we have a signoff
letter from C.T. Male Associates. I’ll give it back to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-And just to recap, you are in receipt of some sort of confirmation from the
applicant that they’ve applied for this assisted living?
MR. ROUND-Yes. We do have an NOI in our files.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with Rich Schermerhorn, Wendy
Simino, from Creighton Manning and Lynn Sipperly, the project designer. Thank you for
giving us the opportunity to make this presentation while we’re all still awake. I guess, in
general, this is in the PO zone, behind where Rich is developing the office park. As the Board is
aware, the PO zone along Bay allows an office complex along the first thousand feet back from
Bay, and then multi-family residential behind that. So this is the transition between the office
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
park and the single family residential to the north, and Rich is going to restrict this as a senior
project, and he’ll talk about why he has the demand for that type of a product. To begin with,
Rich brought Lynn Sipperly in with his company because he has experience designing other
senior residential projects in the Capital District and elsewhere, and Creighton Manning had
done the original traffic study that the Board required, when we had the subdivision approved
a number of years ago, and we asked them to come in and supplement that and update it for
the changes in Bay Road since then, and also the changes in the project, because the project
actually has been built out less intensively than what the original traffic study called for. So
with that, I want to turn it over to Rich to just talk a little bit about his concept for this, and then
Lynn will walk you through the site plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hi. Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. This particular project is an 80
unit senior adult living center. This is a project that, I’m not asking for a pilot plan or anything
like that. This is going to be a project that I’m going to pay, you know, school taxes, Town and
County and all those sort of things. What’s different about mine, versus a lot of these other
senior housing projects that you’ve heard about in the past, and the ones that are in the present
here, this one, you know, it’s going to be financed locally by one of our local banks. I’m not
getting tax credits or any HUD assistance or anything like that. Because with my experience,
over the last 17 years, being in the apartment business, I’ve had a lot of seniors that have
requested, gee, when are you going to build a senior project? When are you going to build a
senior project? It’s not that there’s not senior projects available to them, but what they’ve liked
about living in my projects is they have been well managed, and some of the concerns are some
of the ones in this area have been either too, too expensive, or some of them you have to be
income qualified, and what I mean by that is if they make a little bit over the thresholds, like for
example the Cedars or Solomon Heights, they can’t get in. So there’s like no middle of the road
senior places where they can go. Now, senior, which I was surprise to me a couple of years is
55 or older. I don’t find 55 old. I don’t find, I’ve got to be careful what I say, but I don’t find
that to be old, but the intentions of this project is to be geared toward an adult living center,
similar to what I think of my grandparents that had a place down in Pinellas Park in St.
Petersburg, Florida. Basically it’s a mobile home park, but it was all seniors only. There was no
children allowed. I mean, children are certainly allowed, welcomed to visit and that sort of
thing, but I’ve had a lot of requests for this type of facility. Now, my goal here is to make the 48
unit building, the main building, to make it affordable, and when I say affordable, you know,
I’m talking like maybe rates that are $600 to $675, at this current time, but that would include
their heat, their lights, you know, all utilities and stuff, and, you know, some may say, gee, that
sounds affordable. Some may not think it is, but, based on my studies and analysis over the
years, and based on 30% of all my units right now, I have over 411 units now, 30%, I went
through my rent roll, are considered seniors 55 and older, and a lot of them have expressed an
interest in moving to this facility once it’s completed. It’s going to have two community rooms
that are going to be large. They’re both going to have fireplaces in them. There’s going to be an
exercise room. There’s going to be, I don’t want to say a full blown kitchen, but there’s going to
be a place where there’s a stove, refrigerator. If they want to use it to have birthday parties, or
just to have a, you know, residents in the building to have a party, they’re welcome to do so. At
this time, I’m not going to be offering a food service or meals on wheels or anything like that.
Not that I wouldn’t entertain that, but again, you know, I’m trying to get across, this is basically
an adult senior living center, and I’m thinking that this is going to be for fairly healthy seniors.
I have a lot of people that live in my apartments now that are, I’ve got some that are in their
mid-80’s, and, you know, they have special needs at this point, but, I mean, this will be code
compliant. Of course I’ll have an elevator in it. I’ll have all the handicap ramps, everything
that’s required by Code. The building will be sprinklered and all that good stuff. I’m sure that
some of the people that are here tonight, I always do my homework, and I know some of the
concerns were the buildings to the north that back up to the residential homes. I did make a
commitment to Mr. Jarvis in one way, two and a half years ago, when I brought in the master
plan, that I wouldn’t build two story buildings, because at one time when I came in with a
master plan, the density was actually much, much larger than what I ended up with after Army
Corps of Engineers came in, a year and a half ago, and changed everything. So, I did leave all
the cottages as single floor, ranch style buildings. There’ll be no two story, and so I am going to
keep that commitment. Now I do know there’s three buildings that are very close to, I believe
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
it’s Mr. Jarvis, Mrs. O’Neil, and I think the other name was Allen. I currently have 25 feet from
the property line on the closest three. The buildings do jut in on the ends, which allows 30 feet
setback. Now, I certainly could even up the back of the buildings without any problem, but I
know the Board has some concerns, when you make them box style. I did talk to Lynn Sipperly
tonight. It is possible to move the buildings another five feet forward without affecting the
slopes of my handicap ramps and things of that nature. So, in a sense, I can get 30 feet, possibly
even 35, if we even up the back of the buildings. So I did look at other alternatives on the plan,
but due to the restraints of wetlands and things like that, this works best. As far as the
architectural design, I think you all have copies, and I brought copies as well, but this is the
same thing that Omni brought in to you, I think it was about two years ago, and the only reason
it didn’t get built was they didn’t get the tax credit financing, whichever all these developers try
and go for. So that’s the only reason the project didn’t go forward, and I feel it’s a good
alternative. I think it’s a nice mix because, actually, I couldn’t even do single family homes here
because it would be a variance to get it. The downside to a big large office building would be,
to the residents, I would think, is the amount of parking, because the parking usually is placed
on the back and the sides of the building, which means, you know, you could have 100 plus,
easily, cars back there, because that is a very large lot. To put it in perspective, it’s twice the size
of the one where I built the rehabilitation center. So I’m sure it’s not 100% of what the residents
are looking for. I feel I have buffered it up with quite a few trees, but I mean, as always, I’m
here to listen. I mean, if there’s something else I can do, I’m willing to do it, but, you know,
with that, I’ll stop right there.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Lynn, do you want to walk through the site plan?
MR. SIPPERLY-As Jonathan mentioned, the proposed adult living center is proposed on Lot
Number Eight of the Baybrook Professional Park. It’s 8.8 acres in size. There are some New
York State and Federal wetlands located on the site, of about .77 acres, which is in this area here.
The green line represents the 100 foot buffer line from the wetlands, and all of the proposed
development is located outside of the buffer. What’s proposed here, again, is a two story
building, in the center of the site, surrounded by eight single story cottages, each cottage
containing eight units. We have parking for 120 vehicles, which is 1.5 vehicles per apartment,
which is the ratio that’s required in the Zoning Ordinance. I’m sorry, four units, four units a
piece. Eight cottage buildings at four units. The parking is distributed throughout the site, so
it’s convenient to all the residents of the various units. The main entrance to the building is at
this location, here, but there’s also entrances at the end of each wing, and also at the apex of the
wings to provide for easy circulation and for residents to go in and out of the building to their
automobiles. There is a provision that’s shown on the plan that we can provide some enclosed
parking. This parking lot here has been designed so that if there is interest by the tenants, the
garage could be built in this area here, and in this area here, a total of 32 units, 16 spaces per
garage. The project has 165 foot of frontage along the cul de sac. Our main entrance is on the
cul de sac at this location here. We do provide kind of a sidewalk, emergency access road
around the rear of the building, providing full circulation around the building. All our activity,
again, is occurring outside of the buffer area. Stormwater management occurs on site by catch
basins and enclosed conduit discharging to a detention basin at this location here, and we have
a second smaller detention basin at this location here. There is an emergency access road from
the Meadowbrook Apartments, which comes into the site. This part is already constructed, and
this area here has been constructed. So it attaches to the end of the paving for the site
circulation roadway. We have kind of arranged the buildings so that we have green area and
area to provide landscaping in front of the buildings. For the cottages, we have a setback of 25
feet from the rear sidewalk back to the front of the building. We have, as Rich indicated, we
have a 25 foot setback in the rear, between the rear of the building and the rear property line to
the north, and similarly occurs on our west property line. Again, as Rich directed us, he wanted
to keep the large building, the two story building, internal to the site, and kind of site the single
story buildings adjacent to the adjacent residential development. That’s pretty much, the site is
served by water and sewer. The water loops the site. So there’s circulation of water throughout
the site. The building is sprinklered, and there’s fire hydrants to provide for fire protection also.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. LAPPER-Wendy submitted the traffic report. I guess I’ll just ask if there’s any questions,
she’ll make a presentation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, did we get a signoff from C.T. Male?
