2010.04.27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 2010
INDEX
Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 1.
Tax Map No.239.7-1-14
Site Plan No. 23-2010 David Ehmann/Rock Garden Farms 2.
Tax No. 226-15-1-13
Subdivision No. 5-2010 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 8.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25
Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 18.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30
Site Plan No. 17-2010 Angio Dynamics 31.
Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10
Site Plan No. 27-2010 K Twin Four, LLC 32.
Tax Map No. 308.16-2-12
Site Plan No. 36-2009 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 35.
Tax Map No. 307.-1-31
Site Plan No. 25-2010 Rifenburg Construction 40.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-89.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVIEW. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board on Tuesday, April 27, 2010.
SITE PLAN 53-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC
AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING WR LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,711 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 414 +/-
SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. AN ARTICLE 78 RELATIVE TO A 12/16/09 ZBA
DECISION WAS FILED ON 1/15/2010 BY B P S R, THE SITE PLAN TO BE TABLED
PENDING A DECISION. FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION DUE TO
PENDING LITIGATION. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 11-07, NOA 4-09 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 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-We had tabled the project to this evening. The public hearing was
tabled as well. Did they give you an idea when they were going to be submitting
documentation?
MR. OBORNE-No. Basically the tabling resolution should say something along the lines,
tabled pending litigation completion or pending litigation determination, something along
those lines. They’re trying to work something out between the neighbors, and that’s what
I’ve heard so far. It’s pretty nebulous to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced
by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
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. An
Article 78 relative to a 12/16/09 ZBA decision was filed on 1/15/2010 by Bartlett
Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes; the site plan to be tabled pending a decision; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07, 7/28/09, 9/22/09 &
11/17/09, 2/23/2010 and tabled to 4/27/2010; and
3)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC,
Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
Pending outcome of the litigation.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to change the order of the agenda just a little bit, if it pleases
the Board. Typically we review expedited reviews before we review regular items. The
expedited review would be for David Ehmann.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2010 SEQR TYPE II DAVID EHMANN/ROCK GARDEN FARMS
AGENT(S) SEE APPLICANT OWNER(S) RICHARD CHASE ZONING WR
LOCATION 120 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF NON-
COMPLIANT EXISTING DOCK/BOATHOUSE AND REPLACE IN COMPLIANT
LOCATION. NEW DOCKS WITH BOATHOUSE AND ALTERATION TO A SHORELINE
IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE BP 07-543 DEEP HOLE PERC TEST WARREN CO. PLANNING
4/14/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.37 +/- ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 226.15-1-13 SECTION 179-5-060, 179-6-050, 179-4-010 D 4
DAVID EHMANN, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. EHMANN-Good evening. David Ehmann for Richard Chase, regarding a dock and
a boathouse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No comments. The Planning Board obviously may wish to maybe
incorporate some shoreline plantings as a result of this approval, and there is public
comment associated with this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone get a copy of the Water Keeper’s letter?
MR. OBORNE-I believe either just you, I believe that it was just you. That’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, Keith just handed it to me this evening. I’ll give it back to
you, then, to read into the record.
MR. OBORNE-I have one right here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry about that. Good evening.
MR. EHMANN-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. I’M David Ehmann for Richard Chase. What we’re wanting to do is
rip down a nonconforming dock and boathouse, move it to the proper setbacks to the
north, which would be 20 feet, and rebuild, within all the regulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have a chance to see the Staff Notes?
MR. EHMANN-Just for the expedited review?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. EHMANN-Yes, I did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Rebuilding that boathouse and everything, are you going to
rebuild that seawall?
MR. EHMANN-That’ll be a repair and that’ll be at a future date I will file a permit for that.
There’s nothing to do with the seawall here tonight, just to move the dock and the
boathouse.
MR. OBORNE-I will say it was initially part of the overall plan. I believe the applicant
elected to drop that aspect of it and save it for a later date.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. If he does that that way, or even, no matter when he does it,
he’s got to take a look at the vegetation, because, as you know, you know, you’re familiar
with that, that’s one of the oldest houses up there, and it comes down the lawn, and the
water will just go bingo.
