2009.07.28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 28, 2009
INDEX
Site Plan No. 38-2008 Robin Inwald 1.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16
PUD Site Plan No. 20-2009 The Michaels Group 1.
FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.20-1-8
Special Use Permit No. 43-2009 Frank Parillo 24.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-23
Site Plan No. 7-2009 Greg Canale 25.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11, 296.16-1-3.1
Site Plan No. 53-2007 Richard Salomon/Provident Development 33.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14
Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 48.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 28, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Meeting Number 18 on Tuesday, July 28, 2009. Our first item on the agenda is an
Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SP 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION [TABLED
TO 7/28/09, NO NEW INFO. SUBMITTED]
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft resolution in your packet to table this. Would anyone
like to move the draft motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a quick question. So they intend to submit?
MR. OBORNE-They have submitted.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So they are on the agenda as a result of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Very good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE N/A THE MICHAELS
GROUP AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING HILAND PARK PUD LOCATION CORNER OF MEADOWBROOK &
HAVILAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11.23 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 34 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 4,257 SQUARE
FEET TO 17,775 SQUARE FEET. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PUD SP 44-2000
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE, DEC LOT SIZE
11.23 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-8 SECTION 179-12-010, 179-9-010
STEFANIE BITTER, TOM NACE JIM MILLER, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. PUD Site Plan 20-2009, Preliminary & Final. Applicant is Michaels
Group. Site Plan Review for the subdivision of land. There’s some located north portion
of Meadowbrook Road. The SEQRA Status is a previous EIS. Parcel History is vacant
land associated with the Hiland Park PUD approved on 1/14/87. Project Description:
Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.23 acre parcel into 34 residential lots ranging in
size from 4,257 square feet to 17,775 square feet. Staff comments, quickly, A
Consistency Resolution for this project was approved by the Town Board dated 12/1/08
and is attached. I do want to bring to the attention of the Planning Board that there was
some further review on this project, and as a condition of approval per Site Plan 44-
2000, that, and that deals with Waverly Place, which is to the south, that the developer
will be responsible for future extension of the walkway to adjacent north and south
properties. That resolution is attached. Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator’s,
determined that if Waverly Place will not agree to that, they’ll have to come in and modify
their Site Plan, and with that I’d turn it over.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes,
attorney for the applicant. I’m here with Dave Michaels from The Michaels Group, Tom
Nace from Nace Engineering, and Jim Miller, the project architect. As you’re aware,
we’re here this evening seeking Final subdivision approval for the 34 lot townhouse
development. If I could just respond to some of the Staff comments, and then I’ll turn it
over to the Board for some questions. One of the things that Staff had raised, which we
felt was addressed during the May meeting, was with regards to the interconnect to the
th
commercial lot number one. Jon Lapper was actually here at that May 19 meeting, as
the minutes reflect, and discussed in detail the concerns with having the possibility of
that interconnect. I don’t believe that the Planning Board raised that as being an actual
issue to explore further, and didn’t actually incorporate it as a condition to the Preliminary
approval that was granted, but I can review some of those items that Mr. Lapper
demonstrated during that meeting. Specifically, to kind of give you the history, as you
may recall, The Michaels Group parcel actually fronted on Meadowbrook Road or old
Meadowbrook Road. When the County found that there were some concerns with some
safety issues on Hiland, moved it further away to the new location on Meadowbrook, and
obviously it lost all its frontage. When they discussed that relocation, the access is going
to be granted over the immediately adjacent property owner, which is Rich
Schermerhorn, and it was always intended to have a boulevard entrance for the
proposed residential subdivision that we’re here this evening seeking. Obviously, with
that boulevard entrance, it will make the residential subdivision the attractive appearance
that it was always intended to be, and to be compatible with the immediately adjacent
subdivisions that exist there today. We just don’t feel that this is the type of appearance
that the applicant wants, nor does the Board, but we kind of felt that that issue was
discussed at the last meeting and was not deemed to be an issue of further concern.
DAVE MICHAELS
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, at that May meeting if you recall, that issue was brought up, and I
went into, at length, the whole history behind, when the County approached us and said,
you know, we’re looking for a realignment to try to get a better safety condition for the
intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland Road. We’re looking at a realignment here,
and, you know, it would affect you and the Schermerhorn’s, and what could be worked
out, and a lot of due diligence and homework was done behind the scenes between us
and the Town, and it was worked out with Rich Schermerhorn and ourselves and with the
Town where we were given with the whole, and we agreed to it all with the idea that we
would have a very private divided boulevard creating a nice landscaped island, which
we’ve already had approval from the Fire Department in prior exhibits granted, and that
we would still be able to create our own entrance and privacy, the fact, because we lost
our road frontage that was there before, and it was all engineered and approved with the
idea that this was workable, and on that basis we supported the idea of moving the road,
etc. Rich Schermerhorn’s project, in that one commercial lot on the corner, is still going
to be subject to Site Plan Review, but I understand, too, there was no stipulation
whatsoever granted, when he had that approval, that required that lot to have access to
this easement area where our entrance was, too, which I think is also sort of fundamental
to our argument. The idea of supplying an office lot accessing our road, losing our
island, would totally destroy the whole integrity in what we’re trying to create for this
project, and I’m just surprised Staff brought it up and we have to go through all this
again, but we’re glad to bring up all those points again and make the Board aware of it.
So on that particular issue, I’ll close out, and you can go into the next item.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MS. BITTER-The other item.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just interrupt for a second, I’m sorry. I think in defense of
Staff, they left it in there because the Board had not made any decision on it yet, by
virtue of a resolution or a vote. So, we can talk about that when we get to that.
MR. MICHAELS-Okay. All right.
MS. BITTER-The other item that was raised by Staff was with regard to the walkway. As
you know from our June submission, we did present a letter from Waverly Place
indicating that, obviously, they declined to consider the interconnect between the
walkway. We obviously still have, in our proposal, the sidewalk along the main entrance
of the boulevard that we have discussed with this Board and obviously are here tonight
to discuss it further. With regards, and I’ll let Mr. Michaels elaborate on that, but just with
regards to engineering comments, there’s a couple of minor items that are left that we
feel the engineers can address, but I think all major items have been dealt with.
MR. MICHAELS-On the subject of the issue of the sidewalk. It was down in the minutes
as we agreed to explore the interconnectivity. In fact, within two days after that meeting,
I met with the Chairman of the HOA and met with him in the field and went over various
ideas of interconnectivity, and that could be brought up to his board. They reviewed all
the different options and came back with a letter that was supplied to all you members,
that at this time they were not interested in interconnectivity. I think the primary basis is,
is that they don’t maintain, the walkway is on their property. It’s owned by the HOA.
They maintain it. They ensure it. The issues of liability come into play, and at this time,
they felt that their constituency was not interested in an interconnect between our
community. It was not stated that this would never be considered or looked into in the
future. Once this HOA, let’s say, could be up and running, you know, who knows what
possibilities might exist, but as far as their position, you know, we did explore it, as we
were requested, and that’s how they came back. We are still proposing a walkway. Jim,
why don’t you go over that.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. Jim Miller, landscape architect. As we discussed, you
know, last meeting, there would be a sidewalk where the main access drive comes
through, with the boulevard entrance. There would be a sidewalk from this intersection
within the subdivision that would run along that road that would go out and connect to
Meadowbrook, and, you know, the main intent there was, you know, anybody, you know,
riding along the shoulder of Meadowbrook could turn in and get off the road at this point
or for children where there’d be a school bus pick up, probably, at that point, they would
have access out to there.
MR. MICHAELS-And to expand. On that, it was also brought up by Mr. Seguljic about
exploring the idea of transit, would the Greater Adirondack Glens Falls Transit be
interested in servicing that area, could you guys look into it. I did make that contact and
spoke to the Director and he told me that they actually do service Meadowbrook now, but
it’s on a, quote unquote, request basis. So that is part of their service area, but there
hasn’t been enough demand to make it just an automatic drive through, and he said, if
anyone in the community, any of the communities that are there, made a request to, you
know, I understand there’s a pick up on Saturday, or whatever, they would automatically
make that run through there and tell them what time, about, they could be expected to be
picked up. So I would think, you know, so I guess that says it really is a serviceable item,
and they’re actually interested in, with more people and residences there, to make that
more of a permanent run through, but I would venture to guess a lot of people on
Meadowbrook don’t know that that’s a possibility.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying that they drive through there already?
MR. MICHAELS-On a request basis.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they will on a request basis.
MR. MICHAELS-On a request basis, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we need to build the other half of this to create a demand. Okay.
MS. BITTER-All right. I’ll open it up to questions.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Questions, comments from members of the
Board?
MR. FORD-Refresh my memory, please. On that triangular shaped chunk to the south
of your entrance, who actually owns that.
MR. MILLER-Okay. This line here is the old Meadowbrook Road. So all the land on that
side was Schermerhorn’s. So when they did the realignment and brought the road here,
they essentially put it through Schermerhorn’s property. So Rich still owns this whole
piece, and, you know, as Dave talked about, when that whole agreement was made, it
was agreed that this access drive would line up with Beacon Place, which lines up with
the Amedore housing project across the street.
MR. FORD-And an easement was granted.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, it’s an easement, but it’s going to be dedicated to the Town
when the road is constructed. So this’ll be a Town road through here, and The Michaels
Group will have an easement for some landscaping at the entrance for a sign and things
like that, but Rich will own this lot and this triangular piece and there’s a culvert being
constructed across here, and the plan would be that this would be developed commercial
lot, and then this area back here could be utilized as a stormwater management area,
since everything tends to drain towards the back.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. MILLER-You’re welcome.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the latest update on the island, where you’re coming in the
driveway?
MR. MILLER-Well, Mr. Michaels and Mr. Nace met with the Fire Marshal, and they went
and they reviewed some of the other similar boulevards that have been constructed, and
he signed off on the boulevard as it’s shown.
MR. NACE-This will be almost exactly like the one at Surrey Field, except the bull nose,
or the end of the island, is pulled back from the road a little further to allow the snow
plows to access it better, but he agreed that there was, I mean, there’s 15 feet of
pavement, plus two foot of paved wing, so actually 17 feet of pavement, and he agreed
that that was certainly sufficient for the fire truck.
MR. MICHAELS-And he requested us to pull that one back, too.
MR. NACE-No, that was the Highway Department.
MR. MICHAELS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned in your presentation the island, specifically as it may
relate to access to the commercial lot there, and I guess I never really focused in on this
before, but if the boulevard is built and the road is dedicated to the Town, who, then,
would maintain the island? Is that maintained by the Homeowners Association?
MR. MICHAELS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do they actually retain that piece of property?
MR. MICHAELS-No, the Town still owns it, but the HOA maintains it. That’s, as in the
right of way both sides of, outer right of way going in, the HOA will be landscaping, trees
won’t be planted until, at the common lot line between the right of way and the adjoining
Schermerhorn property, but that 10 foot area of right of way will be seeded and irrigated.
Again, the heads will be off the Town road, but it’ll be maintained by the HOA. It won’t
have to be maintained by the Town. That’s how it’s done in Surrey Field and Hudson
Pointe and a few other communities that we’ve done. I don’t know about some other
ones in the Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess kind of the follow up, I guess it’s more of a comment than
a question. If it’s a Town road, then how could we limit access off the Town road to the
lot to the north? I mean, I understand your position that it goes against the principle that
you had agreed to before, but I don’t, I mean, right now it’s only speculative what may go
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
in that lot. I mean, what’s to say, three years down the road, they come in and they say,
well, you know, we want a right hand turn in only, and maybe a right hand turn out only.
MS. BITTER-And that’s what Jon discussed at the last meeting. I don’t know if you
recall, but he indicated that it’s going to be, you know, dedicated to the Town, and we
understand that it’s for the Town Board to decide, but we feel that with regard to this
development it shouldn’t be something that is considered. You might not be the ultimate
Board that makes that decision, but we don’t think that it’s within everybody’s
expectations for the development at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MICHAELS-And we understood, too, from Mr. Schermerhorn, according to Mr.
Lapper who I talked to today, he never had or wants, and he’s a client, Mr.
Schermerhorn’s a client of Mr. Lapper also, and he has no desire to have an access off
this boulevard, plus the fact that if the island goes into play, you know, that would make
that connection possibility, from the planning perspective, that much more a moot point
possibly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Possibly, yes. Okay. Anyone else? It was brought to my
attention that we neglected to close the public hearing, and Staff has informed me, and I
saw a hand go up already, that there was at least one member of the public that wanted
to comment on the project. So I will, unless there’s a question, comment from the Board,
I will open the public hearing, and if you could identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RICHARD BESTOFF
MR. BESTOFF-My name is Richard Bestoff. I live at Waverly Place, and I’m not here to
speak against The Michaels Group. They always build quality homes, and I live in one of
them on Waverly Place, so that’s not a problem. They did speak about safety issues,
and I’d like to use their drawing to show you what the safety issues really are, with your
permission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, if you’d just take the mic with you. Thank you.
MR. BESTOFF-The safety issue that exists is that the Adirondack Community College is
over here, and the kids, or the students, do not use Bay Road to go south. They go up to
Haviland, come across here onto Haviland, and use this runway to the speed way down
Meadowbrook Road. They do wheelies on their motorcycles, and it’s just outrageous,
and I’m sure that even the police are aware because people take the motorcycles
running along here and coming down this road. That’s why there’s a Sherriff’s officer
that’s parked down at the end of the, you know, midway down the road. So this here is a
very, very heavily traveled road. My concern, because this is the Planning Board, and
we plan ahead, the planning was excellent where we took the old Meadowbrook Road
and moved it over here, because access to Haviland was a giant hazard. So now we
moved it over here, but we must plan ahead, because when this piece of property is sold,
the only egress or ingress would be back on Haviland or back on Meadowbrook Road,
and no one is looking at that. You cannot have, with the way these cars make this turn
here, and they hit the gas and they’re flying down here. I live right over here, and I
overlook this. I see it all the time when school is in session. You see these cars really
ripping down here. Now, I think what should be done is I don’t believe that this boulevard
should be here. I believe there should be an entrance in here. I think this island should
not be here, and I think that this should possibly be wider, so that when this piece of
property is sold, that people will be able to go in this way here to the property and out
here, alleviating a problem with traffic coming out this way or out this way. That’s my
only comment. I know Michaels Group does a great job. We don’t have a problem with
them, but something like this here, we’ve got the opportunity now, like I said, to plan
ahead. If we’re not going to let them come out here, and not going to let them come out
here, they’re going to have to come out here, and then The Michaels Group can very well
say, hey, look, we already put this in. So before this goes in, I think widening of this
boulevard here, and then, by widening that, they’ll be able to have access into that
property off of that boulevard. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this
project? Okay. If you want to come back to the table. The one item that we haven’t
really talked about in length tonight is the walkway interconnect. There was a comment
in Staff Notes. I don’t know if anyone on the Board had questions or want to discuss that
this evening, what the feeling is of the Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there was an indication that Waverly Place did not want to have
the interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but it was a condition of their approval.
MR. FORD-Right. They’re going to have to come back. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what the Zoning Administrator has indicated.
MR. TRAVER-But I guess my question would be the process. Staff is reporting that
Waverly HOA has got to come in for a modification of their Site Plan. Does that have an
impact on the plan before us? Does that have to be reviewed prior to this going through,
if there is no interconnect? I’m just wondering what the steps are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, it’s kind of a Catch-22, you know, and we see this
a lot with commercial property, where the Code requires adjacent commercial properties
to have an interconnect off the main street, and, you know, the current applicant needs to
show it for the future, and then it’s incumbent on the next applicant, when they come in,
to show the connection.
MR. TRAVER-We have another site in Town that’s already an issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the walkway and the interconnect are two different issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-They are.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re talking like they’re the same things, but they’re two very different
things.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, you’re right. They are very different.
MRS. STEFFAN-The walkway is recreational, where the interconnect is a traffic pattern
issue.
MR. OBORNE-And I would say that the walkway is indicative of the spirit of the PUD
also. You’d want to have that movement of people, and we won’t go into the problems
that Meadowbrook Road has. So, you know, in my mind, as the Town Planner, that this
is also a condition of approval from the previous Waverly Place that the applicant built,
and it’s not the applicant’s responsibility to interconnect from Waverly Place to Haviland,
but, with that said, that’s the issue before you.
MRS. STEFFAN-The walkway was my main issue coming into tonight, and certainly from
a big picture point of view, during the planning process, many years ago, it probably
seemed like a great idea to have a walkway through these parcels, so that folks could
enjoy the recreational aspects of having, you know, walkway that covers a couple of
acres, but from another point of view, I can certainly understand the Waverly
Homeowners Association of not wanting to shoulder the liability of having strangers on
their walkway, you know, if they’re responsible, if they have their own liability insurance, I
can certainly understand their position. Also, there’s no wetlands that surround this
particular development that putting a walkway in would be difficult.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the Waverly Place walkway?
MR. OBORNE-You can see it actually, right here is where it terminates.
MR. MILLER-Yes. It terminates right at that roadway there.
MR. MICHAELS-It starts on the south side of the, it’s a loop road that has two
connections on Meadowbrook Road from Waverly Place, and it’s on the north entrance
that you can see on this map. It starts on the south side of that entrance into Waverly.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And where does it go from there?
MR. MICHAELS-And then it runs on HOA common area, it weaves in and out. It’s
probably in from the roadway and average of 50 feet. It meanders in and out, and then it
terminates on the north side of the lower entrance.
MR. SEGULJIC-So in that, shall we call it the open space, just to the west of
Meadowbrook, it weaves around in there.
MR. MICHAELS-That’s right, and they’re, you know, they have in their budgets, you
know, the maintenance of it and how it’s supposed to be cared for and what you can
walk as far as animals on it, or not cleaning up and they’re adamant about, the HOA,
they’ve made modifications to their HOA bylaws. They don’t want any walking on it in
the wintertime, you know, as far as, because they didn’t want the liability of somebody
falling, so they’re not doing snow removal in the wintertime, but, you know, it is a
different issue. We’re really talking like a recreational walkway trail, versus an
interconnect sidewalk which is owned and maintained by the Town, and they have the
liability, and that sort of brings in the whole, that’s the two aspects that you’re bringing
up.