MR. VOLLARO-We have an acceptance letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to make sure it gets on the record. That’s all. Anything else you
wanted to add?
MR. RINGER-Do you want to talk about the lighting?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to go right down.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to start with design standards?
MR. RINGER-He didn’t mention lighting, that’s why I thought.
MR. SIPPERLY-The lighting to be used is similar to lighting that’s already used in the Baybrook
Professional Park. It’s kind of an ornamental light with a globe type fixture. This light fixture
provides the opportunity for baffling and for controlling light. The lighting plan, we provided
to the manufacturer the specifications for the Town of Queensbury, and the lighting plan that
we submitted is the plan that they returned to us, which they feel accomplishes what the
requirements and specifications are for the Town of Queensbury, that being one foot candle for
parking areas and for sidewalk areas, and I think that the plan, as I see it interpreted, achieves a
minimum of those lighting levels for parking and for sidewalk areas.
MR. LAPPER-What’s different about, we talked about this at the last meeting, but what’s
different this is the same design of the fixtures that the Board has asked for in some of Rich’s
other complexes, the traditional antique style fixtures, but these have baffles on them that,
before the new lighting guidelines in the Town weren’t included, and now they would be. So
that they would direct the light down, even with the glass tops.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And the cottages, where the buildings are to the north, I forgot to
mention, the main building, I will be covering the utilities for the people, the gas and the electric
on the main building, the 48 units. The cottage style ones, I will separately meter those, because
those typically go for more money, having the separate units, and by saying that, the rear lights,
by Code, you have to have one at the rear back door. Typically, whether it’s a house or an
apartment, we usually just put, some people refer to them as a jelly jar, or just a little coach
light. It’s usually no more than a 60 watt bulb, and typically people, when they’re paying for
them, they don’t leave them on. Nor is there a reason, usually, to leave a back light on. So that
may help the people that live behind these buildings, and as far as the lanterns go, if people do
find them to be too bright, the ones that are out on Bay Road, I certainly have no problem
reducing the amount of lights, because I feel it is bright. The apartments that I have, we have
some people complain, they want me to have them on timers to shut them off earlier because
they say they’re too bright at night. So, lighting’s one of those things we can go either way with
it. So I’m happy to go any way the Board wants to go with it.
MR. RINGER-The reason I had just mentioned it is because I heard comments from the medical
building that some of the lighting is going over into the residential area, and that’s why I
wanted you to discuss the lighting.
MR. LAPPER-Those don’t have any baffles, because that wasn’t required at the time. So these
would be less intense than the ones you’re talking about.
MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. Set to go?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Set to go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions relative to design standards? Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, design corridor standards, building design or layout of signage?
MR. VOLLARO-Just a minor comment. In my packet, I haven’t seen a design for, or at least an
elevation drawing for the cottages. Am I missing one or?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I thought I handed it in with the main building, but I brought it, just in
case.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is this is here, for the cottages?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, that’s another project.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I got.
MR. RINGER-The only one I got is the main building, too. That’s the only one I got.
MR. VOLLARO-So I haven’t seen an elevation of the cottages.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Would it be easier to just hang it up?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-This here is the front elevation. This is the rear elevation, which would
face north towards the neighbors. I did carry the brick theme all the way around the building.
There is one exit door in the back of each unit, and of course this is the front right here. This is
hip style roofs. We’ll have architectural shingles, and the siding, of course, is vinyl, and that’s
the end elevation right there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Rich, on the end elevation, you mentioned a little bit before that in order
to get 30 foot setback, you would be knocking off that little protrusion that’s in the back of the
building.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Where these, this bumps out five feet right here, the ends actually
recess back five feet. If I was to bring, flush everything, which can be done, and aesthetically I
don’t think it would honestly look unattractive, I can do that, and that would allow 30 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-From the property line.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-From the property line over, and then I did talk to Lynn. We could
possibly pick up another five feet without affecting my handicap ramp. So I really could get
possibly 35 feet from the property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Are you still on site development design, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m still on design standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m finished with that section. Go on to the rest of the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? Question relative to the back portion of the buildings, Rich.
Each one of those rear exits on the buildings, is there going to be like a fence to separate each
apartment from its neighboring apartment, or like a patio area or a deck area or something?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Typically we just do like a 10 by 10 concrete patio. This particular
design here, a lot of people do request to have at least one section of fence, just so if they’re
sitting on their porch, it gives them some privacy. I mean, that certainly, rather than do like I
do, apartment style, where we do the chain link with the privacies, I could do a cedar stockade
fence, something more aesthetically attractive for the people. So I’m willing to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your intention is not to put up a fence right now?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not right now, but they do request it, I’ll be honest with you, and
you’d be looking at three sections of fence. Because typically, if this person that’s sitting out in
their 10 by 10 patio, it’s nice to have a section, here, which shields them from here, and then
these people usually put on in the center here, and then, you know, they’re shielded from here,
and then you put one right here. So, basically three sections, and it’s not building a corral or
anything. It’s just straight out from the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions under site development criteria, site conditions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one, and maybe, I just wanted to revert to the drawing.
Drawing Number One of Eight, and it has to do with the calculation of the density. I might be
missing something, you folks can tell me if I am. On the density calculation here, we take out
.77 acres of wetland, and we get down to a net of 12.11, 12.11 acres, and then we do the
calculation of 12.11 times 43,000 square feet divided by 5,000, and that’s where you come up
with 105 dwelling units, and what you’re proposing is 80, which is significantly down from
that, but in that calculation, I don’t see the road allowance. I see the wetlands being taken out,
but I don’t see the roads being taken out, in that particular calculation. It’s on the drawing.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not a Town road. It’s just a driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the road that circulates through there, it doesn’t have to, is not
subject to the density calculations.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s not a Town road.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would the emergency access road be plowed in the wintertime?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Good point. It probably should be. Nobody’s brought it up. I know
we went through Planning Board, and one of my conditions with the North Brook development
was to put it in, which I did do, was installed. The fire department has been out there. They are
happy with it. Well, I think we should condition it because we’ve got two projects that, yes, in
the winter if there’s a problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So, I’ll condition it and say I will plow it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. LAPPER-I think the rule is, with a sprinklered building, it’s not required, but obviously it’s
better to do it than not to do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it seems silly to put the gravel road in, and then not have it so you can
use it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. In a sense it’s only seasonal if we don’t plow it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, they’re talking about the road to Meadowbrook, rather than the back.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. You’re talking about the access road, the emergency access road.
Right, no, I will plow that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to vehicle access, traffic patterns?
MR. VOLLARO-Taking a look at, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m counting 92 open spaces and 32
garages spaces that potentially could be covered. Am I right at that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct? I get 124 out of that. This is kind of a housekeeping thing. You
talk about 120 units, 120 spaces, but there are actually 124. I count 92 parking spaces and 32
garage spaces, which gives me 124 spaces. For the other four, it doesn’t make any difference to
me. I’m just saying, from a housekeeping point of view, and so the record shows it correctly, it
probably ought to be 124 spaces. It’s four spaces over spec. Not a big deal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to the parking field design? Emergency access? I
think we got that covered.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater, sewage design? Questions regarding stormwater? Sewage
disposal, potable water? Flood plains, retention, detention design?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’d like to go back , Mr. Chairman. With regards to the construction, are
you going to phase this? Are these going to be developed at the same time as the main
apartment building?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The main building will start first, but more than likely I’m probably
going to do the cottages at the same time. Because it’s hard to phase these projects when they’re
all interconnected, the parking, the utilities, and the infrastructure.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your intention is to build it all at once?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Build it at one time.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now the other thing is, there was some discussion from the local transit
authority about the bus stop.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You should have a letter, there was a letter that was cc’d to Chris
Round. I have a copy of it, and I did talk to him, personally, Scott.
MR. VOLLARO-Sopczyk.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I spoke to him, and basically his comments were that if the
demand is there, they’re happy to come in. He said basically they’ve just got to have enough
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
room to turn around. Right now, he has a cul de sac, I can go to the end and I show a sidewalk
on the site plan that goes right to the cul de sac. They’re more than welcome to pull in the
facility as well. The facility’s been designed for emergency vehicles, fire trucks and moving
trucks to get in and out, and if you’ve seen their transit buses, they’re, I wouldn’t say they’re
any larger than the moving trucks that people hire to come in and out of this facility, or some of
our larger fire trucks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how about putting a bench in the shelter then?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That was a recommendation, if the demand is there.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if you put it there, I think the demand would increase.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, there’s always one more thing I can add, but, you know, if a
pavilion roof at the end of that sidewalk on my property is a condition that someone would
like, I’d be happy to do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And a bench.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And a bench. I mean, it’s certainly a good idea. I’m not going to say it
isn’t. This is a project that I think is going to be, like I’m hoping is going to turn out, it’s going
to be for the healthy seniors, and what I mean by that is they are going to be able to have
vehicles to get up and go. I think a lot of them will have vehicles, from what I’m hearing from
the people that I rent to now, the large majority. This is not a place where, it’s basically just
where people of the same age, the same socially, it’s a, I don’t know if you know what I’m
saying. It’s kind of like a campus where people of the same type are going to be there. So I feel
they’re going to be active people. They’re not just going to.