MR. EHMANN-Sure. I did Mr. Lessor, a few doors down, years back, we did Mr. Morris
and we did Mr. Cantanucci also.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m familiar with those. Well done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in
the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to read into the record the comments from the
Water Keeper.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This letter is from the Lake George Water Keeper dated April 26,
2010. This is to Mr. Chris Hunsinger, Chairman “Lake George Water Keeper program
has reviewed the site plan application for the removal and relocation of a dock and
boathouse and would like to offer the following comment: SHORELINE BUFFER The
removal of a non-compliant dock and boathouse and its replacement in a compliant
location will disturb the shoreline of this parcel. Because there is no shoreline buffer on
this property, a planting plan should be included with the relocation of the dock, which
would not only stabilize the shoreline and hold the soils, but infiltrate and treat
stormwater runoff on this property. As stated in the Queensbury Town Code Section
179-8-040 B. Buffer Requirements, a property should have a viable buffer to the
maximum extent practicable. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends that a
minimum 20 ft. shoreline buffer, with substantial vegetation capable of infiltrating and
treating stormwater, should be planted (replacing existing lawn). An effective shoreline
buffer should include a four tiered canopy of native trees, shrubs, perennials and
groundcover in order to properly cushion heavy rainfall and minimize its impact on the
shoreline. In addition because the property is within the Critical Environmental Area,
prohibiting the use of all chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides) should be conditioned by
the Planning Board, and should be required as a notation on the Site Plan. See attached
Lake George Fact Sheet regarding Shoreline Buffers.”, which was a handout to the
Board members. “A break in the buffer to access the new dock should be included in the
planting plan. Substantial vegetation on the shoreline would further stabilize the
shoreline that was a concern, since the application originally proposed reconstruction of
a seawall. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its
watershed. Thank you for your thorough discussion of the importance of shoreline
buffering. Sincerely, Kathleen SL Bozony Natural Resource Specialist/Lake George
Water Keeper” And that is all the public comments I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That brings up the question, what’s the time interval between
rebuilding the dock and rebuilding the seawall? Because the buffer, you know, without
the vegetation buffer, you’ve still got the water just flowing down there.
MR. EHMANN-I will be filing that permit very shortly, but it’s just going to be repair. So
there should not be any issues, nothing’s going to change. There won’t be any digging.
It’s just going to be a lot more hand work.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s to repair the seawall?
MR. EHMANN-Correct, and it will, I mean, by the time the boathouse is being completed,
the seawall will probably be getting done also. So they’ll be able to plan everything all at
once.
MR. OBORNE-So you need Site Plan Review for that.
MR. EHMANN-For the seawall repair?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. EHMANN-Okay. Well, as I stated, there’s no, you know, I will be, at a later date,
filing for that, and if he needs to plant before I repair the seawall, it’s still not going to
change anything. The elevations are still the same. So he can plant before I repair.
MR. SIPP-I mean, there’s going to be no disturbance of the lawn during this?
MR. EHMANN-Very minimal. I’ve got to get a little bit of machinery and a dumpster
somewhere close to the site, but there’s not going to be any runoff, if that’s what you’re
asking.
MR. FORD-What’s your timeline?
MR. SIPP-Do you have provision for a silt fence or bales to be put in place?
MR. EHMANN-I can put up whatever you’d require. Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Are you talking about the seawall or the boathouse?
MR. SIPP-Well, the rebuilding of the boathouse and dock is going to require machinery
going down there to deliver lumber.
MR. EHMANN-Well, just so we’re clear on the site, the elevation of the lawn is about
three feet higher than the lake. There’s an existing seawall and it is completely level.
So, you know, it’s all lawn. It’s not going to be disturbed enough to have any runoff.
MR. FORD-What’s your timeline for starting and completion?
MR. EHMANN-It shouldn’t take us more than a month to do both the dock and the
boathouse.
MR. FORD-Starting when?
MR. EHMANN-As soon as I get the permits, we’re ready to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Were you aware of the shoreline buffering requirements before this
evening?
MR. EHMANN-Keith and I had spoke about such things, and I left it up to the
homeowner, because I did not know if the homeowner was going to want to try to go
forward with all the things involved with trying to replace it completely. So I left that up to
him, and he decided it’s just easier to repair it instead of having to go through probably
six months of meetings, and everything with En Con and all that stuff. It’s better for the
lake. There’s no impact that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m talking about the Town’s requirements for shoreline
buffering.
MR. EHMANN-Okay. The 20 foot that Keith was speaking of?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. EHMANN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Fifteen.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Water Keeper suggests a 20 foot.
MR. KREBS-But that isn’t the requirement. It’s 15.
MR. EHMANN-That’s fine. I’m sure the homeowner will have no problems. He had
already stated that he wanted us to do some planting. He doesn’t like how it’s all grass.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, except I think the buffering should be done when he does the
boathouse, at least around the boathouse, at least in front of it, you know, because you
are going to disturb things there.