MR. MILLER-That’s how I’ve seen them use it there. They walk around on Waverly
Place, and then rather than come back out to Meadowbrook, they walk a loop across
their trail, so, you know, they walk a circle, and that’s how it’s primarily used.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, in order to even create an interconnect, you’d have to either come
out onto the public right of way or go through someone’s yard, right, or is there room?
MR. MILLER-Well, if you look at the map, there is a, in the north driveway, there is
actually a space left between the right of way and the last lot. So there is a space there,
but it would go alongside one of the homes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And alongside the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-My struggle is always, from a planning perspective, these are desirable,
but no one ever wants to do them. So how are we going to be able to do it?
MR. MILLER-The problem is they’re on private property. If there was, you know, public
trail and public land, like a sidewalk within a right of way or things that becomes a slightly
different issue, and I think that’s why there’s the resistance.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then you have the bike trail.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, wouldn’t only people from the new development, Waverly Place
use this? Why wouldn’t you think others are going to come and use it?
MR. NACE-But even so, the liability would still be there for the original Waverly
Homeowners Association. There are going to be two separate Homeowners
Associations. The members of one, you know, if they are hurt on a trail, in front of the
other, on the other HOA property, they have the right to sue.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know what, this goes back to a bigger issue. I think the, and,
you know, I brought it up at the first meeting when we came in for Sketch Plan. The
bigger issue is it made sense, when we thought that this property was going to get
developed as some kind of mixed use or commercial development, and then it would be
people walking from their house to work, and back from work. So it would still only be
the Homeowners Association people walking on the trail, and now that we’re putting in,
now that townhouses are proposed, it creates a different land use, really, and it changes
the.
MR. FORD-There’s private ownership here, by two different groups.
MR. MICHAELS-The sidewalk, though, that we are putting in, you know, at least that’s
providing a safe means to access, for the community to access Meadowbrook Road and,
you know, where that terminates, you know, we’re open to the idea of putting in some
benches, you know, if somebody was waiting for a bus stop for mass transit or whatever,
it could be available there. So we’re at least, we think that’s a good idea, and that makes
sense, and like I said, we did approach the Waverly HOA, and it’s because it’s on their
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
land and the issues of liability, you know, we told them we were open to do it, and I told
them to send a letter about what their particular feelings are, and they didn’t run it. They
spent a lot of time on this, and they got, they met with everybody and got a consensus of
the whole community. There’s 54, or 56 residents there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t want to be argumentative, but I think a lot of it’s
in how you approach it, too. I mean, if they approach it and say, geez, we think this is a
bad idea, don’t you? They’re going to say, yes, it is a bad idea, but whereas if it’s
approached in, look, this was a requirement of the development, I think then, you know,
it’s a different response.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I wonder, do they realize they would be expected to come in for
Site Plan modification? I mean, that might upset some of their thinking.
MR. SEGULJIC-Keith, if I may, can I put you on the spot?
MR. OBORNE-Always.
MR. SEGULJIC-As a planner, do you have any, what are your thoughts on this? Are
there ways around it?
MR. OBORNE-Are there ways around it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, I can understand the liability issue, but what have other
communities done?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not up on what other communities have done, as far as interconnects
with walkways. I know that it is a planning tool in PUD’s. It’s almost a boilerplate aspect
of a PUD, and with conservation subdivisions also particularly. My issue with this, as a
planner, is strictly from a Code point of view, and the Code states that when the Planning
Board makes a resolution and there’s a condition to that resolution, it needs to be
followed or it needs to be modified. I hope that helped.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-From that perspective, can we move forward on this application
without a resolution from Waverly Place.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. They’re two separate parcels under two separate
ownerships.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I don’t know how you’re going to go forward with any type of walkway
requirement for Haviland or Hiland Park. That’s something that obviously has been in
my notes that I’ve been looking for, and I’m specifically looking for a connection to the
interconnect which is in the spirit of the PUD.
MR. SEGULJIC-But what happens if we approve this, and then Waverly Place comes in
and they say, it would be great to have an interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then where are we?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and that relates to my question on what’s the order of, so we make
sure that everybody’s on the same page here. It seems like the planning has go to be on
a larger scope to resolve this issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the Homeowners Association has provided a letter that’s within
this application that said that they do not want to have the interconnect, and liability is a
fear, you know, it’s a driver, because there’s a cost associated with it. I mean, having a
Homeowners Association costs these folks, I’m sure these folks pay dues every month to
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
be part of the Homeowners Association, and so the thought of, you know, liability that
might be incurred, if someone is hurt, you know, is a big driver in this situation, and I
can’t say that I blame them. I mean, we’re living in a very litigious society right now, and
so there is a concern.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, one solution that was brought up here, and I think it does make
sense, we could agree to condition our community, visa vie the approval for this
subdivision, as well as, which would then be passed on to the Homeowners Association
and all the specific declarations and things that are special risks that may make our
homeowners aware that should the adjoining Waverly Place ever desire to pursue
connectivity that the Hiland Crossing project would not, would work in that effort. I have
no problem with doing that, because then it leaves that option open between the two
communities down the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-But I do want to say the one caveat is, is that Waverly Place is required to
connect, as a condition of approval, to any lands that are developed to the north or
south. It’s pretty specific to me, and I’m looking at it with blinders on. I mean, I will admit
that, as a planner, I am, but, I mean, that’s where I’m coming from.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the other point I think that needs to be made, as a part of any
language regarding this, would be not, that if it some point in the future they were to
decide to do the interconnect, but rather if they were to successfully modify their Site
Plan, because they’re required to do the interconnect now. So it’s not really, that
decision’s already been made, and they requested approval on the basis that there
would be such an interconnect. So, we would also want to be very careful about being
clear on the language. That, you know, it’s not something that, we’ll decide to do it later.
They have to decide not to do it and then pursue that with this Board.
MR. OBORNE-And I do want to state that I don’t want to slow this project down, I mean,
as a result of the walkway. I mean, as a planner, I think it’s a good plan that they have,
and I think it’s in the spirit of what, to a certain extent, what the PUD was created for. We
do have commercial lots that are available for development, and those interconnects are
specifically for that, the walkways, I should say, are specifically to connect the
commercial with the business, with the residential. That’s the whole idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And maybe it’s too convoluted, but would it be possible to include the
interconnect, with this approval, with the caveat that if Waverly came back, and
successfully had their Site Plan modification changed, that this applicant would not be
required to make a connection to essentially nowhere. Because if we remove the
interconnect from Waverly Place, if they were successful in getting that condition
removed.
MR. OBORNE-If that is the will of the Board, absolutely, if you want to word it that way.
MR. TRAVER-I’m just thinking that’s maybe a way to do it without, as you pointed out,
slowing the project up, is let’s plan to do it, and then let Waverly Place, they’ve indicated
they don’t want to pursue it. So let them come back, modify their Site Plan. If they’re
successfully able to do that, then that drops that piece of this plan as well.
MR. MILLER-I think what Dave was saying is that this is all homeowners land, all along
here. So the point of connection would be up in here. So there could be, you know, an
option to make the connection from our sidewalk down there. That could be included.
MR. OBORNE-And I do, I don’t want to beat this to death, but Meadowbrook Road is a
problem for pedestrians, and again, as a Planner, I am charged with making sure safety
is part of the plan. This walkway could very well accomplish that, at least a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-What will happen with the old, with the Town right of way for the old
Meadowbrook Road?
MR. OBORNE-That will be something for the Town Board to take up, if they’re planning
on putting in any pedestrian sidewalks, unless the Town Engineer might have.
MR. RYAN-Yes. I know there’s some utilities there, but I don’t know of any other plans.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, there’s a water line, if I remember right, yes.
MR. OBORNE-There’s nothing on the drawing board.
MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s always been our understanding that the Town was going to retain
it because of the utilities in the right of way.
MR. NACE-Actually, that would be an ideal location for the interconnect.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was thinking. It doesn’t make the Waverly Place people
happy, though.
MR. MICHAELS-The other point, too, though, you know, I think the whole idea went way
back when this interconnectivity, it wasn’t really, the one aspect of it was, is that, that
wasn’t really thought out, was the fact that this wasn’t a dedicated trail or walkway to the
Town where the Town would have the liability of maintaining the item. That wasn’t really
probably thought of when that planning took place and those approvals were granted,
and it’s not like it was part of a master plan where there was a public sidewalk planned
for the whole length right along the right of way along Meadowbrook that, you know, had
to be constructed as part of the condition of that approval, and that part of the road
dedication was also sidewalk dedication, and then the adjoining piece, when it’s
developed, had to extend the sidewalk along, the Town again, maintains, owns, and
takes over, and that’s really the difficulty. The other aspect is, is that even if they
provided an interconnect, I’m not so sure from, and we can let Counsel talk, but I’m not
still sure from a legal perspective that they could say, hey, we brought out, you know, we
extended it. We put a circle at the end where it meets the north property, but it’s still ours
and nobody else can use it. Our insurance doesn’t cover it, and I don’t think there’s
anything in the world that could say that they would have to be forced to allow other
people to be able to use that.
MS. BITTER-Right, and I guess that goes for the purpose that you guys had discussed
with regards to the PUD. The whole intention of this was so that people could walk back
and forth to their commercial businesses or work or jobs, and it wasn’t necessarily meant
for anybody and everybody to be walking back and forth on this interconnect.
MR. MICHAELS-We’re very open to the idea of like what was presented earlier, though,
that, you know, this, leaving the door open for this.
MS. BITTER-Because it appears that, you know, Waverly Place is going to have to re-
visit this issue before this Board, as to whether or not this is going to be modified. So, at
that time, you guys will at least explore what the purpose of it was, and whether or not
this was the intention.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is that if Waverly Place is agreeable to it, you
would be agreeable to it?
MR. TRAVER-Well, Waverly Place has already agreed to it. Their plan was approved
with that, as part of the plan. So, they asked for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, the part that was agreed to was the extension to the property line,
but that part that’s not agreed is that they don’t have to let other adjoining property use it.
Legally, they would not, they could be bound to restrict the use of that walkway, and that
is clear. Because it’s not a publicly owned. They own it. They maintain it. So, what
we’re trying to accomplish would be sort of a moot point. So, the benefits of it, we tried
to present that to them. Maybe there’s some open-mindedness down the road where
they’re interested in doing that. We could certainly stipulate in our approval that, if
approached by Waverly Place that they want to explore that interconnectivity, as long as
something could be worked out between both HOA’s and the liability, etc., they could
work out some agreement, that we’d be very open to that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because it would just make, from a planning perspective, all legal issues
aside, it makes a lot of sense to put that interconnect right along the eastern frontage of
the new development, because the whole thing we’re trying to do is connect
neighborhoods.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got a perfect opportunity here, and as a matter of fact, as a prior
condition, but I can understand your concerns, but we’ve got to think creatively here.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I don’t see other people, other than those two groups, using
that, because it doesn’t make sense for someone in the northern development to get in
the car to visit their friend in the southern one when they can walk there if they have a
walkway.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve also had residents of that neighborhood specifically express
concern of the traffic and the lack of, you know, being able to walk along the road
because of the relatively narrow road and the traffic. So I think it’s, I mean, I don’t know,
obviously I don’t live in that neighborhood, but I think that if, once your development
begins and Waverly Place, now their conditions of establishing this connection go into
effect, and then people realize exactly what it is and the advantages of it, they might be,
they might think it’s great to be able to go along the road without having to walk in the
roadway. I know that we’ve had people express a lot of concern about that.
MR. MICHAELS-That certainly could be a possibility, and many times, as you’ve said,
that’s exactly what ends up happening, but right now they’re a little bit gun shy. There’s
a few people that are, you know, more vocal and adamant with their opinion on the
connectivity, but once they see the entrance and the project done, and they have friends
all of a sudden that they know over there. It’s the same market, the same lifestyle. I’m
sure, I wouldn’t be surprised if we sold some homes to people in Waverly that may want
something new. We already had a few calls. So, with time, that could evolve very easily,
but there still would have to be something worked out between them on the liability
issues. They have to have some joint insurance umbrella that covers both Associations
and provides that, and it certainly wouldn’t be a public allowed usage. It would be
something, if it’s worked out between the two communities.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I would think their cost, when they join together, the two
Associations join together, I would think that the cost to Waverly Place would go down,
because they would be able to, and I’m not in the insurance business, but I would think
that, when they look at the two Homeowners Associations adjoining each other and
sharing these resources could probably negotiate for insurance that would be less than
each of them could get individually, and cover all those liability issues.
MR. MICHAELS-There certainly would be some economies of scale, just on the
maintenance aspect of it.
MR. TRAVER-And I think the people that, just speculating, that the people at Waverly
that are saying, I don’t know if it’s worth doing it, or let’s not bother, or what about the
liability, they may not realize that they’ve already agreed to do it, and that the installation
of that is triggered with your development. They may think that this is an option and that
this is something new that they’re considering, not something that they asked for
approval for some time ago when this original development came in.
MR. MICHAELS-Well, like I said, but what is clear, though, is that they do not have to,
even though they provide an interconnect, the balance of the interconnect, they do not
have to allow anyone else, including an adjoining owner, to use that, and to do that there
would have to be something worked out that was never even contemplated by the
Boards when these approvals were granted. That’s my point. Things have evolved
here. This is sort of the reality of the situation. That’s what we’ve got to really deal with
here.
MS. BITTER-Right, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think you’re absolutely right, but I also think that, at the time, the
Board also knew that the developer was going to be the same developer. So, you know,
we figured, hey, it’s the same guy. It’s the same firm that’s doing both development, so
why wouldn’t there be some agreement? Why shouldn’t there be some connection.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are those walkways blacktopped, or are they gravel?
MR. MICHAELS-Blacktop.
MRS. STEFFAN-Blacktop.
MR. FORD-The anticipated connectivity would be on property of the new owners, or is
that going to be in this right of way, the Town right of way?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. MICHAELS-Well, it could go either way.
MR. FORD-Could it not go there?
MR. MILLER-It could. I mean, it could be partially or entirely within the old right of way,
because the sidewalk coming into our development is along the road within the right of
way. So it could come off and then it could come back on to the Homeowners
Association land, or stay in the right of way, either way.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it also could stay completely within the new Homeowners
Association by just staying to the west of the property line and connecting to the
sidewalk. I guess, overall, I don’t have any problems with the project, other than we
haven’t discussed the access to the commercial lot, but just sticking with this trail issue,
how can we condition this, then, assuming that we wanted to give a, we were going to
have a vote for approval. What kind of a condition would we have? Because we can’t, I
think we’d have to have some type of timeline. What I would imagine is we have them,
for example, draw a proposed walkway on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And say something like this is to be, this is proposed, this is to be
worked out with the Waverly Place Homeowners Association within, I think we’d have to
put in some timeline.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, unless Waverly successfully gets their application changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree. I think there should be something on the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we have to have some type of wording, some type of timeline,
some limit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-And where it should be, I believe, is in that right of way area, so that you’re
going from private land to publicly owned thoroughfare or walkway up to the possible bus
stop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what if the Town Board doesn’t want that?
MS. BITTER-Right. I guess we could actually probably agree to approaching the Town
Board with regards to the timeframe, because that would be within our control, but with
regards to the Waverly connection, I know that Tom indicated the timeframe. It really
wouldn’t be a timeframe against us. It would actually be a timeframe on them to
approach the Board, just so that there’s clarification. We can’t force them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. That was going to be one of my questions for Staff, because
your actions seems to have triggered a requirement on them, and, what, I mean, they
could just sit there, and, you know, what is it, sit idly and do nothing.
MR. OBORNE-Well, no, the Department of Community Development is aware of what
the requirements are.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how is that going to play out?
MR. OBORNE-I could not tell you.
MR. TRAVER-(Lost words) their plans a connector in the original design, too, that was
never constructed. Right? Presumably.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Right, and looking over the minutes, I mean, you can see
the way the Board was thinking, you know, that they needed to have that condition in
there. They knew that it was not crossing the street, and they knew, as a result, because
there was no development to the north.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So they conditioned it as a trigger.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. TRAVER-So, hypothetically, would they perhaps be notified by letter or something?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Then the only remaining issue, then, is the commercial Lot Number One,
in terms of, if they’re not going to connect to the boulevard, then are we effectively land
locking that property? It’s hard to imagine how they could have access to Haviland or
Meadowbrook.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the only thing I could see is then they’d have access to
Meadowbrook because we just spent a lot of money moving that dangerous intersection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, that’s not going to work.
MR. NACE-The logical access for that lot is on Meadowbrook.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. NACE-If I were designing a Site Plan to present to you, it would have an access on
Meadowbrook, probably halfway between this new boulevard and Haviland Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, I mean, I agree, and I’d just go back to my earlier comment. I
don’t think we’re prohibiting or limiting that development, because, you know, if they’re
building a Town road, the commercial lot to the north has right to access the Town road.
MR. TRAVER-And we’d have a Site Plan to look at.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’d have to look at a Site Plan, you know, and if and when that time
came, they want to change the island in the middle or something, then they’d have to
work that out as part of their Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess that just will work itself out. We don’t need to really address
that, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think, you know, and the gentleman that spoke during
the public hearing, you know, I think we need to think these things through, but I don’t
think what’s being proposed right now forces limitations, in my own mind.
MR. SEGULJIC-To say that there will be no connection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we fall silent on it? Is what we’re saying?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m not saying we fall silent. I think we’re, you know, the issue’s
been raised. We’ve considered. Then we’re discussing them. It’s not like we’re moving
forward with a blind eye.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and we don’t know what the future’s going to bring.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I do want to say, I mean, the reason I put it in the final Staff Notes
was for you to flesh it out, so it’s on the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. What would I prefer? I would prefer an interconnect drawn on the
map, but at least, you know, we have it taken care of as when Site Plan does come back
for that commercial property, we have something in the minutes on the record.
