2004-05-18
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 18, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
RICHARD SANFORD
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE
ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to jog the agenda around a little bit tonight, in an effort to
hopefully try to move things along a little bit more speedily tonight. The first item on the
agenda is approval of minutes.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 10, 2004: NONE
February 17, 2004: NONE
February 24, 2004: NONE
March 2, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2004, FEBRUARY 17, 2004,
FEBRUARY 24, 2004, AND MARCH 2, 2004, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 45-2001 for Russ Pittenger and
Wallace Hirsch. At the applicant’s request, this application has been withdrawn, and they are
going to resubmit.
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1987 SEQR TYPE II T & B ASSOCIATES APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTING
A LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS 20 & 22 OF THE BROOKFIELD ESTATES SUBDIVISION.
MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE THE
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments? This seems pretty straightforward.
MR. HILTON-Yes. It’s really a simple lot line adjustment between two lots. It doesn’t appear to
create any nonconformities, and it is a Type II Action, which is presented to you as Expedited
Review. That’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing T & B Associates. No. This is a Lot line
adjustment between Lots 20 & 22 of Brookfield Estates Phase II. The placement of the well, as
you can see on the well, as you can see on the Map on Lot 20, there is a tree hedgerow there
that’s basically right on the line that we were proposing. So when the well driller came in,
stayed to the west of the tree line, but it wasn’t on the correct lot. So this is an adjustment to
keep the well with the Lot 20 on Lot 20. As Staff has stated, it doesn’t change any of the
required lot sizes. They all remain conforming.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from the Board? All set? Does somebody want to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION 11-87M T & B ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 11-1987 Applicant/Property Owner: T & B ASSOCIATES
SEQR Type II
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved residential subdivision by adjusting a lot
line between Lots 20 & 22 of the Brookfield Estates subdivision. Modifications of previously
approved subdivisions require the approval of the Planning Board.
Public Hearing: Not required
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/14 /04, and
5/18 Staff Notes
5/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Subdivision Modification is hereby granted and is
subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning
Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
MacEwan
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Matt.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED FRANK PALANGI ZONE: MU LOCATION: 36 QUEENSBURY AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.67 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF
0.33 +/- ACRES AND 0.33 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 15-2004 TAX MAP NO.
303.16-1-47 LOT SIZE: 0.67 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
FRANK PALANGI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2004, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Frank Palangi,
Meeting Date: May 18, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 8-2004 (Preliminary & Final
Stage)
APPLICANT: Frank Palangi is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a .67 +/- acre property into 2 lots of
.33 +/- acres.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Queensbury Avenue
and Carroll Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned MU, Mixed Use.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in
neighborhood 10 according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long
form EAF as part of the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an Area Variance on March 17, 2004 from the lot area
and lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the proposed subdivision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a .67-acre property into two .33
+/- acre properties.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Sketch Plan Review
-
The requested waivers appear to be reasonable requests given that all principal uses, including
single-family homes, require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-This is a proposed two lot subdivision of a .67 acre property in the MU zone. The
applicant has requested waivers from the stormwater management plan, grading plan and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
Sketch Plan review. This applicant and this application was previously before the Zoning
Board for an Area Variance for lot area and lot width. As I’ve noted, the waivers appear to be
reasonable, given that pretty much all principal uses, including single family homes require site
plan review from the Planning Board in the MU zone. That’s really all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, your name is?
MR. PALANGI-Frank Palangi.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed application?
MR. PALANGI-It’s a two lot subdivision. Initially it was, I don’t know if you want to get into
any of the zoning issues. It was just zoned commercial at one time, which it still is. I had
trouble with it. That’s why I had to go for the variance, which I had gotten, and the lot is going
to remain residential. It’s going to be deeded that way. Did everybody get a chance to take a
look at the lot and drive by it? I don’t plan on changing much about it, really, as far as, you
know, the neighborhood.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems pretty simple and straightforward at this point. I’ll open it
up for questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards?
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got just one question, Craig. I’m just confused, when you looked at the
map here, and then we looked at the lot, you have a to be demolished frame shed, and I
couldn’t find it.
MR. PALANGI-I know, it’s gone.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. PALANGI-Yes, I removed it already.
MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s what we kind of figured, but we weren’t sure. So now I think
it all falls pretty much into place. Thanks. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2004, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FRANK PALANGI, 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:
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
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 18 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2004 FRANK
PALANGI, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry
Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: FRANK PALANGI
PRELIMINARY STAGE Zone: MU
FINAL STAGE Location: 36 Queensbury Avenue
SEQR Type: Unlisted
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 0.33 +/- acres and 0.33 +/-
acres.
Cross Reference: AV 15-2004
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-47
Lot size: 0.67 / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 18, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 514/04, and
5/18 Staff Notes
5/11 Notice of Public Hearing
5/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May
18, 2004; and
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2004 FRANK PALANGI,
Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: FRANK PALANGI
PRELIMINARY STAGE Zone: MU
FINAL STAGE Location: 36 Queensbury Avenue
SEQR Type: Unlisted
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 0.33 +/- acres and 0.33 +/-
acres.
Cross Reference: AV 15-2004
Tax Map No. 303.16-1-47
Lot size: 0.67 / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 18, 2004
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/15/04, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 514/04, and
5/18 Staff Notes
5/11 Notice of Public Hearing
5/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May
18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the
resolution prepared by staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on
the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing:
1. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision.
2. Waiver request(s) are granted: Stormwater, Grading, and Sketch plan.
3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been or will be received by the applicant,
with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by the Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Frank.
MR. PALANGI-Okay. Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED WILLIAM TAFT AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION:
COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.26 ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.22 ACRES AND 2.05 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 290-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: 4.26 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
MICHAEL BORGOS & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos for Mr. Taft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly. As a follow up to the tabling of this item, the applicant has
submitted a calculation of the area of wetland on the property and a density calculation which
appears to indicate that there’s enough buildable area to support the proposed subdivision.
Just going through my notes again, just to bring to your attention there were a few waivers
requested, and I’ll have to probably, at this point, go back and track those down. The revised
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
information has been submitted to C.T. Male, and that signoff letter has been received and is in
the file, and it’s actually in your packets as well, and that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, good evening.
MR. BORGOS-I think, as Staff has indicated, I think we’re pretty well set on everything that was
requested at the April 20 meeting. If there’s any questions, we can address them now. Mr.
th
Nace is not available this evening, at this time, but between Matt and I, we’ll try to answer
anything you might have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the floor for questions.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’ll start with, you know, back when I was, I guess geometry, and I had to
try to figure area under curves and all of that kind of stuff, you know, you don’t have easy areas
to measure here, and you’re very close to the two acres. You come up with 2.1, with all these
wetlands, and subtracting and omitting them out, I’m just wondering how you go about it, and
is it possible, instead of it being 2.1 acres of developable area, it might actually be 1.99?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. SANFORD-No? Well, then maybe you can explain how you calculated that.
MR. STEVES-Okay. We did a boundary survey on the entire property, with an error of closure
of about one in 25,000. That’s one foot for every 25,000 linear feet of traverse. So the error on
each corner is about the size of a dime. Wetlands flagged were flagged by Roberts
Environmental, and the wetland flags are actually little lavender metal, stuck right in the
ground.
MR. SANFORD-We saw them.
MR. STEVES-We located that from our traverse points on each flag on the ground to an
accuracy of probably about two millimeters. So when I calculate the area, based upon the
location and the perimeter we’ve established, I can guarantee the accuracy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Each one of the dots you have represented on your flagged wetland area
represents a flag actually on the parcel?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. On that darker line that goes around.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. STEVES-And you’ll see like A-37, A-38, A-40, A-49, A-1 at the beginning. Every one of
those dots represents a flag that we physically located after Roberts Environmental placed them
on the ground.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the numbers, the A-23, A-37, A-38, so on and so forth, actually represents
a flag.
MR. STEVES-A flag that she numbered and put into the ground.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Representative around where you have jogged around the proposed
well area, how did you delineate that, and come up with that delineation?
MR. STEVES-I did not do that. Roberts Environmental did that. They are a certified Army
Corps of Engineers wetland biologist, and they came in and established it, and then that’s
where we placed the well designation after the establishment of the wetlands. What they do is
base it upon the hydrology of the soils, the plant material, so on and so on. They use all the
criteria that’s required by Army Corps. That jog is exactly the way that they had flagged it in
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
the field, and if the Staff wants us to move the well, we can move the well over to a point that
would be directly east of the well on Lot Two, the back lot, 2B. It doesn’t make any difference.
We can still maintain the 100 foot separation.
MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, when we tabled this last month, we asked to be sure that the flags
would be up to delineate the wetlands because we did want to go take a look at them again
during our site visits, which we did, however, the flags that appear on the front portion of the
lot give a clear indication, I shouldn’t say give a clear indication, give an indication that if you
were to follow flag to flag to flag, it would be more or less of a straight line across the property
line.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the part where it’s confusing to me anyway, is the way it jogs
down around where that proposed well is going to be.
MR. STEVES-I’m not the wetland expert. I only follow behind them and locate them.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the last flag that is listed on the site is Flag A-23.
MR. STEVES-A-53.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where’s 53?
MR. STEVES-On the extreme west boundary line of Lot 2B.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, okay, but if we go to the northeast boundary line.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-The last flag would be A-23, right?
MR. STEVES-Well, we just number a few of them. We don’t number every one, because it kind
of clutters it up. A-1 is down in the extreme southeast corner. Do you see that, right next to the
capped iron rod found, A-1 goes up along the road, comes around that well to A-23, back to the
south to A-37, 38, and so on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do every one of the dots actually represent a flag on your parcel?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there certainly weren’t that many flags there when we were there
Saturday. I guess that’s what’s confusing us.
MR. STEVES-We locate them within a few hours after she places them, because of the fact, you
know, somebody drives by says, that’s a nice lavender looking flag, or they get blown over or
somebody mows them, or for whatever reason, but I can assure you that we located them right
behind Deb Roberts.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry to interrupt you there, Rich.
MR. SANFORD-No. Maybe the flags floated away. That’s possible. I have nothing, you know,
to me it’s an awful wet parcel of land. I would much prefer to see it kept as one lot, with 4.27
acres, and have the applicant build a very nice home in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and the Chestnut Ridge area, and not try to build two houses on marginal land.
That’s my comment.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. RINGER-I have a concern with the flagged lot and the length of that driveway, as I have
with all those long driveways, and in addition to the long driveway here, the flag shaped lot.
That’s something that I want to support and don’t feel that it fits into the neighborhood.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m also very concerned about the configuration of the land. I think the
driveway is too long, but one of the other things, as we look at the septic, I mean, on the back
lot, the leach fields for the septic tanks are only 12 feet from the wetlands, you know, and if
we’re looking at the adequate evaporation from those units, I’m really questioning whether
they can do the work that they need to do. Some of the, I guess the amount of infrastructure
that’s required to put these two houses on this particular lot are quite dramatic, and you’ve got,
the septic has to be pumped up hill. You’ve got wells that are down hill from the septic and
from the houses themselves, and so, you know, there’s a lot of complexity and infrastructure
that has to be built into this subdivision, when I think about, if we go along with this, if the
houses are built and some unsuspecting person buys into this without really knowing what
infrastructure goes along with this, knowing the nature of the wetland, I just have a real hard
time feeling good about the project.
MR. BORGOS-If I can just respond to that briefly. I wish Tom Nace were here to offer us all a
better explanation. I don’t pretend to understand the engineering any better than you do, but I
do take some comfort in the fact C.T. Male has reviewed it as well as Tom, and I know they both
are very expert at their field, and if they feel comfortable to signoff on it, then it gives me a
degree of comfort to know that an unsuspecting buyer going in would have at least that to fall
back upon. That it can be accomplished, and that it’s not just going to be a money pit.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m new to the Planning Board, but as I’m going through all the zoning
regulations and, you know, some of the land use plans and things like that, as I look at a
proposed development like this, it just makes me a little bit nervous that we’re putting so much
energy into these pieces when we really, there are several unknowns, and we can use the
formulas that are provided for us, and I understand that we’ve got engineering staff that are
looking at this, but, you know, if we were looking at the back lot, two-thirds of the, if we look at
the sum total of the property, two-thirds of it are dry land versus wetlands, and in the front, it’s
more like one-third of it is dry land versus wetland. I still have a hard time believing that it’s a
good decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-One of my concerns is how the, for Lot 2A, the driveway’s going to be going
through the wetland area, when we could put the driveway, have a shared driveway. I mean,
I’m not too thrilled about two lots. I’d like to see just one lot, but one of my biggest concerns
with the two lots if we put the driveway off the shared, have a shared driveway. You don’t
have to go through the wetland. I realize it’s allowed, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
MR. BORGOS-My understanding, from the history of the files, that there was going to be a
shared driveway at one point. There was a discussion of that.
MR. RINGER-There was three lots, and the shared driveway was going to be for the three lots.
MR. BORGOS-Right.
MR. RINGER-So there’s always going to be at least two driveways.
MR. BORGOS-The current long driveway here is, it follows the path of an existing roadway, an
old road, a logging road or a farm road, whatever it was, along the northerly course, and the
stone wall that’s there, and it’s my understanding that there’s not going to be any disturbance
from what’s presently there, other than some brush cutting and maintenance of that roadway
and the stone wall.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-But the area is very wet, because when we were there, there was standing
water, up in the front, and as you could see, when they built the, I guess part of the proposed
driveway, they had to bring a lot of gravel to get that stabilized, I guess. It just really isn’t idea.
MR. BORGOS-Well, I think that a lot of, as you see on a regular basis, I’m sure with this Board,
Queensbury, at the state of development that it’s in presently, there’s a squeeze, and people are
trying to get into the Town, and some of the marginal lots are becoming developed, and that’s
what you have before you today, but, you know, the application meets all the requirements and
the regulations. Your comments are well noted, and I think that the applicant has worked very
hard with the engineers and with Mr. Steves to come up with the best possible plan under the
circumstances, and I’m sure the future purchaser of one of these lots is going to appreciate the
review that the Planning Board has made to make it the best possible, although it’s not an ideal
situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Could I ask you to give up the table for a
few minutes? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GAIL SOLOMON
MRS. SOLOMON-Hi. My name is Gail Solomon. I live at 238 Chestnut Ridge Road in
Queensbury. I welcome this opportunity to voice to you my concerns and those of my
husband, Joel Solomon, regarding the development of the property in question. In a previous
meeting, I outlined some changes Mr. Taft had made to his property that directly borders on
our property and home. I apprised you of what we questioned as illegal disposal of
construction waste on that land. Our ignorance of the laws and regulations regarding
protection of the land has been costly in our estimation to the changes Mr. Taft has enacted.
Feeling it necessary to elevate his half of the flat lawn shared between our properties has
resulted in silt and mud that washes into our driveway during and after each rainfall. At
another location he created a steep drop off between the two properties. It serves to remind us
of the insensitivity and lack of regard for aesthetics and natural beauty. We fear this same
disregard in dealing with his new development plan. At the last meeting, one of your Board
members, and I believe it was Mr. Ringer, stated that he just didn’t like the plan. I implore you
to trust his and your own instincts. Is this cobbled in a fashion to somehow accommodate two
houses? Are aesthetics being considered? Are wetlands protection primary? Are the
preservation of historic stone walls and the beauty of open spaces being thoroughly addressed?
We defer to you, as a Board, to make decisions that will not only impact our home and
property, but the future environmental climate of our Town. As stewards of the land, we hope
you will make the right decision. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? You’ve got a letter?
MR. BROWN-Yes. A letter from Frederick Chase. It says, “Dear Mr. MacEwan: I will be out of
town on May 19 and will not be able to attend the Planning Board meeting, but I would like
th
this letter entered into the record with my objections to any approval of a subdivision of the 4
+/- acres on County Line Road for William Taft. Mr. Taft’s plans call for building two houses on
a lot that might barely support one house. By all the information supplied and reviewed to date
we have seen: 1. There is questionable drainage of soil on most of the land. 2. By evidence of
the fact that the builder wants to put septic systems up hill from the homes and the pump
sewage uphill to these systems attests to the questionable drainage of the soil. 3. The need to
build berms in front of each home to temporarily hold rainwater again speaks of the poor
drainage of the soil. 4. The proposed 400-500 foot driveway proposed for the north edge of the
property would create another storm water problem that has never been dealt with in any of
Mr. Taft’s proposals. 5. Building the 400-500 foot driveway in the noted location can not help
but disrupt some of the stone walls along the north edge of the property. 6. Building the 400-
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
500 foot driveway will necessitate the removal of a great number of what few mature trees are
on the property and will remove any natural boundary between Mr. Taft’s lot and my property.
7. Maintaining a lengthy driveway to the “back yard” house will almost surely have an adverse
effect on the stone walls along that drive. 8. The basic concept of placing one house in the
“back yard” of another certainly does not fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood.
9. The placing of water wells down hill from the septic systems must raise question to the
quality of drinking water that will be available to future residents of the proposed homes. 10.
Lastly, the quality of living in “the country” certainly will not exist for anyone living in the front
home as they will have no privacy in the front as they will be on the road and no privacy in the
rear as they will have another home literally in their back yard. I am asking you to do the right
thing for the Town of Queensbury, the neighbors of this proposed subdivision, and probably
most importantly for the future residents of the proposed homes on this site. PLEASE DENY
THIS SUBDIVISION! Sincerely, Frederick Chase” And that’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion?
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a lot of wetlands there.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood with that flagged lot
in there, and the length of the driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about the right side of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Based on what I researched in the Town’s Subdivision Regulations, I just don’t
think that it’s a good idea. I don’t think that, some of the definitions were that the land needed
to be usable and dry, and it wasn’t remediation. We looked at remediation. I think it’s extreme,
in my opinion, and I certainly don’t know what the long term consequences of the development
would be. Certainly not two homes there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Left side?
MR. ANDERSON-I’d like to know whether locating the well downstream from the location of
the drain field site is a permitted location. I’m not sure of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the reg’s say it’s got to be separated 100 feet.
MR. STEVES-And they’re more than that. I know they meet the requirements. Tom Nace is the
one that designed the location, and C.T. Male reviewed them, and they both reviewed it
through the Town and Department of Health standards. That’s all I can speak for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel, I’m getting a sense from the majority of the Board that they’re not
embracing this application. Would it be appropriate to table this application to our first
meeting in June, and assign a committee to help draft a resolution?
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you can if you want. You know that, I think you just closed the
public hearing, and I think you’re all well aware you have 62 days from the close of the public
hearing to render a decision. You can table it if you like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you serve on the committee?
MRS. STEFFAN-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone make a motion to table it until our first meeting in June.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003, WILLIAM
TAFT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
Until our first meeting in June, which will be June 15, to give the members of the Board time to
th
prepare a resolution to either approve or disapprove the application.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Comment?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Only to the Board, remember that prior to adopting any resolution for
approval or denial, you’ll have to go through SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA, right.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t think I needed to make that part of the resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s fine. You didn’t need to do any resolution. You didn’t need to
do a resolution to table.