MR. HUNSINGER-While you’re on that topic, I was going to bring it up later, but how do you
limit the renting to just seniors? Is that something that would be done by a deed restriction?
MR. LAPPER-It’s not a deed restriction, because Rich is not selling the units. He’s owning it.
So what we would, Chris alluded to, we submitted a policy, which we adapted, the federal
policy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And that says that 80% of the units have to be rented to 55 and older, and nobody
under 19 can live there at all, and those are the federal guidelines.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that would just be a policy, but you could change that, two years down
the road?
MR. LAPPER-No. We’re agreeing to that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a condition in the minutes tonight that it will not be for 55 and
under, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Because the design of the building, I mean, effectively would.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I asked the question, because, you know, it really is part of
the site plan review.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. No, this will be 55 and older, for the record. I have no intentions
of renting it to anybody less than that.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. LAPPER-It’s part of that policy, that’s their written policy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Questions relative to lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one, Mr. Chairman. I looked at the lighting plan, and I also
looked, I think we allow 2.5 foot candles in this particular type of parking. At least that was my
interpretation from looking at 179, and it looks like they have an average of about 1.5, without
getting a foot candle on the ground, total photometric. So it looks, you know, from a, without
having that, because the reason we like to do that, by the way, is that we have a requirement,
under 179-6-020E, that we have a uniformity ratio of four to one. It’s impossible to calculate
that with these kind of numbers. I need what’s called an average and a min, in order to
calculate uniformity ratios, and it’s not here, but I suspect, when looking at this, it’s well below
the four to one. So, without making a big deal out of it, I’m just saying that I won’t be able to
fully support a four to one ratio without having numbers to do it. It looks like it’ll make it, but
that’s just a gut feeling. Nothing more. The proposed lighting fixture are ornamentals. I think
you said that they would have cut off capabilities.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-In keeping with what we previously approved for other sites. Right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. That’s really all I have on the lighting. I think the lighting is
probably just about minimum. It seems, rather than have them go through the trouble of
putting a bunch of foot candles on the ground, I think it looks satisfactory.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting? Landscaping?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, 179-8-050 requires a 20 foot Class B buffer, and I think that he’s putting
that in. It seems to me that that, he’s satisfying the requirement of the Zoning Code in that area.
So I wouldn’t have, I mean, it would be nice to get 30 feet, but I’m not sure what that does for
the neighbors. I think having an aesthetically good looking back, for them to look at, is more
important than getting another few feet. That’s not going to help the aesthetic view at all. So, I
would say that if you put a Class B buffer, as it’s defined in 179-8-050, you’d satisfy the
requirement, and you’d satisfy me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other landscaping questions, comments?
MR. RINGER-The question from Staff on the landscaping, you’ve read the Staff’s comments?
MR. LAPPER-That was the first time, and then we made the resubmittal, since then, that does
comply with the Type B.
MR. MAC EWAN-Environmental questions? Wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics?
MR. VOLLARO-One question, just real quick. Mr. Sipperly, you mentioned the fact that that
dotted line represented the 100 foot away from the wetland. Is that correct?
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s the 100 foot buffer is in that?
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes, that line represents the 100 foot limit from the edge of wetlands, yes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, there’s one area that doesn’t fit, in the list that you’re
looking at, that I’d like to ask a question on, if I may.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does. It fits under the bottom one. Other criteria I didn’t cover yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, there’s a fairly significant set of words that go with the pre-
application conference on this application, and I’m just wondering, I’ll read them, and it says
the applicant will consult with the Warren County Office of Aging. Maybe you’ve already done
this, regarding tenant population, needs, trends, impacts on services, etc., providing
comparison of traffic impact adult living versus professional office. Outdoor lighting, provide
lighting and contour plan, landscape plan, impact, adult living, how enforced, project market
rate. I didn’t understand this very unusual words to go into a pre-ap conference, and I was just
wondering where that all came from and how it impacts this application. I’m not familiar with
a lot of these terms. I’ve never seen this kind of thing in a pre-ap conference before. Can you
comment on that?
MR. ROUND-Sure. I think Rich has addressed some of those issues already. He proposes a
senior housing project. One of our concerns with new development is impact on the school
system, and then if it was exclusively senior housing, what’s its impact on the senior
community. Are there adequate facilities for seniors, such as this facility that we have here, and
we suggested a couple of things, to talk about, talk to the Office for the Aging, is there a
demand for this product? And we did have concerns, and I think they’ve been addressed, for
the policy that they’ve developed, is that, can you, without any federal dollars, or State dollars
involved, can you restrict the tenants of your facility to a single segment of the population
based on age, and I think they’ve answered that question.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. ROUND-Because if they were not able to do that, and this was going to serve the general
public, then we need to address the 80 new households that are going to be coming into Town,
and be demanding educational facilities and so on. So that’s where that dialogue came along.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to get clarification on it. It seemed like an unusual set of
words in a pre-ap conference. Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Bob, one thing I wanted to bring up. I’m not exempt from paying
recreation fees on this project, either.
MR. VOLLARO-I see that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-So 80 units times $500 is $40,000. So there’s some money that could go
towards something in the Town for, I guess to expand senior.
MR. VOLLARO-It depends on what the Town wants to do with it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but I did take recommendations. I put two very large
community rooms in this building, and exercise rooms.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to environmental?
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just go back to traffic?
MR. MAC EWAN-I was going to wander back up, because I felt so bad, we asked her to come
back here, and we didn’t even ask her a question?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what kind of impacts do you expect to see, from a project of this type?
WENDY SIMINO
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MS. SIMINO-A senior housing project actually is one of the lower generators, in traffic, and as
we said, we had actually done, in 2002, we had done a whole traffic study in the entire
Baybrook Professional Park, at the time of the, the focus of it was on the apartments, but in our
analysis, we included 11 office buildings, day care centers, the senior housing center, as well as
236 apartments, and the analysis at that time was for Willowbrook Road to be an unsignalized
intersection, and our analysis with all those other higher trip generators, we show that there
was, at one point, a potential for the connection between Meadowbrook Road and Bay Road. So
there was traffic that would actually be on Willowbrook from those other uses within the park,
and now that that connection is not made, and Willowbrook is now a cul de sac, the volume
that we analyzed two years ago will be less, and for, like the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, their rates for a senior adult housing unit is, for 80 units, during the peak periods,
the peak commuter periods, which is typically what we study due to the higher adjacent street
traffic, is like six cars and nine cars, I mean, it’s like less than 10 vehicles, and that is due to the
percentage of residents who are older, and are not traveling during that commuter time period.
They will, yes, go in and out of the facility throughout the day, but they’re not going to be
typical of like a single family development where you have a higher percentage of those
residents that are going to be on the roads at, you know, seven to nine in the morning, and four
to six in the afternoon, coming to and from work. So there will be some traffic, but it’s not
going to be focused on those times of day. So, I guess to answer your question is, we don’t see
that there will be any need for any improvements on Willowbrook Road, an unsignalized
intersection, similar to what was recommended prior, with even more traffic, would be suitable
at that location.
MR. RINGER-When you did your traffic study in 2002, there was anticipation that that was
going to connect to Meadowbrook Road and actually reduce traffic on Bay Road, because
people would be using that to go over to Meadowbrook.
MS. SIMINO-Or, vice versa, people would, instead of going to Meadowbrook, go to Bay Road.
MR. RINGER-Or vice versa. The crux of it was, when you presented it to us, that there’d be less
traffic on Bay Road because the people would be going across.
MS. SIMINO-Right. It can go either way.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see a problem with it. I just wanted to point that out.
MS. SIMINO-We just re-did traffic counts a month or so ago on Bay Road, and have new
counts. I mean, all the information that we have is showing the same thing. If we look at the
new counts and put the volumes that we’re expecting on Willowbrook, we’re getting the same
results with, you know, short delays, and specific to this project, there’s very, the traffic is going
to be spread out through your day. You’re not going to have that.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you. I just wanted to point out, you said that when you did that in
2002, the idea was they would reduce traffic by having that road go across there, but I don’t see
a problem with this with the traffic.
MS. SIMINO-Right, but when you look at the whole, we were looking at that full development.
So in the full development, you still were showing some traffic that may have, I mean it worked
both ways, and still the apartment units that were proposed are lower, and there’s a lot of other
things in there that have now been reduced in addition.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you. I just wanted to make that statement. That when you did it
before, there was a connector road.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make a comment on traffic. I guess you know my
position on traffic, from when you did the Walker Lane study just a week or so ago.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MS. SIMINO-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I guess my question is, and, I don’t know, maybe the Chairman or Mr.
Round knows the answer to this, how is the re-striping on Bay Road going? I have a real
personal reason, now, for asking that question.