MR. EHMANN-Mildly, mildly, yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then you can finish it up when you finish the seawall, as far as
I’m concerned. I don’t know what the rest of the Board’s thinking.
MR. SIPP-Well, it looks like you’ve got a start from the picture there. You’ve got a large
tree, small tree, large tree.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. He wants to change. He wants to plant a lot of stuff there. I can’t
really speak as to exactly what he wants to do, but he’s into planting.
MR. SIPP-Any disturbance there is going to go right into the lake, because the way it’s.
MR. EHMANN-There will not be any disturbance as far as the dock and the boathouse.
As you can see the concrete cap is there, and the grass is about three inches lower than
it. So that, you know, there’s no fill being brought in, other than the wood. So, I don’t
foresee anything going into the lake.
MR. SIPP-Moving the old dock out of there and you’re going to have to hook on with
some kind of machinery, aren’t you?
MR. EHMANN-Well, it’s all going to get taken down by hand, and put on the shore, and
brought to a dumpster that’s probably going to be out on the roadside. Yes. It’s not
easy. It’s a tough site actually. Flat but far away.
MR. TRAVER-And you expect to be coming back with another Site Plan application for
the seawall within the next few months?
MR. EHMANN-Yes. I mean, I gave him, I just wanted to get this so we could get started.
We’ve been waiting for a little bit here. So I’m going to have to make a decision within
the next couple of days.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, obviously you’ve heard the discussion regarding the buffer,
and you’ve indicated that the owner is already beginning to think about that process. So
perhaps you could refer him to Code, and when you come back to us with your plans for
the seawall, if you could present at that time a landscaping plan reflecting what the
owner wishes are for the buffer zone.
MR. EHMANN-Certainly.
MR. TRAVER-We can do all of that at the same time. One other caveat you might want
to mention to him is that we use native plantings for that.
MR. EHMANN-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And there’s plenty of information available on the Town website and the
LGA website and so on, as far as some suggestions, and there’s quite a variety. So I’m
sure he can find something that he will find suitable.
MR. EHMANN-Yes, and he’s fairly new to the area. He’s actually shopping for a
landscaper. He doesn’t know who he wants to use, but he’s looking at the reputable
guys up here, I can tell you that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and maybe we can make that make that part of the resolution,
perhaps, that when he comes back with the second component of the Site Plan that we
have a, I guess he’d be required to have a landscaping plan anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are the members comfortable with that?
MR. JACKOSKI-My feelings are that if we’re going to approve it without the re-vegetation
that we should put a timeline on it, because quite honestly I’m hearing that there’s a
possibility we’ll do it within a year, two, three. What will happen if they don’t do it at all?
Then we approve this boathouse and we all know that we’d really like to re-vegetate it.
MR. TRAVER-Makes sense.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s okay with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other public comments?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II action so no SEQRA review is required. Would anyone
like to put forward a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2010 DAVID EHMANN/ROCK GARDEN
FARMS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes removal of non-compliant existing dock/boathouse
and replace in compliant location. New Docks with Boathouse in a WR zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/27/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2010 DAVID EHMANN/ROCK
GARDEN FARMS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies, and
this motion is made with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)SEQR Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, 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 the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)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)That the applicant return with an application to be presented to the
Planning Office within two months for the repair of the seawall to include
shoreline buffering and an accompanying landscaping plan.
i)That the entire site be completed, including the seawall repair and the
shoreline buffering no later than October 31, 2010.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. JACKOSKI-Some discussion if we could. I’m uncomfortable with the two
month scenario that they come back to us. It doesn’t mean they’re ever going to
do it. I just think that somehow we’ve got to tie the fact that they’re going to do it.
I mean, they can come back to us with an application, but how long is it going to
be before it actually gets done?
MR. EHMANN-Could I ask a question? Which part are you referring to?
MR. JACKOSKI-The re-vegetation. I mean, normally if you just came in to us
with just the boathouse we would ask for the 15 feet right now, but in the interest
of timing and allowing you to do your re-build for the season, we’re trying to
accommodate that and give you some flexibility to come back and do that plan.
MR. EHMANN-And what is it that you want? You want it done when the
boathouse is done, not before, obviously.
MR. JACKOSKI-It doesn’t have to be, I mean, I’m open to it. When can it be
done by.
MR. EHMANN-Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, is it going to be two more years? I mean, you could file
an application, table it, a year extension.