MR. RINGER-I thought it was appropriate for either approval or disapproval, because we don’t
know for sure what the resolution will be.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s absolutely correct. That’s very appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 SEQRA TYPE I WAL-MART STORES PROPERTY OWNER:
WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ.; JOHN
SPEER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY
CONSTRUCTING A 95,217 SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080. PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE A SEQR
DETERMINATION AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32-
92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, AV 11-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93, SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 11.29 ACRES, 6.46 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
PETER HENTSCHKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HILTON-I guess really quickly I want to just go through and summarize what’s happened
since we last heard this application and, Number One is that the application was before the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a Sign Variance and Area
Variance related to this application. I’ve noted the conditions that the ZBA had in their motion
for approval. Number One, snow will be removed from the site, so that all parking spaces will
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
be available during the winter months and both parcels will be merged together. Similarly, I’ve
included pretty much the same conditions as part of my notes as suggested conditions. Just
kind of going back in the record, and historically, I guess, what we’ve been talking about all
along, and as part of the SEQRA review, a couple of items that the Planning Board may wish to
include in any resolution of approval is, Number One, that the use of external public address
systems outside of the building, proposed building, shall not be allowed. Two, delivery truck
traffic will not be allowed on Weeks Road, and I guess that kind of touches on a couple of the
older issues. A couple of new items that I think we’re looking at it are, Number One, well, this
isn’t a new item, but we’ve touched on the outdoor storage units that exist on the property, and
as part of the conversation with the Fire Marshal, he indicated to me that these are obstructions,
I guess, that can’t be, are not allowed within 20 feet of a building, as required by the Fire Code.
There are concerns about locating these units in drive aisles, parking spaces, again, within 20
feet of a building. Therefore, you know, consideration should be given to a condition that these
portable outdoor storage units will not be allowed on site. One somewhat newer item is the
lighting on the freestanding sign, which was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
freestanding sign, which will be at the north entrance, is proposed to be lit with four, 400 watt
metal halide fixtures, and the resulting illumination values are not represented on the lighting
plan. So it’s kind of difficult to determine if there’s going to be any glare off the sign, or how it
would impact drivers accessing the site. So, based on those concerns, it would be a good idea to
see what these values are and how they relate to the rest of the site, and if they impact the
lighting plan, how they impact the lighting plan. It’s possible that the fixtures may have to be
reduced, the wattage reduced, but I guess I don’t know until, without looking at the lighting
plan and having a chance to review, what impact these four lights have on the site. One thing
that I haven’t included in my notes is the interconnect to Ray Supply, which was agreed to by
the applicant. At this time there’s, I guess, no firm topography or design for that
interconnection on the site plan, and that’s something that I think would have to be represented
or approved, at least, by C.T. Male, prior to the issuance of a building permit for this
application, and that’s, I guess, in summary, all we have at this time, if you have any questions.
That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record.
MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes. Peter Hentschke from Harter, Secrest and Emery, and with me is
Girard Fitamant from Langan Engineering Environmental Services. We wanted to address the
Staff’s comments briefly, if that’s okay with the Board. First, in terms of the light issue,
generally these conditions are things that I think have come up through the process, and I think
our application incorporates most of the conditions that George mentioned. Public address
system’s going to be removed. The snow removed from the site. That’s part of the ZBA’s
condition as well. The delivery truck traffic will not be allowed on Weeks Road. We’ve agreed
to that and that’s the way it’s designed, and that’s the way it’s going to be. We’re okay with the
portable outdoor storage units not being allowed on site. In terms of the lighting, just wanted to
let the Board know that, to address any concern about these 400 watt metal halide fixtures on
the pylon sign, we’ve come back with a proposal to just cut those to 250, right from the get go,
just to address the potential concern that there might be with any glare. So we’ve done that,
and also I just wanted to remind the Board about sort of the context about the lighting on the
pylon sign. As you recall, and this is reflected in the Staff notes as well. The County Planning
Board recommended internal illumination, and I think this Board wanted external illumination.
So, in order to have the external illumination, the Board would have to vote by a majority plus
one. You’re aware of that. So, just to highlight that, and anything further, if there’s any
questions, we’d be happy to address anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-There was a comment, I don’t remember if it was the Staff notes or whether it
was verbally to me, relatively to doing your engineering for the interconnect, having that
submitted.
MR. HENTSCHKE-Right. We’d like to have that be a condition of approval. We’re going to
have some, we’ve talked with the attorneys for Ray Supply and told them that we’re hoping to
have some surveyors go on to the site within the next week to mark out where this is going to
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
be. We’ve already basically on the site plan you can see where the road is proposed to be, and I
don’t think it’s going to change much. In fact, C.T. Male and the applicant and representative
from Ray Supply have already gone over and sort of speced out where they think it is, and
that’s where it shows up on the site plan. So we would request that the Board consider that to
be a condition of the approval, and likewise, the easements that are associated with those
interconnects, the timing of that, we would request that that be a condition before a building
permit be issued, because Wal-Mart still has to buy the Ames parcel, before we can file the
easements legally. So we’d like to have that be sort of the timing, condition be that these
easements be filed, and that the survey be done and C.T. Male’s review of the final design of the
interconnect be conditioned, those be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. HENTSCHKE-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’d open up the floor for questions. Anything? Whatsoever?
MR. RINGER-You’re talking about us, now, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I had a couple of things that, all snow to be removed from the site. I mean, God,
if they get a half an inch of snow, according to this thing, they’ve got to remove it. I don’t
know, how can we put something so stringent in there, that makes it almost impossible to
enforce.
MR. HENTSCHKE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-So I’m having trouble. I mean, if we put something in there, boy, I can really see
where we could kill somebody.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe that’s a ZBA condition.
MR. RINGER-It is, but, you know, they’ve done theirs, and we’ve got it in our condition, too,
and if we’re going to, let them do what they’re going to do, but if we put it in ours, I’m
concerned to put something in there that makes it almost impossible to, you know, how do you,
if you get a half inch of snow, according to this, they’re going to have to take it off site. It’s just,
you know, we can take it out of our resolution, if we want, and let them worry how the ZBA
did it, but the way it’s written, the way it’s written in the resolution, I have a problem with it,
from an enforcement standpoint.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments on that, Staff?
MR. HILTON-As I understand it, and I apologize, we were conferring here, you’re concerned
about enforcing the removal of the snow?
MR. RINGER-No, I’m concerned the way the resolution is written, George, that if they get a half
an inch of snow, they’ve got to remove it.
MR. HILTON-Right.
MR. RINGER-That presents a problem. I don’t want to put conditions on that are so restrictive,
and almost unenforceable, yet can subject them to.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess my concern here is that, you know, it’s been part of the debate, if
you will, that, in granting the variance for the less parking spaces than are required by Code,
that you’ve got to keep those free and open. I agree. It’s a difficult situation.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. RINGER-I don’t disagree with, it’s just the way it’s written I have trouble with.
MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess I don’t have any answer.
MR. RINGER-And I don’t have the answer. If I had the answer, I would have written it up
tonight.
MR. HILTON-Because, on the other side, do you say three inches of snow or more, then you
have to remove it, then you’re out there with a tape measure? I guess I don’t, personally, don’t
have a recommended solution, or alternate.
MR. SEGULJIC-The way I read it is it just says snow also has to be removed, so that all parking
spaces are available. It doesn’t really say that when it’s a half inch of snow. It just means that,
you know, you can’t have a foot of snow or two feet of snow in there, so you have to remove the
stuff so it’s available, is the way I read it.
MR. RINGER-I’m just reading the way it’s written, and so I’m having trouble with it. If no one
else has a problem with it, I don’t have a problem with it either. I just don’t want to hang
somebody out to dry.
MR. ANDERSON-I have a comment. I think any snow that would prevent a car from parking
on the property would be snow that he would want to remove, and he must remove. A half
inch of snow wouldn’t prevent a car from parking. I think their reason for the language here
was to prevent the stockpiling of snow on the site, and taking up parking places, and for that
you can easily re-write this to mean that’s the intent of snow removal is to prevent or to prevent
storing snowfall on the property, and not to sweep off the asphalt every time there’s a dusting
of snow, minor snow.
MR. RINGER-I agree 100% with you. I just want to be sure that we don’t put something here
that’s difficult or impossible. So, if no one has a problem with it, I don’t have a problem with it
either. The other thing I had was in the three on the conditions. The use of external public
address systems outside, I would like to include that the use of external speakers and public
address systems or public address systems, because you could have, the way it’s written, the
public address system could be inside, but the speaker may be outside, the way it’s written. So
I would, you know, again, just a play on words, and if you put the speaker out there, the way
this is written, I don’t know if it says you can’t do it. So I just think that it should be the use of
external speakers or public address systems outside of the proposed zoning shall not be
allowed. Again, just for clarification.
MR. ANDERSON-Just to finish that, I think you’d have to include a speaker in a system.
MR. RINGER-I don’t, you know, the speaker could be outside the building. The system could, I
don’t know, but just a thought that I had, and the other thing I had, portable storage units will
not be allowed on site, and I’ve had a problem with what they’ve done here because they’ve left
them permanent, and you apparently don’t have a problem with it, but I know that you and
other retailers in the Town have come before us, in the past, because of seasonal situations
where you’ve had to use trailers on a temporary basis, okay, and particularly in summer, a few
years ago, that we had a very late, late spring, and you had all your summer equipment, as well
as K-Mart had the same thing, and all the equipment was in. You had no place to put it, and
temporary buildings, or temporary storage facilities were necessary. So I would like to make
Five that portable storage units will not be allowed on site without prior approval by the
Planning Board for temporary use, and that way if you do run into that situation, and it may
come up, we don’t want to tie your hands, you know, but this way if you come before us for the
temporary storage units or trucks for a 30 day or 60 day period, to cover that, and I think it
would be fair to put that in, and we’ve done that for Super K and other retail accounts in the
area. So I think we should make that change.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of those storage units, I do know that some of those storage
units are used for layaway plans, not just seasonal, Christmas, Spring, holiday type ventures,
but they’re used as layaway.
MR. RINGER-Well, that’s why I think that, they can come before us for a modification, and we
can set a limit of 30 or 60 days and it’s not going to be a permanent type thing. We want
business in the Town, and we want to cooperate with them, we don’t want storage buildings
there all the time because it looks like heck and they are a hazard, besides, but on a temporary
basis, I don’t see a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have concerns with portable storage units, just from the standpoint of
emergency access.
MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I was thinking that, in the past, they haven’t put them, the temporary
ones, they haven’t put there. They’ve put them over by the lawn and garden area.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve been scattered all around that building site.
MR. RINGER-That’s the permanent ones that they’ve had there, not the temporary ones, and so
they aren’t going to have any permanent. They’re only going to have, if we go with this, they’re
only going to have temporary, and they’ll be limited to 30 or 60 days at most, and if we think
it’s something they’re taking advantage of, since they’ve got to come before us every time, we
can say, that’s it, you know, you’re taking advantage of the situation, and no more.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s a good idea. That’s my thoughts anyway.
MR. RINGER-Well, I just don’t want to tie their hands, but I can see things coming up like that,
and so we’re protecting the Town. We’re protecting the neighbors and the people from looking
at these things, but on an emergency situation, it’s available to them. Again, I’m throwing these
out. If no one agrees, that’s not a problem either.
MR. SEGULJIC-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
MR. RINGER-I also made the note on the, added the Six that a connection of the, which they’ve
agreed to, connection with Ray Supply must be reviewed and approved by C.T. Male prior to
the issuance of any, and I think you made that same note.
MR. SEGULJIC-And Seven will be the lights at 250 watts.
MR. RINGER-Yes, I didn’t make that note, but that was, I saw Craig was writing that note, so I
didn’t write it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think Mr. Ringer may have misunderstood some of his colleague’s views
on his concern about the very first condition. I think some of your colleagues share that
concern. I think it’s an appropriate concern. I think that the language is a bit general and a bit
vague, and I would hate to see our enforcement staff receiving telephone calls from anybody
saying that every speck of snow must be removed immediately so that every parking space is
usable. I think that the suggestion to add some verbiage to that condition is a very appropriate
suggestion.
MR. SANFORD-How about just under One, the snow piles will be removed from the site, so
that all available parking spaces will be useable?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-How about we do this. We’re like that close to making this approval on this
thing.
MR. RINGER-I think it should be approved tonight. I just think these are minor changes, at
best.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t want to hold this up for another hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Why don’t we take a five or ten minute
recess and you and Mr. Ringer can put together a resolution.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll do that. Is our public hearing open?
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no direct relationship between your SEQRA review and your public
hearing.
MR. RINGER-So if you do SEQRA, you have to close the public hearing before you do SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not true. That’s what I’m trying to say. That’s not true.
MR. RINGER-But in the course, and I certainly would not challenge you, but I do remember, in
some of the courses that I took, the guy that teaches those courses, it seems like he had said that
one time, once you do the SEQRA, you have to close the public hearing to do the SEQRA, is
what I’m saying.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not true.
MR. RINGER-And we did the SEQRA, so we had to close the public hearing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not true. Certainly typical, but not.
MR. RINGER-Okay. If it’s not mandatory, I don’t have a problem with it, Mark.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my indication shows it’s still open. Gentlemen, we’re reconvening here
because the public hearing is still open. So I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute, while
we give some people an opportunity to speak. Anyone?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
STEPHANIE BITTER
MRS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter, for the record. I’m here on behalf of Whispering
Pines. I just have three items that I wanted to address. Specifically the outdoor storage
containers are very important to my clients, due to the fact that most of these storage containers
are usually placed in the back of the facility, which abuts the residential units. They’re usually
stacked up two to three high. We are very, we would like to encourage the Board to make it a
condition that there’s not at all any temporary storage containers, on a temporary or permanent
basis. We don’t want any outdoor units. Our other concern was the access on Weeks Road. In
reviewing the site plan, I realized that Wal-Mart had amended the site plan on multiple
occasions, and has placed one access route, access on Weeks Road, but at least in the depiction I
have, it still shows a truck radius to be able to turn in to that access, and since that’s right in
front of the warehouse truck area, it’s just a concern of ours that trucks are going to be utilizing
that area and going down this road, which obviously we’d voice a strong concern, and also to
note for the record, although I’m aware that the Zoning Board did identify the parking
variances, there’s some concern that parking will occur on Weeks Road.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Now I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-And now we’ll take a five minute.
MR. RINGER-Okay, before we do that, though, let’s get a consensus on these temporary storage
units, because we’ve heard from an applicant, I disagree, but if we’re going to make this
resolution, let’s get an idea from the Board how we feel. Maybe we could say we don’t want
them out back where the Whispering Pines are.
MR. SANFORD-I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that they should at least have
the right to request for temporary usage of the storage, and of course that could be granted or
denied by this Board at any time in the future. I don’t have an opinion on that. How about the
other people on the Board? Mr. Chairman, maybe you should just poll the Board to see where
the consensus is.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re doing.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have an opinion, one way or another.
MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s a good idea to give the business the flexibility that it needs to
operate, and if they have to come back to the Planning Board, then it’s our responsibility to keep
the best interest of the citizens at heart. So I think that that is a reasonable expectation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s reasonable.
MR. ANDERSON-To satisfy the adjacent homeowners, you can do that any time. Where you
put these outdoor units, it would offend people that face the units. So you might find it easier
to let the containers go into parking spaces, rather than up in the back, that’s hurting property
owners, but that can be conditioned on a particular application, for how many and for how
long.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Well, you can’t put them in parking spaces if you have to remove snow. I
mean, I guess I just threw that in because we’re talking about snow removal, and now we’re
going to put containers in the spaces. That doesn’t work, but is it going to be limited to the
storage containers? I know that Sears and Roebuck uses semi’s for storage.
MR. RINGER-Well, that’s what we’re talking about, really.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, because they’re using the versatile storage trailers, the ones you drop off.
They’re roll off.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. So, I mean, are we limiting this to storage, or are we going to limit it to
any kind of outside storage, semi’s, in other words?
MR. MAC EWAN-It depends on what the language says.
MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s just a point.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m apprehensive about it, but I understand where everybody is coming
from, and if the language is right, I would support it, but, I mean, the way things are up there
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
right now, it’s very haphazard, they’re scattered everywhere, and they’ve been that way,
permanently. They’re not like something that are in there for two or three months during the
holiday season and are gone. They just seem to grow and grow and grow, and it is a problem,
and the concern I have with it is emergency access.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, could we even consider limiting the number?
MR. RINGER-They’ve got to come before us every time. So we could limit the number each
time they come before us, if we put it in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, I’m trying to think of how to ask the question. If we said, in our
resolution here for approval, that storage, outside storage containers, temporary storage
containers/whatever, would not be permitted without making application for site plan
approval, or would it be considered a modification of this site plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think more appropriately it would be site plan modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you put time limits on it? Would we be okay to put time limits on it if it
came to that? If they came back to us and said, Christmas season, we think we’re going to need
six of these storage units. We’re going to have them for, you know, twelve weeks, from October
to the first of January, can we do a time limit on these things?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. Yes, I think that was done with seasonal displays of some sort
at the, was it Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart.
MR. RINGER-We did it at Wal-Mart, and we did it at K-Mart, and I think we did it at Home
Depot, or not Home Depot, but Lowe’s for a while, too, but twelve weeks is a lot. I was
thinking 30 days.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just threw out a number.
MR. RINGER-And I was thinking of one or two, and I sure as heck wasn’t thinking of five or
ten.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, that’s the approach that will probably be made, because they’re
going to start doing their Christmas stocking season in even late summer.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The answer to your question is yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Why don’t we take a five minute break, ten minute break
and Rich and Larry and maybe George could give them a helping hand, Counsel. Okay. We’ll
reconvene. The question was relative to the engineering for that interconnect, some direction.
MR. HILTON-C.T. Male, final C.T. Male signoff prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re to provide engineering to C.T. Male for that? Isn’t that what you
said, a survey or something?
MR. HILTON-Well, he’ll have to submit a design, you know, topography and design for the
interconnect and C.T. Male will have to review it and signoff.
MR. RINGER-That’s what we put in as a condition, that it be reviewed and approved by C.T.
Male, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
MR. SANFORD-Why don’t I read off the conditions, the seven conditions.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, before you get to that. Girard, the last set of plans that you submitted
to the Town reviewed reflected, have reflected, every single change that has been made along
this entire process, inclusive of the lighting, for the entire parcel?
GIRARD FITAMANT
MR. FITAMANT-Inclusive of the flood light elimination and everything, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-No flood lights on the building anymore?
MR. FITAMANT-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re down to 250 watts, I think it is, on all the lights throughout the
parking field, with the exception of this sign that’s down by the main road which we’re going to
condition to be 250 watts as well?
MR. FITAMANT-Two fifty on that, correct.
MR. HILTON-Honestly, I think it was 400 for the entire.
MR. FITAMANT-I think the entire site was 400. We couldn’t get the 250 to work, and the Board
agreed to the 400. Yes, but those plans that have been submitted are in the Town’s files. The
interconnect, the site plan has been provided on, that shows the connection from the Wal-Mart
drive to the Goetz’s rear parking, and just the detail of the slope of that road, and the
topography, the survey that we’ve been waiting for is really all that’s needed as far as
engineering. So it’s very basic. The layout has been provided. It’s the vertical elevations that
need to be visited by C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, have you got a list?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Here’s what I have. I think there may be another one, but the draft
resolution, last page, we’ve modified it to read as follows. One, snow piles created by snow
removal equipment will be removed from the parking area. Two, remains unchanged, which is
prior to the issuance of a building permit related to this site plan, proof that the Ames parcels
and Wal-Mart parcel have been merged shall be submitted to Planning Staff. Three, the use of
external public address systems or speakers outside of the proposed building shall not be
allowed. Four, delivery truck traffic will not be allowed on Weeks Road. Five, portable storage
units will not be allowed on site without prior approval by the Planning Board for temporary
use. Six, interconnect to Ray Supply must be reviewed and approved by C.T. Male prior to
issuance of a building permit. Seven, pylon sign will be externally lit with no more than four,
250 watt bulbs, and that’s what we have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like all of them. Anything else?