MR. ROUND-I spoke with the Department of Public Works last week. They have received the
draft plan from Earth Tech, their consultant. They made comments on that, and submitted it
back, and they expect to share something with the Town and with the Queensbury Seniors, who
have been driving this particular issue, shortly. So we should see something within a matter of
weeks, and it will be some things that they can construct this year, as well as some longer term
improvements.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I’m asking that question is about a week ago I had to go into your
medical facility to Dr. Saunders’ office to pay a bill and I was traveling south on the Bay Road,
had to stop to turn in to Willowbrook, and I’m looking in my rearview mirror, and I’m
watching them all pass me on the right, only somebody was coming down on me extremely
hard, hit the brakes, swerved over into that, and just missed me. Either he was asleep, not
asleep, but wasn’t paying attention, looking at something else, the closure rate is fairly high. So
it’s important that that Bay Road be striped now. It really is. All we’re going to need is a
fatality or two out there, and we’ve already had one up at Charlie Brush’s area. So I don’t know
how that’s all going to work out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t disagree with you at all. One of the things that I’ve noticed,
and I’m not one to generalize, but, in this case I will. Now, since I’ve moved my office over
there, the young kids that come out of the College are speeding. If they’d only, if they’d abide
by the speed limit, I think half of our problems would be solved right now, because, you know,
like you said, if you pull over, they don’t want to wait. They’re blowing by you, and they’re
breaking the law, and that’s something none of us can control, other than law enforcement. So,
I see your point.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s not a driving lane. There’s signs that say that it’s not a driving lane,
and still they drive on it.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s a lot to be done, traffic recognition on Bay Road, and that’s the end
of my spiel. That’s why I didn’t even bother talking about it here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I left off on environmental. Does anybody have any questions relative to
wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a general question on the Environmental Assessment Form that was
submitted, and I guess it’s directed more to Staff than anyone else is just how the information in
the SEQRA compares to the SEQRA that was stated under the previous site plan, the
information stated by the applicant.
MR. ROUND-Versus the same project on the site historically?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know. I didn’t look at those two side by side.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, you’re talking about their Part I?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. I have a couple of things on that, that I’ve looked at, and
one of them was to change the proposed spaces to 124 as opposed to 120. That’s very minor,
though, I think. It’s on Page Three, on the bottom.
MR. ROUND-I don’t think you’re accurate there, Bob, though. I’ll differ with you on the count.
MR. VOLLARO-Will you?
MR. ROUND-Yes, and I brought it up to Jon Lapper. I got 119. I counted it twice here, listening
to you guys.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You picked up all the parking?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s take a look at that, because I.
MR. ROUND-But, I mean, it’s not a critical issue, but it should be accurate.
MR. VOLLARO-It is if that’s correct.
MR. ROUND-There’s an audience here that I know wants to speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to keep things moving along. He can count until the cows come
home.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. For three spaces, I’m not going to play the game myself. Okay.
That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Questions relative to neighborhood character, impacts? Health, safety and
welfare?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we got an answer to Chris’s question yet, did we? He’s concerned
that Part I doesn’t fully reflect the changes, or is that something we’re going to?
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, he asked how did this Part I fit in with the previously submitted,
you’re talking about the Omni one?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-A few years ago, and Staff didn’t have the answer for him.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s really more of a general question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-To see if the data was similar.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Involved agencies? Other criteria not reviewed?
MR. VOLLARO-No, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you folks to give up the table for a few minutes. I’ll open up the
public hearing. First, you’ve got a letter over there? Do you want to read it in?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like me to read the whole letter?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. It’s a letter from Albert Oetken, 7 Bayberry Drive, Queensbury,
it’s addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning Hearing, May 10, 2004, Subject: 80 Unit
Adult Living Facility, Lot 8, Willowbrook Road. “As I will be out of Town, I would like to
express my concern relative to the continuing requests for additional buildings to the subject
property. I have been a resident of 7 Bayberry Dr. since 1984. We chose this location as it
offered a Country atmosphere, yet was close to all the necessary services for home living. The
ensuing commercial development of Quaker and Bay Rds has put us in the midst of daily
business activity and its resulting noise and heavy traffic. Fender benders have become
common occurrences on Bay Rd. Getting on to Bay during the morning and evening rush hours
has become a game of Russian roulette. I realize that the Owner is entitled to a return on his
investment. However, I also feel that those of us who have invested in our homes to provide
comfortable living should be considered as well. The current proposal on the table does not do
so. Sincerely, Albert Oetken” May 10, 2004.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else want to comment?
CHARLES JARVIS
MR. JARVIS-As you know, my name is Charles Jarvis, and as a resident of Bayberry Drive, our
property abuts the projected project site. As presented, what we’ve heard from Rich here this
evening, it sounds quite attractive, but from the viewpoint of those of us who live along that
property line, the buffer zone is a major, major issue. I have a prepared statement that I’m
going to read here, if I may. Before moving to Bayberry Drive, nearly 40 years ago, we lived in
a single family home in Glens Falls, on a 50 by 100 foot lot. The houses were big and the lots
were small. We considered that to be maximum density, but we are now being faced with the
possibility of a more restrictive and detrimental version of maximum density, meaning a 25 foot
buffer zone to our 100 by 150 foot lots and $200,000 plus homes. We knew, when we moved in
out there, that the adjacent farmland would someday be developed in some manner. Little did
we realize, however, or expect, that it could possibly consistent of large four unit so called
cottages within 20 or 25 feet of our property line, and incidentally, just as a matter of interest,
possibly, the dictionary describes a cottage as a small house, or modest country or suburban
dwelling. The proposed four family units which stretch out nearly 100 feet hardly falls within
this category. We’re not here, however, to criticize the size of the proposed cottages, because
we know all too well that it could be entirely different and worse. Like two story, eight unit
type apartment buildings, that already saturate the area. For this we are grateful. For a 25 foot
setback, we are not. I gained the impressed, from attending previous Planning Board meetings,
that Rich wanted to be a good neighbor and sensitive to the impact of his projects on adjacent
properties. I admired him for that, but I guess that was an illusion, because his current proposal
to build within 25 feet of our property line is far from being neighborly or sensitive.
Considering the availability of 13 acres of land for his project, we would consider it a grave
injustice, and a major detriment to our property values, privacy, and quality of life, if a 25 foot
setback is permitted. In closing, I would like to say that several of us that attended the previous
meeting on this subject were very impressed and heartened by the fact that one of the Board
members pointed out that it was the Board’s obligation to look outside the box, consider the
total aspect of a project, and not merely whether or not it met the minimum zoning
requirements. With that in mind, we hope that the Board will realize the severe detrimental
effect a minimal setback will have on our property values, our privacy and our quality of life,
and grant us the protection of a 50 foot buffer zone. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Can I ask you to leave that letter with Staff, if you would, please.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. JARVIS-Surely.
MR. MAC EWAN-To make that part of the record. Anyone else?
MIKE HUTSENPILLER
MR. HUTSENPILLER-For the record, my name is Mike Hutsenpiller. My property also abuts
the project. One of the concerns that I have, obviously is the buffer zone. Mr. Vollaro pointed
out that five feet one way or another might not be important, but it is to us. I mean, for years
we’ve lived there with nothing, knowing at some point in time, it’s going to be developed, and
it’s something that we, as a group wish wouldn’t happen, but, hey, it’s going to happen.
There’s nothing we can do about it. The point I’m trying to make is the setback is important. If
we can get as much as we can out of the project, in regards to the buffer zone, yes, it’s
something that’s dear to us. I look at Rich’s plan. For the most part, it looks attractive from the
back side. I question maybe some of the eaves heights, not knowing if they can be reduced in
height, that that’s an aesthetic thing that could be, you know, trying to lower the overall height
of the project. That’s something he would have to look at. I also have a concern. I know, for
the project that I worked on down the road, there was an issue in regards to the fire truck that
Queensbury has, Queensbury Central has, in regards to turning radiuses and whatnot, and I
looked at their plan, and it looks like, in a few spots, that truck might not be able to fit around
the corners. Now, I don’t know if that’s important to this particular project. I would assume it
is, but it’s something that maybe needs to be addressed. I don’t know if the fire department has
looked at this to get their approval. Is that required? I don’t know, but obviously, if something
could be done to increase that setback. I know they talked about moving the buildings forward
a little bit, but it looks like, from the sidewalk back to the face of the building, there is some
room, but there might be handicapped ramp access issues. Again, it’s just something that I’m
trying to come up with a solution that works for both of us, in order to get those buildings as far
away from our property line as possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN ALLEN
MR. ALLEN-For the record, my name is John Allen. My wife and I have lived at 22 Bayberry
Drive for 32 years. So we’re pretty familiar with this property, and we’ve expected something
like this for quite some time, but I’ve got some concerns. I’ve got a couple of things that I’m
upset about. I’ve got a couple of things that I’m furious about, but I notice on your paper here
you’ve got four minutes per speaker. So I better limit of things here. I was going to spend
about five minutes talking about the wildlife that we’re not going to have anymore, but that’s a
done deal. I was going to spend about 15 minutes talking about Bay Road. Some people
alluded to that a little bit, and I had to chuckle about some of these traffic studies. As far as I
know, traffic studies count cars. They don’t think about who was in these cars. Mr.