MR. EHMANN-As soon as I get it through you guys it’ll be done, because that’s
what’ll be, what I’ll be waiting for. Yes. It’s a little bit of work.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s all I’m asking for, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just put a completion date on it, Steve.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s fine. Okay. I’m happy with that, whatever that is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to amend the motion then?
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the, Steve, what was your suggestion for
the amendment?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think, if we could, the application within two months or three
months is certainly, I mean, give them a little time to get things together. I think it
takes a while to get these things done. So I’m okay with giving them some time,
but could we get a completion date by no later than?
st
MR. KREBS-September 1 or something like that?
MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’d even be happy with next Spring.
MR. EHMANN-Yes. If I could ask for just a little more time than September,
because, you know, boat traffic is pretty heavy during the summer, too, and
usually I’ll wait for the water to be down lower, and a little less traffic.
st
MR. JACKOSKI-Personally, I’d be happy by June 1 of next year.
MR. TRAVER-What would you propose?
MR. EHMANN-I’d want to have it done before ice in, obviously.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, say the end of October?
MR. EHMANN-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I’ll amend my motion.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We’ll see you soon.
MR. EHMANN-One more question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. EHMANN-That would be obviously suggesting that it’s approved first. If it gets
stst
approved on September 1, I won’t be expected by October 31 to have it done?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. EHMANN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2010 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE NOT APPLICABLE
CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. AGENT(S) LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A
CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF A 29.45 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 27 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.38 +/- ACRES TO 0.47 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF
LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE TOWN BD. DISCUSSION 1/4/10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA,
CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 12.5, 13.3 & 4.03 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP
NO. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Subdivision 5-2010. This is a Sketch Plan, Cerrone Builders.
Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is Sweet
Road. Existing zoning is MDR. SEQRA Status is not applicable. It’s Sketch phase.
Parcel history: There has been none recent. Project Description: Applicant proposes a
conservation subdivision of a 29.49 acre parcel into 27 residential lots ranging in size
from 0.38 +/- acres to 0.47 +/- acres. Staff comments: This subdivision application to
be reviewed under the new subdivision regulations enacted by the Town Board per Local
Law No.2-2010. Again, the applicant proposes a 27 Lot Conservation Subdivision on
three parcels totaling 29.49 acres accessed from the north side of Sweet Road. The
subdivision to be served by town water and sewer. The applicant is proposing to design
all roads to Town Specifications for the purpose of turning the roads over to the Town of
Queensbury Highway Department. The subdivision proposes approximately 16.0 acres
of open space to include a 1.2 acre communal recreation area east of the National Grid
right of way accessed by a trail over National Grid lands. What follows is soils, and I’ll
go over that. Sketch Plan for subdivision review. I do want to bring to the attention of
the Board that density calculations must include slopes greater than 20%. Previously
that was 25% under the old Code. There needs to be some calculations to be revised.
Also under the new Subdivision Regulations the Planning Board is empowered to modify
the minimum lot area and minimum lot width but not setbacks to a particular zone. I think
we’ll be having a discussion on that a little bit later, and with that, I’d turn it over to the
Board at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor
from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I represent the applicant. With me is Al
Cerrone who is the principle of Cerrone Builders Inc., and with us also in the audience is
Steven Cerrone and John Simone, who are son and son-in-law, who are also involved
with the project, and Mike Farrell, who is the engineering consultant for the project. We’ll
try and give you a general idea of where we’re going and where we’d like to go. This,
unfortunately, is the first subdivision that you’re going to have under your new
Subdivision Ordinance, and as we’ve gone through the Ordinance trying to figure out
whether or not we have questions ourselves, we have found a lot of things that seem to
be left open. We’ve had good discussions with Keith, some of which we’ve come to an
agreement, some of which we haven’t yet come to agreement on. We have pending
before Craig Brown a formal letter as to one of the issues as to what slopes you count
and what slopes you don’t count. We were caught, I said, a little bit in between. We
actually filed, and what you have in front of you is an application that was filed, I think,
rdth
March 3 under the old Subdivision regulations, and on March 15 the Town changed
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
the Subdivision Regulations. So we’re going to talk a little bit about that and talk a little
bit about that and talk a little bit about the new Ordinance. I think you have enough, with
the mapping that’s before you, to get a good understanding, from a concept point of
view, of where we want to go and what we want to do. Basically, we have, one of the
main issues we have is the setbacks, as Keith alluded to, that we’ll have some
discussion on. This is a conservation subdivision. Let me give you some background
first, I think.