MR. SANFORD-There was some discussion about the easements, and I don’t know if we
needed anything to go in there on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, you wanted to chime in?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I just wanted to hear Number One again.
MR. SANFORD-One, snow piles created by snow removal equipment will be removed from the
parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d want to change that to removed from site. Because that was the
intention of the ZBA.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, we discussed it, and we weren’t sure if there’s grassed area, that we
would want the snow piles removed from the grassed areas, you know, up by where Queen
Diner is.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a parking area, though. It’s a grassed area. It’s the common area.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s what we’re saying. We’re saying any snow piles created by snow
removal equipment will be removed from the parking area, because you’re saying removed
from the entire site, which means that we would have to remove any piles on grass, which we
didn’t think was appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no, when I say that, I mean the parking field, the macadam areas.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what we said.
MR. RINGER-That’s what we said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Read it again.
MR. SANFORD-Snow piles created by snow removal equipment will be removed from the
parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, the intent is to remove that from the site, and relocate it somewhere else,
or dump it somewhere else.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Will be removed from the site.
MR. FITAMANT-Mr. Chairman, we had discussed this same issue, before we came to this
meeting tonight, and we felt that if all snow will be removed, so that all available parking
spaces will be usable, met the intent, and I understand how, from the site, kind of makes the
opportunity for a one or two inch snowfall to be piled up in areas that don’t affect the parking,
it kind of forces Wal-Mart to remove the snow all the time, whereas maybe they could pile it in
the landscaped areas. So if from the site was stricken, then it would read all snow will be
removed so that all available parking spaces will be usable is exactly, in our opinion, the intent
of the.
MR. RINGER-Tom had suggested that at the very beginning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but my concern is stockpiling snow in landscaped areas.
MR. RINGER-Here, how about trying this one on. Snow piles created by snow removal
equipment will be removed so that all available parking spaces will be usable. How does that
sound?
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re coming from a different angle. You want all the snow removed from the
site.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Also, just to play Devil’s Advocate, having come this far on this, that
doesn’t require any snow removal of any kind, whatsoever. In other words, it’s a silly
comment.
MR. RINGER-The only reason we’ve got this in as a condition is to preserve the parking spaces.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and my point was, by limiting the condition to removal of snow piles
created by snow removal equipment, it’s kind of a silly comment, but having come this far, I
should throw it out. In theory, the applicant could say, fine, any snow piles that are created by
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
snow removal equipment we’ll take care of, but we’re not going to plow. We’re not going to
create any snow piles with snow removal equipment. I mean, it wouldn’t be a wise business
decision, okay, but if you’re crafting this language, I think you were better off where you started
off with some of the more general stuff, except that you do have competing interests here. I
think you all are talking about making sure the parking area is clear, and I think at least the
Chairman, I’m not sure how much support he has, is talking about not allowing the snow to be
stockpiled on the landscaped areas. So I think you need to resolve that first, as a Board.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but the reason for having this in here was to preserve the parking spaces, not
to preserve the green space.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s not Mr. MacEwan’s reason.
MR. RINGER-I know, but we would never put this in, I take that back, we have put it in a
couple of other conditions, but only to preserve parking spaces, and not aesthetics.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. You need to resolve that issue as a Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-A point of order, that it wasn’t an issue several meetings ago when the
applicant said that if snow removal was an issue, they wouldn’t have a problem removing it
from the site, and it’s pretty much the same message that you gave the ZBA, as well.
MR. FITAMANT-We would like to have comment number one stand. Because that may be
interpreted as removed from the site so that all parking spaces are usable, that’s the intent. All
parking spaces will be usable. That’s, Wal-Mart is committed to that.
MR. SANFORD-Let’s just leave One the way it was originally written.
MRS. STEFFAN-I actually, I think the applicant said it. It’s reasonable from the site. That way
it gives them the opportunity to do what they need to do. The only person who, the people
who will really suffer if they don’t have all their parking spaces available, is Wal-Mart.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think we’re making too much of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-And just so you know, I mean, we spent a lot of time with this applicant on
the landscaping of this thing. You’d hate like heck to have the landscaping ruined through the
course of the first winter with snow, salt, oils and whatever that may be in that snow on all
those plantings. That was my drive behind that.
MR. SANFORD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because the applicant would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping,
and you don’t want to keep doing that year after year after year. That was the message about
wanting to remove it from the site.
MR. RINGER-Okay. It’s cost effective for him.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. HILTON-I just want to touch on the portable storage units. As I understand it, if this
resolution goes through, the units will not be allowed without prior approval of the Planning
Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct.
MR. HILTON-So really what you’re saying is that any units that are out there now, are not
allowed, as they were not shown on any of these site plans that you’re approving.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I just wanted that clear.
MR. MAC EWAN-And they’d have to be removed.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I just want that clarified. Additionally, do you want to specify a
timeframe, that says that if there are any on-site right now, that they are removed within a
certain amount, a number of days or that they come back for the site plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, give them some time to get those things out of there. I would
say, I would suggest maybe within 30 days of issuance of a building permit, all those trailers
can be out of there. You’re a ways away from building permit. A couple of months anyway,
probably, by the time you get everything tied together.
MR. RINGER-They may have to go to temporary storage some place, because they’re going to
lose a lot of space when they’re building, but that’s their problem, and they’ve agreed to it.
MR. HILTON-Unless they come back for a site plan modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think they’re sick of seeing us.
MR. FITAMANT-And to add another fly to the ointment, during construction, there’s inevitably
going to be a requirement, a use temporary storage for equipment, during construction. I don’t
know how the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, what’s your legal opinion on that? I mean, if it’s storage trailers for
construction purposes, it’s not tied in to the store operations, the storing of product or
merchandise, is that something of a different color, or is storage storage?
MR. SCHACHNER-Perhaps Choice Two, unless you clarify in your resolution.
MR. METIVIER-Can you do this, can you make it conditional on a CO that all storage
containers have to be removed?
MR. SCHACHNER-You certainly can if you want.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, think about it. That might be the most logical.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good idea, Tony. Change that.
MR. SANFORD-How about this. Portable storage units will not be allowed on site without
prior approval by the Planning Board, for temporary use. Existing portable storage units will
be removed within 30 days of issuance of CO.
MR. MAC EWAN-Prior to issuance of the CO.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, will be removed prior to issuance of CO.
MR. RINGER-That should work very well for them and for the Town.
MR. FITAMANT-That works.
MR. MAC EWAN-Doable. Run with it. Any other comments, suggestions, add-ons?
MR. RINGER-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-I closed the public hearing this time. Go with it, Rich.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by
Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 25-2003 Applicant: Wal-Mart Stores
SEQRA Type I Property Owner: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. & Nat. Realty
Agent: Neal Madden, Esq.
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: Route 9 and Weeks Road
Applicant proposes expansion of existing Wal-Mart store by constructing a 95,217 sq. ft
building addition for a total building square footage of 216,080. Planning Board may issue a
SEQR determination at this meeting.
Cross Reference: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32-92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-
93, AV 11-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-36, 37
Lot size: 11.29 ac., 6.46 ac. / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 22, 2003
September 18, 2003
November 20, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03, 9/18/03 and 10/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of and 5/14/04, and
2004
5/18 Staff Notes
5/11 GH from PBA Architects: 11 x 17 color elevations
4/26 P. Hentschke from GH: SEQRA Neg Dec
4/19 ZBA Chair from Agent: AV 38-03
4/5 Fax to Agent from GH
4/5 Double Duty, retail traffic 12/1/03 from internet
3/23 Determination of Non-Significance
3/23 PB minutes
3/23 Long Form EAF signed by Secretary Chris Hunsinger
3/20 Post Star article
3/17 ZBA resolution: Tabled AV 38-03 and SV 71-03
3/16 Agent from Jonathan Lapper: Wal-Mart easement agreement for Ray Supply
interconnect
3/16 Draft resolution: Adopting SEQR Neg Dec
3/16 Staff Notes
3/11 CB & CT Male from Langan Eng.: response to comments of 3/5
3/10 PB from Stephen Davis regarding parking lot lighting fixture height
3/10 PB from Stephen Davis regarding lighting
3/10 PB from Stephen Davis regarding lighting
3/9 Additional information: Pavement and Signage drawing
3/8 GH from Langan
3/5 CB from CT Male: engineering comments on latest noise analyses provided
3/5 FOIL request from S. Davis
2/28 GH from J. Speer: Additional information
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
2/27 GH from J. Speer: Revised lighting plan
2/18 ZBA staff notes
2/17 PB from RSG, Inc.: Noise Evaluation at request of D. Valenti
2/17 Staff Notes
2/13 CT Male engineering comments
2/13 Jonathan Lapper from P. Sylvestri, Agent: Wal-Mart easement for sound barrier
and retaining wall
2/12 FOIL request from S. Davis
2/11 PB from S. Davis: Lighting comments
1/29 G. Geotz, Ray Supply from Wm. Logan, NYS DOT
1/15 Applicant submission
1/15 GH from Agent: letter documenting meeting w/interested property owners,
public, planning staff member and PB to discuss Good Neighbor Plan
1/14 FOIL request: J. Valenti
2003
12/31 J. Speer, Langan Eng. From CB: Outstanding issues
12/29 Fax to J. Speer: lighting plan comment
12/29 E-mail to J. Speer from CB
12/23 E-mail from S. Hemingway to CB
12/22 Applicant submission
12/18 Set of maps
12/11 PB from Nace Engineering: retained by Whispering Pines apartments, concerns
12/11 PB resolution
12/11 PB minutes
12/11 Staff notes
12/8 Revised Site Development Data Sheet
12/8 PB from S. Davis: comments regarding Lighting Plan
12/2 Agent from CB: telephone conversation of 11/26/03: issues
11/26 GH from J. Houston, CT Male: documentation of site visit on 11/24/03
11/24 FOIL request: S. Davis
11/20 Staff Notes
11/20 PB minutes
11/20 PB resolution: Tabled
11/20 PB from Jonathan Lapper: Whispering Pines concerns
11/20 Empire Acoustical System: received at mtg.
11/20 New information
11/19 PB from Agent: various comments
11/19 Lighting Plan, Map No. 25.01
11/18 CT Male engineering comments: sign-off
11/17 Fax to applicant/agent: staff notes
11/13 Notice of Public Hearing
11/13 GH from agent: 11/7/03 letter sent to neighbors, etc.
11/10 Wm. Lothian, NYSDOT from Wm. Logan, NYSDOT
11/7 Lighting cut sheets
11/3 Meeting Notice sent
10/15 Applicant submission
9/18 Staff Notes
918 PB from S. Bitter, BPSR
9/15 CT Male engineering comments
9/15 B. Lothian, Langan Eng. To M. Kennedy, NYSDOT
9/12 PB from M. Ryba - Lighting
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
9/11 Notice of Public Hearing
9/3 Meeting Notice
9/3 W. Logan, NYSDOT to J. Speer, Langan Eng.
8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male
8/18 New Info received: see letter from Langan Engineers Dated 8/14/03
8/5 J. Speer from Wm. Logan [DOT]
8/4 E-mail: revised elevations
7/21 GH from S. Bitter, BPSR: FOIL request
7/17 PB resolution: Tabled
7/17 CR from K. Chadwick [BPSR]: To J. Lapper from P. Faith of Edwards & Kelcey
7/17 CB from J. Speer: responses to Staff Notes of 7/17/03
7/17 Staff Notes: 6/24 letter from A/GFTC, 7/11 CT Male comments
7/14 Fax: Staff notes to agents
7/14 GH from S. Bitter [BPSR]
7/14 FOIL request: Edwards & Kelcey
7/10 Returned 500’ notification: S. Brean, M. Punzone
7/10 Notice of Public Hearing
7/9 Warren Co. PB recommendation: Approved w/condition [for variance]
6/30 Transmittal to J. Edwards from PW: Prel. SWPPP
6/26 CB from J. Speer: Prel. SWPPP
6/17 PB resolution: acknowledging LA status
6/16 CB from J. Speer: Supporting documentation for Area &Sign Var., and SPR
6/12 PB from GH: Staff note Update
6/12 Fax to agents: copy of Public Information bulletin
6/12 Public Information bulletin sent 6/12/03
6/2 CR from G. Goetz of Ray Supply
5/28 ZBA resolution: consent to PB lead agency request
5/22 PB minutes
5/22 Staff Notes
5/22 PB res.: seeking LA status
5/22 PB from G. Goetz of Ray Supply
5/19 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/19 Fax to agent: staff notes
5/16 CB, M. Shaw: response letter to Wastewater dept. comments
5/15 Notice of Public Hearing
5/14 Warren Co. Planning: approved w/condition
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 NYS DOT comments
5/6 Water Dept. comments
5/6 Wastewater Dept. comments
5/2 J. Speer from Wm. Logan [DOT]
Undated Photos from J. Underwood, ZBA member
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 May 22, 2003 and September 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and on March 24, 2004 the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration,
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:
1. All snow will be removed from the site so that all available parking spaces will be
usable.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit related to this site plan, proof that the Ames
parcels and Wal-Mart parcel have been merged shall be submitted to Planning Staff.
3. The use of external public address systems or speakers outside of the proposed building
shall not be allowed.
4. Delivery truck traffic will not be allowed on Weeks Road.
5. Portable storage units will not be allowed on site without prior approval by the Planning
Board for temporary use. Existing portable storage units will be removed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
6. The interconnect to Ray Supply must be reviewed and approved by C.T. Male, prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
7. Pylon sign will be externally lit with no more than four (4) 250 watt bulbs.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. HENTSCHKE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Finally. Good luck. Rich, your handwritten notes there, that you just did for
that motion, give them to George, please.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NOEL LA BONTE, III PROPERTY
OWNER: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: DANIEL RYAN ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,116 SQ. FT. 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE. MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO.
309.9-3-86 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t remember if I announced this earlier tonight or not. At the request of
the applicant, it is to be tabled, and I had a question, procedurally wise. Based on your letter, it
says that there’s a proposition to combine the parcels. We anticipate resubmitting a revised
application. Would that not be a new application?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. HILTON-You could look at it that way, or you could look at it as additional information in
support of this. If it’s substantial enough for you, you could consider it new.
MR. LAPPER-The issue here, this was compliant with zoning, but a number of the Board
members, including Mr. Sanford, were concerned about the density, and when we considered
that, and realized there was the opportunity to combine this with the lot next door, it would be
a four plex instead of a three plex, but it would be on a much bigger lot. It’s not a done deal yet,
but I expect that that’s going to happen. So I expect that we’ll get that together and submit it in
June, to be on the July agenda.
MR. SANFORD-Are you talking about the wooded lot?
MR. LAPPER-I’ve only seen it on a survey. It’s the lot on the south.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s called wooded lot on the plan, I think.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-It’s about a sixteenth of an acre, is it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark ,what do you think?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not real familiar with the details of the application. If somebody wants
to summarize it for me, I can take a stab. Typically, it’s not vital whether you treat new
information as new information on a pending application or a new application, other than for
how, whether you want to start the review process from Square One or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know that we had some public comment the last time we had this
application on, was it last month or the month before?
MR. LAPPER-The month before, I think.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the public hearing has been left open, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-We left the public hearing open. March 16, yes.
th
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So it sounds like either way, presumably, I would think, you’d get
public comment. I mean, the legal standard, and it’s not much of a standard, and I apologize,
but I’m not the author of it, is the materiality of the new information. If it’s materially,
fundamentally different from what was originally proposed, then it’s more appropriate to
consider a new application. If it’s not materially different, and it’s really just, you know,
modification that doesn’t fundamentally change what’s proposed, it’s usually appropriate not
to consider a new application, but it’s really a judgment call.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And again, the significance of it is largely how far back in the process you
go, whether you start from Square One or just pick up where you left off.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re going to make your submissions by middle of June?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-To be on in July.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004, NOEL LABONTE, III, Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Until our first regular meeting in July, to give the applicant time to submit new application
materials to support the application, by our June 15 deadline. That the neighbors be re-
th
noticed.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. RINGER-I would think, if I may interrupt, with your motion there, also that this is a major
change. So can we add to that motion that notices be sent out again? I mean, going from three
to four, you know, it may be a better plan, but it’s still a major change.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. No problem.
MR. RINGER-It’s your motion, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. We’ll go with Mr. Ringer’s suggestion that in addition to the
tabling motion, that the applicant re-notice, or the Town. Who’s going to do it, the Town?
MR. HILTON-Unless you direct otherwise.
MR. LAPPER-The Town would do it.
MR. HILTON-I mean, we could do it.
MR. LAPPER-Noel could pay for it, if you want to bill it extra.
MR. METIVIER-If you shift that lot, though, the notices could change, couldn’t they?
MR. HILTON-Well, see, that’s a good point.
MR. LAPPER-They won’t go out until after we resubmit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That we re-notice the neighbors.
MR. RINGER-I’ll second your motion.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Let the record reflect I’ve left the public hearing open for this application.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIX
AVENUE PROPERTIES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A, HC-INT.
LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, ACROSS FROM MC DONALD’S APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 14.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.23 ACRES AND 13.35
ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 3-2000, SUB. 23-1989, SUB. 4-1991 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-
1-1 LOT SIZE: 14.58 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & TOM BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2004, Preliminary Stage, Dix Avenue Properties, Meeting
Date: May 18, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 2-2004 (Preliminary Stage)
APPLICANT: Dix Avenue properties is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.58-acre property into two lots of
13.35 acres and 1.23 acres.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Dix Avenue, east of Quaker Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive and LI,
Light Industry.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in
neighborhood 10 according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long
form EAF as part of the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: This property was previously reviewed as a Sketch Plan subdivision
application. The outcome of that review was that the Planning Board instructed the applicant to
return with a new sketch plan subdivision application showing one access drive to serve all lots
within the proposed subdivision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.58-acre property into two
lots of 13.35 and 11.23 acres. The property is located on Dix Avenue, east of Quaker Rd. A
review of the Town’s GIS data indicates site topography is relatively level. No mapped
wetlands were found on the property.
The property will be served by municipal water service. The property is not within a municipal
sewer district, however no on-site septic system has been shown on the subdivision plat. The
plat does not contain any information on soil conditions or depth to groundwater in this area.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Along with the previous Sketch Plan application related to this current application, the
applicant has appeared before the Planning Board on different occasions with a discussion item
site plan for a Dunkin Donuts on the 1.23-acre lot in this subdivision. The applicant has also
previously submitted a site plan application, a Preliminary and Final subdivision application
for this property in anticipation of a positive sketch plan review by the Planning Board.