MR. RYAN-It seems to me, though, that the island as it’s proposed, will prevent access
from this new road, unless you remove it entirely. It may be better to place the island
deeper into the development so that you do have that option, in the future, without
changing the entrance to the subdivision.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. MICHAELS-We’re very, very much against that. Like I said, the understanding of us
doing all this in the beginning was with that particular owner, was with the Town. As part
of the planning process, his commercial lot, as approved, did not have that access, you
know, engendered as part of this whole thing, and we understand that, per Mr. Lapper,
who’s Counsel also for Mr. Schermerhorn, that this is not a desire of his either, and as
Mr. Nace brought up, we feel that that lot will have to be subject to Site Plan, whatever
commercial use he wants to present. How many cars, how they use it. There’s plenty of
sight distance. The road is realigned there. If you want to look at the number of
intersections, if you just look at the intersection of Haviland and Bay Road, as an
example, and look at how many driveways and houses that are in direct proximity there
within 300 feet of that major intersection, but I think, you know, as we propose it, we
have approval from the Highway Department. We’ve had approval from the Fire
Department. It was in line with our agreement to participate in this whole thing in the
beginning. It wasn’t a condition or set forth on Schermerhorn’s approval of the lot, and I
think, as you said, if you present something at some future date, he’ll have to present
accordingly, and it’ll have to be evaluated on its own merits, and he understands that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, you know, as I look at this, and with the experience
I’ve got on the Planning Board, you look at those, there’s three commercial properties
there, and if Rich Schermerhorn’s going to develop that lot and then the other two lots
across from it are commercial lots, you can see where their driveways would be. They
would probably be next to the property lines, and then Rich Schermerhorn would
probably have an entrance onto Meadowbrook Road in about the same place. You
would be creating another intersection. Those are all commercial properties, and as Mr.
Michaels identified, you know, just the way that the entrance to Hiland Crossing is
located, you could probably do stormwater controls in that little triangular piece that’s on
the other side of the island. All that would have to be negotiated, but these folks have all
negotiated through this road change process from the very beginning. That’s up to them.
That’s not up to us. I mean, yes, we need to consider those things, but I don’t see any
problem with the island and the entrances as proposed. I think it’s reasonable, and
certainly it’s been discussed before.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It might be a problem for development of that one down the road, for
Site Plan for that commercial Lot One, but that’s not this applicant’s issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the stormwater could easily go underneath the entrance to
this development, and it could work out just fine.
MS. BITTER-It’s already addressed.
MR. MILLER-That’s already been done and designed. There’s easements that are
already shown across that to allow for his storm management for that ultimate use in that
corner. All this was pre thought out.
MR. FORD-There’s going to be a culvert there anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that certainly all sounds reasonable, based on what we’ve
experienced before. I’m not seeing what the big deal is.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re left with the walkway extension to Waverly Place. Is that the
only issue?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I agree.
MR. FORD-As far as I’m concerned.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess the next question is, do we want to see a revised plan that
shows, on this plan, where that would be located, or do we just want to move forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think it’s necessary. I think we could just state that we’d like to
see a walkway extending from the terminus of the one at Waverly Place extending to the
north to the sidewalk connection, you know, behind whatever that lot, the northeastern
lot there is.
MR. HUNSINGER-How wide.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now you’re getting into details.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I’m saying. We need to know details.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Well, what’s the consistency, the width of Waverly Place is?
MR. HUNSINGER-Five foot.
MR. SEGULJIC-To be consistent with Waverly Place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone good with that?
MR. FORD-It sounds good.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing is the applicant had offered to put a bench, I guess,
or benches at the, which I think would be great, because in an ideal world people from
Waverly Place would start using that walkway to catch the bus. I don’t know if it’s going
to happen.
MR. MICHAELS-We’ll put a bench at the terminus of the sidewalk, where that sidewalk
comes out on Meadowbrook Road.
MR. JACKOSKI-And may I ask, are we going to make the walkway necessary if Waverly
Place comes in and says, and does revise their Site Plan?
MR. SEGULJIC-That gets back to the timing issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-Within two years? What’s the build out time, Mr. Michaels?
MR. MICHAELS-Probably from once we’re in a position of road dedication, which is then
you can get a building permit, I would say two, three years after road dedication. Most
likely two years, and road dedication, you know, from approvals, you know, which is
really subject to ultimate map filing, it would be another six to eight months.
MR. OBORNE-If I could suggest, if that’s an issue, maybe you could condition it upon
issuance of the first CO, then that must be completed or something along those lines,
which would be still about two years. If you’re going to build a spec, you’re probably
going to build a spec. I mean, you’re going to have a show house, a model homes, yes.
MR. MICHAELS-A model home, yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s just a suggestion that I’m throwing out.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. It just seems silly to build a walkway to nowhere if this Board is
going to turn around and approve a revised Site Plan for Waverly Place.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s assuming the Board’s going to do that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, but there’s got to be a timing element here. I mean, is
Community Development going to respond to this inaction by Waverly Place, so to
speak?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t think it’s really an inaction by Waverly Place at this point,
because Hiland Park has not been given their approval to build yet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Once Hiland Park gets their approval to build, or their approval for the
subdivision, then the Department of Community Development will apprise Waverly Place
of the requirement of their approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just don’t want to see a walkway to nowhere.
MS. BITTER-Couldn’t you depend it upon the construction of Waverly Place’s
interconnect, I mean, and condition it that way? So that it wouldn’t actually be.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, because then it could go on forever.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. That’s what I don’t want to do. It could go on forever.
MS. BITTER-Well, if this gets approved with that condition, if I understand it correctly,
then the Community Development would then be in charge of addressing to Waverly
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
Place that they have an item that’s outstanding that would have to come in for Site Plan
modification. So that would trigger it.
MR. MICHAELS-Here’s another idea. We’ll, part of our, we’ll extend a sidewalk to the
south, along the, you know, right at the edge of the old Town roadway. We’ll bring it right
to the property boundary, okay, and, you know, terminus it with a circle so people could
walk down, and if there’s not an interconnect ultimately worked out with the adjoining
Waverly Place, it just adds additional walking path, and they could just turn around and
come back, and then it becomes, you know, up to Waverly Place, in terms of if they want
to do the same, but, you’ve got to understand, like I said, there’s nothing, legally, that can
bind them, even if you had the two butting up each other with the two little circle heads,
let’s say, there’s nothing that can make either one of those say they have to allow the
other to trespass or use the property because of insurance. The point would be is that,
maybe that ultimately gets worked out, by laying the groundwork.
MR. OBORNE-I’d be supportive of that, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I like your compromise.
MR. FORD-Yes, and it doesn’t force the issue on either side. It’s there.
MR. OBORNE-So you don’t have Waverly Place in your condition of approval at all for
this.
MR. FORD-That’s right.
MR. MICHAELS-Then I think we do that, it’s in place, they see how nice everything
looks, they start to know the neighbors in both communities, and hopefully this could
take care of itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-This would be great. You’d be selling places like there’s no tomorrow.
MR. FORD-Good resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you show us on the map so that we’re clear, Jim, please?
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it the old Meadowbrook Road or the new Meadowbrook Road?
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the old Meadowbrook Road.
MS. BITTER-The old.
MR. FORD-The old.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because the sidewalk to the entrance to Hiland Crossing goes right out
to the new Meadowbrook Road.
MR. MILLER-I think we would, what we’re talking about is tying in to our sidewalk at a
point back where the old Meadowbrook Road comes in, and then come back onto the
homeowners property, and connect back to a point here where the future connection
would be made, and what Dave was talking about is, you know, this trail could loop
around and come back in that area. It also could connect out to the shoulder on
Meadowbrook.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe that’s where the bus stop ends up being. All right.
Since it appears as though the Board’s moving forward, I think I will close the public
hearing. Did we have any written comments?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. Did you have a comment,
sir?
SHERMAN WOOD
MR. WOOD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you come up and get on the mic, please. If you could identify
yourself for the record.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. WOOD-I certainly will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WOOD-Sherman Wood. I live at 57 Waverly Place, and I’m also the President of
the Homeowners Association. I wanted to, I tried to figure out what was important, if I
had anything to say at all. My intent was to call you this week just to cover some of the
details of the meetings that Dave and I had about the project. It seems like I need to
share some more information with you guys, and ladies and gentlemen, because you’re
not clear on a few things. One, sidewalks don’t build communities, people build
communities. Building a sidewalk that runs into another sidewalk isn’t going to make
everybody like each other. I think Dave is right. We’re going to probably get together,
like each other, and we’ll probably build a sidewalk, but now we’re at the point of whether
we should put one in now. It’s probably a good idea. Waverly Place also has that path
that runs behind the homes of half of the residents. It’s not just this path that sits out in a
place that we pay the insurance for, that we maintain. It’s a private path, and we have to
self-police it with the other 3,000 foot traffic folks from the apartment complexes that run
the other direction on Meadowbrook. It’s not just two isolated communities. So that’s
important to know. The plan is intended to try to fix the problem with the foot traffic on
Meadowbrook with a safe place to walk. Waverly Place’s path is very inviting and very
safe. Your intent to make a safe place to walk is a great idea, but Waverly Place is not
the answer to your, our problem. Because we’re neighbors, too. We care about the
people that walk Meadowbrook Road. We also have to deal with skateboarders,
bicyclers, folks that are on the path that prevents our homeowners from using the path.
So the quality of life of the path has already been impacted, before the development’s
gone up. What’s important to know, too, is the research and the thought process that
went into joining this path wasn’t, it’s not a good idea, we shouldn’t do it, it’s not a, we
considered everything, everything, things that this Board didn’t even consider we
considered. So, to defend my homeowners, we didn’t just throw this idea out the window
and didn’t give it every possible thought. We had neighbors that walk Meadowbrook
Road, (lost words) the road. I’ve talked to Dan Stec about sidewalks on Meadowbrook
Road. That’s never been mentioned at all at this meeting, but Waverly Place’s path has
been suggested to help folks walk safely along Meadowbrook. We don’t want to come
across as folks that don’t care about their community. We certainly have an issue with
being told we have to do something to fix a problem, a place that we pay a lot of money
to do. Without sounding sarcastic, I’ll have to have an emergency Board meeting
tonight. There’ll be letters going out to everyone, including our attorney, to find out what
we have to be prepared for. Then we have to consider hiring a security officer to monitor
the path where the homeowners are already doing that already with the folks that are
coming along the path and littering, making noise, skateboarding. The liability and
saving and coming together and saving on insurance, that’s all great ideas, too, but it’s
not what our primary issue is. There are lots of issues folded into the path, and we’re
very aware of all the other issues surrounding, you know, the safety of folks and the
community. So I wish the Board would think about other options before pushing for
something that would probably get a push back, and then all that openness that we did
have when we went into thinking about doing this, would go away, because it’s natural
for resistance when you’re pushed some place you don’t want to go. That’s Number
One. Number Two, and lastly, you know, we talk about what communities are all about,
once you get to meet each other and we also know there are gated communities in
society that keep people out, and there are controlling ways to not want people to come
in because people like to be comfortable and feel safe, but those are all issues, too,
folded into this whole dynamic of connecting paths and creating safety for Meadowbrook
and all these different what Waverly may have to do or not do, but we’re open to
anything, I mean, you know, I talked to Mr. Michaels all the time and his team and his
staff and we’re not, you know, even my neighbor who isn’t against the project, no one is.
If we knew that this path issue was going to be such an important issue, we thought it
was a consideration to explore for the project to go forth with Hiland Crossing. I would
tell you that you’d have a packed house of Waverly folks in here tonight if we thought that
it was more than just an idea that would just be satisfied with the letter that we submitted.
MR. TRAVER-So you weren’t aware it was part of the approval all the way back from the
beginning?
MR. WOOD-Approval for moving through the path?
MR. TRAVER-Waverly Place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before the first house was built it was a requirement.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. WOOD-We were familiar with the PUD, that it was supposed to be this
interconnecting community that never really evolved, and so when it got hashed out, I
don’t know how true the plan still holds, but like Mr. Michaels said, I mean, we could
connect paths all day long, I mean, we could connect paths all day long, you know, but
that doesn’t mean that, I don’t know if we, you know, I don’t want him to speak until, but I
think he’s got it right. In our by-laws it strictly says that’s private property, for the
homeowners of Waverly Place only. So, if I’m misspeaking, please somebody let me
know. I mean, I don’t know, I didn’t hear anybody mention anything about the
apartments the other way. You just talked about two communities that that was it. Who
else would use that path?
MR. OBORNE-Well, that is my intent of my comments, were for the residents of Waverly
Place and the project to the north, to not have to use or walk on Meadowbrook Road.
You already have that partially done with your pathways, for your residents, they don’t
have to walk on Meadowbrook Road.
MR. WOOD-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, I’m looking out, you know, because I’m so magnanimous, for
Hiland Crossing’s eventual residents.
MR. WOOD-I understand that completely. I said that, your planning is certainly
understandable. I understand your planning, but I don’t know if we’re your solution. The
issue with trying to control the traffic with.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, I’ll let you finish your thought. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
MR. WOOD-The traffic that comes from the other apartment complexes, we’ve already
had difficulty with that traffic and not respecting, just enjoying the path, and it’s a safety
issue for the profile of the neighborhood, you know, is predominantly seniors and retired
and it’s a safety issue as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we all understand that. I just, I wanted to go back to your
comment, and I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but you made a comment that we’re asking
you to solve a problem. We’re not asking you to solve a problem. We’re only asking you
to do what was approved. When Waverly Place was approved, it was approved with a
requirement that that walkway would interconnect to the lands to the north and to the
south. So, I mean, we’re not asking you to solve a problem that exists somewhere else.
We’re just asking you to do what was originally intended, and that’s what the Zoning
Administrator has ruled on. We were sure in our own minds until the last meeting, either.
MR. WOOD-Okay. I heard somebody say that would solve our problem with the traffic
on Meadowbrook Road, I mean, if we go back in the minutes and read that. Was that
said or not? I mean, that’s what I was addressing about solving a problem. I mean, I can
also say, hey, if it’s part of the plan, Waverly Place would be more than.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t think anyone on this Board, I can only speak for myself,
but I don’t think anyone on this Board is expecting Waverly Place to resolve access
problems that exist on the other side of Meadowbrook Road.
MR. WOOD-Well, I don’t want to get hung up on just that one comment. I mean, there’s
a lot of things that this Board didn’t sound like they were aware of, with the extra traffic,
and coming from the other communities, I didn’t hear that. I did hear somewhere that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And one of the problems we always deal with, we just have this one
application we’re dealing with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the condition of approval on Waverly Place was that this parcel, this
development, or Waverly Place would connect with the parcel to the north. That’s the
condition we’re faced with, so, and we’re only looking at the new development.
MR. WOOD-I mean, if that’s the condition, that’s fine, but a condition is the condition, but
I’m just sharing with the Board the other dynamics of what.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we can appreciate that.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Your comments have been very helpful. Thank you.
MR. WOOD-I mean, I was hoping I didn’t have to, you know, I thought that our letter was
enough. I thought that it was a consideration to explore. I didn’t realize that, we didn’t
receive anything from the Board indicating that Waverly Place.
MR. TRAVER-I think if we were proposing a new responsibility for the people of Waverly
Place, in that we were now requesting that you build this interconnect, your letter and the
information you’ve offered us would be fine, but again, we’re looking back on something
that was already asked for by the original applicant who designed Waverly Place, and
this is something that was approved, too. So we’re really just saying that this new
development now triggers that final piece of the Waverly plan.
MR. WOOD-And that will include usage of the paths or connecting to the path?
MRS. STEFFAN-Connectivity.
MR. HUNSINGER-Connectivity.
MR. WOOD-Connectivity means meeting the path, not using the path.
MR. HUNSINGER-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think Mr. Michaels was very clear about that.
MR. WOOD-I wanted to make sure that you were clear about him being clear, and what’s
more important is that I’m clear.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and one of the reasons why I asked if the pathway was paved or
not is because certainly, you know, people know, folks who like to be outdoors know
where all the good places are to walk, to ride, depending on what you like to do outside,
and if there’s a lovely place on this side of Town where you can walk or rollerblade, you
said skateboard, but I was thinking rollerblades, you know, then folks are going to find
that and they’re going to use it, because they figure it’s a path, and, you know, it’s not
private property. It’s everybody’s property, and so then you get into the whole policing
thing, and then we talked about liability. So I certainly understand where the
Homeowners Association is coming from, and so you should have the ability to decide
whether you connect or not.
MR. WOOD-And our most recent incident was a notice was distributed along all of
Meadowbrook letting everyone know, I should have brought it with me tonight, I’ll fax it
over to you later, I’ll bring it over, that the new Waverly Place dog/walk path is open to all
residents of Meadowbrook. Please make sure your children are wearing helmets, and
you can walk your dogs as long as you’re mindful, and there was a two page letter that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Who issued that?
MR. WOOD-It wasn’t signed by anyone, but it was posted throughout Rich’s
development, all of his apartments. So, we had two neighbors who were policing all this
traffic, and we couldn’t figure out why. So one gentleman finally said I got the letter that
said you guys, we could come around and do whatever we want. So I met with Rich last
week and he found the letter. It was posted on his, he was more upset that someone
followed instructions that didn’t come from him.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure. Yes.
MR. WOOD-You know, from his letterhead, and it’s been a problem the last two weeks. I
mean, so, it was after we already had our meetings with Mr. Michaels, but certainly that
doesn’t really make anybody more comfortable with the idea. It’s been a nightmare, and
the liability issue was there. Every homeowner has their own insurance. Even knowing
that we could have one insurance policy like Westwood. Westwood has one insurance
policy for all their homes, but we don’t. In spite of having an HOA and having to follow all
those tough rules. You could still buy your own insurance, but certainly pockets go deep
if somebody gets hurt, and we wouldn’t want to see anyone get hurt, including our
homeowners.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-So do you understand, then, that their action requires you to take an
action? If you don’t want the walkways to connect, you have to come back and have
your Site Plan modified.
MR. WOOD-And we’ll be notified in writing?
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe so. We’re kind of hemmed in by this.
MR. WOOD-That’s okay. I’m okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re forced to take an action now.
MR. WOOD-We’ll take it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll look forward to seeing you again.
MR. WOOD-And you will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public
want to address the Board?
MR. BESTOFF-One real quick question. Richard Bestoff. One question. Speaking
about connectivity, or connecting, they will never connect because Waverly Place will run
between where The Michaels Group path will go and where ours is. So, in other words,
when you speak about connect, there never will be a touching of these two paths. You
understand that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Understood.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unless your Homeowners Association wants.