Schermerhorn said about the college kids. You’re right. College kids are in the cars. They
come out of that College. They’ve got to get 0 to 60 in about 100 yards. They’ve got to light
their cigarettes. They’ve got to tune their radios and they’ve got to call somebody on their cell
phone. Then you’ve got the other faction that’s out there, and I’ll state this as kindly as
possible, but the other people that are out on Bay Road, and it’s growing all the time, are these
adult living facility people, and if you know anything about insurance curves, you’ve got the
kids up here that have all the accidents, 16, 17, 18, 19 years old, and they get a little older, and
the curve goes down, and down and down, and I’ve got to admit, I’m somewhere in here now,
but we’re all climbing up here, and this is probably your adult living facility people, and that’s
the majority of the people that are out here on Bay Road. We’ve got problems, and it’s getting
worse, because how many adult living facilities are out here on Bay Road. Enough said about
that. The thing that I’m furious about is this 25 foot setback. The 25 foot setback is just totally
unacceptable. Twenty-five feet, that table’s probably about thirty-five feet, isn’t it?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s close.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. ALLEN-I’ll go at about a three foot pace. Eight, eight times three is 24. Let’s go one more
for good measure. This is 25 foot. Right? Does anybody have a backyard this big? I wouldn’t
want a house with a backyard that big, and I wouldn’t want a house next to me, abutting my
property, with a backyard that big. So what Mr. Jarvis said, feet are dear to us. I’m furious
about 25 feet. Thirty-five feet makes me a little less furious. Fifty feet, like Mr. Jarvis asked for,
I guess I can live with that, but I really hope that you consider these problems, these issues, for
us, and, personally, I’ve got a major, major issue that I’m extremely furious about. Here is our
property, right here. We’re directly behind this unit, and I don’t know if you can see it. The
contour lines on the west side of the property, Mike, what did we figure it dropped, five feet?
Eight feet. Okay. Let’s eliminate this house here. Let’s just say this isn’t here. All out in here is
extremely wet, and there’s a slope that runs just like this. It runs in this direction. The top of
the slope, this is pretty level, right here, and then the slope starts here, and runs this way and
drops down about eight feet, we calculated, by the contour lines. This unit, evidently, from
what we figured out, is going to be level with these units here. That means that eight foot of fill
has to go in here to raise this up. So when we’re looking out our backyard now, we’re going to
be looking up eight feet at this unit, and I told you how wet this was here. My backyard has
just dried out. This, this area here, where this house is going to be, is still wet now. In fact
today we got that rain. You’d get your feet soaked if you walked out here. There’s standing
water here. Now would you please tell me what is going to happen when this is built up with
eight feet of, I don’t know, I’m not an expert, dirt, and the house is planted on top of it, what’s
going to happen with all this water?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a drainage, to answer your question very quickly, there’s a drainage
swale on the back of that property.
MR. ALLEN-Where is that?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s shown right on the grading plan.
MR. ALLEN-Well, I’m not an expert.
MR. MAC EWAN-And there’s a catch basin, CB-4B, right there, which would be just, if you
moved your thumb to the right.
MR. ALLEN-I’ve got it. What is that thing?
MR. MAC EWAN-You need come farther to the right, where the catch basin is located.
MR. ALLEN-Right here?
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be right approximately in that area. Yes.
MR. ALLEN-Is that what this line is here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’re looking at just the overall site plan, but the grading plan I’m
looking at that I have in front of me shows me that that is sloped back there, that property back
there behind the cottage in question, is going to move any drainage from a, it would be from a
west to east flow going, heading toward that catch basin.
MR. ALLEN-So, when they fill this in, and plant this house up here, I mean, there’s a slope here.
The water’s going to go into some kind of a catch basin.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’ll be contoured with a drainage slope toward the catch basin, yes.
MR. SANFORD-It’s going to be heading towards your house.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it is not.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, it is. The water will be flowing towards your house.
MR. ALLEN-Right, and then it’s going to be caught in something?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at the grading plan in front of me, Rich, and the water is not
going to be going toward his house. More importantly, to take it a step farther, there is a
requirement under site plan review that any stormwater be catched on your own property and
not channeled off.
MR. SANFORD-It’s heading in the direction of his house.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s not.
MR. SANFORD-Well, he said he lives behind there, and you’re.
MR. ALLEN-Yes, I’m here.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll let the applicant respond to it, Rich, but take a look at Drawing
Number Two, Grading Plan. Clearly indicates where it’s going.
MR. ALLEN-Then you can assure me that that water is going to be stopped and goes that way?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s exactly what’s shown on the engineering plan.
MR. ALLEN-Would you be happy with that if you were me?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would be, because the water is staying on my property, not going on to
your property.
MR. ALLEN-And again, I’m a rookie at this. I don’t understand this stuff.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a requirement. That’s a requirement under our zoning law.
MR. ALLEN-Okay. So, just to make it perfectly clear in my mind, so I’m not furious about this
anymore, this is going to be raised up eight feet. There’s going to be a slope behind this, sloping
towards my property, correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-The finished elevation for every one of those cottages along that north edge
row is that the elevation is going to be 315.5. The drainage swale that’s behind that cottage right
there, that’s in question, the low depression spot on it is at 314.3. So it’s a foot lower, a natural
swale.
MR. ALLEN-Can you tell what the level of this right here is, the edge of my property?
MR. MAC EWAN-At the property line, I can’t tell what it is on your property line, no. We’ll ask
the question. We’ll get them back up here and we’ll ask the question.
MR. ALLEN-But you follow where I’m coming from?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. ALLEN-There’s going to be a slope added in there that comes toward my house, and you
can see my concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I do.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. ALLEN-And you will address that properly? Because, again, it’s Greek to me, but I just see
what I see on the map. I picture a mound of dirt, a house on top of it, and all that water coming
in my yard, and I do not want that, and I will not accept it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ALLEN-Are we clear?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re clear.
MR. ALLEN-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MARY FLANNAGAN
MS. FLANNAGAN-. Anyone else?
MARY FLANNAGAN
MS. FLANNAGAN-My name is Mary Flannagan. I live at 5 Bayberry Court, which is not
abutting that property line, but, it’s extremely wet, and something just occurred to me, when
you were just discussing this business about catch basins and drainage and slopes and stuff. It’s
funny, my yard slopes down toward the wetland. However, when it rains hard in the spring,
the water doesn’t drain, it doesn’t move. It stays right on the property. We live on clay. It’s
like catching water in bowl. Or it’s like living on a sponge. The water table is so high it’s a
constant issue in the neighborhood, and the property next to us, I know that you have wetlands
mapped, but I’ve got to tell you, the wetland doesn’t care where you drew the line. When it’s
going to be wet, it’s going to be wet, and it disturbs me to see the degree of density that’s being
built on that property, which to me has very, very fragile soil. As a matter of fact, the first time
that it was proposed to be developed, back in 1970, by U.S. Catheter and Instrument, they
declined building on it, because they found that the soil was not really, really good enough to
support construction. I’m really, I’m amazed to see the degree of development that’s taking
place on it, now. I realize it’s inevitable. We all knew eventually construction would take place,
but I don’t think that the density proposed on this project is, I think it’s too much. I don’t know
what could be done to mitigate it or change it, but I just see fragile land being developed, and I
just see water finding no place to go, and the more parking lots, the more asphalt, it just
interferes with drainage. I just don’t think it’s a really wise idea to do that degree of density.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MS. FLANNAGAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? No takers? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you pull out the copy of your grading plan, if you have it there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SIPPERLY-Mr. Chairman, I didn’t bring a copy of the grading plan, but if I could borrow
one of the Board member’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you could look at the cottage that would be in the northeast corner, the one
that’s on the diagonal. That cottage there. If you follow straight out behind it, all the way to
where you’ve got a limit of clearing and grading, that drawing right there.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SIPPERLY-No, this drawing isn’t the most recent drawing, Mr. Chairman, but I do recall,
we do have a drainage swale, going all down the rear of the cottages along the north property
line, and similarly we have a drainage swale going down the rear of the cottages on the west
property line also, and we have a series of catch basins and culverts which take that water, or
bring it out to the street.
MR. MAC EWAN-Getting back to that same cottage. If you look over where you’ve got your
limit of clearing and grading.
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes, we have a catch basin.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come right over where you’ve actually got it labeled on the drawing, limit of
clearing.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, back to your right. Right there. See the elevation you’ve got there in the
rectangle that says 310?
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Follow that elevation all the way around to the back of the cottage in
question that abuts Mr. Allen’s property. Stop right there. That’s that 310 contour. Right?