The applicant has submitted a SEQRA Long Form EAF with the Preliminary subdivision
application, which does not appear to provide any details on potential impacts from the
development of a Dunkin Donuts on the smaller lot in this subdivision. As the Planning Board
is aware, under SEQRA a project cannot be segmented. Since it is known that there is future
development of this lot planned (as indicated by the applicant’s filing of site plans for the 1.23
acre lot in this subdivision), more information may be needed to completely determine the
environmental impacts (if any) of the proposed subdivision as well as the proposed Dunkin
Donuts development associated with this subdivision.
As part of the Sketch Plan review of this application, the Planning Board communicated to the
applicant that all lots within this subdivision should be served by one access point off of Dix
Avenue. The Preliminary plat shows a proposed cul-de-sac to serve the larger lot, with a
connection to this internal road from the smaller lot. At the time of any final review and
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
approval of this subdivision, the Planning Board may wish to stipulate that all vehicular access
will be from the proposed cul-de-sac, and that all lots within this subdivision will be served by
this internal road.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, George.
MR. HILTON-The application before you is for Preliminary review of a two lot subdivision on a
14.58 acre property into two lots of 13.3 and 1.23 acres. This application was previously before
the Board as a Sketch Plan review. It is now being reviewed as a Preliminary subdivision. The
applicant has requested waivers from providing a stormwater management plan, grading and
lighting plan. Previous discussions on this property focused around access and the Planning
Board’s desire to have one vehicular access point serving the entire subdivision. The applicant
has shown a proposed or potential access point with a connection from a proposed, from the
smaller lot, which has been reviewed also previously as a, has been presented to the Board as a
discussion item, as a potential Dunkin Donuts site plan. I guess, and my comment here as far as
SEQRA and coordinated, or cumulative impacts, this Board is aware that there is a site plan
associated with this project. Again, just for your consideration, that the Long Form EAF that the
applicant has submitted deals primarily, and only, it appears, with the Preliminary subdivision.
Because there is an action here that is also, that has also been identified, you may want to
consider, or take into consideration not only the subdivision, but the site plan as well, and I
think Mark can probably speak in more detail.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m just changing may from may to must.
MR. HILTON-And that’s really all I have at this time.
MR. LAPPER-We expect that next month you would have the subdivision and the site plan on
in the same evening, and certainly it would be appropriate to do the SEQRA review at that time,
when you have both applications before you. We did submit both for this month, but because
the agenda had nine extra applications, the subdivision made it, but the site plan did not.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d have to do SEQRA at Preliminary, right?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and the other thing is, and I’m not sure if, I don’t think the
applicant is saying this, and you all need to make sure that Part I of the Long Form discusses
the parameters of both the subdivision and whatever it is that’s being reviewed by site plan.
That would be the applicant’s responsibility, and the answer to your question is, yes, you can’t
do Preliminary approval prior to SEQRA review.
MR. LAPPER-We actually have two Long Forms. One for the site plan and one for the SEQR,
because they’re different applicants. Rich Schermerhorn is the owner of the property, through
one of their companies, and Tom Burke, who’s with me, is the site plan applicant for the Dunkin
Donuts.
MR. SCHACHNER-So you just have to review them together, in one Part II. I don’t care
whether you have two Part I’s, or one Part I, just so long as you do it together as one Part II.
MR. RINGER-Well, why don’t we just table this thing tonight and do the Preliminary and the
Final and the site plan all at one time?
MR. LAPPER-We expect that’s where you’ll go, but we need to start talking about it. There’s
just sort of a conceptual issue that we talked about, a couple of times with the Board, in terms of
the entrance, which is the real issue, and we just want to further those discussions tonight, and
we’ll certainly be back next month to talk about it when it’s all before you.
MR. RINGER-It seems like what you’ve done is what the Board had asked you to do, is to put
that entrance.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that was our intention, to show the Board what it could look like with one
entrance, and I guess that’s really the meat of what we’re here to talk about. The only reason
why we have some waiver requests is because that information is provided on the site plan. It’s
a waiver on the subdivision, like the stormwater, so it’s not on the subdivision plan, but it’s on
the site plan, and we really had full expected that the Board would consider both applications
together, and I understand that the agenda was crowded this month, but the discussion that we
had, when Tom and I were here in December, was about what the site would ultimately look
like with the development on the remaining 11 acre parcel, and if you’ll recall, the rear half of
the site is zoned industrial, and the front half is zoned commercial. So the problem for doing
any real conceptual planning at this point is that we don’t know if Rich is going to wind up
with a warehouse with tractor trailers or a shopping center, and if it’s a shopping center, it
would certainly be appropriate to have a combined entrance with Dunkin Donuts, because
those would be the same type of users, the car traffic. If you have tractor trailer traffic, that
might not work real well with people trying to do a drive-thru at Dunkin Donuts. So what we
wanted to show was to respectfully answer the Board and say, you want a driveway some day
in front when the whole site is developed, you’d like the driveway for the remainder of the site
to be in front of McDonalds, and that’s what we showed. So it would be a four way intersection
that the Board had asked for, but at the same time, the way we hope the Board will ultimately
handle this next month is that, as a condition of the approval of the site plan, we agree that we
will come back and revisit the access at such time that Rich’s site gets developed, but if there’s
only going to be one access on the site at all, Tom would ask you to put that one access on
Dunkin Donuts, put one curb cut in and out, because it’s a lot better for his customers to come
in and out of his site than to have to do this elbow drive around when there’s no purpose to do
that, since there’s nothing else to get to. So we’re agreeing to a condition, but we’re saying
there’s no reason to impose that now because there’s no other user on the site.
MR. SANFORD-Across from the McDonalds, you have now the curb cut on this drawing.
MR. LAPPER-On the subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Are you saying that until it’s better understood what this campus is going
to look like, you would like to have consideration for a different curb cut going right into Lot
Two?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because we’re not asking for any curb cut on Lot One at this time, because
there’s no development on Lot One.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but this Board has, we’ve talked about this thing for over a year.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And this Board has been steadfast and their position is that they want one
curb cut feeding the entire parcel, and that curb cut was to be opposite the McDonalds curb cut,
which you’ve shown on here.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s shown on a subdivision for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-A a concept for the future development of Lot Two, but right now, nothing is
going on Lot Two.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, what you’re showing on here, or are we trying to twist the facts here?
Because we asked you, and I told you personally to get on the agenda this month, the Board
was looking for you to show access, common access feeding the entire parcel, including the
proposed subdivided parcel for the Dunkin Donuts. Are you now telling me that’s not what
you want to do?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. LAPPER-No, what I’m saying is that this would be a phased project. That there’s no
reason to do that now. We show it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what we talked about, though, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Well, when we were here in December, there was a split on the Board, four to
three, and Mr. Ringer, who’s scowling at me now, I think was on the side of, it was okay to
begin with, to start, to put the access on Dunkin Donuts, and then we’d look at it when
somebody else came in on Rich’s site. We’re not trying to be argumentative at all, and I’ll
remind you that Tom went pretty far, on Glen Street, and answered all of your architectural
requests.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not talking about Glen Street. We’re talking about Dix Avenue.
MR. LAPPER-No, but I’m just talking about in terms of attitude and approach to the Board, he
was trying to make the Board happy last time, and he wants to make the Board happy this time,
and we started out with the same Dunkin Donuts design that we did on Glen Street for this site,
before you even asked for it, saying everything we agreed to last time we’ll start with a nicer
looking building, and the site will operate that way. So the only disagreement we have is as to
access.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, and we’ve had this disagreement for over a year, and the Board has
been very clear in its message to you, and the applicants and Mr. Schermerhorn, over a year,
that it’s this Board’s desire to want to feed that parcel via one access road. All subdivided
parcels within that parcel should be fed off that access road. That access road should be
opposite the McDonalds curb cut. That’s what you’ve got shown here.
MR. LAPPER-Let me show you what that would look like for Dunkin Donuts, because you
haven’t seen the site plan submission yet, but we submitted an alternative layout. So we
submitted the layout that we’d like to start with, and we submitted a potential alternative,
which uses the McDonalds curb cut, and I just want to put that up and show you why it doesn’t
seem to make sense for the time being, with nothing else on the site.
MR. RINGER-Wait a minute. It just seems like we’re wasting time. We should do the
subdivision and the site plan at the same time, and, Jon, my feeling hasn’t changed since
December. I still think that the Dunkin Donuts should have a driveway there, but I think we
should look at the whole plan at one time, and not look at a subdivision and give you our
thoughts today and then next month.
MR. LAPPER-The only reason that happened is because the agenda got full. We submitted
both last month.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but we aren’t going to accomplish anything tonight. Let’s do it next month,
instead of taking time tonight when we’ve got a full agenda. You’re not going to gain anything
tonight.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s fine, but I don’t want the Chairman to think that we’re challenging
him, because we’re trying to show that we’ve provided what you want in the future. It’s just a
question of whether that’s necessary now.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that we’re here to have a jousting match.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if I’m doing my job up here as a planner on this Board, and I know
for over a year this Board has directed you folks, every time you have sat down with us, about
what the Board would like to see as desired development of that parcel. The last time you and I
spoke, when we said resubmit for a Sketch Plan, you and I had a telephone conversation, asked
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
to be put on the agenda, and I said, if you do what the Board asked you to do, by showing
access serving the entire acreage, and each subdivided parcel off that acreage was going to be
accessed by that service road, you could be put on the agenda, and that’s what you told me, but
you’re telling us something different right now.
MR. LAPPER-No, what that shows, Craig, is that the entrance to the front of McDonalds can
work for the whole site, and that’s there for the future, if that’s where you want it, but if all you
have is a Dunkin Donuts, it’s not necessary to do that now, and the reason is this. You don’t
know what’s going next door, and that McDonalds.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Nobody does.
MR. LAPPER-That may not work. Because it may be a conflict between, because it’s a dual
zone site, and if it’s an industrial site, that may not be the right answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-To have another curb cut onto Dix Avenue for the Dunkin Donuts store that
doesn’t utilize the access road is something this Board has clearly indicated they do not desire
to have.
MR. LAPPER-But you just said another curb cut, and we’re only suggesting one curb cut, there
be no curb cut onto Rich’s property, because there’s no need for a curb cut now.
MR. SANFORD-Jon, if it doesn’t line up with the McDonalds, which was one of the reasons
why we liked that location, and so, you know, we have some issues there.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know, your nomenclature on this thing says future, proposed future
access location. There’s an arrow pointing in to not only the middle of the access road, but the
curbed road that feeds the subdivided lot. So which one is the future?
MR. LAPPER-The future is across from McDonalds and the present is on Dunkin Donuts, but
we’re showing that it can work across from McDonalds. If you have nothing else other than
Dunkin Donuts, you’ve got this entrance over there. People are making a right turn, a left turn,
a right turn, to get to one Dunkin Donuts. It’s a lot to ask for.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a lot to ask.
MR. LAPPER-No, for the customer. It’s just not needed, because it’s only one curb cut, but we
understand where you’re going in the future.
MR. RINGER-I think they’ve got the right to come back with a site plan and a subdivision
request, and, you know, let us look at it. All we’ve had before was discussion. We’ve never
had a formal application before us. Let them put a formal application before us, next month, for
the subdivision which we’ve got now, and include the site plan in it, and then we can look at it,
but we’re not going to accomplish anything tonight, and, you know, you’ve got a little split up
here, and you had a split in December. So, show us a site plan, with a subdivision, and you’ve
got every right.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-The only thing we’ve had before has been discussion.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RINGER-No Sketch Plan has been presented.
MR. LAPPER-Now we’ve got both sets of applications.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. RINGER-Right. So you’ve got a right to submit a Preliminary and a Final application, and
the site plan and let us look at them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a question, so that I’m clear in my mind. Maybe I’m
misinterpreting something here. The two proposed accesses that you have drawn in phantom
lines, dashed lines on this subdivision now, are both proposed. That’s the proposed way you’re
going to gain access to a future?
MR. LAPPER-Because Rich’s site doesn’t need access now.
MR. MAC EWAN-We think it does.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that’s where we disagree.
MR. MAC EWAN-We think, in the efforts of good planning, because you know that one portion
of this is going to be sold off, quickly down the road, other portions will be sold off, especially
those that are directly fronting Dix Avenue.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I would expect that Rich would build on the other side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Great.
MR. LAPPER-And probably not sell it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That goes back to what we said last December which was put together a plan
on how you’re going to subdivide the thing out, Rich.
MR. LAPPER-And the problem is that it’s probably not going to be subdivided. It’s probably
going to be one user.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Now you’ve got two commercial properties facing Dix Avenue, both
of those would be fed by one common access road, including the undeveloped rear portion of
the property.
MR. LAPPER-And that can work, if they’re both commercial, absolutely, but the problem is that
to make that decision now, without knowing what’s going to be next door.
MR. MAC EWAN-You told me the front portion is Highway Commercial and you said Rich is
going to develop it.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but the back is Light Industrial, and if somebody wanted to do a Light
Industrial project, he could come to the Town and say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what’s that got to do with an access road? It doesn’t matter what the
zone is back there, as long as you gain access to the parcel. The zone’s immaterial.
MR. BURKE-I’m Tom Burke. I was here in December. I think I’m a little confused as well,
because the direction I took that night from the Board was that at least for the time being, the
Board was receptive to a curb cut on what will be my property on the subdivided piece off of
the larger Schermerhorn piece, with the understanding that when Mr. Schermerhorn was in a
position, and had an interest in developing the remainder of his property, we would then look
at combining and having a common driveway at that time, but since he has no plan for
development, since there is nothing on the table, and I’m the only thing, the only game in town
now, to force me to have a remote entrance a couple of hundred feet away from where I have
my land and my building, and to have cross easements and reciprocal agreements, and, you
know, who’s going to plow it? Who’s going to insure it? How do you get in and out? It just
baffles me. This isn’t my first development project either, and, you know, I’m respectful of this
Board and this community, and the need to address public safety and, you know, shared access
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
and all those kinds of things, but, you know, very frankly, and I tried to illustrate this point to
the Board with examples of other projects, not in ancient history, but ongoing right now in other
communities, where on busier roads, we have the same exact project with not one but two and
even three curb cuts. It is not unreasonable, and it’s not unfair to say, you know, because when
we came in we wanted two curb cuts. So when we heard the Board’s desire to see less, we cut it
back to one. We changed our design. We re-engineered the project, we came back with one
curb cut, and, given the service level on that road, the amount of traffic, the kind of use that we
are, it’s not inconsistent with good planning to allow us to have our driveway as it’s illustrated
on this site plan, and that’s what I’d like you to consider for now, and I think what Mr. Lapper’s
intentions were, were to address, again, the concerns that some Board members had about what
happens in the future, if and when Rich Schermerhorn develops the rest of his property, what
do we do here. That’s what this other plan tries to show, is, okay, this is how we deal with it,
but to make us do that now, that’s the kiss of death on the project. There’s nothing going on on
the rest of that site, and what if he did have some sort of use that had a lot of tractor trailers or
semi’s or whatever was going in that maybe you wouldn’t want, as a Board, to mix my traffic
with that traffic. I understand the need to limit the curb cuts, but to say on a 12 or 14 acre site,
absolutely one only, we don’t know what’s coming, and we don’t care, and that’s it, I don’t
think that’s what you folks want to do. I think you want to consider what the future holds, and
what the use is going to be, and what’s appropriate and what’s right and what’s fair. That’s all
I’m asking you to do. Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-I think my memory is pretty clear on this, though. My understanding was that
we were anticipating the future build out and wanted to have one entrance into the whole
subdivision, and recognizing you would be the first project, and as your drawing suggests, this
is what we were kind of looking for, not as, if my memory serves me correct, not as a future
possibility, but as an initial possibility. I thought we made it pretty clear, the Board.
MR. LAPPER-The answer is that the Board was split, and there were three members, at that
time, of the members that were there that night, that felt that it should be done initially.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four to three is not a split. Four to three is a majority vote. Okay. That’s the
first point of fact, Jon.
MR. RINGER-This was a discussion, not a vote.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. It was a Sketch Plan. Nothing was on the table at that point.
MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely right.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you questioned any kind of direction this Board has given this application
or these proposed developments over the past eight or nine months or a year at this point,
reflect back to the minutes. The minutes clearly indicate that this Board’s desire was to try to
get the development of that parcel underway. That’s first and foremost. The second thought,
and I want to respond to your comment about other communities. What happens in South
Glens Falls, Town of Moreau, wherever else you may be developing, we shouldn’t be held to
the same standards, because we don’t know, one, do they have an open space plan. We don’t
know what their zoning requirements are like. We don’t know what their subdivision
regulations are like. We’re dealing with the regulations that we have to be governed by here in
front of this Board. We’re bound by our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and those are the tools
that we use to try to help guide this Town in doing the right thing, as far as planning. We’ve
said this all along, that we think the best way to handle this 13 plus acres down there is for Mr.
Schermerhorn, well over a year, ago, to show us a subdivision plan on how he wants to divide
this property up, inclusive of using a single access to be located across from McDonalds. That
statement has not changed in the three or four times this application has come in front of us.
MR. LAPPER-But that can be handled with a condition, rather than to ask him to put it in now.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Look, at this point, we could beat this thing to death tonight. Submit an
application.
MR. LAPPER-We have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Submit a subdivision application and submit a site plan application, and
we’ll take it from there.
MR. LAPPER-It’s all pending. We’ll see you next month.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-If I may, you may want to table this to a specific meeting, and be clear. This is
Preliminary. You may even want to open the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is your EAF correct, as far as SEQRA review goes, for these applications
being jointly reviewed?
MR. LAPPER-What Mark said works for me.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, the answer to your question is no, it’s not, because they’ve done two
separate, correct me if I’m wrong, applicant, they’ve done two separate EAF’s, and, you know,
frankly I’d prefer to see one EAF, so you can review it as one document, but if you would
prefer, as a Board, or if you’re willing, as a Board, to go and to do separate ones, so long as you
review them together, cumulatively, when you formulate your responses to Part II, I don’t
really care much about that, but you certainly have the right to require one Part One, if you
want to consolidate.
MR. LAPPER-We can do that, as long as you don’t mind us submitting it in a couple of days.
We can do one EAF.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s probably more appropriate, if the applicant’s willing to do that. It
seems like that’s more appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do that, please.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re tabling this application until our, are they on for June?
MR. HILTON-Well, they have submitted information, site plan application and Final
subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is going to be reviewed tomorrow for completeness.
MR. HILTON-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And tomorrow’s Wednesday. Close of business Friday have that EAF?
MR. LAPPER-Not a problem.
MR. RINGER-Which meeting are you tabling it to?
MR. MAC EWAN-Our second meeting of June which would be the 22. June 22.
ndnd
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES &
HAYES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF
DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.47 ACRE
PROPERTY, LOCATED OFF OF DIXON ROAD (EAST OF I-87), INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 ACRES TO 0.72 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-
2003 TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 LOT SIZE: 8.50 ACRES SECTION: A183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, MICKIE HAYES, & CAMERON STEUER, REP. APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2004, Preliminary Stage, Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date:
May 18, 2004 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 7-2004 (Preliminary Stage)
APPLICANT: Hayes & Hayes are the applicants for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.47 +/- acre property into 12
single-family residential lots.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Dixon Rd., east of Interstate
87.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SFR-20, Single Family Residential 20 000 sq. ft.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in
neighborhood 12 according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long
form EAF as part of the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: This property was previously reviewed as SB 6-2003. As required by the
Planning Board, the applicant has submitted new application materials for this subdivision,
which are currently before you as SB7-2004.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.47-acre property into 12
single-family residential lots. The property is located on the south side of Dixon Rd., just east of
I-87.