MR. OBORNE-Mike, if you could take the microphone with you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I want to show you this map here, first, and I apologize if
anybody in the audience is trying to follow this thing. This is the subject property. This is
Sweet Road. Obviously this is Route 9 over here, and this is the Warren County bike
path and Country Club Road here. We’re on the north side of Sweet Road. I wanted to
show you this map and this side to give you an idea of how this proposal fits into the
neighborhood. This is Old Orchard, Orchard Drive. The lots that we are proposing are
roughly the same size, maybe a little bit smaller than those lots that are there. This is
Edgewood Drive. The lots we’re proposing are the same size as those there. We pretty
much have created a buffer, though, even though I’m talking about comparison, to the
property that’s on the east side of us, because this will be open space. We also have a
buffer on the north because of the little bit of open space that we will have, the Niagara
Mohawk power transmission line, and also this vacant parcel of land which appears to be
landlocked, although I think it’s owned by one of the people that front on Apple Lane. So
we’re a neighborhood by ourselves, and pretty much surrounded by ourselves. This
property was bought four years ago in 2006. When it was bought in 2006, the property
was then zoned, I believe, SR-20, and at that time 20,000 square feet was the permitted
lot and the setbacks were 10 feet minimum 30 feet summary, sum of both sides. We
understand the zoning has changed. The zoning, like most of the Town now, is two
acres per lot per dwelling, except where you have water and sewer. We have an
application pending and we have filed a map, plan and report with the Town to include
this property in the sewer district. So this property will be served by water and sewer,
and it was received fairly well by the Town, the Town Board. So that changes the
density to one dwelling per one acre, and we understand that, and we’ve built that into
our design, even though it’s greatly different than what we had when we purchased the
property back in 2006. We still have a problem with setbacks, and I’m not sure what the
Zoning Administrator’s position, final position is going to be on that. Under Section 278
of the Town law, the Town Board is, or the Town Planning Board is authorized to vary lot
sizes and lot frontages. We think implicit in that is that you also can vary setbacks. It
doesn’t make any sense for you to tell us that we can build on a half acre lot or a quarter
acre lot and still maintain setbacks which were designed for two acre lots. It actually
defeats the purpose of trying to put everything together and have more open space.
Now there are different ways of going about this. We can go back to the Town Board
and ask that they amend the Subdivision Regulation so it’s clearer, or we can go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for specific variances. I’ve done that before with
subdivisions where it makes planning sense to vary some measurement or some
distance type requirement, and that’s if we can’t convince the Zoning Administrator that
we are correct in our interpretation that it would be totally defeating the purpose of this
conservation subdivision if you were required to stick to the setbacks of the two acre lots.
What we would like to do is go back to the setback requirements we had as SR-20, 10
feet minimum and 30 feet sum, and that way we can do 55, 65 foot houses, and maybe
also have the possibility of some side loads. Now maybe Mike wants to talk about that
specifically so we get your guidance, what would your feeling be about that. We have no
problem, truthfully, with the 25 foot side setbacks on the outside of the ring. It’s the
inside ring that we have problems with. If you notice, on the outside we put an awfully lot
of side load garages, where you come in along the side, your boundary line, and go into
the side of the house as opposed to going directly in from the street. That appears to be
what people like. They don’t like to have their garage door open to the public or
constantly have to close their garage door all the time, every time they don’t have their
vehicle in there. We can’t really do that on these lots that are on the inside. NiMo will
come in and set up their distribution boxes so you serve two lots. We can run two
driveways along the side and have the garages on one end and then that would give us
more open space on the other side. I mean, it defeats, and this is more Mike’s end of the
presentation. It defeats a lot of the flexibility of design by trying to maintain that 25 foot
setback on each side of the lots. So we’re kind of thinking we’d like to get your guidance.
Does anybody have real heartburn about us not having 25 foot setbacks? What would
be your position, as far as encouraging the Zoning Administrator to agree with us as to
the fact that it frustrates the intent of the Ordinance to require 25, or what would be your
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals if we applied for the variance for some
of the lots for that side setback requirement?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. TRAVER-I have a question, Mike. You mentioned that you made application, I think
rd
you said on March 3.