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m looking at the contour for your finished drainage swale being 314.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would make your drainage swale higher than it would be on the back
line of that property line.
MR. SIPPERLY-What we were doing is we have a swale that intercepts the water coming off the
cottage, and then from there on down the land slopes down to the existing grade of the adjacent
property, but what’s really, going in that direction is substantially less water than what is going
there currently. A larger portion of this area occupied by Cottage Seven is flowing north onto
the adjacent property, and what we’ve done now is by putting a swale there, we’ve intercepted
the water, a good deal of that water, and so there’d be actually less water flowing onto the
adjacent property than in the current situation.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the speaker said that you’re going to be building, you’re going to have to
build up the ground for Number Seven, whereas right now the flow is typically slopes
downward and away from Mr. Allen’s property. If you’re going to build it up, you’re going to
actually be creating in essence a slope going in the other direction, I would think.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct. You’re correct. There’s some water that’s going to be going
towards Mr. Allen’s property. Right. An area probably of about 10 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SIPPERLY-I have an elevation here, if I look at the existing grade, I have a 308 elevation at
this location here, and I have a 310 elevation just west of that, probably about 30 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what Mr. Allen’s concerns is, is that you’re building up a grade,
and you’re going to have a flow going towards his property, and I know you have a retention
basin there, but, you know, his question was, are you going to guarantee me that there’s not
going to be a problem, and it does seem problematic.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SIPPERLY-Well, there’s, actually, there’s probably two swales that are occurring here. One
is a defining swale that we have at this location here, where we have a catch basin, and the pipe.
Then as these contours meet the contours in the rear of Mr. Allen’s property, a second swale is
created. Right on the property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, if you’re clearing, and part of doing this project, and you’re grading
your parcel right to the property line.
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And, Chris, help me out here. It’s in our Ordinances that stormwater should
be kept on your parcel. I mean, you can’t allow stormwater to go off your parcel. Stormwater is
to be collected and stay on your property. If you’re re-grading that, wouldn’t it make sense that
the grade elevation at the property line would be higher to pull the water from the property line
back onto your property, as opposed to sending it on to a neighboring property?
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes, we can do that. Like I say, we have a secondary swale.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s a simple fix. You change the elevation to make it 312.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct. Yes. We can do that. To pull the water away from our
neighbor’s property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand where I’m going with that, guys? I guess most
everybody does.
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s part and parcel with the setbacks, too. I mean, you’re talking about
these cottages having, how many feet from the adjacent landowners, 25 feet?
MR. SIPPERLY-Twenty-five feet at this point here, the most rear part of the cottage.
MR. SANFORD-Not that it counts for anything, but, I mean, you know, I think you’re trying to
do too much. Again.
MR. LAPPER-Here we go again.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, here we go again, Mr. Lapper. I think you’re trying to do too much on the
piece of property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Code calls for 20 feet. We’re doing 25 feet, and Rich offered 30 feet.
There’s a Type B Buffer. The Town passed the Zoning Code two years ago. There’s a specific
buffer for what happens when you have single family and multi-family. We have complied
with the Type B Buffer. We’ve added five feet to the setback and Rich is willing to add another
five feet. We’re complying with the Code. It’s not putting too much in too small.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you pulled the building so you had, you’re talking about 35 foot was the
max you could go, you thought?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I could go 35, if you’d allow me to flush the buildings, rather than jog
them. So I can easily get 30.
MR. MAC EWAN-From what I hear tonight from the neighbors, I doesn’t seem the aesthetics
portion is as big a concern with them as it is away from the property line.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I can change that contour line. That’s not a problem. I know
what Richard’s referring to, and I know exactly what he’s talking about. When this swale is
created, there is 10 feet of a swale. Now that 10 feet is going to add some, I mean, 10 feet is not a
lot, but we can change that. I have no problem changing that. I’ll bring it back to 35 feet. I wish
I could do 55. I can’t, but I am willing to do the 35.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just the Code says stormwater stays on your property. Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I make a comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-I closed the public hearing.
MR. RINGER-I have a little problem with us being engineers, without sending that back to C.T.
Male. If we’re going to tell him to change all that.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s changing one contour. I think C.T. Male missed it.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think they did, Craig. If you look at Number Four on C.T. Male’s.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got another suggestion. Why don’t you go into the 100 feet buffer line and
get a Freshwater Permit? You’re going for it on Walker, and you’ve done it in Meadowbrook,
and maybe that would give you more room for a setback.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’m not here to address other applications, but I would like to
suggest that, to address the Board as far as the concern with the drainage, if we condition the
approval tonight, there’s nothing that says we couldn’t condition, C.T. Male, first of all, to give a
signoff letter, but, as always, it’s always discussed between the applicant, the public, and the
Planning Board, but there’s nothing that says you couldn’t condition my approval with C.T.
Male just responding to the 35 foot or adequately addressing Mr. Allen’s concern.
MR. SANFORD-Rich, I don’t want to discuss other projects. Have you thought about shifting
the project a little bit in the direction towards the 100 foot buffer line? Have you thought about
that?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re out there on that limb all by yourself.
MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second. I’m asking a question. I don’t care if I’m out on a limb or
not.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t care to answer, because I think he’s disrespectful to the general
public, and the applicants, the way he responds to people. So I wish not to comment at this
point.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Sipperly, can you address, going back to this C.T. Male letter of April
23, Item Four, Item Three and Item Four, they were talking about the swales and the runoffs.
rd
Are you familiar with that?
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes, I am.
MR. MAC EWAN-What C.T. Male’s comments were?
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Their Comment Three was the swale behind Units One, Two, and Three
intercepts runoff from Lot Seven, and the calculations do not account for this runoff.
Consideration should be given to keeping the runoff out of the closed on-site drainage system.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes. The contours on Lot Seven kind of flow in a west to east direction, and this
stormwater was running onto the site. What we’ve done is we’ve proposed a swale on Lot
Seven, which is owned by Rich Schermerhorn, to intercept that water and keep it from running
onto our parcel. The next comment that they’ve made was that the swales that they we had in
the rear yards, they thought were too flat for us to steepen them up, and that's the difference
between the plan below and the plan that we have on top here. We have now added catch
basins and we’ve piped the water out to the stormwater system in front of the units to allow for
more slope in these swales. The swales now are all at two percent plus, as far as surface flow.
The way that we achieve that is by putting these catch basins and piping the water out. So
we’ve actually added a stormwater system behind the cottage units to.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re in agreement, though, increasing the elevation of that 310 swale
up to 312, that borders the property line?
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes. We can revise the grading in the back of Mr. Allen’s property, so that we
do not have any water shedding on to his property.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me, Question Number Four that C.T. Male originally raised, and it
was that intercept the swale similar to what is shown on the west of Units One, Two and Three,
should be provided north of Units Five, Six, and Seven, and apparently you have answered that
question, since he signed off on this by what you’ve done here.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s correct. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So, I would be hesitant. I’d go along with Mr. Ringer on this, I would be
hesitant to start engineering this site from this Board, frankly. I think C.T. Male looked at that,
and approved of that, I don’t know whether we should be changing grade elevations here just
on, it might, I certainly understand where the Chairman is coming from, and I can appreciate
what he’s doing there, but I think C.T. Male asked the question, and it obviously was answered
because they signed off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you read their comment, their comment is rather generic. It says,
consideration should be given to changing the swale in the back of those properties to divert the
water flow.
MR. VOLLARO-It says should be provided north of Units Five, Six, and Seven. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Diverting the water flow, potentially putting it on a neighboring parcel. Is
that the solution to the problem?
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not good, but I certainly would go back to C.T. Male and I would ask
them the question.
MR. MAC EWAN-But just changing that elevation by that one foot, solves the problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Craig, I agree with you. It does solve the problem. I would like C.T. Male to,
and I would go along with Mr. Ringer on this, I would like C.T. Male to at least re-think, re-visit
that particular question, and see whether or not the swales that have been provided on the
buildings adjacent to the property line indeed do the job that they’re supposed to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-You could word a conditional approval that says C.T. Male has to signoff on
the proposed revision to the swales behind these things, and just note it in the.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’ll (lost words) before building permit is issued, so that the issue is
taken care of before I even submit for a building permit.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I’m fairly happy with the way C.T. Male wrote this, and I’m
reasonably happy with the fact that that fix seems to answer the Question Number Four that
they had. If there’s another concern, and I understand where the Chairman is coming from, I
can see where there may be a little bit benefit to raising the level of that swale slightly, but I
would like the engineer to look at it, frankly. That’s what we pay him to do.
MR. SANFORD-I would, too.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why he gets paid to do this kind of work.
MR. MAC EWAN-So noted.
MR. SEGULJIC-That would make sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Item One, “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re on the Long Form, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re on the Long Form. Small to moderate impact, Potentially Large
impact, or Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change?
MR. SCHACHNER-First you have to identify the impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the impact?
MR. SEGULJIC-The grading.
MR. MAC EWAN-Building and building.