The property is relatively level with some slope up to the south. The subject property will be
served by municipal water service. Individual on-site wastewater systems are proposed for the
12 homes shown on the subdivision plat.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waiver:
Sketch Plan submission
-
The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report as part of the
subdivision application, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment.
As this proposal involves construction on greater than one acre, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent are required to be submitted with this application. Staff
suggests a condition that a copy of the required SWPPP and Notice of Intent be submitted for
review during any final stage of this application.
Issues discussed with the previous application for this subdivision (SB6-2003) include:
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
Noise impacts on the existing and proposed homes from traffic traveling on I-87 (located to
-
the west of this site)
Air quality concerns related to the construction of homes adjacent to I-87
-
Drainage impacts on adjacent residents to the east
-
The applicant submitted noise information with the previous application (SB6-2003) that
analyzed potential noise impacts related to the proposed subdivision. Planning Staff requested
this noise analysis be submitted in support of the current application during the pre-
application conference for SB 7-2004, however, this information has not been submitted as part
of the current application materials.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a couple of quick comments. This is a resubmission, new subdivision,
new file number of a subdivision plan that has been before this Board before. It’s a 12 lot single
family residential subdivision proposed on the south side of Dixon Road, just east of the
Northway. The applicant has requested a Sketch Plan waiver. One comment is that the
required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and NOI have not been received, and our
comment would be that during any review of Final Stage of this application, that those items be
provided for review. Quick summary of the issues, I think you’re well aware, noise, air quality,
drainage impacts in this area. Our initial comments at the time of the pre-application meeting
was a suggestion that noise information be provided. As of the writing of these notes, that
information had not been submitted. Today we did receive some information from the
applicant, as far as a noise summary analysis data, if you will. That information is here, if you’d
like me to hand it out to you, and with that, that’s all I have at this time. We do have a public
hearing scheduled. There are members of the public here, and I believe we do have some
written comment as well. So, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Is the noise the same one we have that was submitted with the previous
application, May of 2003?
MR. HILTON-Honestly, I haven’t gone through it in detail. It looks very similar. There is a
current date on the cover letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just, if you would, put it in our packets for our Thursday night meeting, so
people will have it and they’ll be able to review it.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Mike O’Connor, I represent the applicant, and with me at the
table is Mickie Hayes, one of the applicants, and also with me is Cameron Steuer, who is the
consultant who prepared the noise study and the air quality study that was requested by the
Board with the prior application. The noise study, or information, is the same as what was with
the prior application. What has been submitted and what we will give to you orally here is
basically a summary of that, an explanation of it, which we think should be satisfactory. If I
looked at this thing, and sometimes you have an advantage of getting involved after the fact,
sometimes it’s a disadvantage, but if I looked at it, there was probably three issues that you
were concerned with. One was stormwater, or drainage, and Tom Nace will be here shortly,
and will address that. We believe he’s addressed it with C.T. Male. The other was the issue of
air quality and the issue of noise. I did appear briefly at your last month’s meeting and asked
the basis, or asked in general the basis on which you were looking at those two issues in
relationship to the notes that I read of you, because I think everybody agrees that the project
itself will not create noise. Putting in a 12 lot subdivision, the noise at best would be a seasonal
type thing, temporary during construction, and it’s like any other residential subdivision. It’s
not a factor going in. It’s not a mine crushing operation or something like that. It appears as
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
though you wanted to look at the impact that this development, as built out, would have on the
existing ambient noise that’s in the neighborhood, because of the existence of the Northway.
We’ve done some, looking at the various regulations, and I think probably the only real
guidance that we have in New York State to noise is the noise policy that’s put out by DEC, and
it’s put out under a document that says assessing and mitigating noise impacts, and I’ve got
copies of parts of it for you here. One thing which they say very clearly. I did not give you the
whole document. You may already have it. I apologize if you do. I apologize if you already
have it. I did not copy the whole guidance. It’s like maybe 30 pages. What I copied were the
pages that I thought were applicable. If you look at Page 16, I guess the way I’m going to
present this, because Cameron is here, one, I’m not sure we’re required to follow this line of
thought, because of the existence of what we have for rules and regulations, but I will also show
you that what we are going to do won’t have an impact. If you look at Page 16, it says
situations in which no noise evaluation is necessary. Where certain criteria are satisfied, the
need for undertaking a noise impact analysis at any level is eliminated. These criteria are as
follows. The site is contained within an area in which local zoning provides for the intended
use as a right of use. It does not apply to activities that are permissible, only after an applicant
is granted a Special Use Permit by the local government, and the applicant’s operational plan
incorporates appropriate best management practices, which really refers to manufacturing
operations. Where the activities may be undertaken as a right of use, it is presumed that noise
has been addressed in establishing the zoning. Any residual noise that is present following best
management practices implementation should be considered as inherent component of the
activity that has been found acceptable consideration of zoning designation of the site. My
understanding is that this site was zoned in its present zone four years ago, and it was zoned
for single family homes, 20,000 square foot lots, and it was zoned as a parcel of land that was
immediately next to the Northway. Nothing has changed from those circumstances, as to what
was considered at that time, and I think that’s kind of like the black letter rule, as far as what
we’re talking about here, but if you want to look at a couple of those other pages, and I’ll have
Cameron address them particularly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, obviously, this is something that is new to the Board tonight, and
they’re going to want to take some time and evaluate them for themselves. I certainly would
want our Counsel to take a look at it, as well as Staff to take a look at it.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I would like to walk through it, though, if I can, as part of the
presentation, and I understand that you may not make a determination. If you look at your
Page 13 that’s there, the threshold for significant sound pressure level increase, which is how
they measure noise, and the goal for any permitted operation should be to minimize increases
in sound pressure level above ambient levels at the chosen point of sound reception. Increases
that range from zero to three db should have no appreciable effect on receptors, and I think we
can demonstrate to you that total build out on this site won’t have any difference, other than
within that range. There are a couple of other highlights in that. If you look at Page 15, they
actually talk about increase in db, and it says under five db, unnoticed to tolerable. My
understanding was even more lenient than that. My understanding was, and maybe they’ve
changed the guidance since they first put it out for comment, was that if there is no change of 10
db during the daytime and five db at night, it would not be something that would be
considered impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but do you have the full text of
this available?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s on Page 15.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, the full text?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something you could provide copies of to the Board?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-I can provide copies to you, if you want.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because, I mean, it starts, we’ve got the cover sheet here, and then it
jumps right to Page 13 through 19, or actually 13 through 16, skips to 19 with the last page, but
the reference it says it could go up as high as Page 28. So we’re missing a lot of pages here.
MR. O'CONNOR-I indicated that when I handed it out. It goes up to Page 28. I think a lot of it
has to do with how you make a noise analysis, if a noise analysis is necessary, and, okay. You
can get it on-line, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have that, Staff? Would you get copies to us, a full set of copies?
MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look, and I did have copies for you of the analysis that was made
by Cameron. The sum and substance of his analysis, with the information that he collected at
the time that he made the noise measurements, were that, if you take a look at the site, there
was a lot of question about how you would speculate, or how you would determine what
would be the worst case scenario if this were clear cut and there were houses that were built
along the east side of the site. In fact, we have a noise measurement that is right along the
Northway property, and then we also have a noise measurement that is up in this area, and it’s
shown on the attachment there as site number one, I believe. This area here has the benefit of
no vegetation, or very little vegetation. It has less vegetation there, than these areas down here,
or this area down here will have after the site is over with, and if you take a look at the reading
on that site, it was 59 db, I believe, and the difference between there and the existing level, at the
lowest part of the site, which has more trees on it, is 56. So if you put the worst case scenario, if
we clear cut the whole site, the most you change the lower corner where the trees are is 3 db’s,
which falls within the range of no significance. It falls beyond the fact where you’re a permitted
use, you’re doing it as of right, we shouldn’t have to get into an analysis of noise, but if you get
into an analysis of noise, it falls within that range of zero to three, which indicates that there’s
no significant impact, which I think, to go back to what I was told at your last meeting, that you
were looking at this as a potential negative impact of your SEQRA, because our local Ordinance
really doesn’t have a noise regulation per se, but in order to look at it under SEQRA, it has to be
a significant impact. So I think, mathematically, and just from the physics of the site, the most
that you’re going to go to, you take a look at the worst case scenario now, as it presently exists,
to which we propose, which will be even better, the most that you’re going to have any increase
in noise would be the three db.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. O’Connor, I’m a little confused. I think what we’re saying is the base that
you’re starting with, with highway traffic, is very high. Are you saying that, I mean, I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m saying the worst case on the site, without trees, is 59 db. It’s high.
MR. SANFORD-It’s high. Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. SANFORD-I mean, I think when we’re looking at the noise, we’re looking at it for the
people who may be living, we’re concerned about the safety, well being of the people who may
be living in these homes incurring very high volumes of noise, as well as air pollutants, and the
literature that I’m reading suggests the truck traffic, high speed traffic, etc., etc. is potentially
harmful to people living in close proximity to major highways, and perhaps even more
important is quality of air issues along the same ways, and we’ll get into them, but I think that’s
why I’m a little confused with where you’re going with this, in terms of there only being
between a zero and three db change, and I’m not sure I understand that.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, because you’re looking at this under SEQRA, and you’re looking to see
whether or not our proposed impact will have a negative impact, particularly, I guess, to the
existing residences that are along the east side of the property. I’m not addressing the houses
on the property per se. That we can address separately, but the houses along the property, the
most impact that we will have on them is an increase of three db, and that doesn’t take into
effect any discount for the trees that will be left. It doesn’t take into account the picket line that
we would be setting up with the existing houses.
MR. SANFORD-I think I understand now. Now you’re saying that the already present homes
in Hughes Court, your representation is that they will not experience a sizable increase in noise
volumes because of this proposed development.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I just didn’t follow you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and I’m getting ahead of myself, let me have, and I think that was a
main issue that the Board had. I don’t mean to dwell necessarily on it, but let me have Cameron
run through that with you.
MR STEUER-Good evening. My name’s Cameron Steuer. I’m the manager of Safety and
Environmental Industrial Hygiene for Adirondack Environmental Services out of Albany.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, and I have experience with doing environmental monitoring for
noise. I do work with mines up in the APA for compliance and things like that with their
permits. My understanding is that you had some questions regarding the methodology that
was used. I’m here to answer some of those questions, and kind of let you take the floor.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we didn’t get the report, so I can’t speak to the report.
MR. STEUER-Okay. The first report, I assume you’re aware of, it was a baseline assessment
that was done of the property, at the request of Mr. Hayes. The understanding that we had was
that there was an issue with potential noise impacts and also potential air quality, specifically
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, on the site, and with particular interest in perimeter, you
know, basically what is the removal of trees going to have, what kind of impact is that going to
have on potential pre-existing property owners there. The assessment was done at about this
time of year, on May 30. Unfortunately for all of these evaluations, there is no standard that’s
th
out there that says this is how you go about doing it. So the methodology that was used was
based on standard scientific principals that you would normally do in any kind of noise survey,
very similar to what I would do. The parameters that I would want to follow would be similar
to what I do for measuring noise for mines up in the Adirondack Park to make sure that they’re
compliant with their noise levels, their permitted noise levels. The survey involved four sites,
three along the perimeter in the east, one adjacent to the Northway, and basically we wanted to
baseline what were the levels. I explained, I believe in the letter, that it’s difficult to make an
estimate of what removal of a tree is going to have, what kind of impact that’s going to have on
future overall noise levels. So the best way to do it is to do more of a comparative type of
analysis, what do we have. What can we, what kind of assumptions can we make with the
noise levels on the areas as they are now, and using that data, try to come up with an idea of
what the overall change is going to be. The noise levels were taken and as expected the areas
closer to the Northway were the highest, and the letter, I don’t know if you have that report,
those levels were basically 65 decibels near the Northway and then the other areas were ranging
between 56 and 59. The carbon dioxide levels, these measurements were taken in a time period
that was assumed to be, represent worst case conditions, that being late morning and through
the evening rush hour. That was done on the assumption of heaviest traffic on the Northway
during those time periods. The study was originally going to take place over a 24 hour period.
However, the fog started rolling in towards the evening hours and rain was predicted and in
fact rain did occur that night. Because of the limitations of the equipment that’s used, and
because of the parameters that we have to, the environmental parameters we need to stay
within, humidity being one of them, you can’t measure outside of those parameters. It will
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
interfere with the results. So we pulled the equipment after, well after the afternoon or the
evening rush hour. So we felt that those numbers were good to represent, throughout the day,
the worst case noise exposure levels. We also pulled some measurements for carbon dioxide
and carbon monoxide, using a state of the art piece of equipment, and those levels were taken
once over a period of I believe about 20 minutes, again, in the late afternoon, during rush hour,
or I should say in the evening, again, to represent a time period when there’s more traffic on the
Northway than other times during the day. I went back and looked to see the, you know, we
tried to coordinate these things with environmental or meteorological conditions that were
favorable for a worst case, as best we could for that date, and winds were variable, and they
certainly did not, I would say either hinder or skew any kind of results that we’d had. They
were light. They changed in the morning, they were more of a westerly breeze, I’m sorry, they
flowed from the east to the west, and then as the day progressed, they started shifting and they
started coming out of the west. So it actually made it fairly ideal for the time period that we
wanted to sample. Carbon Dioxide levels were unremarkable. The levels that are normally
found outside can range anywhere from 350 to 450 parts per million, and that’s essentially what
we found there. Carbon Monoxide levels, likewise were unremarkable. The equipment has a
limitation as far as how low it can go. Two parts per million is basically the limit of detection of
the equipment, and none of the readings read anything over one part per million. That was
even at a peak. So basically it was below the limits of detection for the equipment, and
insignificant, even at a three part per million would be considered insignificant. That was kind
of a synapses of the first report, and now the second report goes into a little bit more detail
about what Mr. O’Connor already talked about regarding the noise levels along the adjacent
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I want to spend a lot of time on the second report because we’ve
had not had an opportunity to review it.
MR. STEUER-Certainly.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d like to have a chance to read it, maybe be better prepared to discuss it
with you.
MR. SANFORD-A couple of quick questions, though. Just a little bit concerned because
obviously you did site specific studies, but there’s a whole wealth of information out there on
the Internet and elsewhere on these topics, and for the record, I just want to enter in a few
things that I’ve been reading about air pollution and health effects near high traffic areas, and
I’d be willing to share any of these articles with the applicant if they’re interested in reading
them. Many of these came from the Federal government, the Senate hearings and things of this
nature. Some apply to New York State, but a lot of them apply to all kinds of areas in the
Country, and some of them are repetitious. I’m going to go through them quickly, just so that
the minutes reflect some of the concerns that I have, as a Board member, in regards to the
community safety. Air pollution from busy roads is linked to shorter life spans for nearby
residents. Almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease if you live near a main road.
Truck traffic linked to childhood asthma hospitalizations, and that was a study that took place
in Erie County New York where they had heavy truck traffic within 200 meters of their homes.
They had this significant increase in the risk of hospital, or asthma hospitalizations. Pregnant
women who live near high traffic areas more likely to have premature, low birth weight babies,
and again, traffic related air pollution associated with respiratory symptoms in two year old
children, people who live near freeways exposed to 25 times more particle pollution. They
suggest that it doesn’t drop off to an acceptable level unless you are 990 feet down wind from
the freeway. Asthma, again, more common for children living near freeways. Children living
near busy roads more likely to develop cancer. That was done in Denver. Most traffic related
deaths due to air pollution not traffic accidents, etc., etc. It goes on with a wealth of information
about the concerns of health by having homes in close proximity to a major highway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that one report, Rich, or is that like a number of? And if so, I’d be curious
as to who, can you give me an idea of who some of the authors were?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, does it have something to do with State or government agencies or
whatever?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. This was, my understanding was this was, the Senate was conducting
hearings and these are parts of that hearing, and they do give footnotes and references as to the
literature from which they were, that they came from, the studies and where they were, and
everything else. I was just reading the bold point they were making, in terms of the health
conditions and issues, and I read approximately half of some of the concerns and some of them
are related. Going back now to the noise. I’ve been doing some work on the noise as well, and
again, unlike what you presented, my concern isn’t so much, if you will, the marginal impact of
the noise increases because of the development. My concern is that the noise level, in the
proximity to the Northway, is extremely high, and perhaps, and damaging, perhaps, to people
who are close by. Generally in this particular article, which I’ll also distribute, Highway Traffic
Noises from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration,
it’s a seven page document. Bottom line is they basically conclude traffic noise is not usually a
serious problem for people who live more than 500 feet from heavily traveled freeways, and
basically they say the three components that they talk about, in terms of how you deal with this
traffic related noise, is 2,000 vehicles per hour. They give you some benchmarks so that
laypeople can understand it, sound twice as loud as 200 vehicles per hour. Traffic at 65 miles an
hour, which is the kind of traffic you’d have on the Northway, sounds twice as loud as traffic at
30 miles per hour and one truck at 55 miles per hour sounds as loud as 25 cars at 55 miles per
hour, and basically they talk in terms of how a responsible local agency should deal with these
things, and they basically conclude that the best way to deal with them is through proper
planning and design not to have them, not to build near a highway because of the noise related
problems, and again, I would be happy to arrange for Staff to get copies of this for your review
and perhaps comment on some of these features, and I also have a couple of other
miscellaneous articles, but before I conclude, I just want to be humble enough to say that I read
this. To me it’s pretty compelling, but I’m clearly not an expert in health related issues like this,
and I was wondering, I know it’s not necessarily encouraged to change venues, but I was
wondering if perhaps, my understanding is that the Town of Queensbury has a new Health
Officer recently appointed, and perhaps some of these health issues should be put together,
your reports as well as some of the stuff that I have, and perhaps reviewed by the Board of
Health in Queensbury, to see what suggestions and recommendations they might have.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking two different entities now. There’s the Town Health, I’m not
sure exactly the title, Health Code Officer, a doctor was recently appointed.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the Board of Health, the Town Board of Health is the Town Board.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and it just so happens they’re the same entity, the Town Board and the
Town Board of Health, but what I’m saying is I’ll, as a layperson, I know it’s our responsibility
to address public safety issues under SEQRA and what have you, and I’m comfortable in doing
it, but I’m not sure I wouldn’t feel more comfortable if the Board of Health also looked at some
of this because there are certain liabilities that the community or the Town would assume if, in
fact, we are working to approve a site plan that might prove to be unhealthy to the people who
live in it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-Or a subdivision. Okay. So, I mean, those are my thoughts at this particular
point in time. Share them with the Board. There’s a wealth of information out there.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask that the reports that you referenced tonight be given to Staff so
that they can have a copy of them so that the applicant can get a copy of them, as well as the rest
of us.
MR. SANFORD-And I’d like this Board. Thanks, Craig. Okay, and that’s all I have on this
right now.
MR. RINGER-When you did your noise study, did you happen to go over to Hidden Hills,
where the homes are of the same distance as the Broad Acres area would be, and do the noise
study over there where it’s already cleared?
MR. STEUER-The only spots I measured were, as indicated in my report.