MR. BESTOFF-Well, you’d have to go across the road. So as long as you know that
when you still speak about connecting, one is going to end here, then there’s going to be
Waverly Place, and then ours is going to continue after that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BESTOFF-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. BESTOFF-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Final call.
MR. JACKOSKI-I need to address that. I’m sorry, but I look at the map, and I see the
southern boundary of the current Michaels Group project, down to the road of Waverly
Place, and I’m guessing that’s about 300 feet, 400 feet. What’s there?
MR. HUNSINGER-Homeowners’ property, the Homeowners Association lands.
MR. MICHAELS-Common land owned by Waverly Place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So Community Development is going to say what about that?
Was that intent to have a path there to connect to the road?
MR. OBORNE-Somewhere in that area, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. So when we say it’s not going to connect, what are we
telling these folks to do in Waverly?
MR. HUNSINGER-What this gentleman is saying is that Waverly Place, the roadway
itself, will keep those, the pieces from connecting.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. WOOD-Let me just show you something up here. Our path, this is Waverly Place
here. Our path starts here and runs this way and meanders among the homes. This
property all back in here is all common grounds owned by Waverly Place.
MR. HUNSINGER-We understand that.
MR. BESTOFF-So wherever they come down and end, I have no idea, but it’s never
going to connect up to this one here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not unless you want to.
MR. FORD-Never say never.
MR. JACKOSKI-And not unless Craig Brown determines that that’s what the spirit of and
the intent was of the original PUD. Correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. All right. We will close the public hearing at this
time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? I still go back to my
comment, Mr. Michaels, that your compromise is the best solution. I guess in my own
mind, even if the two paths never connect, I think there’ll be a benefit by having that
walkway from the new project.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes. I think what Jim brought up, I was thinking more of like a small
eight foot circle hammerhead, but we could probably do just let it have a minor loop back
into the same path at that, and just provide additional area to walk.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would be great.
MR. MICHAELS-Which I think would still be beneficial to the existing residents.
MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too, yes, because it would end right on the corner of
Meadowbrook Road.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-How would that affect any stormwater and that, Tom? It’s pretty gradual?
MR. NACE-Not a problem.
MR. OBORNE-It’s just swales coming in that area.
MR. NACE-Yes. As far as what the stormwater grading is in that area?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes. We’d keep it off to the side of the embankment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Might I ask The Michaels Group, is it advantageous to not be macadam
and to be some other material, to possibly avoid some of the problems they said they’ve
had with skateboarders or bicyclists or all that kind of stuff? Is it more natural to not be
macadam?
MR. MICHAELS-Well, I think for a walking path, it’s preferred to have, it’s more
expensive, but it’s preferred to have the macadam, but, you know, it certainly could be a,
I’m just thinking that the main sidewalk, let’s call it, that we’re proposing to go to
Meadowbrook Road, that is already going to be macadam. Yes, having that trail being
like a shale, compacted shale, we’ve done that, more of like a quote unquote a nature
walking path type, more natural trail. We’re open to that, too, I guess. Because that
would preclude the concern of the skateboarder type activities, and bicyclists using it for
a quick, you know, thrill hill.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it’ll be icier in the winter and tougher to clear the snow.
MR. MICHAELS-Yes, well, the winter we would, no matter what, the HOA would say that
that’s not a maintained spot.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t expect you to maintain that in the winter. I wouldn’t.
MR. OBORNE-I would advise the Board to be specific, though, if you could.
MR. MILLER-If it is a crushed stone, you know, that’s the base material for the asphalt
walkway. So that it could always be paved if it was installed as crushed stone.
MRS. STEFFAN-It won’t stop dog walkers from using it. It won’t stop rollerbladers or
skateboarders from using it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re preferring crushed stone?
MR. MICHAELS-Crushed stone or shale. That compacts pretty well, too. Either shale or
crushed stone. Sometimes shale has a better look and it actually makes it harder, packs
in better. Stone ends up walking all over it, and the shale you can really almost make it
like close to compacted gravel.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. There are a couple of engineering comments that are still
outstanding on VISION Engineer’s letter, Nine, Ten, Twelve, Nineteen and Twenty.
MR. NACE-Correct. We will address those in detail and get a final signoff.
MRS. STEFFAN-Address those. All right, and the Norway Spruce on the plant list.
MR. MILLER-They should have been removed. There are no Norway Spruce on the
planting plan. I don’t know why they were on the list. I should have taken that off. I will
take that off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess we’re ready with a resolution.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 MICHAELS
GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
1.
the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.23 acre parcel into 34
residential lots ranging in size from 4,257 square feet to 17,775 square feet.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval
2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/19/09; and
3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009
MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies.
Paragraph Four B, this is a Planned Unit Development with a prior Environmental
Impact Statement. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does
not apply. On Paragraph Four H, the engineer signoff required prior to signature
of the Planning Board Chairman, specifically, the applicant will address Items
Nine, Ten, Twelve, Nineteen and Twenty. This is conditioned upon The Michaels
Group extending the sidewalk system south to the Old Meadowbrook Road to
Waverly Place property boundary. The sidewalk extension will be made of
crushed stone or shale and will have a width of five feet.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
b)This is a PUD with a prior Environmental Impact Statement; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to
the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution; and
d)As-built plans to certify that each lot in the subdivision is developed according to
the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit;
and
f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
and
g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction
fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community
Development staff
h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman,
specifically, the applicant will address Items Nine, Ten, Twelve, Nineteen and
Twenty.
i)This is conditioned upon The Michaels Group extending the sidewalk system
south to the Old Meadowbrook Road to Waverly Place property boundary. The
sidewalk extension will be made of crushed stone or shale and will have a width
of five feet.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MR. MICHAELS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. MICHAELS-I appreciate all the feedback.
MS. BITTER-Can I ask a request?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Parillo is identified as the third item on the agenda, and we submitted a
letter to table it. Is it possible for the Planning Board to consider that request?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that’s here for the public hearing for
Frank Parillo, Special Use Permit?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We already voted to table that, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-That was Robin Inwald.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that was a different one.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 43-2009 SEQR TYPE II FRANK PARILLO AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT.
[CI] LOCATION 1011 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN AMUSEMENT
USE WITH OUTDOOR BOUNCE HOUSES FOR BIRTHDAY PARTIES AS WELL AS
RECREATIONAL USE. FURTHER, AN EXISTING ON-SITE BUILDING IS PROPOSED
TO BE USED FOR SALES, RENTALS AND WAREHOUSE SPACE. AMUSEMENT
CENTER IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE SP 74-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 LOT SIZE 13.64
+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-23 SECTION 179-10-010
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a letter from the applicant requesting us to table
Special Use Permit 43-2009 for Frank Parillo. I think what we discussed was tabling that
th
to September 10.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Do you want to open the public hearing for that now?
MR. HUNSINGER-I will. We’ll open the public hearing and we will table the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I already asked if there was anyone here to address the Board, and
there wasn’t any takers.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I apologize for that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay.
nd
MRS. STEFFAN-That will go to the September 22 meeting. Because we have some
agenda items bumped to the first meeting. So it’ll be the last meeting.
MR. OBORNE-That will be the first one.
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-September 22.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 43-2009 FRANK PARILLO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes an Amusement Use with outdoor bounce houses
for birthday parties as well as recreational use. Further, an existing on-site
building is proposed to be used for sales, rentals and warehouse space.
Amusement Center in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval
2)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
3)MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 43-2009 FRANK PARILLO,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the second Planning Board meeting in September, which will be
nd
September 22. Any further materials that are to be submitted need to be
th
submitted to the Community Development office by August 17.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 SEQR TYPE II GREG CANALE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &
STEVES OWNER(S) HARRY RUECKER, PINHAS SHABAT ZONING PO
LOCATION 456 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING DWELLING
AS A RESIDENCE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW
PARKING CONFIGURATION, HANDICAP ACCESS DECK WITH LIFT, GRADING AND
LANDSCAPING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A PO ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE
SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-
09; BP 08-614, SIGN; BP 05-898 SEP. ALT.; BP 890 ADDITION WARREN CO.
PLANNING 2/11/09; 7/8/09 LOT SIZE 0.22 +/- ACRES, 62.61 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.16-1-11 SECTION 179-9-010
GREG CANALE, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 7-2009. The applicant is Greg Canale. This is Site
Plan Review for Professional Office. The location is 456 Bay Road. The existing zoning
is Professional Office, SEQRA Status, this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description:
Applicant proposes to use existing dwelling as a residence and professional office. The
applicant wishes to use the front residence as office space while retaining a residence to
the rear. The plan includes the construction of a +/- 400 square foot deck with handicap
access that will include a chair lift, a different parking configuration than what currently
exists and site improvements to include lighting and landscaping. Staff Comments: The
applicant has commenced construction for a professional office on this property.
According to the Director of Building and Codes, the plan has changed since this
application was submitted on January 14, 2009. The structure is currently occupied by
the applicant. A grading plan has been submitted along with a grading easement with
the adjoining property owner (see attached). The applicant requested and received an
area variance (A.V. 19-2009 attached) from front, side and Travel corridor setback
requirements in the Bay Road PO zone. Further, the applicant received relief from the
minimum drive aisles width requirement of 24 feet per §179-4-040B, and what follows is
plan review, and I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. CANALE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. CANALE-Mr. Chairman, Board members, my name’s Greg Canale, the applicant,
here tonight with my builder and designer and plan architect, Don Tealing. As the plan
and application makes fairly clear, my objective is to seek permission to turn 456 Bay
Road into an office house where I would both practice law in the front and live in the
back. It was originally a single family residence. It’s currently zoned Professional Office,
and with that being said, I’ll just open the meeting up to any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any comments relative to either the Staff Notes
or the engineering comments?
MR. CANALE-Yes. We are quite aware of and in the process of waiting for this Board’s
actions before we address the building permit. We have done all that we can do and
gone as far as we can, relative to building. Anything else we do then would require
approval by the Building and Code Enforcement Officer. So, that’s basically the only
thing that’s left that needs the Building Code Enforcement Officer’s approval would be
the handicap bathroom, and as for the sign, we do have an application in for a sign, but
we wanted to put that on hold until these matters were addressed relative to the driveway
and the parking and everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CANALE-And thought that as soon as these issues are addressed, and put in place,
with some sense of permanency and certainty, we would then go forward with the sign
application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. CANALE-The lighting, just by, we’re not changing the lighting in any way. It’s
always been a residence with a single light at the doorway. I think there would be some
lighting that would run along the ramp or the porch, but it would be solar powered, 40
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
wattage, and relative to the need for downcast lighting, I don’t think there’d be any light
wattage that is so strong enough that would be any detraction or distraction to any of the
neighbors. There’s only one neighbor. Now the grading stabilization to include soil
compaction and vegetative erosion control both temporary and permanent should be
submitted. I’m not too sure there’s any soil erosion issues. There are, at this present
time, no erosion issues. There would be no alteration of the topography. As it stands,
the plans have been submitted. There’s a little bank that runs to the north that’s kind of
like a gully and vacant land, and it’s completely filled with vegetation as it stands now,
and that wouldn’t be removed in any way, even by putting the driveway in. So I don’t see
that as being any kind of a problem whatsoever. There’s already substantial and
sufficient vegetation there to prevent any soil erosion. The last thing that the engineer
has put forward for his concern would be the gutters. Again, these storm gutters have
been on the building since its construction in 1961 I believe, and nothing would be
changed with the gutters. They’re your standard residential gutters that gather the water
from the roof, direct it to a corner of the building, and just spill it down on to the ground,
which is adequately absorbed into the ground, and there’s been no standing water
problems. There’s no pooling of the water during rainstorms. It doesn’t seem to be of
any problem whatsoever. The basement has always been completely dry. There’s no
dampness in the basement or anything of that sort. I would like to address some other
thing relative to the water runoff. There is a drywell in the front of the property close to
Bay Road in the northern part of the lot, and the natural topography of this lot slants
down in towards that drywell. The parking lot that we would propose also would have a
natural slant and so that any water runoff would, by the very nature of the natural
topography of the driveway, run down onto Bay Road and into that drywell. So there’d
be no water accumulation either on the driveway. That being said, I would ask the Board
for any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the porch have an overhang on it, in the front?
DON TEALING
MR. TEALING-Right now, the front porch, it’s like a Cape Cod style on one side of the
roof. The last time I was here I kind of did this. The only way I can do it really so you
can kind of understand, this side of here, the roof hangs over a little bit further than it
does right here. So when you come up, you come in the door, and where the lift is going
to be for the for the handicap lift, that’ll give us just a nice little roof right there to cover
that handicap lift. So all the snow and the rain that comes off that roof is going to miss
that handicap lift, and if we need to extend it we will, but it looks like everything’s going to
be fine, and on the outside, like Greg was saying, for the safety thing and that, we’re
going to have, we will have outside lighting besides the light that’s on the side of the
door. There’ll be another light there, on the right hand side of that door, and we’re going
to put solar lights on the deck itself, but he never has any clients in the evening or
anything like that, but as the season starts changing, just for the aesthetics and
everything else, it’ll be a fairly nice deck and it’ll be lit up sufficient enough for anybody to
come and go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-So with regards to the lighting, you’re just proposing that one new
exterior light?
MR. CANALE-No, there’s going to be two, two exterior lights on the outside of the
building, attached to the building, and then there’ll be lights on the deck perimeter.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the deck. Okay.
MR. CANALE-And there’ll be an emergency light inside, just as you come in the door,
emergency light right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so that light’s going to, the one light’s going to light up the stairway
going up onto the deck I assume? Because it seems to me it’s a higher light. Correct?
MR. CANALE-No. It’s actually two lights that are going up there, one on each side. If
you look at the plans, you can see here, this here is like the front of the building. Here is
the main entrance where you come up to come in. You’ve got a light here and a light
here. That’s on the building itself, and then here is the deck. So this entire, so besides
this light and this light, this entire perimeter right here of the deck will be lit up, and this is
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
a recessed stairway right here. So you’re going to have plenty of light. You’ll have a
light on each side of the stairway to go up the deck and that light’s going down each side
of the deck, and then you’ll have a light on the (lost words).
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I’m asking about is this light on Sheet S-2, that’s right next
to the five foot candle, I believe. It shows an exterior light.
MR. TEALING-I’m sorry. What was that again?
MR. SEGULJIC-That light there, it appears as if it’s extending out, then?
MR. TEALING-Yes. It’s just going to be.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s on a pole extending out, is that what’s happening?
MR. TEALING-No, no. It won’t be on a pole. I’m not sure where you’re talking about.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can tell you right here. Sheet S-2. Exterior light, and then this exterior
light.
MR. TEALING-This right here, there’s going to be one here, one here, one here, one
here, all on the perimeter of the deck. They’re only showing one here, but every single
one of the new poles.
MR. SEGULJIC-So these are going to be those solar lights you’re talking about?
MR. TEALING-Right. Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but you only showed one.
MR. TEALING-I’m sorry. Then, besides this one right here, there’s going to be another
one right here. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Okay. I was confused by that.
MR. TEALING-I’m sorry about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to have to, not to be nit picky, well I have to be nit picky,
you’re going to have to show each of those lights you’re proposing.
MR. TEALING-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Each of those solar lights, you (lost words) solar lights also, I
would assume.
MR. JACKOSKI-I basically would like to see all the lighting that’s proposed shown on
the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. CANALE-Well, I won’t, I mean, I don’t think all that lighting is necessary, to tell you
the truth. I mean, if I put all those solar lights on there, it’s not all that necessary. As a
matter of fact, I was hesitant to even do that. It seems to me that the lighting that’s on
the plan right now.
MR. TEALING-We can eliminate it, then, I guess.
MR. SEGULJIC-I like less lighting.
MR. CANALE-Yes. It seems to me that I would be more than willing to submit the plan
with just the two lights, certainly adequate and sufficient lighting.
MR. SEGULJIC-The two existing lights.
MR. CANALE-Yes, exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-But you would need to identify that there’s sufficient light there for the
professional office use, and so, you know, that’s our engineer who we subcontract to
would like to see the lights just so that he can identify whether there is sufficient lights for
the use, and the size of the property, the handicap access and those kinds of things.
Because even though you are intending to operate during the day, there will be times, in
the off season, in the winter season, when you’ll have to have lights on for people who
are coming and going at five o’clock in the afternoon. So that is a requirement that we’ll
have to have.
MR. SEGULJIC-On Sheet S-2, you have the photometrics. You had the five foot candles
I believe it is, and then they show two, and then show .5. Is that the existing lighting?
MR. TEALING-One is existing. One is proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, but on the photometrics that are shown on here, is that as a result of
the existing lighting, or as a result of the existing lighting plus the proposed lighting?
MR. TEALING-Existing lighting plus the proposed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions did the Board members have?
MR. FORD-All my concerns have been addressed.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, when I was prepping for the meeting, there are just
the outstanding items that Staff had identified, which certainly seemed reasonable, and,
you know, when the Zoning Board granted all the variances, they said that, you know, we
anticipate that the Planning Board will review the project to ensure that runoff issues are
handled at this point in time, and that, you know, as a result of reconfiguring the property.
So, there are some things. I mean, there’s a letter in here from an adjoining land owner
saying that there will be some, an effect on their property, using 10 feet of their property.
So, you know, I’m assuming that based on the engineering comments, we do have to
have a stormwater plan to identify exactly how that stormwater is going to be carried off
the site. Especially since we’re putting in a parking lot that wasn’t there before.
MR. TEALING-It’s going to be going right into the storm drain that’s already existing.
When you go down Bay Road, and all the snow gets plowed up there in front of this
piece of property, all that snow goes right to that catch basin, goes right down under the
ground, and goes right exactly where our water is going to go from our driveway. Exact
same location, and it shows it on the plans. It’s located right here. All this water that
goes into this storm drain, we’ve had to clear this snow all winter long. So when the
snow plows go through, there’s a big bank at the end of the house. We push the bank all
over. In the matter of less than a day, you can see a big, huge circle right in the snow
and everything because of all the snow that goes down right into the catch basin. Also, if
you look, there’s another one located right over here on this side of the property, too. So
all this existing water from, and at the same time, we already have a parking lot right
here. This adjacent parking lot, right now it’s going in there, and now it’s even going to
go in there even better because it’s going to be asphalt going down right to this storm
drain. So it’s the fact that that’s the way it’s elevated. We’re not going to change the
elevation. We’re going to keep it exactly the same. All the snow that gets pushed off
from the road, from the snow plows, go right in that area. When we move the snow from
the driveway and stuff, we’re going to locate it right there in that area, and it’s all going to
go into that catch basin and go right on down the bank where it goes right now.