MR. RINGER-We could answer yes to every application we’ve ever had if we go that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-The examples that would apply to a Potential Large Impact would be
“Construction on slopes of 15% or greater?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.”
MR. SANFORD-Probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles”.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three
feet of existing ground surface?”
MR. SANFORD-Possibly.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than
one phase or stage.” “Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons
of natural material”. “Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill”, or “Construction in a
designated floodway.”
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think the operative one there is Number Three, “Construction land
where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet”. We have, I don’t know how they answer
that in Part I, what the applicant’s answer to that is, but I have to agree that it’s a wet area there.
There’s no question about it, but I hadn’t seen any definitive information on test holes to
determine the depth to groundwater in this. So, whether or not it’s less than, the table is less
than three feet or not, I don’t know the answer to that.
MR. LAPPER-The test holes are on the plan. We have supplied that information.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What is the depth to groundwater?
MR. SIPPERLY-The depth to groundwater varies, but it’s in excess of three feet. It’s probably
about three and a half is the shallowest, 3.5, 3.7, and it goes down to about five feet.
MR. VOLLARO-When were they taken? What time of the year were they taken?
MR. SIPPERLY-Actually, at the last meeting, we took them that morning. So that would be in
April.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s in the fairly wet season.
MR. SIPPERLY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The developer has identified the depth to water table is three to six feet, and
they have identified depth to bedrock as two to eight feet.
MR. VOLLARO-It sounds like they just did their test holes in accordance with our
requirements. They did it in April, and we asked test holes to be done between the months of
March and May. So they’re in the window of doing the test holes in the right time of year, and
Mr. Sipperly has offered the fact that it’s less than three feet, close.
MR. SIPPERLY-Close, but they’re more than three feet.
MR. VOLLARO-But they’re more than three feet, 3.2, that’s getting pretty, that’s getting kind of
marginal, but anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s our determination for that first question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, which impact have you identified?
MR. HUNSINGER-Depth to Groundwater.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Was that the only item?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only item I see that gets close, Chris, to what we’re talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s a small to moderate impact.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and the mitigation is obviously putting the swales in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Five, “Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?”
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Can’t say no just off the bat. I think that this goes kind of hand in glove with
the impact on land, and we made a determination that there’s a small to moderate impact.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let’s identify the impact. The examples that would apply to Column
Two, which would be Potential Large Impact, “Proposed Action will require discharge permit”.
No. “Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve
proposed action”.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply
system?”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.”
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-It certainly could.
MR. HUNSINGER-It could.
MR. VOLLARO-It could effect the level of groundwater. Again, it’s part of the mitigation of
the, in the plan of the grading plan to do that mitigation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So I would look at into Item One, it could be small to moderate responding to
proposed action will adversely effect groundwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Consensus on that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify, wouldn’t the proposed will require a discharge permit. It’s going
to require a stormwater discharge permit because they’re disturbing more than one acre.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a discharge permit. It’s a SPDES Permit they’re referring to.
MR. SIPPERLY-That’s a general SPDES Permit.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t require a SPDES Permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it is a discharge permit, and I would say it’s still small to moderate, though.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a permit. That’s just a notification.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s still considered a permit, though. It’s still a permit. It’s a stormwater
construction permit.
MR. LAPPER-A SPDES Permit is when you’re.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an industrial activity. We’re talking stormwater permits.
MR. VOLLARO-No, a SPDES Permit’s over 1,000 gallons.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and this is nowhere near the threshold for a SPDES Permit. This is just a
notification that you’re doing a construction activity.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s referred to as a general permit.
MR. LAPPER-It’s just a notification. It’s not a SPDES permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s not, but it’s a general permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any time you’d like to chime in.
MR. ROUND-It is a discharge permit. It’s for construction activities. It’s not for waste water
disposal, and I think that’s where the two of you are different. It is a SPDES permit. I mean, it’s
a General Permit No. 2 something, something.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s still small to moderate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Point taken.
MR. HUNSINGER-Six, “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed action will change flood water flows?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Flood water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Flood water.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, potentially from a 50 year storm flood, right?
MR. METIVIER-Storm water, but not flood water.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They’re not in the floodplain. “Proposed action may cause substantial
erosion”.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s the case.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.”
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, you’re changing the drainage patterns. They’re changing the flow. So,
that would be inconsistent.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re enhancing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the terminology is proposed action is incompatible with existing
drainage patterns.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. METIVIER-They’re not going against them.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. “Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.”
And then finally “Other impacts”. So I heard some yes to alteration of flow or patterns. Do you
want to elaborate? Small to moderate impact. Mitigated by the stormwater prevention?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think all of these refer to the mitigation from the grading plan, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will proposed action affect any non-threatened or non-endangered
species?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-Possibly yes. I mean, we’ve had public comment from a person who made
reference to wildlife. Wildlife probably won’t co-exist in this assisted, or not assisted, but senior
living complex. So, I mean, the answer is, obviously, it will affect non-threatened wildlife.
MR. HUNSINGER-Examples that would apply to Column Two, which is Potential Large
Impact, “Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish,
shellfish or wildlife species.”
MR. SANFORD-Probably not.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature
forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-So I think that that doesn’t apply really. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?”
MR. SANFORD-Well, with all the conversation that took place about the setbacks, and with the
neighbors, what do you call aesthetics? I mean, right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-The examples they give you in your.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what are they?
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in
sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.”
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic
resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities
of that resource.”
MR. SANFORD-I’d say yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.”
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would say yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you say yes, to which one are you saying yes to?
MR. SANFORD-To about three of those. It’s screening views. You’re putting basically
commercial like buildings in an otherwise single family residential zone, close by.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a single family residential zone.
MR. SANFORD-I am not there, but the property owners adjacent to them are going to be seeing
different things. I think aesthetics are changed, the area will be changed with this project.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what Mr. Schermerhorn has offered here was to go, correct me if I’m
wrong, is they would go to 35 feet. Is that the position you’ve got?
MR. LAPPER-You’re correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a mitigation factor here that we could take into consideration.
He’s doing the best he can to get as much separation between the property line and the back of
those buildings as possible. So I think he’s trying to satisfy that aesthetic resource in the best
way that he can.
MR. SANFORD-Well, he wouldn’t answer my question. So I don’t know that for a fact. He
thinks I’m a rude person. I asked him if he thought of repositioning the project, and he didn’t
answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re the only one that’s out there with that aesthetic resource one.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that if it’s done tastefully, I think it’ll be okay, and that’s my view, with
35 feet. Now I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-But I think you also have to recognize, I think, the way that this question is
proposed under SEQRA is that you’re talking about how it fits in, not only with the project, but
how it also fits in with what the zoning is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So any impact would be small to moderate, mitigated by project
change.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what does that mean? Is that traffic?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Does it alter present patterns of movement of people and/or goods, or will it
result in major traffic problems.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I disagree, but okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there certainly is public opposition to this, but I think it would be small to
moderate.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LLP, 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 10 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Sanford
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we talk about a motion.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. RINGER-If we want to make some changes, discuss the buffer.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had said 35 feet.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just clarify for me. Is that from?
MR. LAPPER-From the building setback from the rear line of the building to the property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to flatten the building out? Is that what you decided to do? Or
are you going to move the building forward?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I don’t have to flatten the building out, and I can get the 35 feet,
meet my handicap requirements for my ramps, I won’t flatten the building, but if I heard
everybody correctly, if there’s not a problem with me flattening the building along the back, I
know I can definitely get the 35.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you could possibly move the building up, flatten it out, can
you get more?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, if I can get more, I certainly will. It’s just, I have to watch my
slopes with my handicap ramps. I know I can give a minimum of 35. If I can give more, I’ll
certainly give more, and then I’ll notify Chris Round.
MR. RINGER-By giving us the 35, though, you will have to flatten the buildings out?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-You may.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now that didn’t seem to be an issue with the neighbors. The neighbors are
more concerned about having the buffer, setback.
MR. RINGER-They do look much better when they’re angled like that, but, you know, I don’t
have a real problem with it. I like them the way you’ve got them. For five feet, apparently, the
neighbors feel five feet is important. So 35 feet is all right with me, and flatten the buildings.
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s 10 feet, Larry. Twenty-five versus thirty-five, isn’t it?
MR. RINGER-Thirty-five.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thirty-five is what we’re looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but before it was twenty-five, I thought.
MR. RINGER-Right, and now he’s going to thirty-five, but he’s going to flatten that building
out.
MR. SANFORD-That’s 10 feet. That’s what my point was.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the other issue we had on the table was having.
MR. RINGER-C.T. Male review.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have to word it in such a way that what we’re looking for to have
happen with that drainage swale behind those cottages, which unfortunately aren’t numbered,
but that would be adjacent to Mr. Allen’s property.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, they’re numbered, Buildings Five, Six, and Seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are they?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the buildings are numbered. We can certainly do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we just have to word it in such a way as to what you want to have happen
here. I mean, the ultimate goal here is to have the drainage stay on this parcel.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you just say it that way?