MR. RINGER-I thought we had asked back in last year that we get an idea of what the noise
was in Hidden Hills, without the trees, so we can compare what it would be if the trees were cut
down, and I may not be correct in that, but it seemed like we had asked them for that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t see that in the minutes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-But if you look at Site Number Four, I think it’s Site Number Four, is that
right?
MR. STEUER-Site Number Four was adjacent to the Northway. Site Number One was in the
northeast corner there.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s a showing on, attached to his permit, or his report that shows it’s
in the northeasterly corner of this site, where there is no trees.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I thought I heard him say, Mike, that it’s hard to really determine what the
noise would be if the trees were gone, and that way, if he went across the road to Hidden Hills,
he might be able to get an idea what it would be without the trees.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think what he’s saying it would be hard to predict for the southern part of
this site, not knowing necessarily what trees are going to come down, what the replacement
value of the house is going to have. So what he’s done is picked, about 40% of this site is open.
So he’s done a sound evaluation on the open site, and says if there was a clear cut here, this is
your worst case scenario.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, this is actual, on this site, if you cleared the whole site, and didn’t take
credit for leaving some trees, I think this redesign leaves some trees, particularly on the
southerly end of the site, along the Northway, and there is, on the site plan map, or on the
subdivision maps, some no cut zones that will leave other additional trees up, and then the
areas will be filled with the houses that are going to be constructed. If you read through your
noise study, or the noise guide, you’re going to see that the discount for a house is like 15 db,
but we don’t know if that’s necessarily going to work, but that’s, it’s in the noise guide if you
look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Steuer, just for the record, what’s your background?
MR. STEUER-I have a Masters in Sanitary Sciences from Syracuse University. I’m a Certified
Industrial Hygienist, eight years as an Industrial Hygienist for the U.S. Navy, Manager at
Adirondack for three years, worked there for two additional before that.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Do they typically, the company you work for do, take on noise studies and
emission studies and such like that? Is that a general part of your business activity?
MR. STEUER-We do all types of environmental and occupational type of exposure assessments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-In regards to the comment that Rich brought up, are you familiar with any of
those things he was citing?
MR. STEUER-There’s a lot of research. I cannot say that I’m certainly an expert in some of the
specifics of the research. I’m also not an environmental health expert. I’m an Industrial
Hygienist. I specialize in the quantification of hazards, of doing surveys, you know, monitoring
how much and how much noise we have, and then generally using the data that’s out there or
the recommendations or the standards that are already implemented and comparing what I
have with those already accepted standards. That’s where this becomes difficult is because we
don’t have anything in which to compare. I mean, to have, everybody wants to know what a
significant noise increase is. Well, I would too, but it’s a very subjective thing, you know, unless
we have it already established, some towns have noise ordinances and we can compare it.
Those noise ordinances, they dictate specifically how they want to go out measuring, to
compare that standard, because the ways you go about measuring are very different. The DOT,
when they do a survey to determine if they’re going to put up a noise barrier, will take a 30
minute reading. That’s all we need. Other towns will require a 24 hour monitoring period.
Other towns seven or eight hours. So it’s very difficult to, you know, kind of look into the
future and see, well, if we remove trees and things like that, how is that going to increase the
noise levels, and that’s where, I did not go that route. We went more of a comparative, this is
what we have, in a clear cut area. These are areas simultaneously recorded in areas that are
wooded, and what is the difference that we’re going to have.
MR. SANFORD-Right, a marginal analysis, but my point earlier was that the base upon which
we’re departing for that marginal analysis is exceptionally high, compared to typical residential
areas when your study, incidentally, I have no reason to dispute your numbers. They were a
little lower than what my reports were saying, which were in the, close to the 70 level. I think
you came in at, what 60 or so?
MR. STEUER-Adjacent to the thru way?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. STEUER-It was 65.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we’re in the ballpark there, but what would be some comparison for
that kind of a noise level?
MR. STEUER-What other noise would be creating something like that?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. STEUER-Conversation is usually in the low 60’s, you know, just like we’re talking now.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. STEUER-In the document that is provided in my report, there’s actually a breakdown on
different things that create noise.
MR. SANFORD-I see.
MR. STEUER-And that has some comparative things.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s like close to a freight train 50 feet away. Okay.
MR. RINGER-What would be the significant noise difference between a vehicle traveling at 65
miles an hour and a vehicle traveling at 35 miles an hour?
MR. STEUER-There would be a difference. It would be higher. There’s a number of reasons for
that. Everything from vibration. There’s just the tire noise and things like that.
MR. RINGER-Would it be significant? I’m just trying to get an idea.
MR. STEUER-Again, unless you give me a definition of what you consider to be significant, I
can’t tell you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Noises are measured in averages, and if you use a 90 lq, it means the noise
that’s there 90% of the time. If you use a 10 lq it means the noise that’s there 10% of the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not necessarily true. I mean, there’s baselines that they use. I mean
American Society of Sound Engineers have a manual they use, just like the National Association
of Traffic Engineers have a manual they use to come up with baselines. There’s baseline
numbers used for any piece of equipment, any sound out there.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are manufacturer guidelines of every piece of equipment. If you take a
look at the State guide that Staff is going to provide you, they show you every piece of mining
piece of equipment and what noise it will produce off of it, and it also gives you a chart that you
spoke about, where, and the standard seems to go from 55 to 70% or 50 to 70 db in residential
areas, but basically I think the question here isn’t necessarily is this a noisy neighborhood. The
question is, are we going to impact the neighborhood by our build out of our project, and I
think I can show you by science that we aren’t going to do that. I think that’s the testimony that
you’ve already heard from a fellow who actually said, here’s the worst case scenario, and if you
apply that worst case scenario to the other end of the lot, the most you’re going to see is an
increase of three db, which is a sound to sound measurement. Maybe the problem is with the
State, if you think that the Northway should have some type of barrier.
MR. SANFORD-These articles talk about that, earth barriers and they talk about the kind of
barriers and what the effectiveness will be on them, but just for Larry’s benefit, to answer your
question if this is helpful, traffic at 65 miles per hour sounds twice as loud as traffic at 30 miles
per hour. So that’s in this report. So, to give you an idea on that comparison.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to belabor this whole issue of the noise and stuff, but until we
get an opportunity to really read his report, I just don’t see us spending a whole heck of a lot
more time on this.
MR. O'CONNOR-Other people have, if you go down Hughes Court and you take a right and go
out to the Northway, some of those houses are going to be closer to the Northway than we are.
If you over to Hidden Hills, those houses are going to be closer than we are, and the Northway
is obviously something that you’re not going to not be able to see when you go in to look at the
property and decide whether or not you want to live there, you know, buyers are the ones that
are going to be making that choice. I really have a problem with you trying to dictate, you
know, the success or the value of this property, that’s up to the buyers. I think it’s zoned for
residential use. We’re complying with the residential use. We got off into this side discussion
because what is our impact? Our impact, at most, is we would cut down possibly some of the
trees that shield Hughes Court from the noise. The project itself, the activity that you’re
approving, the subdivision itself doesn’t create the noise that you’re concerned about. So I
think you, and Counsel may agree with me or disagree with me. You’re limited, to a great
degree, to look at what impact we have on the existing that is there, but if you want to read that,
that’s fine. I understood that. Other questions that you had last month were.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Could I just ask one more noise question?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I want this Board to pursue that until we’ve had an opportunity
to read that document. That’s only fair. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t get a chance
to review it.
MR. SEGULJIC-You had indicated that DOT requires noise barriers at certain levels? You said
they do a 30 minute test to determine that?
MR. STEUER-I did not indicate, but, yes, they have a whole evaluation process that they go
through to determine an area that would be a candidate for a noise barrier.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what is that, typically?
MR. STEUER-They have a mathematical formula that they use, which is well beyond my
capabilities, and even theirs.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s not a simple db level, then.
MR. STEUER-Which they have gotten from U.S. DOT, and basically after, I actually spoke with
two of the DOT sound engineers, and kind of talked a little bit about the issues that we’re
having here, and just for your background, it said they would not consider this area to be as an
impact area. They wouldn’t do barriers, but they also said the questions you’re asking are
common, and that if you get five people in to give you an opinion as far as what’s going to
happen, you’re probably going to get five different answers, because of the complexity of the
situation, at least when you’re going to try to predict what kind of noise levels you’re going to
have and things.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, there was also a question as to whether or not there were
any existing drainage easements that would affect the parcel that’s being subdivided. We went
back to the title policy that was obtained at the time the property was purchased. There are no
easements referred to in there, and we’ve done somewhat of a search, not exhaustive, all the
way back to 50 years or so, at the County Clerk’s Office, and have not found any easements that
we could, if there were easements of records, they should have been reflected in the title policy,
typically they are reflected in the title policy.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other thing I recollect is when we talked about this, when was it, back in
November I think it was, some time in there, I believe it was Mrs. Demboski who said that she
has an easement, she brought a copy of the deed and she left it with us that night, when she
spoke at the public hearing, but as I recall, it had something to do with the Glens Falls Water
District, or Glens Falls Sewer District, that they had an easement through her property which
she said ran through her property through this potential subdivision.
MR. O'CONNOR-They may have an easement through her property, but they don’t have an
easement through this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I can submit copies of it for everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Any other questions?
MR. SANFORD-Well, just a comment, and I’m not sure if it applies or not, but up on Exit 20, I
note that the Town Board rezoned a parcel of land that was zoned residential recently to
Professional Office, primarily because of these types of concerns, and felt that, and some of this
article, this literature that I have, also talks in terms of, it’s far better to have a work
environment where people might only be there for eight hours, rather than 24 hours in these
types of environments, and they speak to the wisdom of doing, pursuing that kind of an
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
approach, and so maybe that’s something that might be of some interest to the applicant as well.
I’m not sure what the desirability of that parcel would be for Professional Office.
MR. O'CONNOR-My impression is you’d be going from the frying pan to the fire. We want to
bring in Travelers and have 300 cars go in there, during the course of a day, as opposed to
maybe 15 to 20 car trips. If the neighbors like it as it is, I think they’re going to be much more
happy with it as a residential neighborhood than trying to bring in.
MR. SANFORD-I wasn’t thinking Travelers. I was thinking maybe your law practice.
MR. O'CONNOR-I hope I have 300 cars visit my law practice, and I hope I’m not there on the
day they do. Tom Nace is here, and, Tom, I had a stormwater, they say they don’t have a
stormwater report.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I’ve got one.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got the old one that was done with the previous subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got March 2004 on mine. That’s the updated one. That’s the newest one,
March 2004.
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-There is a March 2004 update that was submitted.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Notice of Intent filing.
MR. NACE-Okay, yes. The Notice of Intent would be filed prior to construction. It’s not
necessarily before we have any approvals. I guess basically if you want me to address a couple
of the drainage issues. We were back out to the site again this spring with the Health
Department. The Health Department review is being handled out of the Troy office. We had to
get their people up to speed. So even though we had done test pits prior, with the local Health
Office, we went back and did a whole bunch of additional test pits with the people from
Albany, and when we were there, we specifically talked to Mr. Demboski regarding that
drainage under his house, etc., and what it turns out is that we show on the plan a low area
through here and we kind of labeled it like a little drainage swale. The lower end of this
actually is wet. The upper end of it is really not. There’s no stream bed, there’s no flowing
water. There’s not even any surface water at all on this upper end, and the lower end, it’s
simply a soggy area for a very narrow area, and evidently at the bottom end of this actually on
the Demboski property, there is a pipe. It’s buried. It’s under how many feet of silt, I don’t
know, probably two or three feet of silt. There was an inlet constructed on Demboski’s
property. He filled it over and put a flower bed on top of it. So there is a pipe that goes out,
evidently, under his house. It ends here, right at, just beyond or off of the Hayes property on
the Demboski property, but it’s been filled in to the point that’s no longer accepting any
drainage. We couldn’t find either the inlet or the pipe itself, although he pointed to where they
were. They were under ground, buried by silt. So there is no drainage being taken presently by
that pipe. What we agreed with him we would do would be to open those up, put a little stone
inlet to those, so that they could receive drainage, and would keep the back of his yard dry, but
in essence we’re taking we’re reshaping this road, and what we’re doing with the road, it’s high
back here. It all drains toward the front. So any road drainage driveways are going to be
pitched out to the road. The front yards are going to be pitched to the road. So all of that front
yard and driveway area is going to drain down to these catch, or to the drywells down here
where there’s deeper and better soils, and we’ll actually be reducing the amount of water that
could actually get to that inlet at the back of the Demboski property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Questions?
MR. RINGER-Did we get a signoff from Male?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. NACE-No, you haven’t. This is, I, quite frankly, forgot that this letter was in the file, and
just this morning discovered that we had not responded in writing to Male. I talked to Jim
Houston about most of the issues today, and we’ve agreed that we will address all of them as he
requests. Okay. We don’t have any problem with any of them.
MR. SCHACHNER-I just have one question of the applicant’s Counsel, and I may be missing
something. Was the title policy submitted as evidence that there were no easements on the
property?
MR. O'CONNOR-Some indication, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then tell me if I’m misunderstanding it. Doesn’t it have the
standard exception for utility easements, including drainage easements?
MR. O'CONNOR-Which usually, by practice, it does have that standard exception, every title
policy that’s issued, but every title policy that’s issued, where there’s one of record, recites the
one of record.
MR. SCHACHNER-Typically, and it does recite one of record, for the telephone company.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-But it does, and just so the Board understands, and this is not unusual, Mr.
O’Connor’s correct, but the title insurance policy does not affirmatively assure that there are no
drainage easements, although the practice is as he describes. It’s of limited value, in my
opinion.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and my understanding is the watershed is from our property to the
Demboski property. It’s not from the Demboski property to our property, and I will represent
to you that we have found nothing of record that would indicate there’s a recorded easement. I
have not seen Mrs. Demboski’s deed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I sent a copy of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Demboski, when I open the public hearing, we’ll get you to come up
and speak.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Any other questions you have?
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’d ask you to give up the table. We’ll open up the
public hearing. Mrs. Demboski, do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARGUERITE DEMBOSKI
MRS. DEMBOSKI-I did send a copy.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, could you just identify yourself, please.
MRS. DEMBOSKI-Marguerite Demboski. I live at 17 Hughes Court.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MRS. DEMBOSKI-I did send a copy of our deed to you, Mr. MacEwan. I know you got it
because I have a return receipt.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It should be in our file.
MR. HILTON-It’s in the previous subdivision file.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. The November file, or whatever it was. Yes.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MRS. DEMBOSKI-There was a pipe, years have taken their toll on that drainage area, but right
behind our house, on the, kind of on the line, there was a pipe that came in. It was always wet,
came down and came in, and the property in front of the tree, the big tree that is there, always
went down like this, and eventually over the years, as we mowed and we did toss leaves in
there and so forth. So we did probably cover up, because it was wet, and it was, it sloped
down. We had young children, and it just wasn’t great. So we just, you know, filled it in as we
went along, and right now there are daylilies growing on it, but that easement is there. It was
always wet there. If the pipe is covered, it’s covered, but there was a grate on it, because we
couldn’t figure out why we kept putting soil or leaves or whatever in it, it still was down, and
in digging down, found a big grate, one of those grates that was covering the pipe or whatever
was down there. I don’t even remember, and I think we covered that with a kid’s plastic sled,
one of those big strip sleds. We just put it over, so at least we could not have it, whatever we
put there sinking down in through the grate, but it has been there and it has been under our
house, and as I said before, our house was built after the houses on either side, neither of which
ever had a water problem until they built our house, and now they do. We don’t, but they do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that easement that you have, that’s for the City of Glens Falls, is that who
has the easement on the property?
MRS. DEMBOSKI-I don’t remember exactly the wording, I don’t want to see if it’s in the deed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you could make a copies for us for Staff notes, and the Board can take
a look at that. Okay. Anything else?
MRS. DEMBOSKI-No. It’s just that has been a big concern of ours, the water part, and I’m sure
when they did what, when they built our house and they thought they were protecting
everybody, and they did protect us, but they didn’t protect the neighbors on either side. So, we
have been concerned, since it’s always been wet out there, that this could be a problem for us,
and more so for everybody else with more houses, less trees to soak up the water and all of
those things. So that has been one of our main concerns. Noise is also, it’s noisier now then
when we bought that house 24 years ago, 25, 26. There’s much more traffic. You can sit out on
our patio in the evening in the summertime, but it’s noisy. You can sit out there, but it’s noisy.
You kind of get used to it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to live any closer than we do.
MR. SANFORD-I’m trying to find you on the map.
MR. MAC EWAN-Second property from the left.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-What kind of water do your neighbors get? Is there standing water in their
yards? Do they have water in their basements?
MRS. DEMBOSKI-One of them is here. They can tell you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
CAROL LA POINT
MRS. LA POINT-I’m Carol LaPoint. I live at 15 Hughes Court, next to the Demboski’s, and in
answer to a question that was just asked, we have a sump pump in our cellar, and our
understanding was that, until their house was built, this house never had, our house never had
a water problem. Now it does, as does the house on the other side. I don’t know, maybe they
might have broke a pipe when they built it or this drainage thing is, but it was directly when
they built it, not anything that they might have done after like filling in this area. It’s always
been that way since that house was built. Now I didn’t live there then, and so I can’t address
that at all, and if I can just read what I said, because I’m not a very good public speaker, and I
see a lot of new faces on this Board since the last time we were here, and I’d just like to ask, how
many of you, have all of you been to the site and gone out behind our house? Because there
was an open invitation to go out there and take a look at the water, listen to the, has anybody
gone out in back in that area?
MR. MAC EWAN-We have all visited the site.
MRS. LA POINT-Have you? I figured, we heard that there were people out there, so we figured
you had, but I just wanted to ask. Now there’s a few of us here representing all the people that
were on that petition, over 70, of whom do not drive after dark, and for some reason we are
consistently moved to the end of the schedule, so they’re not here. Now at this time I’d like to
respectfully request that if this is an issue that is to be rescheduled, that we, out of courtesy, be
put closer to the front of the, earlier in the evening, so that these people can come. Now, at
previous meetings I’ve given to you the concerns that plague the present homeowners of our
neighborhood, and one of them is me. Number One, the noise. Ever increasing volume on the
Northway, which is more than when we moved in probably eight and a half, nine years ago,
and commonsense dictates that it’s going to increase even more, and you’re talking about 65
miles an hour. You know they go 75 miles an hour out there on that Northway. That’s not an
interest of anybody probably, but they do, and not only increasing the probability of reducing
our quality of life and related health problems, but most research coincides with our argument
about health risks by noise. This will not only impact the present residents, but the new
homeowners as well, and I’ve got a few things here. I don’t think you want all of these, but
some of this is from the Federal Highway Administration. All studies on noise that might be
affecting us from the Northway. The developers can put up all the glass they want and
insulation, sound barriers on these new homes. However, these people still have got to go out
of their homes, and I think everyone has the right to enjoy their yards, and there are no such
provisions to help any of us in the back, on Hughes Court or even over on Queensbury and
over in that area, Ashley Court. They can hear it was over in there. Now a question. I guess it’s
been answered, whether there was a noise study at Pershing Road, and then at Bentley Place,
this is where we are located, and I guess there were. Okay. Now we talked about Hidden Hills
here a few minutes ago. They’re higher than the Northway and we are lower than the
Northway. I sent a set of pictures that I went out on this property and I took pictures of a truck
way up like up where that t.v. set is and we’re down lower than that, and that’s where the
sound goes is down. When you’re at Hidden Hills is bad enough. I know people who live over
there, but they’ve stopped complaining because there’s nothing they can do about it, but over
there they’re way up higher. So the sound is not going to go over there like it does over here
with us, and it all sounds good with these gentlemen sitting here behind the table saying well
this is probably this and probably that, but what does the Town Board have in place if we’re
right and they can only say theoretically this is going to happen or this won’t happen, and when
you start out with a 65 decibel level to start with, okay, now you’re going to add three, if you’re
starting out with a 35 decibel, or 30 decibel, and we’re in an ordinary residential area, and now
you’re going to add three, that may not be a big deal, but when you’re starting out at 65, where
their studies showed the last time where we were at different times, now you add the three, and
that’s intolerable. I’m just wondering which one of the four gentlemen here are going to buy
one of the houses out in back and be our neighbor. That would be a good indication of how
well they think it’s going to be. Now everything that they need to do in order to build this
project will put our well being, health, and peace of mind at risk, and did ask, if this project
goes in and if you agree, then that means that Hayes and Hayes are correct in what they’re
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
saying is going to happen, but if it doesn’t, what can the Town, I want to ask you a question.