MRS. STEFFAN-I believe that that is probably the way it works, but just the way we use
Site Plan Review and the way we use our engineers, is that so these plans will identify
exactly what happens on that site, when it’s developed, when it rains, to make sure that
the light is right, the Sign Ordinance, and so that the engineer has asked for stormwater
management plan to just detail the things that you just talked about, but they have to
have that, so that it’s part of the file, so that our Code Enforcement people can make
sure that this site is developed according to the plan that you’ve submitted and we
ultimately approve. So there were several elements in the VISION Engineering
comments, and there were a couple of elements in the Staff Notes, that I think that you
need to comply with before we can go any further.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just to clarify, I don’t mean to put you on the spot, Mr. Ryan, but
do you need a full stormwater plan, do you think, or just more?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. RYAN-No, I think the basis of the comment started from the resolution from the
Zoning Board that runoff be specifically addressed. Without being their engineer, I don’t
know what the runoff currently does on that property. Looking at the grading plan, it
does generally look like it possibly flows towards the County right of way there.
MR. TEALING-That’s exactly what it does.
MR. RYAN-So if the Site Plan could indicate that in some summary fashion, that would
probably suffice, since they are not proposing grading.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is you really don’t need a whole stormwater plan.
MR. RYAN-Well, they do have to comply with the Code, which does have a requirement
for commercial sites to minimize runoff, post development runoff. They are adding some
impervious surface to this site. So Code does require some mitigation for that. It is a
small site, probably could include a relatively minor design, to what extent, they would
have to propose something.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess we should have a plan, but it should be relatively minor,
then?
MR. RYAN-It’s the Board’s call, in terms of the extent of the compliance with the Code,
but I’m telling you that something does need to be submitted that the Board itself can
utilize as compliance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. That’s what we’re looking for direction from you on. Yes.
MR. RYAN-They do need to comply with the Code. That’s the bottom line, unless you
give a waiver. That’s another issue.
MR. TEALING-It’s existing, the elevation’s going to stay the same. Right now the water
goes right to the storm drain, and that’s where it’s going to go when we’re done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now is the storm drain on your site or is it in the County right of way?
MR. TEALING-It’s, originally that was on the property, but they took part of the right of
way in the front of this land, front of the property. So the parking lot begins right at the
edge of that storm drain right now, and right now the storm drain’s fine. It’s been
sufficient. It takes all the water.
MR. HUNSINGER-So who owns and maintains that storm drain?
MR. TEALING-The Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TEALING-So, you know, it’s there. It’s existing functioning, and nothing’s changing.
All the water is going to do the same thing that it’s doing right now. It’s going to go right
in that storm drain and go. I don’t understand the additional requirement, because it’s
just going to, it’s self-descriptive.
MR. CANALE-It would seem duplicitous. I mean, the plans, as they’re submitted now,
seem to adequately address the stormwater runoff concerns.
MR. TEALING-And we addressed this at the last meeting, too, we brought this up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there
anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And we will leave it open for the time being. What’s the will of the
Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I, personally, believe that the Staff Notes and the VISION Engineering
comments need to be satisfied. The lighting plan, I just think that those notes need to be
satisfied.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that, you know, but this is a relatively minor
project.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, I just want to interrupt for a minute, Tom. One of
the things that’s happened over and over again to us is that, you know, we’ll approve a
plan, and then shortly thereafter it either changes and is re-developed in some way, sold
some times, and so we have to look at the big picture. We may be looking at this, you
know, as a professional office, you know, a multiple use, that somebody’s going to live in
it and it’s going to be professional office, but, what would we do if this turned over and
was another kind of business? Would we be asking them to meet the same standards?
Yes, and that’s why, you know, the Town Code’s in place for a reason. I’m not trying to
be a nudge.
MR. SEGULJIC-I understand your position.
MR. CANALE-I’m sorry, but it seems to me that if the property were sold, and there was
another use that was being proposed, and required a change in the driveway or the
outlay, or the configuration of the property, it would seem to me that they would have to
get new approval of changing the use, changing the topography of the property. I would
ask that you judge the plan based on what I’ve proposed it to be used for, which is a
single office, one man law firm, with a part time secretary, and I would live in the back of
the house. Now, I think that the plans as they’ve been submitted sufficiently address the
issue or the concern you have relative to the water runoff, but, are you looking for some
kind of plan that would require some kind of engineer or something? Would I have to go
hire an engineer to address something of this?
MR. TEALING-For another light bulb? I mean, I understand where you’re coming from,
being on the Planning Board and everything. I’m a serious contractor. I’m going to do
whatever the heck you want. I’m going to do what you want. I’ll do what you want in
every way. I’ve discussed all kinds of things with Keith and everything back and forth,
and I’ve gone right along with everything, as I’m sure he can tell you, with everything
that he wants. The light on each side was suggested to me. It wasn’t even mandated
that I had to have another light. I came with a light on each side. It was actually my idea,
from the fact that I have solar lights on my deck. They’ll light the deck up quite nicely in
there. So I got the impression that everybody had a concern for the lighting, you know,
let’s not make it too much light, but enough light so you can play marbles or cards out
there if you wanted to. So basically the plan that’s right here shows a light on each side
of the door, which is sufficient for the entrance to the building and sufficient for the
stairway going up and into the building.
MRS. STEFFAN-The lights are fine, but in Staff Notes, what they’ve asked for, submit
lighting cut sheets, so we know what kind of fixture you’re using, so that we can identify,
or we can be assured that you’re going to install lights that are downcast fixtures, like on
the deck itself, because that’s part of our Code, and so that’s why that’s mentioned in the
Staff Notes, and the photo metrics of those lights, what wattage the lights are. Those are
things that are important for you to meet the Town Code.
MR. CANALE-And we’re bound by that. We’re certainly bound by that, but as far as
getting back to the water runoff, I’m looking at the Staff comments, and it says applicant
states storm gutters will direct rain water into ground for absorption. It says can the
applicant direct all water to drywells located to the west. Please clarify.
MR. TEALING-That’s not even possible. In fact, it’s amazing, if you were to go to this
piece of property, it is absolutely totally amazing that there’s not any standing puddles
anywhere, because when you go in the backyard, it goes up and down. There’s little
areas, but it all mainly, all this, this entire property right here pretty much heads right this
way, right here, everything. It comes right down towards this area. When you come
down the road, everything is heading this way. So we’ve got a gutter right now that
comes off the side of the house right here. We’ve got one that comes off right back here
on this side right here, and a gutter that comes off on this side right here. There is no
standing water on this property anywhere. None.
MR. CANALE-Yes, the most severe rain storms, there’s no standing water.
MR. TEALING-And you can, and it was kind of neat, too, because the guys from the
Town of Queensbury came because they were cleaning out that catch basin and
everything like that, that was there on the property, and it’s doing it’s job. I don’t know
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
who the heck put it in or whatever, and stuff, and we’re not going to have to put a collar
or anything on this thing when the asphalt goes up to it and like that. Not going to have
to deal with any of that because we’re not changing the grade or anything, but it’s doing
a really, really good job. Like I said, we get a good foot, foot, little over a foot of snowfall.
By noontime, one o’clock it’s opened up because the ground, it goes down five, six feet.
So you get a warmer air down below the surface of the ground, and it opens up the top of
that thing just like this, and even when you pile snow up on that side right there and
everything, it does its job. All the water is going in that catch basin, as is all the water,
you know, all the snow off the road. So, it’s really addressed quite well in that. As far as
the lighting goes and that, it is, the existing one that’s there and the one that we
purchased, that we haven’t put on yet, because it’s only a temporary one that’s there.
We’re going to take it off because we want to side the front of the place, and then we’ll
stick up the next light, right along side of it, and we’ll probably use a 60, 75 watt bulb on
the inside. You probably passed this place 1,000 times.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have. One of the difficulties is this property is in the Bay Road
corridor and it’s in the Town of Queensbury, and so there’s all these requirements that
we have with zoning, and that’s one of the reasons why we have an engineer and we
have a Community Development Department, and so the things that we’re asking for are
not unusual, and so we just have to have them quantified, and I’m sure that you guys will
do a great job. I just, they have to be quantified, so that we could get our signoffs so that
we can approve it.
MR. TEALING-Okay. If you need something, we’ll, I’ll get a couple of things for the lights
and give them to Keith or whatever, whatever light fixtures.
MR. TRAVER-Perhaps for the stormwater issue, if you describe, much as you have for
us tonight, the existing conditions, indicating that the existing, that you believe that the
existing conditions will continue to manage the stormwater that’s going to exist after this
project is complete, and share that with the engineer, that he may approve that. I don’t
know, but one of the problems is that, as he’s indicating, he doesn’t know what the
current conditions are. You do. So if you can, you know, indicate, in the form of a
stormwater management plan, here is what’s currently existing, what’s proposed is going
to do X, Y, Z to current stormwater conditions, and therefore here is how, if any way,
we’re going to change how stormwater is handled or managed on that site. If that’s
acceptable to him, then you’ve taken care of that issue, but there does need to be, as
Gretchen said, there does need to be a plan. There needs to be some information that
our engineer can review with regards to this project.
MR. CANALE-Okay. Well, that being said, then, I would ask that the application be
maybe tabled for next month, and I’ll meet with the engineer and see if I can’t find some
stormwater management plans that I can look at and try to replicate with the particulars
of my property and my project.
MR. TEALING-I think all you’re basically asking for, though, is for us to write a
description.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Well, based on what you’re explaining to us this evening, and I’m not an
engineer, but if your description is accurate, and we have every reason to believe it will
be, it would sound to me that a good starting point would be to say, here is what exists,
and here is how well it’s working. Here’s what, what we’re doing is going to change it in
X, Y, Z way, and if you believe that the stormwater controls and the stormwater handling
effects generated by these controls that you described to us are adequate to meet the
needs of the new project, as you propose, then explain that, and if that satisfies our
engineer and you get a signoff on that, then that takes care of that issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Code requires that any stormwater runoff after your project not
be greater than it is currently.
MR. RYAN-And you’re adding 1200 square feet of impervious surface.
MR. TRAVER-So that’s a starting point, and if you’re able to meet those conditions
without having to add any new stormwater controls or re-engineer, you know, some
elaborate system, fine, you know, our concern is that stormwater needs to be addressed
and needs to be managed. It can’t be exacerbated.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it can’t be any worse than what it is currently.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-And you needed a grading easement from the adjacent landowner
which you have received, but because you’ll be using that to expand your driveway, your
parking area, that has to be included and identified, that there won’t be any stormwater
running off into the easement property. The other thing that is identified here in the Staff
comments, the applicant has commenced construction for a professional office on the
property and then the first item under Staff Notes is the applicant must have a building
permit prior to any upgrades or changes per the Director of Building and Codes. So I
don’t know if you’ve proceeded and you shouldn’t be. That’s what I’m assuming that that
means.
MR. CANALE-Yes, well, I think we’re on the same page now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because home occupation is allowed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, Dave is aware. The Director of Building and Codes is aware of what
the situation is.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-As long as the project does not commence any further, I think he’s fine
with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just wanted to bring that up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So at least you can still do business until we straighten this
out. I think, you know, that’s certainly, even though we don’t officially take that into
account, you know, we try to be respectful for that.
MR. TEALING-So it’s okay for him to see clients right now?
MR. CANALE-Well, no, I can’t see clients there.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s, the Building and Codes people will have to deal with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. Because that’s not a home office. If you see
clients there, then it’s not a home office.
MR. CANALE-Well, okay. We’ll see you next month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let’s get a tabling motion together.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Did you?
MR. HUNSINGER-I opened the public hearing and left it open. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes to use existing dwelling as a residence and
professional office. Proposal includes new parking configuration, handicap
access deck with lift, grading and landscaping. Professional office in a PO zone is
an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09, 5/19/09, 7/28/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
nd
This is going to be tabled to the September 22 meeting. Application deadline
th
for submissions will be Monday, August 17. This is tabled so that the applicant
can satisfy:
th
a. VISION Engineering comments from their letter dated July 24,
specifically Items Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, Twelve,
Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen and Sixteen
b. And also so that the applicant can satisfy Staff comments One
through Five, and more specifically to submit lighting cut sheets
and to identify stormwater controls.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, and if you have any questions, make sure you call Staff.
MR. CANALE-Thank you, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re welcome. Good luck. Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RICHARD SALOMON OWNER(S)
SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,503 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 406
SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. NOA 11-07, SP 53-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-
14 SECTION 179-4
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2007 Richard Salomon is the applicant. Site Plan Review
for Major Stormwater project, location 67 Knox Road. Existing zoning is WR-1A. This is
an Unlisted SEQRA. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,503 square foot single
family dwelling with a 406 square foot attached garage. This proposal has been
classified as a Major Stormwater project. Staff comments. The applicant has submitted
plans to reduce the height of the house, see Notice of Appeal 11-2007. The ZBA
resolution states “the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site coverage by
the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest
point of the structure” The applicant has revised the plans to now include a house no
taller than 28 feet as measured from natural grade. According to the applicant, further
modifications include the removal of the exit doors at rear of basement and the infilling of
existing windows to a no-egress glass block type window. Further changes include the
removal of the existing 9 foot wing wall to the north and proposed upgraded stormwater
control measures. The following are the conditions of the last tabling motion dated
October 23, 2007. I will assume that the Planning Board has read those. I do want to
read the additional comments in. The proposed stormwater management area details
have not been submitted. Cover sheet of site plans denote SW-1 through SW-3 yet none
attached to plan. I’m looking for a clarification of that omission. A narrative explaining all
changes to the project should be submitted for clarity purposes. Please see attached
meeting minutes dated October 23, 2007 for previous project review, and I’d turn it over
to the Board.
ED ESPOSITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening.
MR. ESPOSITO-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. ESPOSITO-Ed Esposito, Landscape Architect. I’m alone this evening, no specific
purpose, but I’ve brought some handout exhibits, perhaps the smaller versions of the
plans, if that’s okay. I can hand them out. They may be easier to navigate through. My
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
goal is to cover a review of the plan set to see how the applicant can improve the
submission, and I also have a slide of each of these exhibits, if that’s acceptable to the
Board. I can give it to Keith and he can call it up on the screen, we could look at each of
these exhibits.
MR. OBORNE-The Board is amenable to this?
MR. ESPOSITO-It’s the same exhibits that were submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not new information.
MR. ESPOSITO-No, this is not new information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s one question I want to ask while we have material. There’s a
letter in the package that we received from Monarch design.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s dated October 2007, and I wondered, is that right?
MR. ESPOSITO-With explanation, for the last year and a half, the project has been
inactive. The applicant has finally agreed to lowering the roof system to allow, to come
back into planning. I last updated that a year and a half ago with hopefully good will and
reason to have this presentation so we could see where we all stand with every element
of the plans that we have submitted this evening. I could give this to Keith, 67 Knox
Road. Thank you. So the project has been inactive, but we have retained, in this group,
Crescent Environmental Engineering, soil testing, last (lost word), perhaps Dan Ryan
could recall, we were all at the site. We accomplished design manual testing for the
stormwater management plan we’re going to receive this evening, and we have two
septic, we have three septic field designs, and that’s perhaps confusing. We started with
a conventional trench. The owner/applicant wanted an Eljen system. The last review
that was given to VISION Engineering was abrupted. We were recommended by Dave
Wick from Soil and Water Conservation to do, not a vertical tube drainage, but a
horizontal storm tech. So the whole submission was updated a year and a half ago for
that. The septic field was revised. Mr. Ryan had preferred not the Eljen system. We
attended some seminars. I believe that there are some questions on the gravelist
trench, but with all due respect to the neighbors, I think the owners had discussed this
Eljen system. So that’s in there, too. Let’s get at this, and it’s 67 Knox Road, under that
local disk, probably F, Local Disk F, 67 Knox Road, and it starts with the visual photo,
you know, that this is the way the home looks today. It was a year ago, in fact probably
about the same season, the owner took this, and then we get, if you can click on the next
slide, we’re going to go into this cover sheet showing the Van Dusen & Steves existing
two foot topography. Now as a result of Mr. Ryan’s review, that we don’t want to present
old drawings. We want, this was updated, and I’ve been very frustrated, the fact that I
haven’t been able to share this with anyone, even the neighbors, but what we did do,
next slide please, is contact Van Dusen & Steves, as a result of Mr. Ryan’s review, to
say let’s update this to see where we are today. That was their as built survey that was
done with the “L” Shaped home. How it’s sited with the Knox Road and the existing
driveway, the Rosenburg property. Next slide. So what we were asked to do, a year
ago, is do this interim topography study to say how obnoxious is that front hill, and how
are we going to orchestrate a legal septic field and an eight foot design structural
concrete retaining wall that has no weep holes and a (lost word) liner, barrier to protect
that uphill slope environmentally. So that was our study, and that’s what we submitted,
believing that the Van Dusen and Steves topography was correct, and all we’re doing is
this update investigation review. Next slide, please. So, now we go through the next
series of four to five slides that are in this plan set, that shows various different site plans,
how the driveway curls around. It showed the old driveway, and how the home sits on
there with some analysis. So you can click on the next slide. Now this was more or less
coming out of the Building Department and all this variance review for the FAR area
ratio. The contractors varied from the original plan sets. I’m sure, you know, the
neighbors could speak to that better than myself, but when I got involved, we were all in
a mode of trying to deliver a compliant building. So we were asked to look at our FAR.