MR. VOLLARO-We can, but, you know, my contention is that when C.T. Male looked at this, I
think he feels, not maybe he’s wrong and missed it, and it’s not unlikely that he missed it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s what happened, because by looking at the letter, the letter is
very.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s kind of generic.
MR. MAC EWAN-Generic. It’s not specific, and our Code says you’re supposed to keep the
stormwater on your site, and if you just look at the drainage, you don’t have to be a degreed
engineer to look at it and know that, just the way those swales are cut, the drainage is not going
to stay on the property.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Could it just be conditioned on C.T. Male revisiting this exact issue?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, that’s what we’re doing. It’s a matter of making the wording.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if they don’t have a problem with it, then we still make a revision
to satisfy.
MR. HUNSINGER-How would this language sound?
MR. ROUND-Before you start, I know there was an issue that we touched on at the beginning, I
think that the applicant agreed to, is they presented a policy in regard to 55 plus. We just
would like to make sure that that’s a part of the resolution, that it’s on the resolution, not just, as
a condition of approval.
MR. RINGER-So we can just say their statement as submitted, the vision statement.
MR. LAPPER-There’s cover sheet as well.
MR. SCHACHNER-The vision statement’s part of the application. Is that correct? And maybe
the applicant could say on the record that the vision statement’s part of the application and that
the applicant is bound by it.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where did you come up with the language on that drainage swale thing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t read it yet. That the applicant would re-grade the north property
line behind Buildings Five, Six, and Seven to maintain all stormwater on site. That the 310 foot
contour line swale be increased to at least 312 feet. That this would be subject to a review and
approval by C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Excellent. Excellent.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other condition would be that Buildings Five, Six, and Seven
along the north property line shall be moved southerly to achieve a minimum 35 foot setback.
MR. VOLLARO-Will the buildings actually be moved, or is the 35 foot coming from flattening
out the back of the building?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it could be a combination of both.
MR. MAC EWAN-A combination of both, it could be. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And Richard said we would try to maintain the, how he gets there is kind of
up to him.
MR. MAC EWAN-How he gets from Point A to Point B, we’re leaving that to his discretion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Leave it open.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-As long as the 35 foot’s met.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other condition would be that the letter dated April 27 and
th
the supporting vision statement shall be included as part of the application.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the prepared resolution shows that
already.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t see it. I’m looking at the draft resolution dated 5/10/04. I’m sorry,
yes, you’re right. It’s 4/27 Counsel from Jon Lapper response to 4/13/04 letter. Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I thought it was there. That’s why I didn’t mention it.
MR. RINGER-It doesn’t show it as a condition. It only shows it as part of the.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it’s part of the resolution, I mean, that should be satisfactory.
MR. LAPPER-We have no problem making it a condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I asked on the record, and the applicant indicated on the record that the
application includes the vision statement, and that the applicant is bound by the vision
statement. Correct, Applicant?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So that doesn’t have to be reinforced in the motion.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can if you want, but it’s not necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other conditions?
MR. SEGULJIC-How about the bus stop?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-The bus stop.
MR. SEGULJIC-Am I the only one asking that?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that in Scott Sopczyk’s letter he mentions that.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want, a shelter? Is that what you were looking for?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think a shelter would be nice, yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Like I said, I’m not opposed to it.
MR. RINGER-You don’t want to put the bus shelter in if you’re not going to get the bus to go in.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. RINGER-So the way we ought to write it up is if the bus goes in, you’re going to provide a
shelter.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-I mean, if we put it in, that you’ve got to put it in, and the bus never comes, or if
they determine it’s not.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Obviously I don’t know how that’s going to play out, but I am
not opposed to that condition.
MR. RINGER-If there was a condition that if Adirondack Greater Glens Falls Transit decides to
put a stop in there, you will put a bus stop shelter in.
MR. SEGULJIC-What they said was they’d be willing to stop there, if there was a request.
MR. RINGER-I think they’re going to go by the numbers. When we’ve done this in the past, it’s
always been demand. If there’s no demand, they’re not going to drive in there, is what we’ve
kind of found in the past.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is correct. That’s what he said to me. If there’s not a demand,
they’re not going to go in there, but if there’s a demand.
MR. HUNSINGER-The question is, what would the shelter look like?
MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we start with a bench.
MR. RINGER-All right. Start with a bench.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a chicken and bus thing.
MR. RINGER-I just don’t want you to build a shelter, and nobody comes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other thing that I had asked about was the maintenance of the
emergency gravel, the access road.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and I had indicated that we will plow that year round, or
maintain it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Snow removal. Okay. Anything else?
MR. RINGER-I think you got them all.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2004 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDINGS, LLP, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 21-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL
HOLDING, LP
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper
Zone: PO
Location: Lot 8 Willow Brook Drive
Applicant proposes the construction of an 80 unit Adult Living Facility on a 12.88 +/- acre
property located on Willow Brook Drive (east of Bay Rd.). Multi-family projects require Site
Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board in the PO zone.
Cross Reference: Many
Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.3
Lot size: 12.88 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: April 27, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/15/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/27/04, and
5/7 CT Male engineering sign-off
5/7 Revised info submitted by L. Sipperly & Associates: letter, NOI, info to CT Male
5/6 PB from S. Smith, Fire Marshal & Qu. Central Chief Joe Duprey: no issue
5/4 FOIL request: C. Jarvis
4/27 Applicant from CB: tabled to 5/10/04
4/27 Staff Notes
4/27 CT Male engineering comments
4/27 Counsel from Jonathan Lapper: response to 4/13/04 letter
4/23 CT Male engineering comments
4/20 Notice of Public Hearing
4/14 Warren Co. Planning
4/13 Jonathan Lapper from Counsel
4/7 Applicant from CB
4/7 Meeting notice
4/6 Wastewater comments
4/2 CB from Agent: Additional Information
4/2 Meeting Notice w/project identification marker sent
3/26 Water Dept. comments
3/26 Applicant from S. Sopczyk, GGF Transit
3/23 C. Brown from M. Palmer, Deputy Fire Marshal
3/18 j. Lapper from C. Brown: response to Notice of Appeal
3/15 C. Brown from L. Sipperly: Cut sheets for porch light
3/15 C. Brown from L. Sipperly: report from CME Traffic Engineers
2/13 Highway Dept. comments
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/27/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
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. Copy of NOI provided prior to issuance of Building Permit.
2. The applicant shall maintain the emergency gravel access road, including
removal of snow in the winter.
3. If the Greater Glens Falls Transit does put in a bus stop to the project site, that the
developer shall install a bench.
4. That buildings, Five, Six and Seven along the northern property line shall be
moved south to achieve a minimum 35 foot setback.
5. That the lot be re-graded along the north property line behind buildings Five, Six
and Seven to maintain all stormwater on the site, increasing the current swale at
the 310 foot contour line to a minimum of 312 feet and that that shall be done in
accordance with review and approval by C.T. Male.
Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. SANFORD-No, and let me just tell you why again. I’m not opposed to the project, but, I
think the density is a problem, as is the water problems, and I think that we should be asking
applicants to do a better job with their projects than they are.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Sanford
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two housekeeping things before we adjourn. Site visits are this Saturday.
MR. METIVIER-The 20 I will not be here.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The Tuesday meeting.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Yours is the 18, Chris?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So is mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris is gone 5/18?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m gone 5/18.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, 5/18, Bob, 5/18. Tony, you’re gone 5/20, right?
MR. METIVIER-5/20. Which I think is going to be rescheduled anyway.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, could I bring up one more issue before we adjourn?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like some clarification regarding appropriate conversations that Board
members might have outside of this actual Board meeting, because you might recall, in the first
application, Mr. MacEwan took issue with a phone call I received, not from an applicant, but
just from a community citizen concerned about the agenda and what was going to transpire.
So, if you could, if someone would weigh in as to what is appropriate behavior.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’ll be happy to do that. Actually Chairman MacEwan’s statement was, I
thought he summarized the appropriate standard of behavior very well.
MR. SANFORD-Then I understand from Chairman MacEwan on Friday afternoon, or evening,
Mr. MacEwan participated in a meeting with agents of applicants that are in front of us. Mr.
Lapper, I believe, was present, Mr. Lemery might have been.
MR. SCHACHNER-I can help you here.
MR. SANFORD-And clearly that was outside of this Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-I can help you here, unless, did you participate in two meetings, or just the
one?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just the one, I think.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. He said Friday evening, and he mentioned Mr. Lemery. He knows,
if there’s some other meeting I don’t know about, this is a good time to tell me.
MR. SANFORD-I just knew of one meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Mr. MacEwan participated in a meeting which I, by the way, was
present at, as Counsel for the Town, in which one of the specific ground rules was there would
be no discussion of any pending applications before this or any other Board, and I can tell you
that that ground rule was rigidly adhered to. If somebody calls you about something that does
not relate to a pending application, go crazy. No problem.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-No problem.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/10/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any other business?
MR. SANFORD-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
60