MR. O’CONNOR-Third.
th
MR. TRAVER-And the new zoning went into effect on March 15?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So is it your position that you, in effect, have like a protected filing date
because of your?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We’re trying to avoid battles. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a potential battle, but when they enacted this change, they didn’t
enact it in the manner that they normally do. They normally, and I say they, the Town
Board historically in this Town, except for one other time when they enacted a change,
they have exempted any pending application. They didn’t do that on the face of the
legislation here. So we’ve accepted the fact that we want to comply with the new
regulations and go forward with that. So we don’t have a problem with that. We think we
can get very, very close to it. Okay. We will have Town water. We will have sewer.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess, Keith, perhaps would you, do you have any knowledge, if
they actually made application when the old zoning was in effect, how was it determined
that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Traver, let me correct myself there. Okay. We made application
with the current zoning in effect. That was approved in May of 2009. What was not in
effect was the current subdivision regulations. They changed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and there’s substantial changes in those.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but what I’m trying to clarify for my own mind is that as you come in
this evening and you’re presenting to us, we’re looking at the new regulations with the
setbacks that you’re discussing, the issue of the setbacks.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O’CONNOR-This property, under the zoning, is Moderate Density Residential, and
one of the issues there is in the Zoning Code, under Section 79-4-10B(e) it talks about
an easement, a minimum easement of 10 feet shall be required along the front of lots for
provision of off street sidewalks. We have a problem with that, again, as to what is the
global impact of that. We’re going to have a 50 foot path for the roadway, and if we had
a 10 foot easement on each side of that, we would then have a clearing of 70 feet, just
for easement and roadway, and how we have attempted to look at that is, rather than say
that, and this thing says it will be preserved for a future sidewalk. That’s the intent of it.
Rather than say that, we are going to offer, as part of this design, to build a sidewalk, and
we’re going to build it within the 50 feet, and as we’ve shown it on this rendering, which is
for a 30 lot conservation subdivision, we will build the sidewalk on the outside loop
around here. We will show some entranceways, and we’re not 100% sure whether
people can just come in a driveway and then go on a sidewalk, for the people that are on
the inside of the loop. This is going to be a very low traffic type circle, low traffic area,
and that would give everybody a walkway around there. This road, including this little
piece here, is 2200 feet. So, it’s a little less than a half mile loop around their own
neighborhood, and that’s one of the things that we think that we’re offering that’s unique,
one of the reasons why we’re going to ask you to approve it as a conservation easement,
or conservation subdivision, and one of the reasons that we’re going to ask you for some
density bonus. This is recreation area that we have. This is a recreation area that we
have. We will have a pathway to that. This is an open area now, and we will set up
something in there so that the kids can play. That’s basically where we’re at with that.
So the question I have, again, and this is where I say that the Ordinance is brand new,
as far as interpretation and what not. You have two provisions in the new Subdivision
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
Regulation that talk about waivers and your right to waive requirements. There’s one
that gives you the right to waive the requirements in a minor way on the open space
requirements. That’s on Page 41, and then there is a general waiver that says that you
can waive anything that’s applicable to the subdivision on Page 45. We will put in a
written request for waivers. Right now it looks like we will put in a written request for a
waiver of the requirement of reservation of easements for sidewalks, with the offer that in
lieu of that we will actually build a sidewalk, and we will build one sidewalk around that
loop.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who will own the sidewalk?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Town will own the sidewalk because it will be within the Town right
of way. There’s a separate Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury as to maintenance of
sidewalks. The lot owners will be required to maintain it, but the ownership of it will be
the Town, because it’ll be within their deeded right of way. We will ask, as I said, for a
density bonus, and Section 183-38A(1) allows for a density bonus of 20%. We think that
that will equate to five units. We think that we would be entitled to build, as of right, 25
units. We’ve gone through the calculations that are set forth in the new Subdivision
Regulations, and we basically subtracted wetlands, which was .02. We subtracted
slopes in excess of 20%, and there we have it, and we’ve written to Craig Brown and
asked him the Master Plan and much of the language in the Zoning Ordinance, or the
Zoning Ordinance and in the Subdivision Regulations, talk about maintaining natural
topographical features. This site was once a borrow pit in recent history. So some of the
slopes in there are not natural topographical features. They didn’t do a reclamation of
that area when they finished taking the sand and gravel off. We do not want to be
charged with those areas, and that’s what we’ve written to the Town about saying we