What can the Town Board assure us of, that they would do to help us when this does go, the
noise level goes above, the trees are taken out, the water level does go up, and if you walk out
there almost any time, you go up over your sneakers, almost any time of the year. Because we
walked out there, and I was out there taking pictures. I asked a question about how many of
you have been out there, and that’s good. I’m glad you went, because at least you can make an
informed decision, and I understand that some people in our neighborhood have discussed
having the press involved. I don’t want to see that happen, but, you know, it’s like, you know,
the ones who make the most noise are the ones who are going to get the results, I guess, and
this organization or this group has come back here how many times and not met your
requirements. What are they going to do if they start this project? Are they going to do what
they say they’re going to do, or are we going to be fighting them all the way? Drive by and see
the sign that they put up. I was supposed to go take a picture of it. Many places in
Queensbury, they’re putting up projects like this, and they have nice signs that say what they’re
going to do. This one’s all tumbled over, on the ground, folded up. How is anybody supposed
to know what that sign is even? They’re supposed to put a sign out front. If any of you go by
there, see if any of you could read it, see what it is. I guess I’m just looking for some assurances
that when this thing does go the way we say it’s going to go, if it does, and I think it’s going to,
they have no assurances here tonight. It’s all theoretical. It could be this. It could be that. It
may be this. It may be that, and I don’t see anything, with these studies right here, and what
this gentleman over here has said, Rich, that everything indicates that this is going to happen.
So that’s all I’ve got to say, and I thank you for taking the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to leave your letter with Staff and make it part of the official
record?
MRS. LA POINT-Sure. I’ve got another copy. I’ll leave that, because I’ve written all over this
one.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. SANFORD-Is that literature on sound and?
MRS. LA POINT-Yes, on sound and.
MR. SANFORD-I would like you to leave that with Staff, so they can make copies for us.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-And maybe the applicant would also want to read that.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
JIM ROUND
MR. ROUND-Hi. My name’s Jim Round. I’m over on 34 Pershing Road. Just a couple of points
about the noise levels, and, you know, they’re stating that removing this foliage will not have
any more than three decibels. I have a document from the Federal Highway Administration,
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
the U.S. Department of Transportation that says vegetation is high enough, which if you go and
look at the vegetation on this piece of property, is all higher than the highway right now. Okay.
It’s all blocking. If high enough, wide enough and dense enough, cannot be seen through, can
decrease highway traffic noise. A 200 foot wide width of dense vegetation can reduce noise
levels by 10 decibels, which can cut the noise level of traffic in half. I can read the rest of it to
you if you want. I can leave it with you. They’re stating, because they did a comparative
analysis of one piece of the property compared to another, I mean, I don’t think that’s a very
good analysis. The other thing that really comes out to me is that they’ve stated that noise
levels are subjective, and when you do a noise study, you flatten things, okay. If you take it for
a half hour period, you hope you’re taking it during a period where you know it’s from 55 to 75
and you flatten it out to 65. Well, come out there some days when the trucks are going back up
to Canada, and they’re empty, and there’s 10 or 15 going by in an hour period, and when
they’re empty doing 75, going up over the overpass, because this is a rise in the highway, okay,
the noise level has got to be higher than 65, okay, on that piece of property. So, to say that their
noise study is adequate at this point, I think it was you, Larry, that last year, it was September
was the timeframe, we also, that the wind, the weather also how warm it is, the humidity levels,
what the air temperature is, all that has effects on the noise levels and how far the noise travels.
I don’t believe a noise study was done during the colder part of the year. I think a lot of you
guys live around here. We probably have a good, what, five months where the temperature,
the ambient temperature is probably 55 or below. I’d like to know, you know, when these
studies were done, what the temperatures were, okay. They were all done during the summer?
Okay. It would be nice to know so we could say, hey, look it, this is when the trees are in, you
know, fully bloomed, this is what the noise level is at 85 degrees. Well, what about 35 degrees?
All of the leaves are off the trees. We asked for that last year. I think if you look in the record
last year, you’ll see that it was asked, you know, re-do the noise study and tell us what the
temperatures are. Hidden Hills. This isn’t Hidden Hills, okay. When Hidden Hills was built,
they probably should have looked a little bit more at what the environmental impact of living
that close to the highway is. Children having more heart defects with parents, with pregnant
women living this close to the highway. Asthma, I have a son who has horrible asthma, and we
live as close as we do, but, I mean, we battle it all the time. It’s all environmental asthma,
pollen, dust, mold, you know, you name it, it’s more and more prevalent in kids today, because
we live closer to the highway. I’ve heard people state on the Board before that this is done, you
know, it’s done up on Indian Ridge. It’s done down on Long Island. They’ve got nowhere to
build on Long Island. I have to tell you this, you know. I left there 25 years ago. A friend of
mine, who was a fireman from New York City, ended up in Ronkonkoma, because that’s the
cheapest place he could find to live in, and that was near the highway. I don’t know if anyone
knows where Ronkonkoma is. He’s in the City. It’s a good hour and a half commute for him
every day. He’s a fireman. He can do that. We don’t need to build on the last piece of open
property because it’s there. Do we? I mean, if it’s going to have health effects on the people
who are going to live in those homes, the surrounding community. I really don’t see how you
can justify saying, look it, clear the property, put the houses up, and we’ll worry about the
effects later. The other point that I think was made in one of the prior meetings is that this noise
level is constant, and there was a study done and there was a big, you know, decisions were
made for Twicwood when the changes to The Great Escape were made, and, you know, Mike
made a nice point that the property isn’t going to generate the noise, okay. The property isn’t
going to generate the pollution either, okay. The property is going to be the problem when
these things are done. So, when The Great Escape was put in, there were certain concessions
made to deaden the noise level for the people who lived in Twicwood and that was a noise level
that was, what, three months a year, and they were worried about, what a five, an increase of
five or ten decibels, and a lot of information studies were done about that. Now we’re talking
about a noise level that is higher, more constant and year round, and I guess it’ll be looked at a
little bit better, and I think you really have to look at the pollution level, the quality of life that
people are going to have when they move into those homes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
PAUL DI PHILLIPS
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. DI PHILLIPS-Hi. My name’s Paul DiPhillips. This is Eileen Thomas. We’re engaged.
We’re not married. We’re here for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons is there’s a
development that’s being planned, and some open space area that’s located, well, you know
where that is, and we all know why the developers are developing it. They’re developing it to
make money. They could buy it and donate it to everybody and say, gee, this is great, but that’s
really not why they’re doing it. So, you know, what is the benefit and what is the real purpose
for building that place? And I think there’s some real concerns. I’ve heard what everybody
said, because you don’t know who’s going to move in. Could be another Wal-Mart . Could be a
Dunkin Donuts that has traffic backed up like it does on Glen Street, but it isn’t. They’re people
that live and work in the community, and we happen to be a couple of those people, and I just
want to state a case for the development and tell you why. I live in Hidden Hills. I’ve lived
there 14 years. None of my kids have asthma. None of us, no one was prematurely born. We
live right in this section right here on the corner. We have friends that live here. The reason
that we want to move is because we’re getting married. We each have kids. We don’t have
enough space. The problem is the lot isn’t big enough, and if you haven’t been the variance
board, I don’t think they’ll let us put an addition on that we want. So, we need to get to a spot
that has more land, because we need a little bit bigger house. We also want to stay in the Town
of Queensbury because we’ve enjoyed being in the Town of Queensbury. There’s a lot of
benefits to Queensbury. If you’re not sure what those are, ride with me to school when it’s
snowing out, and I can show you the line where it goes from Queensbury to Glens Falls.
Everybody knows it. We all chuckle as we drive to work down the road. There’s a lot of
benefits here, but we also want to keep our kinds in the Glens Falls schools. We both have had
our kids there forever and they want to finish there and we’d like them to be able to finish there.
So we don’t have many options, but we are some of those people that are going to move in. The
lot that I have been trying to secure, which I can’t because it doesn’t seem like we ever seem to
get action on this, is in the corner. It’s Lot Number 11, and so whoever lives near me, I would
be their neighbor. You can go over and talk to my neighbors in Hidden Hills. They don’t want
me to move out. Because we’re a great neighbor. We maintain our yard. We’ve put in
sprinkler systems. We shovel. We plow. We do all the things that neighbors should do. We’re
not some kind of monsters that are going to come in and try to disrupt the neighborhood. We
want to be in there so we can have a place to live, stay in the Town of Queensbury, take
advantage of the Glens Falls schools, and raise our family there. That’s what we want to do.
We want to be good neighbors, not bad neighbors. I put a pool in. I had my neighbors approve
the fence, not because I had to, because it’s the right thing to do. Now, I’m only one guy
moving in, but I know if this ever gets approved, the lot next to me, my neighbor currently at
Hidden Hills wants to move there, not because it’s noisy, not because of the pollution, because
he doesn’t have enough room either. We’ve all kind of grown over the years. So we are looking
to take advantage of a situation that presents us. There aren’t many places. We’ve been trying
to get married for a while. We’ve been trying to buy a house with enough bedrooms. We’ve
been trying to stay in Queensbury but go to Glens Falls Schools. There aren’t a lot of options
As a matter of fact, this is probably the last one. I have a board meeting for a company I own
tomorrow in Connecticut, but I sat here all night. I came here to the last one that was postponed
because the sign was up for nine days versus ten because I feel as though it’s important. We
want to build there and continue to be members and Town residents in the Town of
Queensbury, but take advantage of the Glens Falls Schools. So, we’re here on behalf. I also
took the time to come up here and get this printed out and mounted it, and I also went around
to people who live on Dixon, Hughes Court. I took the time to go around and talk to people
that lived here, and I have a support petition where these people also said, you know what,
we’d rather see a house there with people who are from the area, from the community, that will
be living there, rather than a light commercial residential. Everybody says, yes, what if they put
a doctor’s office. They’re not going to put a doctor’s office there. What’ll end up happening
there is there’ll be another storage unit like you see over on the other side of Sherman Avenue,
and nobody wants that in their back yard. So we went around. I’ll leave this, and submit this.
There’s people that are one house down, two houses down that think it would be a great idea. I
understand all the concerns that the people have that live there. Heck, if I lived there, I’d want
it to be left like that, too, because it’s great, but it isn’t the reality. Queensbury is tight for space.
There are people that want to live here, and there’s some areas this just happens to fit that bill.
So we’re willing to answer any questions that anybody might have about what it’s like to live in
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
Hidden Hills. We are residents. Eileen lives in Glens Falls. So she has the Glens Falls taxes and
the school. We’re hoping to be in the Queensbury, because there’s a nice advantage there, but
we are hoping to help move this project forward somehow for our own interests, but we are
residents that live here. We do, you know, we go to school, we work, we drive down the road.
I kind of snickered. I know, Mr. Sanford, Eileen used to work for a company he ran. I stay at
Pembroke, out in Erie, PA, or Erie, NY. I sleep next to that six lane road where 1.4 million
people live, and the cars drive back and forth. Yes, it’s loud. It’s not like that where we are. It
just isn’t. It’ll never be like that. So, you know, we do hear the noise from the Northway. We
know what we’re getting into there, and we just hope that you guys can move the project along
and hope that by being here, we kind of put a face to it. We aren’t a bunch of aliens and
Martians that are going to move in there. They’re just people like you guys that, you know, are
looking for a place to live and raise their kids. One of the things that I was going to ask the
developer to do is to run a water line from my property underneath out to the cul de sac so I
could put sprinklers in out there and maintain it. It’s the kind of stuff that we do. I mean,
maybe everybody doesn’t, but we do. So that’s pretty much it. I don’t know if anybody has
any questions about what it’s like to live in Hidden Hills, what the noise is like, what the health
of our kids are like. I mean, you know, that’s where I’ve lived since 1989. I’d be happy to
answer any questions if it would help.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess not.
MR. RINGER-Normally is policy is not to question the, we get answers for you.
MR. DI PHILLIPS-Well, I understand it’s a tough dilemma because, you know, you say, well,
what if it’s loud, and we have an obligation to the people that live there. Anybody who drives
up the Northway or goes in to look at a prospective lot there, who doesn’t realize there’s a
Northway there, I’d be a little concerned about. I mean, you know what you’re getting into. It’s
not a bad situation. I know guys that own property in Hudson Falls, everybody moves out
because it’s a bad situation. People in Hidden Hills, you can sell your house, I mean, I don’t
think our house would be on the market 30 days if we had a place to move to. Our neighbors
just sold their house, Dr. Abbess, signed this, said I hope they approve it. So, there isn’t a
problem there with the quality of life, as far as the noise from the Northway. I can tell you
where the noise will come from. It’s from the children who play outside, and have a good time
and ride their bikes and laugh and giggle. That’s what I hear. I don’t hear the cars on the
Northway, and that’s what these folks would hear over there I’m sure. So, hopefully we’ve
helped the cause along. Hopefully we’ll see some kind of action there, or we might have to
move to some place else, but we’re hoping that you guys can see your way through this, and we
hope that we’ve helped in some respect. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? You’ve got a letter?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I’ve got a few of them, actually. First of all, a record of telephone
conversation between Mr. John Gallucci and Pam Whiting. Mr. Gallucci stated he feels the
same as last year. 100% against the project, and wants no houses behind him. The most he
would be agreeable to is two houses, facing and accessible only from Dixon Road. No road
through to Griffing Place. There are a lot of houses out there for sale. A couple of letters here.
One from Mary Baker, and I’ll try to read it here quickly. “I moved to Queensbury in 1981 with
the lure of the Adirondacks, open space and the getting away from the “greed of the dollar”! In
all areas expansion which were rising uncontrollably. With uncontrolled expansion comes loss
of green spaces, loss of wetlands for habitat (we have moose and deer in our back yards!) water
system failures and TRAFFIC! You can go on and on. You promise open spaces! They’re going
to the developer as fast as you can negotiate a deal. Meadowbrook Rd. was a rural road. It will
soon need a Traffic light. The plot on Dixon Road for twelve houses should remain a buffer
zone for the thruway. (It also has water problems and will cause extra traffic problems on the
going to and coming from work shift. As of now – this is BAD! I live on Dixon Court and even
there, with houses and trees, I hear and feel the heavy traffic on the Northway in Summer.
Please go over very carefully the odds of going through with this project. It may not be to the
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
Town – or contractors – best interest in the long run. Sincerely, Mary M. Baker 20 Dixon Court
Queensbury, NY”
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what you could do, George, is just summarize the letters. Instead of
trying to kill yourself trying to read the handwriting.
MR. HILTON-Yes. This one’s a lot easier. I’ll read it and it’s quick. It’s from Charles and Dale
Farrar. “My wife and I understand that there is a 12 unit housing development planned for a
parcel behind Hughes Court. We would like to convey our support for this project. The
property is zoned single family residential and as such should be developed in that manner.
Certainly this is a much more desirable option than any type of commercial or multi-family
development. We are unable to attend the Town meeting but wanted you to know of our
support. Sincerely, Charles A Farrar Dale A. Farrar” And that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? The last one?
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open.
MRS. LA POINT-Can I come up and say one more thing?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA POINT-Carol LaPoint again. I just want to, I think the records will reflect that when
we were here before, I said we live in a neighborhood, people on both sides of us, people across
the street. We moved there because we wanted to be in a neighborhood. Should anyone build
out there, they’ll be welcome, and we, you know, I would enjoy having a house out there, if it
wasn’t for the fact of the problems that it’s going to show to those people and to us. I have no
objection to having neighbors out there. It’s what is out there that we’re going to be running
into. Okay, but the records will show that, that I said that before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MRS. LA POINT-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Do you gentlemen want to come
back up?
MR. O'CONNOR-I guess the only comments I would make is that our study of the land has not
shown any wetlands. So I don’t know what the one writer was speaking of as to wetlands. I’m
not sure where Marguerite ended up with her drain pipe. I think Tom has indicated that he had
spoke with Lloyd Demboski, and was willing to uncover it if that’s what they desired to do, but
I think probably the better way to do it, unless Tom would correct me, is we’ve taken care of the
watershed, and we’re going to take the water away from that anyway, but if that’s something
that you want us to explore, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what we ought to do is have our Counsel take a look at that copy of
the deed Mrs. Demboski’s got and see what kind of history they can kind of get out of it.
MR. O'CONNOR-It sounds like that’s an easement, though, Craig, Mr. MacEwan, on her
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-It says it stops at the property line, too.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That was my comment as well. We can do that if you’d like, but
unless I’m misunderstanding the commenter, I don’t think the commenter is suggesting that
there’s any easement on the applicant’s property, and the applicant is stating, I did say that I
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
don’t think the title report is conclusive, but, I mean we have somebody who’s, you know,
representing on the record that they’ve done a title search, and that there are no easements of
record at the County Clerk’s Office. You might want that in writing for the, you know, for file
purposes or something, but I haven’t heard anybody suggest that there are easements on the
applicant’s property.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know what service it would provide to actually dig in farther at this
point.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The question of noise, you know, my past history, we’ve gone through
this before. Noise didn’t use to be the issue. The issue used to be living next to high tension
power lines, and I forget the terminology, what comes off high tension power lines, and there
are EMF. I mean, there are 50 and 100 studies that show that nobody should live next to a
power line. On your way home, take a look at all the houses that are next to power lines, and
I’m not saying that is necessarily the best thing in the world, or whatever, but this isn’t the only
town that the Northway runs through. We’ve used Hidden Hills because it’s something you
know about, and I guess from a sound point of view, Hidden Hills probably gets more noise
than we do because they’re higher. The lower area actually gets less noise, but you go from
here to Albany, Wilton, Clifton Park, Half Moon, Malta, those homes are built. I don’t see any
outcry by the residents in the local newspapers or whatever. I don’t see any outcry to the State.