With Craig’s review, we feel, Community Development, we feel that this is under the FAR
area. We’ve essentially blocked off the whole exit situation to the basement that Keith
had noted earlier, and there’s a lot of closed un-insulated attic area and that was the
owner’s attempt, and hopefully this is, you know, the plan we’re looking at to see, there
(lost word) to tear the building down six or more feet, the roof structure, to keep it under
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
that 28 feet with the new zoning restriction, but this is our FAR area. Now we go into our
initial design that I don’t feel, it is old information, but it’s important. Here’s our
impervious pre-development. It showed the assorted cottages and the driveways
conditions. Next please. Then it goes into the new impervious, where it shows the same
hatched area, and, you know, believe it or not, there’s this very minor impact here. It
shows that we’ve got 17.9% impervious on the existing, and 22%. So, we’re close, and
that’s, I think that was consistent in the original application, next slide, that shows, well
what did we disturb? It’s a very small site. We disturbed just under 15,000 square feet
that the owners believed were legal, and, you know, the curious thing is we had tried, I
personally drew four attempts to try to do a shared driveway, you know, condition which
showed, if we were to disturb that, you know, square footage, potentially off site, now
that becomes part of our alternate driveway plan, in an effort to have good will with the
neighbors. So hopefully, you know, I was not in any conversations with the neighbors,
but hopefully, you know, we could discuss this point later on, also, but I believe the
applicant was under the disturbed area and kept a nice 35, it shows 50 foot buffer at the
frontage of the lake. Next slide, please. So here’s getting into our standard details
where we’ve got, you know, the tree scaping. There’s our boulder wall detail, and
zoning. They failed miserably. There’s no doubt that, they ruled that these concrete
wing walls were part of the structure. So they’re being removed in this application and
they’ve got this naturalized boulder. There’s a lot of them there on site, and, so, you
know, these are some of the details. Next slide. These are some of our erosion control
details. We’re not re-inventing the wheel. They’re design manual, they want to finish the
site. Please, let’s embrace what this home is, how it could fit into that slope, and what
this site, I feel they’ve fallen behind on their stormwater inspections. I mean, I wasn’t
retained. The owner, he went financially out of the group now, this Salomon. He’s not
even in the group. I mean, so what’s happening now is they need stone filter dikes
restored. There’s sediment in there. They need more than erosion mat pinned to this
hill. They need that retaining wall. They need that driveway installed, and we need to
get on to finishing and putting sod on the perimeters and really dressing up the
landscape. I think they’ve got quite a beefy landscaping plan. These are some of the
drainage details. They went, we hired a consultant, next, for the structural wall. We
want Dan to review this. We feel it’s a big, thick wall, not toeing over its line. There’s no
septic going to leak through this. It’s contained on the uphill. This needs to be installed
immediately. Next slide, please. That’s just the specifics. Our consultant, Crescent
Environmental Engineering, you know, Environmental Engineering did have a test on the
septic, and on the storm. They did some catchments. We can see on the Glandon
property, if we were to finish our gutters and downspouts and unify the piping, this is a
commercial rated drainage system for a single family residence. I’ve not seen, here’s
one sheet of a three sheet submission for analyzing. Dan, I believe you did receive this
th
report from Crescent. Unfortunately, I talked to Jeff. It’s dated December 10. You got
the old report, the new report, I know it’s confusing. What’s on the table is just to freshen
th
up that that’s the report. It has not changed. It was done December 10 of 2007, and,
you know, hopefully you could continue the technical review for, you know, a month, or
two months, whatever it takes, but next slide, please, it’s a three part series of analyzing
subcatchment where Glandon’s runoff gets the new structure. Right now there’s no
piping. The roof is there. It’s all running, and it’s captured in a very unique, next slide,
please, sod condition, which is stable. We’ve had Dave Wick from Soil and Water
Conservation twice. He goes, geez, we wish more people would use sod. I’ve attached
Saratoga Sod, you know, it’s starter sod. No nutrients, you know, low nutrients. It’s got
no phosphates. So there is some literature on what we could do to, you know, filter out,
but we’ve got a great storm tech unit design. I feel that that was in the next submission.
That’s in this plan set. There’s the 740 chamber design. We’ve got the erosion and
sediment controls. Next slide, that’s the chamber design for the storm. It’s very
commercial underground (lost word). You’ve seen them. It was endorsed. I know Dan’s
familiar with it. It’s more than what normally is required. I mean, there’s nothing, no
controls. The runoff’s, no gutters, and the site still seems to be behaving, even though
the owners have done absolutely nothing, other than sod the lower field. They did a little
planting. There’s a little diversion ditch in the sod. It’s not noticeable. I know the
neighbors know that’s there. That protects, that’s the lake barrier. There’s 35 foot of
natural woods, and they plan to armor this with every indigenous plant on that sheet, the
spice bushes, all these nice, you know, spruces and some of the lower ground covers,
you know, that were listed on the cover page, just to throw a few names at you, these
white asters and all. They’re going to armor this with the Sweet Gale. So these were
local preferred plantings off our Town’s planting list. As far as erosion and sediment
control, there’s our stone filter dikes. They have some inlet protection on the two
structures that are going in to protect the storm tech units from getting contaminated
during construction. They’ve got the stabilized driveway that they really should have
been doing, but they really, Lord knows why, they want the Stop Work Order removed,
and then they’ll go and armor the site with the proper sediment controls and try to make,
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
continue this good will, and hopefully it works. The only thing I think they’ve really fallen
behind on is there’s notes all over that plan for the erosion matting to be maintained, and
it’s simply not. I’ve never seen a one on one slope, bare soil, left for two years, and
there’s minimal signs of erosion. There is erosion. You can still see it coming down the
properties, and I, for one, just would like to see us move through the planning process. I
feel you could be content with what, we’ve got some pretty good engineering advice to
make this site, it’s a small site, prepare to receive the building that’s on it, despite some
carpentry. Next slide. Let’s see what we’ve got to do. There’s erosion and sediment
controls right out of the blue book standard. Next, please. These are all part, this is one
of our two, essay one and essay one B. This is our absorption trench, conventional
septic, put on the hill. We want to build the wall. We want to load the original soil, the
original contractor stock piled the soil. There’s no nutrient in the existing soil. We want
to remove and replace the soil, actually cut that down. There’s a few slides coming up
that show the sections through everything. It’s all street legal. We want to get this in
front of Dan and have him review and we’ll take any criticisms we got. We want the best
possible product for this small site to protect the lake. Next slide. So this is that section
that shows the relationship of the road, Knox Road, with our septic, and the backfill
against this eight foot wall and how we’re coming down the slope, next slide, please,
that’s an older one, but we keep that just to show, there’s the blow up of how that septic
field is going to work in relationship to the road. Next slide, please. These were some,
you asked for visuals. That’s how the site looks to the left and to the right of the property,
and you could still, you still see a little shimmer of glass, but it’s not right in everyone’s
face. It’s 100 foot setback, and there’s going to be a 50 foot planted area, 35 is natural
woods. Next slide, please. That was the letter, we’ve had Dave Wick back (lost words)
the properties, again. We’ve got the memorials on the sod, and using sod to stabilize.
They intend to button up the site. If you can allow them to move through this process,
they purely intend to do a good landscape job. Next, please. Now we’re getting into our
building set. You could go through there. That’s our planting legend on the front. List of
drawings for a single family home is like I’ve never seen before, but, next please, and so
going through these, we’ve gone through these. We’re going to have Van Dusen and
Steves up. If Dan Ryan is pushing us to see, what is our topography today, we did the
interim construction study, Dan. I don’t want to stay in limbo on this interim. We want to
get to the finished grading plan. So, you know, maybe you and I should talk. I’ve left you
some messages, next please, just to see that, you know, they did do a good two foot
interval. That has not changed. If we were to re-survey, they’re three weeks out. We
won’t have a plan back to you in August. We’re going to miss August. If that’s the way it
has to be, then, you know, I’m sure other people need to speak this evening, but let’s
move through. I want to get into the building sections. This is, back up one, this was,
back to that, that’s a little bit more clear. You can see the analysis to see how the
blanket of the existing grade that came off Knox Road, the contour of this land. How,
now we did an analysis to raise up a 28 foot blanket that establishes that that building
cannot go over that 28 feet platform. This was the analysis where we interpolated the
grade, then added the 28 feet, next please, and just, yes, go through. We’ve seen these,
you know, various different ones. I’ve got 62 of these, so we’ve got probably half
through. Next, next, yes we’ve seen that with the before and after, the disturbed area.
MR. OBORNE-How far do you want me to go.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. Go right, probably, you can stop there for a moment. The original
design has these concrete wing walls. In order to meet the existing rear yard, that is
totally sodded, the only missing element is the final landscaping of, and all the woodland
areas, is this triple tier boulder wall. That’s what that slide shows. It shows you, and now
here’s the landscaping. That’s a lot of planting going on there. I could talk all evening
about, you know, that.
MR. TRAVER-Sir, could I ask a question?
MR. ESPOSITO-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though you’re very much interested in moving this process
along. You’ve made that clear. I think that, in order to do that, and I appreciate your
offering this lengthy explanation that you have submitted. One of the things that we don’t
have is an analysis by our engineer of the current status of the project and a variety of
other things that I’m sure you’ve seen, in both Staff and engineering comments, and I
think the best way to proceed is to submit the materials needed by our engineer, so that
he can do an analysis and provide us with the information, as to what concerns there are
and what suggestions there are that we need to address moving forward, and then we
can re-visit all of this in a very constructive kind of way, and I appreciate what you’re
offering us, but it’s, quite honestly I don’t think really all that helpful, without us having the
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
engineering information and our Staff having an opportunity to assess the information
that you’re trying to give us.
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just to pick up on that, before you passed out the information,
I asked you if this was all, if any of this was new information and you said no, but it
appears as though it almost all is.
MR. FORD-We cannot possibly absorb what you’re presenting tonight, page after page
after page. I don’t know, what have you got, 100 pages here or so, and in going through
at this break neck speed, what are you looking for from us tonight? What do you hope
that we’re going to be able to accomplish?
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I know we’re going to get tabled. I know Mr. Ryan has not, I got a
comment back that it was a lot of old material. I’m just trying to show that the material
that was submitted is valid. I need you to do a review so then we could take that
discussion up, but I need to do a project overview to show that, in an attempt, we did
have the analysis material that supported that.
MR. FORD-So none of this is new? It’s all right in here?
MR. ESPOSITO-It’s all right there. It’s right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. ESPOSITO-And perhaps with me changing the dates on the letter, Dan, this was
the December 10, ’07 report, not the August one, that you should be looking at. This
was a letter to Craig. I changed the date. It’s still the same in response, itemized
response, to your October letter two years ago. So it’s old, but it’s still valid, that’s my
point, and then finally it’s the same letter that was given to me just acknowledging
Craig’s responses, but there’s nothing new here.
MR. TRAVER-So basically what you’re offering us tonight is your assurance that this is a
work in project, that it’s been in limbo for a while, and you now have some updated
proposals, plans, drawings and so on which you want to assure us is underway, and that
you’re anxious to get this project moving forward. We are also. So I would like to
suggest that we give you an opportunity to follow through with that with the professional
staff, and give us the information, so that we can analyze it in a meaningful way, because
quite honestly what you’re presenting us tonight, it’s difficult for us to analyze in a
meaningful way, and certainly it does not allow us an opportunity to ask you meaningful
questions that you would then be able to address. If we go through the process that we
normally follow, where you can submit these, the current status, the current proposal of
the project to our Staff, we will be able to move forward in a constructive manner.
MR. ESPOSITO-I don’t think the Staff comments were, I think 80% of them were
positive, but I wholeheartedly admit the client has fallen behind on the stormwater
inspections. They’re absent in the record. I agree with that, and let’s see what we need
to do to give Dan the appropriate material. I just, it’s more, this meeting this evening is
more of a benefit for him so we can communicate to show, hey, I think it’s in here, and I
would (lost word) a continued review, and if we can’t get on the docket for next month, if
you want a stamped surveyed plan of existing conditions starting fresh, I’ve got to wait
three weeks for that, but I’ve offered my intermediate construction topography, which
really only analyzes the hill.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds as though you need to contact the Community
Development office and the Town Engineer and find out exactly what do they need to
assess the current status of the project and to fully understand the proposal moving
forward. Then it would be appropriate to bring it before us and discuss it, when we’ve
had an opportunity to review it.
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the comments that is in the Staff Notes is that a narrative
explaining all changes to the project should be submitted for clarity purposes. This
history on this, or the story on this particular project is long, and strange.
MR. TRAVER-And your visual and oral presentation to us tonight is interesting, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-We need a logical path to follow so we know how we got to this point,
and what we need to do from here.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who is the owner of the property now?
MR. ESPOSITO-It’s still Provident Development. They’re down to two partners. The
one that originally owned the land, I think is taken over by.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mr. Salomon is not involved in it, he’s out of state. Is that correct?
MR. ESPOSITO-I asked him, you know, for comment, because he’s not financially
involved in this property anymore.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So the official applicant is?
MR. ESPOSITO-Provident Development, still.
MR. OBORNE-That will be changed on an upcoming agenda. I was not aware of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a very basic question. You said that the owner’s fallen down on
doing the stormwater inspections, but more importantly, you’re not even maintaining your
silt fences, not even maintaining your erosion mat. What are we going to do about that?
That’s the most important thing you can do right now, and probably the easiest thing to
do, and you haven’t done it, and that was a condition, what, two years ago, now?
MR. FORD-Stabilization.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, that’s one of the questions that I have, is that after I
read all the minutes that were attached to this, with the Stop Work Order, is the
applicant, whoever, Provident Development and any of their agents, are they prohibited
from going on to the site and maintaining their stormwater controls?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. They were directed to maintain them and provide logs.
MR. FORD-And they’ve done neither, correct?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they put stormwater, they put the mat down, and they put the silt
fences up, but there’s, they’re not maintained. There’s holes in each of them.
MR. ESPOSITO-I see deficiencies. I mean, they’re obvious. If you can make that in
another minutes, I’ll take that to them. It’s imperative they do that.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s already in the condition from two years ago.
MR. ESPOSITO-I don’t own the land. I just can’t go, you know, do reports.
MR. FORD-But it hasn’t been maintained has it, you don’t have the logs?
MR. ESPOSITO-I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s the pictures, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And one of my other big concerns is the neighbor’s garage. It’s not long
until that slides down the hill.
MR. OBORNE-Which neighbor’s garage, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-On the south side, I believe.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I don’t think I have a picture of that.
MR. SEGULJIC-When you look at the plans, you can see the garage there. You have
the big cut, and then this.
MR. ESPOSITO-That’s where the retaining wall’s got to go, but you can see that needs
the eight foot wall.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, just on the other side of that, you can see it up there. You can see
the garage up there, just above that cut.
MR. ESPOSITO-I agree.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And look at that steep slope and the leaders are already developing.
How long is it going to be before that garage comes down?
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, Dave asked me, well, did you get the Stop Work Order removed?
I haven’t even been working on this project for a year and a half, but if that wall was
completed, that’s the stabilization that Glandon needs also, because it wraps around and
terminates, and that’s it. I mean, they can, we can go make them put more fabric and pin
that, and, you know, the vegetation’s good, in that case, but there’s a one on one slope.
It hasn’t gone anywhere in two years. It’s absurd.
MR. SEGULJIC-Nor do we want it to go anywhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. ESPOSITO-Right. I said, if that goes, they don’t have any case for a septic field.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m more concerned about the lake. I’m not concerned about them
having a septic field. If that goes, it’s all going to wash into the lake. You haven’t
maintained what we required you, in our condition from two years ago, and I think it’s
pretty simple to do that.
MR. ESPOSITO-I agree. Another one of my goals this evening is I know in the interest
of time and with due respect to the neighbors, the slides, the last five, and we could do
this, I wanted it on the slide. It shows the building changes, to show the areas of how
much the roof had come down, and it actually shows and respects the land that, yes,
there is a potential to have this building complete with the big elements of having the
retaining wall installed, it backfilled correctly, the septic installed, the storm tech units, all
the piping and drainage connected, fully landscaped, with the driveway dressed out, with
sod, stabilized. It’s done. Right now they’re on the fence. They don’t know. They’re not
even here, okay, and I know there’s things they could be doing like here’s a slide for the
neighbors that does show me, we did this computation of where the existing grade is on
every angle of the building, and how it shows where this 28 foot blanket above the roof
is, and how the roof has to be moved. I think that’s what cost, I mean, a year and a half,
you know, honestly, the neighbors were correct. So I think Provident is admitting that
they need to make severe modifications and simple ones, but, you know, I think the one
partner left, we’ve got two other people, they are motivated. They wanted me to bring, I
did, you know, bring you the samples, I could leave them with you. It’s nothing different
than you haven’t been submitted with already, that the content is here. We need you to
do a review to continue, and I think that’s really where we are. I needed to show the
slideshow to show the neighbors that they have committed to tearing the roof off the
building, and I don’t know what other personal issues you have with the drainage and the
driveway, but I think these are all good things we, personally, never discussed, but you
can come to me with anything, because, you know, perhaps I have to re-communicate
this and in an amenable form to just move on with this. I hope it’s not this distasteful
thing. I know that we need to move through this process.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-For the record, what are they going to do with it? Are they going to
sell it. Is somebody, one of them going to live in it?
MR. ESPOSITO-They’re developers. They’re going to have to tear the roof off and
they’re going to re-use the two by twelve somewhere else, and they have to re-build
another roof.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then they want to sell the house as a finished house.
MR. ESPOSITO-Then it’s going to go back up on the market. They’re taking a hit on it. I
mean, this one guy, it bankrupt him for God sakes. So, I mean, they’re just trying to do
the best they can to finish the home so it’s not an eyesore to the neighbors or the Town.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it is, and it’s been an empty home for almost two years. So
it’s a hazard to the area.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes, but they’ve been in zoning, not in planning. So these are very
important planning issues now. The big family of the technical review that we need from
you, Dan, and, you know, but we’re waiting. If you really want the Van Dusen survey
update, we have to wait three weeks for it.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. RYAN-I think my biggest concern was I was really oblivious to what has been
installed and what has not been installed at this point, and then the second part of that is
you’re mentioning retaining walls being torn down and replaced with boulder walls.
Those are changes that we aren’t aware of based on these plans, as far as I can tell. So
that has to be conveyed properly so we can sort through it and figure out what is the
current application, what are the changes to the site today as it stands, and what has
been installed that hasn’t been approved so we can identify that.
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, it’s in Staff’s letter. I mean, it tells you in the first paragraph.