think that we should be charged with discounting from the developable land only the
natural slopes that are in excess of 20%. Keith and I have had some discussions, and
we have not gotten a written response from Craig Brown. I’m not aware of one. I don’t
know if Keith is or isn’t. There is a total of 1.85 acres of sloping that was manmade that
we’re asking not to be counted. We will modify and bring back into less than 20%
sloping, because that’s where some of the houses are. That’s where some of the road
is, at least a half acre of that. So we have at issue 1.3 manmade slopes. Now we’ve
offered, as opposed to counting them as discounted land, to actually mitigate that by
stabilizing those slopes. There was never any real effort, when they finished doing their
mining, to stabilize those slopes. We think that we can improve the slopes by planting
and doing different things on them that would stabilize them. We don’t want to have to
go through all that expense if we can’t count them toward our density. So that’s an issue
that’s out on the table. What flexibility will you give us on the open space and the
discounting? The road is 2.53 acres, and that’s the road configuration for the 30 lot
conservation subdivision that’s there. That’s a total of 4.19 acres, and that’s even
included in the 1.3 slopes that we’re going to mitigate. So it could be less than that, that
you would have to discount under your density calculations, and we’ll have to change the
density calculations on the filing as has been mentioned. If you take the 4.19 out of our
29.49, you end up with 25.49. Before, and we’ve done a couple of different modifications
of this thing, we were over 25 and a half, and there are many, many little push downs in
this new Ordinance, I think some of which were unintended, maybe some of which were
intended, but they round down. This is the only place I know of that rounds down for
density. Even the APA rounds up. We had one configuration. If we put that 1.3 in, we’re
29.94, or 25.94, we’d still be at 25 units, under our interpretation. Under the APA you’d
be at 26. We calculate that, and this is also a very iffy type interpretation type thing. It
says that half your site has to be open space. It says that the Board does have some
discretion. It says that when you calculate what is left for open space, you have to
discount half of the subtractions from your developable acres. Now the examples that
they give you in the Ordinance are subtractions of wetlands or slopes, but roads and
easements are a subtraction, too. So someplace along the line somebody’s got to tell
us, do you count those or don’t count those as a subtraction, but it looks like, if you take
out just the wetlands and slopes, you end up with an open area requirement of 14.72.
We can meet that. If you take out the roads, or 50% of the roads, which is the way the
language is written, I think it’s written wrong, we only need 12.38 acres. We have, we
start with 14.75 acres. So we can make the open space requirements. Mike, do you
want to go through some of yours?
MIKE FARRELL
MR. FARRELL-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask you a question on that before you move on? I’m sorry.
When you say the open space requirement and the way it’s labeled on the proposed
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
map, is that the land that would be owned by the Homeowners Association or whatever
the entity you had set up?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I have no problem, even with the new, with all the other
requirements for open space in the new Ordinance, which says, in one of the forms, it
can be owned by, there’s a Homeowners Association, that there will be deed restrictions
that indicate that it can’t be subdivided. It can’t be turned to any other use and all those
type of things. We have no problems with those. The only ones we have an issue with
is trying to calculate exactly what we need, what qualifies, what doesn’t qualify, so that
we don’t come back and forth six times if we can avoid it
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, as a member of the Committee that drafted the
Ordinance, one of the intentions was to provide maximum flexibility, and that’s why some
of the stuff is vague, and, you know, the discussions had always been, you know, we
want to see good design. We want to provide as much flexibility as we can. So I think
that’s part of the reason why there’s some discussion and some vagueness, because it
was almost intentional, because, like I said, it was meant to be flexible. I’m not trying to
box in our Zoning Administrator by saying that, but that was the intent.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think I’d really interpret it from a developer’s side. I think Keith has
raised some issues maybe from a Town side, and I think there is a lot of room in
between.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is.
MR. FARRELL-Just to build off of the flexibility that you were discussing, I want to start
back at the site, and the site, as most of you may know, this was a mining operation at
some point in the past. Some people have estimated about 50 years. Some of the
gentlemen on the Board may even know when it did occur. What happened on this site
is basically the soils are so good, they were used as a road base. There’s basically a
bank run material, cobbly sand out here that was probably used as road base
underneath foundations, that type of stuff, very good gradation of soil inside this area.
Now you can see on the plan that this is the scar area of the land, and the design that
we’ve looked at, and we’ve looked at this parcel a few different ways, under the old
Code, under the new Code, was originally under the cluster subdivision, and the cluster
subdivision regulations allowed us 27 units, and you can see what we’re trying to do with
the subdivisions. We’re trying to stuff it into this area, and reclaim this mining area.