If there really were a burden of, or a problem with noise or with emissions from the vehicles
that are on these cars, I think the burden would fall upon the State, not the adjoining property
owner. In fact in our case, because our property is so much lower than the Northway, it
wouldn’t be effective for us to do something on our property. You go down through New
Jersey and what not, you will see where they’ve put the barriers. They’ve put the barriers right
off the drainage ditch, because that’s what’s effective. That’s what creates the box that keeps
everything within the box. Take a look at our site, and take a look at, somebody mentioned the
fact that the highway rises as it goes north, as it gets to the overpass by the Plug Mill. There’s
quite a bit of difference in elevation. If somebody were even going to imagine a barrier, I can’t
imagine how high it would be. When you’re standing on flat ground, you want to have about
15 feet to catch the exhaust of any diesel trucks, and if you’re talking about an incline there of
probably about 30 feet, you’re talking 45, 50 feet in the air. You’d probably be beyond your
height limitations for structures if you tried to put one on our property. If there were going to
be that type of thing, you’d be talking about putting it, again, out on the highway. So I, with
due respect, think that you’re speculating greatly upon impacts that are not significant or are
not real probabilities, as far as our particular project. If you take a look at the steps that the
developer has already made, he came in with a road that was different than this, that had some
houses that were closer. He actually changed the development, and if you take a look at the
overhead, he’s going to preserve a strip of trees along the Northway on his property. There’s
another strip of trees that are on the Northway property there as well. You’re then going to
have this 50 foot road, and then you’re going to have his house with a front yard and a house,
and a good part of the back yard is going to be preserved as a no cut space. You can speculate
all you want, but scientifically I don’t think that you’re going to show a great deal of impact
here. Maybe, if you’re not satisfied yourselves, maybe you want to refer our noise study and
the emissions study to C.T. Male or somebody. I know the first comments that you talked of
doing that, but I never saw any of their comments back with regard to those, and I didn’t see
them, Tom. Did you? I don’t know, actually, did they go, on the first time around?
MR. RINGER-The first time they did, and C.T. Male made a couple of comments. They said, do
you want me to read them?
MR. HILTON-Go ahead.
MR. RINGER-Okay. He says, this is C.T. Male on November 19, and he says “Regarding noise
th
assessment, as with the CO assessment, we agree with the findings of the baseline study, which
represents existing conditions. However, there could be a more profound increase in noise
levels on the existing homes along Hughes Court with the removal of the vegetative barrier.
The overall approach to this assessment should follow the New York State DEC Guidelines as
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
described in their “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impact” publication”, which is what you
have.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which is what we have now related that to.
MR. RINGER-Right. “The premise of the study should be to first establish baseline levels. Then
predict the possible increase in levels due to the proposed action. If an increase of more than six
decibels is predicted at any receptor, then mitigation plans should be established.”
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s the same page I read. Zero to three says there’s no mitigation.
Three to six says there could be mitigation. Above six, there must be mitigation. That’s on that
same page that I had.
MR. RINGER-And C.T. Male, in his April 16, didn’t refer to this, because it’s a separate
th
number. So he didn’t put the two together, Tom.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I assume, but he did address it, and he also addressed the Carbon Monoxide
monitoring.
MR. O'CONNOR-It said that the baselines were satisfactory?
MR. RINGER-Do you want me to read that, too? Okay. “Regarding Carbon Monoxide
monitoring. With respects to the overall approach of the assessment, although it is important to
establish baseline or pre-construction CO levels, it is difficult to ascertain what impacts could
result from removing the vegetative barrier. In all likelihood, due to the proposed
establishment of a no cut area shown on the plans, the average residential property will not
likely experience CO levels significantly above the baseline levels.”
MR. SANFORD-What’s baseline levels?
MR. RINGER-I’m reading. I’m not the engineer. I’m only reading what he said.
MR. O'CONNOR-The baseline was zero to one on Carbon Dioxide.
MR. SANFORD-Well, again, what they seem to be doing is responding to your approach, which
is a marginal analysis.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why is it marginal?
MR. SANFORD-Well, marginal in that your presumption is that the status quo is acceptable,
and you explained why you felt that way, because it’s zoned for residential. So therefore, since
the Northway pre-dated that, then that level of noise is okay, and the reason it’s marginal is
you’re now saying, okay, if we cut down some trees or did some vegetation, here will be the
change, the delta, and what I’m saying, you know, what my point is, I think what I’ve heard the
audience talk about is that, you know, that’s somewhat of an academic argument, if, in fact, the
noise levels are way too high to be safe, and if the air quality is poor to be safe, but we’re not
particularly concerned about the difference that some trees or vegetation cuttings will make to
that. We have to look at the whole, from almost like a zero based budget, and we have to look
at, first of all, is it prudent under SEQRA, and they address air and they address noise and
things of that nature, to construct residential homes right next to the Northway.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d ask Mark to look at SEQRA. They only talk about increase in noise, based
upon the project. They don’t talk about going back to base.
MR. SANFORD-They talk about air quality, and they don’t talk about it one way or the other,
okay.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Section 617.7(A1), to require an EIS for a project, or for a proposed action,
must determine the action, and they include the potential for at least one significant adverse
environmental impact. Impacts that may be reasonably expected must be compared against the
criteria in the subdivision. A substantial adverse increase in the existing air quality, noise
levels, or drainage levels, there’s a whole bunch of those I picked. That’s SEQRA.
MR. SANFORD-And that could mean that no highway noise is appropriate and all of a sudden
if you build there you’re going to be subjecting these people to tremendous highway noise.
MR. O'CONNOR-With all due respect, it says a substantial adverse change in existing, now
that’s not hard to understand. It’s not hard to interpret.
MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a minute. There’s nothing there.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s SEQRA.
MR. SANFORD-There’s nothing built there right now.
MR. SCHACHNER-What you read is not a verbatim quote. The word “subdivision” does not
exist in the SEQRA laws.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s hold it all here. I mean, we could bounce this thing back and forth all
night long like a volleyball, but until this Board has had an opportunity to read the information
you presented us tonight, three different correspondences, plus the other information that Rich
had some information that one member from the public supplied us, we can’t say what SEQRA
will or won’t tell us what to do, when we get to that stage of the game.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand what you’ve said. Can we get a copy of the earlier C.T. Male
and copies of the information that has been referred to by others? And anything you need from
us, just let us know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, anything that we’re going to get, we’ll make sure that you get.
So you’ll have it as well to work from.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right.
MR. RINGER-There was one comment that noise levels are higher at lower temperatures. Is
that a correct statement or?
MR. STEUER-At lower temperatures, sound can travel better. That is correct.
MR. RINGER-I brought it up because it came from the public and I think all questions should
be answered. The other thing from the public came a comment that the property is lower than
Hidden Hills and sound goes down. Mike made a comment that’s not true, that sounds rises.
Could we hear from the noise expert?
MR. STEUER-Sound doesn’t rise. It all has to do with the geometry of the area we’re talking
about, and if you are, if your noise source is low, and your receptors are higher, then, based on
the geometry of, or actually a tube in this case, because it’s a traveling source, the noise will be
amplified, for lack of a better term, if the receptors are up higher. That’s true, just because of the
fact that noise has no place else to go except up.
MR. RINGER-I bring those up, because the questions came forth, and we should get answers to
them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Craig was right in the sense that I gave you only parts of that noise study.
That’s not a bad noise document. That has a lot of that trivia in there. You’re going to see that
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
it does, that noise, sound travels better, apparently, in the summer. The humidity had a great
effect on it as well. So go through the document as you’ve indicated you’re going to, and we
think, my point, I guess, is I’m not anticipating that I’m going to come in here with more
scientific evidence at your next meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s requesting it of you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any information that anybody thinks that they need?
MR. METIVIER-I was just going to say one thing. Is there any possible way that you could take
worst case scenario, if you were to take every single tree down here, and do a study somewhere
else, based on where the homes are going to be, you know, feed off the highway, go to the
cemetery at Exit 18, go down to 16 where those houses are sitting right, I mean, the guy’s deck
is sitting off the back of the Northway. If you could do a study at a comparable area so we
would have something true to compare it to, as opposed to taking it and saying, all right, you
know, we’re going to keep these trees up, and so we’re basing it off worst case scenario, so we
know that it could not get any worse than 64 decibels or 54 or whatever it’s going to be. I mean,
is that something that?
MR. RINGER-That’s why I wanted the Hidden Hills noise analysis.
MR. METIVIER-Well, yes, and Hidden Hills might be the place to do it. Because if you take
your strip of land and your trees, you might say, yes, Hidden Hills is going to be worst case
scenario for this subdivision here.
MR. STEUER-I would recommend against it, only for the fact that as soon as you leave that
particular area, the topography is going to be different. So that is going to totally change the
dynamics of that particular area. So you could, with the measurements that were taken, just
within the boundary originally, is basically representative of a worst case during that time
period that was sampled.
MR. METIVIER-But it’s not, because worst case is going to be taking half those trees down. So,
my point being, you just said that worst case scenario is what you did, but you can’t compare it
to that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Tony, maybe I didn’t explain it right. The worst case scenario is the site that’s
at the northeast corner where there are no trees.
MR. METIVIER-Right, I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR-With no credit for saving trees, or no credit for putting houses between that
station and the noise source.
MR. METIVIER-I understand.
MR. O'CONNOR-So that’s got to be the worst case scenario.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other two are just going to discount it to our favor, where they are going
to improve what we’re showing.
MR. METIVIER-And that make perfect sense to me.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s where, we can locate on the map, if you want to, on S-1, I think, of
your Subdivision application, there is a showing of the tree cover, and relate the stations that
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
were used for the noise study, and you will see the noise study that’s in the southeast corner of
the property, there are no trees there. So it’s the worst reading that we can get for two different
reasons, and it’s probably a little bit, I don’t want to get too much in trivia. It’s the worst
reading you can get in part, and we’re comparing against that as to the two points that are
further south. Because it also includes the noise from the Dixon Road that might have come
along at the time that they were measuring from the Northway. If the Dixon Road weren’t
there, instead of having, what was it 69, 59, instead of having a 59 reading, it might have been
like the other two, to be honest with you, and it probably should have, because the Northway is
just one big, you know, stretch as it goes by the property and runs parallel to the property. The
reading that that’s, probably the reading that’s higher is because of the traffic. The only way
you’d ever be able to do that, and I’ve never seen a traffic study or a noise study do it, is have a
video running to try and pick up what they’re seeing, or what they’re hearing.
MR. METIVIER-When you do a study on this, is it just average decibel reading?
MR. STEUER-The numbers we used were averages.
MR. METIVIER-Because I’m thinking, you know, you’re coming up to Exit 19 there, and if you
have a Jake brake, is that going to significantly increase, or are you going to factor that out? I
know what it is, but I’m just saying scenario. We lived off of Dixon Road, and I’m telling you,
in the summertime, growing up, you could hear the Jake brakes, for whatever reason. So my
point is, do you factor them in or out?
MR. STEUER-For this study, we looked at averages. However, we report the peaks. If you look
at the very first study that was done, it shows you the running noise levels at each one of those
locations, and you’re going to see, when you take a noise measurement, it continually
fluctuates. That’s where it becomes very typical to just get a snapshot look, and if you compare
all of the running noise levels out of all three of those locations, you see some very, you see
beyond the little peaks. The peaks you see, you see commonality of when that kind of the
graph seems to be going up in the lunchtime period, and then it drops down, and then it starts
rising up again during the evening rush hour. For simplicity, and for real practicality,
especially on the health basis, if you’re not talking about extremely loud noises in hundreds of
decibels, it’s irrelevant. You need to look at the average noise exposure because that’s really
what is going to be causing any kind of adverse health effect. So it’s not to say that a loud noise
in a short period of time may not be irritating, you know, because you either are startled
because of it, or you just notice it because it goes higher in the background, but you can’t really
at just the peaks unless you, in some ordinances they will say you cannot have a certain level, a
peak level above a certain decibel, you know, and then that’s the way they happen to address it.
MR. SANFORD-What is that normally?
MR. STEUER-There is no normal in the stuff.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what you said is some areas they might have a threshold where you, you
know, which is, you can’t go above that threshold. What would be a situation, a specific
situation, where that might occur?
MR. STEUER-I don’t know a specific number off the top of my head. I know some ordinances
will provide, though, a, like at night they will put a penalty on noise levels where, what they
basically do is they add a certain number of decibels during certain hours of the day, to increase
the average number, because again they go back to looking at an average, as far as if you’re
within some kind of pre-determined standard.
MR. SANFORD-What’s the threshold that the Board came up with on The Great Escape?
MR. METIVIER-Fifty-four at night.
MR. SANFORD-What was it?
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not going to ask anybody to pull that off the top of their head.
MR. METIVIER-It was 54 at night.
MR. SANFORD-Fifty-four?
MR. METIVIER-After nine o’clock, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Fifty-four. So this is ten higher than that, which doubles the noise level.
MR. O'CONNOR-Are you talking about a noise generator or something that noise passes
through?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re comparing a couple of different things here.
MR. SANFORD-All I know is if you’re living near The Great Escape, the noise is annoying. If
you’re going to be thinking about a residential site, and it’s going to be noisier, there’s a
commonality there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, in all fairness to the applicant, we’re not talking about The Great
Escape. The Great Escape is a whole different ball of wax, so to speak. I don’t want to get into a
debate about it with you. We’re talking about an amusement park that wanted to increase their
attendance and expand their parking, go to night time operations, which is a whole different
criteria.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, we’re trying to get our arms around the subject matter. Okay.
Craig, fine. We’re trying to get our arms around a difficult topic and I thought I would throw
out benchmarks for comparison.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I ask you to ask your Counsel to supply each of you with a
copy of Section 617.7(A1) of the SEQRA regulations, so that you have it directly in front of you
and somebody doesn’t quote it verbatim? I know that I can’t ask him to ask you, because he’ll
tell you, he’ll tell me no, and maybe you already have it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I can supply you with any part of SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the SEQRA Cookbook, isn’t it?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not verbatim. The gist of it is in the SEQRA Cookbook, but I’m not sure
why. I mean, the Section that Mr. O’Connor is trying to quote from, and I thought he had it
until he said the word “subdivision”. I don’t believe the word “subdivision” appears in there.
So I was a little concerned about that. It has to do with when you can call for preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. I don’t see that as a relevant thing to look at right now
because we’re not there yet. If and when, at some point you’re going to presumably review an
Environmental Assessment Form, for this project, just like you do for every other project that’s
not exempt from SEQRA that comes before you. When that time comes, I’m pretty confident
that Staff and we can guide you successfully through the Environmental Impact review process
and you’ll reach whatever conclusion you reach, either requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement or not. I mean, I can supply you with any part of the SEQRA law that anybody
wants.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. O’Connor, if you want to provide it as additional information, okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I would differ with you, Mark, because it’s actually under the
determining significance section, and then it’s a definition of the criteria for determining
significance that I quoted.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and you don’t need to differ with me because determining
significance, in English, is when the Lead Agency decides whether to require an Environmental
Impact Statement or not. That’s what determining significance means, and I don’t think we
should have, waste the Board’s time on this debate, but if you want to debate it with you, I’m
happy to do that until the cows come home. I will show you a chapter and verse, in black and
white, that determining significance means when a Lead Agency determines whether or not an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’ll submit it to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I think what we’ll do is, considering what our workload is here, is
table this. I’ll suggest tabling this to our first meeting of July, because it looks like June is
booked solid, and for the benefit of the public, I will ask Staff to make sure that this is the first
thing on the agenda that night.
MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I ask a question? Just, how, in this process, how long do you think
before there’d be an answer either yes or no? What kind of timetable do you see? What kind of
horizon are you looking at?
MR. MAC EWAN-The question was asked, what kind of length of time do we think that this is
going to take before we grant an approval or a denial, and the short answer is, there is no
answer. You don’t know. I mean, all applications are taken on their own criteria. They’re
evaluated independently of any other applications we’ve got going on. They’re all weighed on
their own merits. There is no answer that it takes two weeks, two months, two years, two
centuries.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We basically have satisfied engineering, or are in a position to satisfy
engineering, and what you have to do is go through the SEQRA portion of this. Why would it
take you two months to get up to speed to that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because our agendas for next month are filled already.
MR. O'CONNOR-June is filled already?
MR. MAC EWAN-June is filled already. We may throw another meeting on there. Tomorrow
is our completeness review meeting, tomorrow.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Is there any consideration for keeping adjourned matters with priority
over new matters? I know that that’s been discussed. I don’t know if it’s been decided.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we have done that. I mean, we’ve moved two from tonight’s meeting
to June’s meeting, which I know is really booking us up. So, I’m just trying to keep things
balanced and fair for everybody. That’s all I can do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but the sequence of getting something through, and then getting it.
MR. RINGER-It’s all Old and then New is the way we’ve set up our rules.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. When we do an agenda, Old Business is the first items that we do,
during the course of the meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You have that many old items before us in May, or you have one more
meeting in May. You’re saying the first meeting in June, or second meeting in June?
MR. MAC EWAN-July.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re saying July. That’s what I’m saying. You’ve got that many old items
that are going to go to June, two meetings?
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s stuff that’s been carried over. Yes. I don’t know how to do this. I
mean, if we say we’re going to table this to our first meeting in July, and when you do your
reviews tomorrow, you can find an opening to put it on for June, what do we do?
MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got an application for Maille to make a recommendation for a
rezoning. That application is withdrawn.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that on for June?
MR. HILTON-It was, but I guess it’s impossible for me to tell you, right now, whether there’s
going to be a spot or not. I mean, there were nine items that were left from May to go into June.
We’ve received many, many, many more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of like, 21, 22 total,
before you even consider the ones that were tabled this evening. It’s possible, but I can’t answer
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what we’ll do. We’ll table this thing to our 6/29 meeting, and bump
whatever we have to bump.
MR. SCHACHNER-What 6/29 meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-He just gave me the date. He just told me our second meeting was the 29.
th
MR. RINGER-The 29.
th
MR. HILTON-The 22.
nd
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not true. The 15 and the 22.
thnd
MR. MAC EWAN-6/22 is our second meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, Mark, the third and the fourth, I’ve got the 22 and the 29, in my
ndth
calendar.
MR. NACE-The third couldn’t be the 22.
nd
MR. RINGER-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to table.
MR. HILTON-You may want to clarify, and you probably are going to anyway, what
information you are looking for to be supplied to you, or to the applicant or from the applicant,
just so everybody knows what we’re looking for, as far as follow up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2004, HAYES &
HAYES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
To our June 22 meeting for the following additional information that the Board would want to
nd
take an opportunity to review:
1. A copy of the title insurance document prepared tonight,
2. A copy of an additional supplement to the noise evaluation, plus there’s also a noise
evaluation report that we have not seen, that Staff is in receipt of,
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 5/18/04)
3. The assessing and mitigating noise impacts criteria by DEC, which Staff is going to
provide us with a complete set of,
4. The information that Mr. Sanford had related to tonight regarding transportation.
They’re going to be copied for us. Plus there was one that was handed out by the public
tonight,
5. The applicant was going to provide a copy of the section of SEQR law that he wanted us
to review.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. SANFORD-Plus I believe Mr. Round also had a document. He might want to give that to
Staff.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thursday night, regular Board members, for regular Board members,
this does not include the alternates, we have The Great Escape Supplemental GEIS Findings
Statement, considering something as complete, adopting. Thank you. However, both alternates
I’d ask to be here, because afterwards we’re having a workshop, relative to, I think everybody
got a memo on it, relative to build out, which some members had talked about, wanted to talk
about density growth, whatever in the Town, seven o’clock, here. Okay. Any other business?
Anything else? Done!
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
67