Revised plans now include a house no taller than 28 feet as measured from natural
grade. Further modifications include removal of the exit doors at the rear basement, and
the infilling of existing windows to a no egress glass block type window. Further changes
include the removal of the existing nine foot wing wall on each home side and proposed
upgraded stormwater control measures, a three tier boulder transition wall has been
included.
MR. RYAN-The Site Plans don’t reflect that.
MR. ESPOSITO-It does, though, Dan. I would love to walk through each sheet. I’ve just
showed you. It’s the same plan that we walked through on the slide, the three tier
boulder wall, with a note that demo existing concrete wing wall. The information is there.
I know maybe the printer didn’t do a good job and he gave you the old reports mixed with
the new, but I hope, you know, if I can go and sit 10 minutes with you, without being in
this public venue, I could walk through each sheet and show you every note.
MR. TRAVER-I was going to suggest, if you could set up a meeting with Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-With Staff.
MR. TRAVER-And you can, as a result of that meeting, end up with a very specific list of
what needs to be done, one, to stabilize the property as it is against the environmental
concerns, as we await a final plan to finish this project. Two, you can get a specific list of
what needs to be submitted and in what format, so that a proper review of the current
status of the project and the current proposal for the resolution of this piece of property
can be evaluated, then it can be submitted to us. We will have an opportunity to review it
prior to your coming before us again, and then we’ll have appropriate questions for you,
and you’ll know exactly what you will need to present to us to clarify any remaining
issues.
MR. ESPOSITO-Excellent.
MR. TRAVER-And as well with the neighbors and so on. Right now, I suspect, as we do,
no one really knows exactly what’s going on. So we need to start there. What’s the
current status. What needs to be done immediately to prevent any further damage to the
property in the form of erosion controls and whatever, and then what is the current
proposal for moving forward and what would the project look like if what you are now
proposing were implemented? And then the Town Staff, the Planning Board, neighbors,
everybody will have an opportunity to take a look at that, and then, you know, have
comments, questions, whatever, then we’ll have a process to move forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank, Steve. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I
assume people would like to come up and comment. The purpose of the public hearing
is for interested parties to comment to the Board. I would ask that you identify yourself
for the record as we do tape our meeting minutes, and I would ask that you address any
comments to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TOM WEST
MR. WEST-Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. WEST-My name is Tom West. I’m an attorney from Albany, New York with the
West Firm, PLLC. I represent Robert and Victoria Glandon who are the owners to the
immediate north of the subject property, south, sorry. I also represent the neighbors to
the north, Dr. and Mrs. Rosenburg, who have had a different set of issues with this
project, and I’ll try and explain that in a minute. I’ll also try to be brief, because it’s
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
obvious that this application is not going anyplace tonight and you need a lot more
information, but just to tell you where I’m going with the presentation tonight, we think
that, until such time as the final driveway design is submitted, until such time as the final
septic design is submitted, and approvable by the Town, and until such time as all of the
zoning issues relative to the building have been resolved, it’s premature to review the
Site Plan. It’s as simple as that. I’ll try and be brief because this does have a long and
tortured history, and it started out when Dr. and Mrs. Rosenburg retained me to help
them with the driveway that’s shown on the Van Dusen plans which have been there for
50 to 70 years, and was used as access to their property. They have another driveway,
but that was really the primary driveway that was used. We were in negotiations with the
owner’s attorneys at that time, negotiating a shared driveway agreement when I got a
call to find out that the bull dozers had come in and taken out the driveway. So,
immediately a line was drawn in the sand, literally, and the driveway was gone, and so
that’s the first piece of litigation that was commenced. We then had to sue the owners
over the driveway, claiming prescriptive easement, and that case is still pending in
Warren County Supreme Court. Actually, if you look there, you can see. Where the silt
fence is to the right is sort of where the driveway went to the north onto the Rosenburg
property. The driveway, I’m going to try and keep this separate by subject. The
driveway is still a matter in pending litigation. We have a settlement in concept that
requires a driveway configuration that’s nothing like any of the plans that are before you
tonight, and that they require that the driveway be straightened out and restored closer to
the original configuration. That settlement is contingent upon the approval of an Eljen
system or another system that would give them the room to be able to do that. We are
waiting for plans to advance the settlement process. We’re waiting for the submission
and approval of an approvable septic system that would facilitate that, but until the septic
system is resolved and there is enough property to restore the driveway to the
configuration that we’ve agreed to in principle, we don’t even know what the driveway’s
going to look like, nor do you, okay. So that’s one set of issues. The next set of issues
deal with the construction of the house itself, and suffice it to say, the picture that was up,
the aerial view, was a nice showing of what the property used to look like. It was heavily
treed. There was a very quaint cottage on the property. These developers came in,
clear cut most of the lot. There is no wooded area. There’s a very narrow strip of trees
along the front of the lake, but they basically clear cut all these mature trees, and they
came in with the bull dozers and they started excavating for a very big lot. Mr. Glandon,
who is an engineer, and has been very helpful in reviewing all of the complex Code
provisions, and I collaborated on a number of issues, but it became apparent to us that
there was a real problem with the height of the building, and we started making
complaints to the Building Department about that, and that lead to a determination from
the Building Department that the Code could be interpreted in a certain way. We
disagreed with that. We took an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we also
appealed from the determination that the wing walls were not part of the structure and
were lawful, and the wing walls were used because what happened, as they were
building this building, and it became apparent that they were well above the 28 foot
height limit, they started building walls and backfilling the property on either side to try
and chase the height that they were creating. Well, it’s nice that the plywood was all
stamped out with dimensional marks on it, because you could just sit there from the side
and you could just count up and you could see that they were over on the front and they
were over on both sides. So they tried to deal with the problem on the sides by creating
these monster wing walls and back filling, and then we noticed that there was a window
there, and we pointed out that it’s still more than 28 feet down to the window well. So
then the window got boarded up, then it got concreted up, and this is the type of game
that we went through, through the summer and early Fall of 2007. At the same time, it
was apparent that in the front it was too high, and it was obviously too high from the top
of the dormer down to the front, and they had open windows and they had open doors,
and then all of a sudden we came back and we found out that the windows were being
raised and they were putting block in there, and they had some intention to fill this. So
you can see what kind of problems we were going through. We had difficulty getting
determinations out of the Building Department that would be appealable. We finally got it
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board ruled that we’re right, and they said,
yes, this is an unmitigated disaster and it is not compliant with the Code, and that they
had to deal with it. Now at the same time that all of this was going on, Mr. Glandon
appropriately determined that the house had been built far in excess of the Floor Area
Ratio requirements applicable, and how many feet were we over?
BOB GLANDON
MR. GLANDON-Well, instead of 20% they were at 30%. Instead of a 4200 square foot
house they were like 6,000 plus.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. WEST-And so this was all pointed out to the Building Department, and I think the
developers were smart enough to realize that that was an obvious error that had to be
corrected. So they started chasing that issue in the same manner. They started
proposing to cut out space and make space that was obviously livable with dormers, etc.,
not livable, and then they started playing games with the basement, etc., and so all of
that was going on while went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of
Appeals ultimately ruled that the building was too high, that the interpretation by the
Building Department, and that you have to use 28 feet from the finished grade in a cut
area or the natural grade, whichever results in the lowest height of the structure, and so
now the structure has to be reduced. I should also add that there was a court case by
the developers challenging that determination, and Justice Krogmann ruled in favor of
the Zoning Board, and we participated in that case, and he said, no, the Zoning Board
got it just right, but now we have a situation where we have a structure that’s too big from
a Floor Area Ratio standpoint, and it’s too high from a building height standpoint, and so
if you look at that issue, and you realize the challenges facing the developers, they have
to fix those problems, and they have to do it some way. They have to make it smaller,
and they’re trying, and I’ll get to that in a minute, but they haven’t gotten there yet, and
whatever they do, it’s going to require major construction. There’s a steel eyebeam that
runs the entire length of the house. That’s going to have to come out. They’re going to
have to bring in a crane. This whole concept of coming in and finishing the landscaping
first so that the carpenters can come in and make a few changes is poppycock. I mean,
this is going to require major reconstruction and you can’t really have a finished Site Plan
and try and finish this and then come in and do this kind of construction. All right. So
now let’s talk about the current application and a very important legal issue that needs to
be decided by the Building Department before we can go forward. As this Board is very
well aware, the Town of Queensbury continues to be very progressive and has recently
updated it’s Zoning Code, all right, and it has made it more stringent, and thank you to
everybody in the Town. You’re doing more to protect Lake George and the other lakes in
this Town, all right, and I think that’s all a wonderful thing. Well, now we have a question
of which Ordinance applies to this particular project, all right, and in order to make the
old Code applicable to this project, which is what your agenda says tonight, they had to
file a complete application prior to the effective date of the Code, which I think was May
th
12, as I understand it. So they filed some plans. The plans were not complete. They
did not show a compliant structure. They’re still over the height. They were still over the
Floor Area Ratio. There were gross errors. They measured Floor Area Ratio from the
interior dimensions of the building as opposed to the exterior dimension. They excluded
a number of areas that are supposed to be included. They have been changing the
plans. There’ve been three, maybe four changes since the original filing. It shows that it
is not a complete application. Your Code also says if there’s a change in ownership, you
have to start over, okay, and there was a change in ownership, and I’m not sure when
that occurred. We have to look at that issue and find out when that occurred. I think the
totality of the circumstances is that we need the Building Department to rule that the new
Code applies to this project, and with the new Code applying, that’s going to make the
Floor Area Ratio different. It’s going to change the ball game before this Board, in terms
of the amount of impermeable area that has to be left, and so there’s a whole bunch of
issues in transition. So I said I’d be brief, and I’m not exactly brief, but I’ll end it at that,
just to say it’s a long and tortured story, but the bottom line for tonight is, there are too
many aspects of this project in transition for anything to happen, or anything to go
forward, except the continuing directive and mandate from the Town that they abide by
the stormwater requirements, as well as all of the interim requirements that were
required by this Board and other officers of this Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was helpful, yes.
MR. GLANDON-And I’m Bob Glandon. My wife, Vicky, and I own the house just to the
south, the one where the garage is near the edge. I just wanted to clarify that there are
major issues with the latest set of plans that have come in, trying to get this Floor Area
Ratio down. Putting glass block in the basement windows does not allow us to not to
count the basement, under the old Code. The new Code, five foot ceiling, they’d have to
have it counted. They’ve got a nine foot ceiling.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the new Code is a lot clearer.
MR. GLANDON-Right, yes, but it’s, trying to cut the egress. It may be a violation of the
Fire Code, but the Town Code refers to two sections of 7-11 and 7-12 of the State Code,
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
and that is strictly fireproof construction. That lays out what the floor has to be above,
which has to be anyhow, because that’s the living area, and there’s concrete walls all
around. So 7-11 and 7-12 are already covered and therefore that basement must
continue to be counted. So, for them to say that somehow comes out is wrong. The
other comment about this 28 foot blanket they’ve now drawn, the Code very clearly says
it’s a 28 foot vertical. They’re using a 28 foot perpendicular to the line, which with a 20%
grade, 15 to 20% grade we have there, gives them an artificial extra foot. So the house
as drawn, and as shown there, is still too high for the north, excuse me, the south one-
third. That was the other point, is that the natural grade that you’re being shown is not
actually the natural grade. There is a, if you remember the one drawing he was showing
of the existing, where the existing house was and showed a parking, excuse me, a
driveway piece, that whole driveway return and big parking area, one, it was all gravel.
So it was a permeable surface, not impervious. So to have it, it was coded and shaded
as being impervious, but it wasn’t, and the second is, that was built up by the prior
owner, in the last year before he sold it, and there was a wall, then, that dropped three to
four feet to the original natural grade, and they’ve lined up the ridge of the house right
where that wall was to get that extra three feet to try to further boost their house. So if
you’re going back to natural grade, you’ve got to go back to the natural grade before the
prior owner dug that thing out, and it’s clear that that was a fill. So the prior owner does a
fill, and then they come in and want to measure off that fill, and so their house is still
questionable in height, along with the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. WEST-Yes. We’re carefully monitoring the successive filings that are being made.
Once that settles down and we think we’re getting closer to what they’re finally
proposing, we’re going to submit comments to the Building Department. We’re going to
ask for rulings on some of these issues. I’m reasonably confident that there’ll be another
appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it’s unfortunately going to take a long time.
We are, at the same time, waiting to sit down with the developers, if they’re willing to talk
turkey about a compliant building and sit down and work with them in any way that we
can to get us to that point. It’s not our goal to put them under. It’s our goal to make sure
that what they build at this lot is fully compliant with the Code, and is sensitive to the
environment and the neighbors, and it’s been none of the above.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Keith, has the Zoning Administrator ruled on this,
whether it falls under the old Code or the new Code? I know it’s listed on the agenda as
under the old Ordinance.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and I believe, he hasn’t ruled on it. It’s basically more of a
determination during the process and protocol that it is under the old Code. It’s a
modification.
MR. WEST-We’ll ask for a formal ruling, and we hope he’ll.
MR. OBORNE-That would be wise, absolutely.
MR. WEST-We would hope he would give us one. That has been an issue in the past.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am.
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Good evening, Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper, and a couple
of the points have been stated already, but I’m going to go through a couple of them. We
also recommend that this is considered an incomplete application due to the lack of the
stormwater management information that was requested. Also, the conflicting
information regarding the proposed on site wastewater. There are two separate plans
that were submitted, and design percolation rate for the absorption bed on Drawing SA-1
states the percolation rate is 4.5 minutes and the design percolation rate for the Eljen
system, Drawing SA-1B states the percolation rate is three minutes. Section 136-9C
states that no leaching facility will be permitted within 200 feet of the mean high water
mark of a lake, if it is zero to three minutes. So that’s for the Eljen system. Also, there
has been significant alteration to the existing grades in the area of the proposed disposal
area, and wondering whether this will be considered a fill system, I wasn’t aware that
there was this large retaining wall that was being proposed, which I can see in the
photographs why it might be necessary and/or proposed, but if it is a fill system,
according to 136-9B, no sewage disposal, fill, or mound system may be located within
200 feet of the shoreline of Lake George. So we’ve got some conflicting information
there. Also it can’t exceed the eight percent. Again, the retaining wall, I wasn’t aware of
on that, and I also agree that, based on the fact that this is virtually a new Site Plan
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
application, new stormwater, on site wastewater treatment system, shoreline buffer and
planting plan, single family dwelling design with moderations and all other Board
requested from the October 23, 2008 Planning Board meeting, I’m asking whether or not
this application should be assigned a new Site Plan number and be held to the new
Waterfront Residential District Zoning Ordinances. The submitted calculation, the Floor
Area Ratio excludes the basement and the second floor areas that are proposed to be
separated by a fire wall. If this square footage was included, the total single family
dwelling would be over 50, be about over 5700 square feet, or greater than 30% of the
FAR, and that even if you remove the basement area, which, again, I do propose that we
follow the new Code with the less ambiguous FAR calculation, it still would exceed the
22% FAR. I kept hearing tonight that there was a 35 foot natural woods that existed on
the land, and a 50 foot buffer that was being proposed. I believe in the plans it says a 35
foot shoreline buffer is proposed. Again, there’s 50 feet of proposed sloping lawn, and
this lawn is the previously cleared area. So there’s very compact, and no infiltration. So
I would propose that that lawn be utilized to plant some native vegetation as well as the
shoreline buffer. Also, in looking at the actual existing 15 foot buffer, I would recommend
that it should be enhanced with, when the additional 20 feet is added, because the
buffer, at this point, is very minimal plants and appears to have exposed soils in regions
on the down slope side on the other side of the silt fence. I’m not sure if that’s actual, if
there are bare soils on that lake side of that silt fence or not, and that’s it. I will submit
these letters. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-One moment. I do not believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, we will be leaving the public hearing open anyway. So
if they are, they can be read.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. I’d like to respond a little. I mean, I think it sounds pretty
adversarial. We’re here to make peace. I know the applicant has been working with
Rosenburgs. I know Mr. West seems to expand on things. May I remind everyone, this
home was totally permitted. It’s totally under the old Code. The application was
reviewed. The home, the scale of the original home was approved by the Town. When
American Tree cleared the lot, I understand that Mr. Glandon personally had asked for
an extra tree to be removed because it was leaning towards his camp.
MR. GLANDON-Absolutely not, and I told you that before.
MR. ESPOSITO-Now the American Tree guy could not give me testimony, but he did tell
me that dead, dying or diseased trees were removed in and around the old camp, that
the look of the, the high retaining wall was a non-structural element to take up the grade.
The contractor ambitiously made them too high. They were to be cut down to the grade.
They were originally on the original grading plan, and the boulders do the same thing.
It’s a slopey site. They were on the grading plan. I mean, this is old stuff. We’re going
over, you know, a driveway that I’ve re-drawn four times. This applicant needs to get a
coded septic field on his million and a half dollar lot, and it’s not their personal catering to
the neighbor to have them say where their driveway should be. It’s a courtesy to allow
the driveway to exist, and co-exist. Rosenburg’s has a driveway. They do a loop. As a
matter of convenience, they drive in their lot. They park, and they love this one to exit so
they don’t have to back up and turn around. So, if Provident isn’t here to say it, they told
me to tell you. Okay. I believe they were trying to be good neighbors, but it’s just the
persist on going over the same stuff. The original old Code allowed for a 28 foot to the
eaves, not to the ridge. Craig and Dave Hatin personally measured it, and approved it at
28 feet. We’re going over the same stuff. It’s costing these people to take this roof
down, as a matter of convenience to the neighbor and the Town, and I think it’s a step in
the right direction, but I don’t want to cast a negative black eye on the project. I think all
of the stormwater managements, when fully reviewed, we’ve got an environmental
engineer that did the septic. He tested it at 4.5 minutes. I think that lake frontage always
had it. I don’t know the lake action itself on the lake side of the silt fence. We’ll do our
best to beef up the planting plan, if she wants 50 feet. I think the lawn is naturalized. It
was recommended by Dave Wick from Soil and Water Conservation. So we’re getting
conflicting reports.
MR. TRAVER-I think we’re going over the same thing, the same old territory again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. ESPOSITO-May I finish? Yes, but, I mean, point by point.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we return to the plan that you seem to support a bit ago, which
was to submit all the updated status and proposed design material to the Town, arrange
to meet with Staff. Find out what, if anything, needs to be clarified, what do you need to
submit. Submit the material, and then you can make a presentation with material that we
have looked at, but I think that to continue going over the same, we’re just running
around in circles.
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, I feel the criticism is overwhelming, sir, and I feel it needs to be
defended.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way. We can clarify all of that, I think,
again, by having consistent plans and by making sure that all of the materials that we
need for all of us to understand, in an objective way, what it is that you’ve done and what
it is that you intend.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we started the meeting by saying we’re going to try make a, try
to move forward and make everything right, and I think that’s the will of the Board. I
think, you know, we can sort out the conflicts between the developer and the neighbors,
and I think, you know, that’s part of our job, to be quite honest. I did have a question for
you on the materials that you passed out this evening. It appears as though there isn’t a
copy for everybody on the Board. Because I didn’t get a full set.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and I suspect that, I mean, I guess I would prefer to get any future
materials from the Planning Office.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes. When he asked me to pass out, I started by asking him if it
was new information.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s not a copy for everybody. So I think in fairness. I’ll give it
back. You can resubmit it, when you do have enough copies, but I think that was
probably the only way we can really approach that. That way Staff can make sure that
everyone on the Board gets one. Unless you want to keep yours with comments on it,
Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I just put received at meeting, so that’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We are going to table this application. We will leave the public
hearing open. We will encourage any neighbors, if they have additional comments to
make after they review the new plans, to attend the meeting. We’re looking at a meeting
ndth
date of September 22. You would need to submit new materials by 17 of August, and
we would also ask Staff to help coordinate a meeting between yourself and the Town
Engineer. Am I missing anything.
MR. TRAVER-I think, if we could add to that, that before that submission deadline, we
get a report to the effect that, from Code Enforcement, to the effect that the erosion
controls that we stipulated last time have been in place, so we can preserve the property
in the interim as these plans move forward.
MR. FORD-May we, I want to ask if that timeline is reasonable with everything that
needs to be accomplished.
MR. ESPOSITO-Sure, it is, because I don’t feel we’re technically far off from re-
submitting paper. It’s a lot of paper, but the silt fence, I’m all over those guys tomorrow.
I didn’t mean to take a tone, but I do, every point, you know, including the less, the
disturbance, I felt they have responded and kept it down, and are trying. I think they
should be, have a fair voice, even though I’m the only one here. I can’t have rambling
on. I’d rather prefer you guys come and talk and deal with me in the hallway, unless you
really feel you need to make a public spectacle of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’re not making a spectacle. They’re going on the record,
which becomes part of the transcripts of the project.
MR. TRAVER-And I think, I really do think that you’ll find that if you meet with Staff, that
will help clarify a lot of these issues, for everyone involved, and that’ll save a lot of time
as we move forward. Whatever you wish to submit by the deadline, we’ll move forward.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-Dan, question for you. As far as stabilizing the site, we had requested
that they put up the silt fences and the sedimentation fence, I believe. Is that adequate,
do you think?
MR. RYAN-I haven’t been to that site in quite a while to know what condition it’s in. I
could certainly make a site visit prior to our meeting, and possibly have specific
recommendations for.
MR. SEGULJIC-But would that make sense to say, by a certain date that they will install
based upon the Town Engineer’s recommendations? Does that make sense, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-If they can coordinate it, I don’t see an issue with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll say within two weeks that they’re installed?
MR. RYAN-I mean, I could go to the site, you know, this week. That’s not a problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-When can you go there by?
MR. RYAN-I mean, if you wanted specific recommendations by the end of the week, that
wouldn’t be any problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then how long do you think it would take them to install them?
MR. RYAN-It wouldn’t be anything that would be that drastic.
MR. SEGULJIC-I wouldn’t think so.
MR. RYAN-It may be improving on some of the stuff that’s there, and then some
additional measures. A week or two would certainly suffice, assuming they’re
cooperative.
MR. TRAVER-We’d make that a condition of getting on the agenda the next time?
MR. FORD-Two weeks from Friday.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, today’s July 28. Two weeks would be August 11, Tuesday,
th
August 11.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s to have recommendations or to have it stabilized?
MR. FORD-Stabilized.
MR. RYAN-I’ll provide recommendations by the end of this week, and that’ll give them
two weeks to follow through.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So they’ll need to follow through by August 14, then, that would be
two weeks from Friday. Did you get that date, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-And then the materials are due the following Monday, August 17.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now as far as, can the Board require they do daily inspections?
Because they have a very bad history.
MR. OBORNE-The Board can require whatever their will is of the applicant. What’s
reasonable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how do you enforce that, though, Tom? That’s the problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just by filing the paper.
MR. RYAN-I could include, in my recommendation, certain measures to follow through
and, you know, there are standard provisions for inspecting erosion and sediment control
measures.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would certainly be appropriate, yes.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. RYAN-So, and providing maintenance, you know, that could be included.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Dan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now the other issue is that, you have a picture there. When was that
taken?
MR. OBORNE-That’s an ’04.
MR. SEGULJIC-And we have evidence that, and I believe it’s pretty clear that the site
was clear cut, in violation of the Code, and the old Code, because I think the old Code, I ,
I think they carried forward I think the Code carried forward what the old Code, the new
Code carried forward what the old Code said. The new Code it says where a shoreline
lot owner violates this section, and they’re talking about the allowance of the 10% of
cutting within 35 feet, I believe it is, the Code Enforcement Officer shall require total re-
vegetation so as to create a buffer strip which is to be in compliance with this section.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I think that provision has to do with lake access, and you’re
allowed to take 10% of your shoreline.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, something like that.
MR. OBORNE-There is a required 35 foot buffer, however, vegetative buffer along Lake
George.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. So the way I read this is that they have to re-vegetate that,
then?
MR. OBORNE-If they are, in fact, in violation of that 35 foot buffer, yes. I think that their
plan shows that in their landscaping plan, at least.
MRS. STEFFAN-Their landscape plan is quite fortified. I mean, that’s very heavily
landscaped.
MR. OBORNE-I have a little concern about what species are being used. I haven’t been
able to really look at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, because then we, so, Dan, if we install the stabilization
controls, the buffer that would probably be like belt and suspenders and would probably
be better to wait until we see what’s going on?
MR. RYAN-Yes. I think the overall re-vegetation plan and landscape plan should be part
of the approval process and scrutinized to that level. These would be temporary interim
measures to protect the lake, that I would provide.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So, as far as the conditions go, then, I mean, we’re
going to request that they submit a complete application?
MR. OBORNE-I would like a narrative.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they need the narrative.
MR. SEGULJIC-Provide narrative of what?
MR. OBORNE-What you could do, and not to write this resolution, is to just.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s both Staff Notes and engineering comments.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and specifically, there’s an additional comment on Staff Notes
under Number Two, a narrative explaining all changes to the project should be submitted
for clarity purposes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know we usually like to specify the specific notes from Staff
comments and engineering comments, but we’re not to that point, yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So we’re going to request that Dan visit the site, I’ll
write Town Engineer shall review site to determine soil stabilization controls and
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
th
inspection procedures. The applicant shall install by August 14. And then we’ll address
the Staff comments. Have them address the engineering comments, and then we will
have request that the Zoning Officer determine that the application is subject to the
former or existing zoning codes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. Anyone else?
MR. TRAVER-No, that sounds excellent.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then just one other last question. When I was there, the garage is
pretty close to that, well, you haven’t been there in a while. That’s something you’ll
address when you’re there on site. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s run with it there.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,503 sq. ft. single family dwelling
with a 406 square foot attached garage. This proposal has been classified as a
Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07, 7/28/09; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT,
Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Tabled for submission of the following information:
1.The Town Engineer shall review site to determine appropriate soil
stabilization controls and inspection procedures. The applicant shall install
th
the recommended procedures by August 14.
2.The applicant shall address the Staff comments.
3.The applicant shall address the engineering comments.
4.The Planning Board requests that the zoning officer determine if the
application is subject to the former or existing zoning codes.
ndth
5.Tabled to the September 22 meeting with an August 17 submission
deadline.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-The one thing that wasn’t in the resolution that I think, I hope we
made clear, is that you’re certainly welcome to meet with the Town Engineer between
now and the next meeting and just coordinate that meeting through Staff. Okay. Thank
you, everybody. Thank you, Dan.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A LINDA DATOR AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 2583 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS OF 1.67 & 1.99 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-09 WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS L G CEA LOT SIZE 3.66
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION A-183
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. OBORNE-I will say for the record that this will be very quick here. Subdivision 6-
2009. This is a Sketch Plan for Linda Dator. This is located at 2583 State Route 9L. It’s
in Waterfront Residential. There’s no SEQRA for Sketch. Project Description:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.66 acre parcel into two lots of 1.67 & 1.99 acres
respectively. I think the Planning Board remembers that this was in front of them for a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals acted
on that recommendation, and I’ll turn it over to the Board at this point. Excuse me, you
do have your Area Variance in front of you also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. For the record, Tom Jarrett, representing Bill and Linda
Dator. As Keith stated, thank you, Keith, you’ve seen this before, and the Zoning Board
acted on your recommendation acted on your recommendation and granted the
variances we requested. We had stipulated to you before that we would make one of the
lots, at least one of the lots, two acres, and we reiterated that to the Zoning Board. I
think I’ll open it up to questions and make this as brief as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-With the exception of the change in lot size it’s the same thing.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. JARRETT-Our surveyor is working on that. I will have that before the next
submission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, so you have one conforming lot.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And there’s going to be a shared driveway between these two?
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. One thing I would like to request is a waiver from the
provision of providing a topo survey. It is a two lot subdivision. We are proposing no
new infrastructure other than a driveway, and I can pass out, I thought, photos of the site
which document that in the area where the house would be built, it’s quite level. Very
little relief. I had pictures. It must be in my studying for this application I’ve misplaced
them. Anyway, I’ll dig them out if I need to.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve seen quite a few pictures this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, more than usual.
MR. JARRETT-No presentations.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the Board’s feeling on the topo?
MR. TRAVER-What would you say is the maximum relief from the lowest point to the
highest point on this property, roughly?
MR. JARRETT-Overall, it’s probably 15 feet, but in the area where the house is shown,
it’s probably five feet or so. What happens is you get toward the APA wetland to the
east, and it drops off roughly 10 feet there in the last, say, 75 feet toward the wetland.
Our building area is well above that. So there’s very little relief in our building area.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-But this doesn’t necessarily mean that this is where the house is going
to go, correct?
MR. JARRETT-We have setbacks, and if we build within the setbacks, we have to come
back to you for Site Plan Review or a permit for that anyway. So, this is pretty much the
area we think it’s buildable, and we can stipulate that if you wish, I mean, no closer to the
wetland than this site, unless we come back with whatever information you request.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I believe this is in the CEA. You know how I am with CEA’s.
They’ve been designated by the State of New York as unique environmental features.
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’ve said there’s a 15 foot grade across the site.
MR. JARRETT-Five foot in the area of the building, but another 10 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, but someone who’s going to build on the site might want to select
another location, not knowing exactly, not having the maps and everything, and.
MR. JARRETT-Well, even 10 feet over 75 feet is not that excessive.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it is the Code. If there’s one place the Code should be
enforced.
MR. JARRETT-I’m just representing my clients. I think topo survey is really not
warranted here and it’s quite expensive. So, I’m just requesting it.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? Is there a compromise, maybe you
stipulate the location of the house and provide some information there?
MR. JARRETT-I’d be willing to do that for sure, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then if they want to do something outside of that, they’d have to
come back for Site Plan Review. Is that acceptable, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-But we don’t know exactly what the topo features are there.
MR. JARRETT-I’ll put on the record right now, we sited this house based on what we
think is the best building site for this house.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, what’s the Code say, two feet?
MR. JARRETT-Two foot contours, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I would stipulate that we would move the house no closer to the wetland
to the east, in other words, the wetland is directly interconnected to Lake George, unless
we come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s the Code. The one place the Code should apply is in a CEA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-How is topo going to protect the CEA?
MR. SEGULJIC-It just gives us more information.
MR. JARRETT-It just puts more information on paper. What we’ve done is protected it
by directing stormwater, wastewater away from the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, but you’re presenting a map here. I haven’t even seen what
the topo looks like. I have no information about the grade across this site right now, nor
does the Town Engineer.
MR. JARRETT-I cannot answer that. I have only what’s on the GIS, and that shows 20
foot contours.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, okay, I mean, if you were take maybe went to GIS and laid it on
this.
MR. JARRETT-I have that with me, but it only shows 20 foot contours, so it’s not going to
be helpful. If the Board wishes topo, I’ll get topo. I just thought I’d make the request.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I thought I’d ask if maybe there was a compromise in between.
MR. JARRETT-And I am willing to stipulate the location.
MR. SEGULJIC-If there’s some other way you can generate that information. I’m
thinking sometimes we’ve allow people to use GIS or whatever else.
MR. JARRETT-GIS shows 20 foot contours. It’s not going to be helpful. There’s no
contours, no more than one contour on this site.
MR. SEGULJIC-You know, I can already see the comment in the letter from the
engineer, we need site contours.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-That’s probably true, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that was.
MR. JARRETT-I think, in a bigger picture, I wish this Board would look at what is being
required of applicants to make sure that it’s practical and reasonable and I’m not talking
about this particular application, but I think in general make sure what you’re asking of
applicants is reasonable and practical. Use your engineer appropriately.
MR. TRAVER-I think I would be comfortable with the applicant stipulating the house
location, as opposed to requiring topo.
MR. SEGULJIC-But can I remind you, you have no site feature information.
MR. JARRETT-I can take physically, myself, a couple of shots across the site to give
you broad topography myself. I’m not a surveyor and I don’t pretend to try and.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe that addresses the compromise that the Chairman suggested.
Could you do approximately.
MR. JARRETT-I can do a profile across the site to show you the total relief, which would
not constitute a full topo survey and would not cost.
MR. SEGULJIC-That I could live with.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m just concerned. Once again, we have a plan here with
absolutely no information on what it is.
MR. OBORNE-Could I offer a potential?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Have the applicant stake out the potential site. Have the Planning Board
members visit that site, and, you know, a picture or you visiting says 1,000 words.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Can you stake out the site?
MR. JARRETT-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-And then when we visit it, I think there may be a level of comfort reached.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would help, yes.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. JARRETT-I think you should see the site anyway, because you want to make sure
we’re protecting the wetlands and any other resources that the CEA is really intending to
protect, and then at the same time you can see what the topo is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s a good idea.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how tough would it be for you to give us a site profile? Can you do
that also?
MR. JARRETT-I can do that as well. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What else? Anything else?
MR. JARRETT-What I would do is give you a site profile through the house, basically
from the, toward the 9L boundary and then through to the APA wetland, more or less an
east/west profile, or cross section of the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That would be a verbal. Obviously you’re not going to do a resolution at
Sketch, unless you want to. I mean, you certainly can, to give the applicant direction, but
obviously you’re giving them direction now.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re giving him direction, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think he understands.
MR. JARRETT-I’m clear on what we’re going to do. The one picture, a couple of pictures
show the existing driveway, and then the rest of the pictures are through the site we’re
going to build on.
MR. HUNSINGER-It does look reasonably flat in the pictures, yes.
MR. JARRETT-It is in the building area. When you visit the site you’ll see, as you get
closer to the wetland, it starts to drop off, but it’s flat in the building area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So, good, then we will stake out the house location and get a profile.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks, Tom.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry to make you wait.
MR. JARRETT-It was interesting.
MR. OBORNE-Tom, could you do me a favor? Could you let me know when that has
been accomplished?
MR. JARRETT-I will do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, I mean, do we really need to talk about the September meeting
date, other than as a point of reference that?
MR. OBORNE-I’ll take care of it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-The meeting date may change again.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We had three other meetings, three other meeting dates, and
they’ve changed throughout the day. It’s been a day.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What we’re talking about is our normal September 15 meeting
is Primary Day. So we won’t be able to meet that evening.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-So Staff will let us know. It looks like it’s going to be the 10.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to come before the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, do you think we should keep the Salomon information?
MR. FORD-Are they going to re-submit new material, updated?
MR. HUNSINGER-I kept mine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I suspect we’ll be getting new.
MR. HUNSINGER-I hope we do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, should we keep that material from Salomon?
MR. OBORNE-I’d chuck that real quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. FORD-I just did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to come before the Board?
MR. OBORNE-Staff does have a request of the Board, that you give some direction to
the Town Engineer as far as what we had discussed earlier, how he feels that his
presence is helping or hindering or something along those lines, and to have him write
you something back to give you points.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I will say that it is expensive to have the engineer. Our budget is just
about kaput. I, for the record, believe it’s been beneficial, and with that said, I’ll leave it
at that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to reiterate, what we had talked about was to have him here
for, I think we had actually talked about one month. We ended up doing it for two
months.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So that he could then get a feel for the types of information that, you
know, we might feel we need. So I think, you know, the next step is either for, you know,
either a conversation with Dan or maybe, you know, some written comments from Dan,
just giving us feedback and input on how he felt that exercise, you know, if it was
beneficial or useful or, you know, what he might recommend going forward.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m sure, as a businessman, he’d love to be here every night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes, and that’s not real practical.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, I’m sure he’s got a lot of other things he’d rather
be doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Upon request, and, you know, in the ideal world we’d stack those
particular projects early in one meeting, but who knows what’s going to come up exactly.
That’s what we should try to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I would also suggest that the next time this development comes
up, this Knox Road thing, we maybe only need to have five items that night or, you know,
something like that. It took an hour, and we knew we were going to table it. The last
time it was here, it was a long time.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/09)
MR. TRAVER-It would have taken an hour and a half, if I didn’t interrupt him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you, Steve. You handled that very well.
MR. OBORNE-I would say, accepting the documentation from him probably started the
ball rolling in his mind.
MR. TRAVER-Well, he represented that it was new information.
MR. FORD-That it was not new information.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, that’s right. Yes, that it was not new information. Never a dull
moment.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Any further discussion? I’ll entertain a motion to
adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY
28, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul
Schonewolf:
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
54