Basically the floor of the mine area will completely be reclaimed with houses and
plantings and other utilities that are necessary for the development. On this side of the
site, we’re a lot more wooded on this side of the site. It’s some old growth, mixture of
pines and mixture of hardwoods in this area. So we’d like to save some of that. Now,
back to the flexibility of the setback requirement. The way that I read the Code, and I’ve
read other cluster development codes, was that the Planning Board had authorize to
develop lot width, lot parameters associated with the land itself. When you try to set a
setback of 25 foot on a lot that’s 15 to 18,000 square foot, and you have a 50 foot house,
you end up with a 100 foot lot width. Well, the lot width in this zone is 100 feet. So in
order for us to try to develop fingers and save tree lines between lots and move houses
to one side of the lot and kind of tighten them up against one another throughout the
subdivision, we’re unable to do that with the 25 foot setbacks because we have to put the
house right in the middle of the lot, therefore grading on each side of the lot versus being
able to move it, you know, maybe 10 foot on one side and 10 foot on the other, and then
creating a nice 60 foot between the next two homes, and kind of flipping that design back
and forth. So that allows you to start to save trees between the lot lines under the
flexibility of design. So we’re still in discussions as to whether or not that was the intent
of the regulation or not, but the cluster does, that does under a conservation, a strict
conservation subdivision, constricts your actual design development. So looking at this
from a cluster, which was the previous Code, this was what the land (lost word) allowed,
associated with the Code, to 27 units with all the subtractions that were necessary. So it
was the same design. On this particular design, it was the sidewalks again. There’s
1900 foot of road. Now, there’s 1900 foot of road, less road, because the density is
reduced by the actual right of way of the road and clustering this design. So this design
is very tightened down. If we move to the density bonus under the new Code, which
would be 20% of the overall density, developable residential density, base residential
density on the site, you can see how the design actually starts to open up, and what
happens to the design is that now you’re starting to gain flexibility of being able to save
trees because you’ve lengthened the road by 300 feet. We’ve got more road, and we’ve
got larger lots. So we’re trying to make the lots larger in this area, but still maintaining,
this plan here has 16 acres of open space. This one has 15.5, but how we’re able to
develop the open space, we’re developing more open space in the middle of the site, on
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
this one we’re not, which is connecting through pathways and trying to create that break
up of the development itself under the cluster subdivision design. So between the two,
with the constriction of the Code, the density bonus allows you to actually, gives you
more flexibility in the design of this particular site because you’re allowed to build more
road while still maintaining about the same amount of open space. So these are some of
the design issues that we approached. As far as stormwater is concerned on this,
there’s no stormwater shown on the plans. We think that we’ll be able to do a lot of rain
gardens and bio retention on this site. We dug some deep holes down in the low part of
the site, which is on the east end of the site, and we went 13 feet, no groundwater on this
site, and the soils, because it was a previous mining operation, are very, very good soils.
The infiltration is great out here. So we think that (lost word) contain stormwater inside
the development and not building a large, massive pond, similar to other designs, is a
better design, and using rain gardens and bio retention along the road and those types of
things, swales and a variety of measures that will be infiltration techniques into the soils.
So those are some of the design issues that we’re looking at at this point, and certainly
we wanted to come in and we know we’re between Codes, but we wanted to get a good
feel from the Board as to the direction of this project, and which direction this
conservation subdivision, and with the Chairman being on the board of the Committee,
that’s probably, we’re trying to get some more ideas as to move forward with the project,
and anybody that has any questions, I certainly can answer them.
MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to say, I was also on that Committee and this is
exactly what we were looking to have happen, because you’ve maintained some wild
area in the community, and you’ve reduced the cost to the community, because having
that one circle road, as opposed to having a lot of up and down streets and cross streets,
significantly decreases the cost of maintaining the road, of plowing the road, and it also
is a very safe design for the people who live there because there’s no foreign traffic,
basically. I live in Hiland and we walk on our streets all the time, and basically the
people we see driving are the people who live in the neighborhood, and that’s what
you’re going to have here, which creates a very safe environment for the residents.
MR. O'CONNOR-One other point that I didn’t make, and I probably should. Purposely,
you will notice that there is a great deal of buffer also along Sweet Road. So that this, as
I said, will be a self, or an independent type setting for a neighborhood. The other thing
which I didn’t mention is that Mike recently has gotten the Town Highway Department to
approve a road that is 24 foot in pavement as opposed to the traditional 28 foot
pavement, because of low traffic and what not, and we are going to try and develop that
in this design, which allows us a little bit more room, given the fact we’ve got to place the
sewer line, we’ve got to place the water line and the sidewalk within the 50 feet. If we
can get the Town Highway Department to accept a 24 foot pavement, it makes a lot
more sense to us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there green space between the sidewalk and the road?
MR. FARRELL-Yes, there is green space, and that space between the sidewalk and the
road will be used for stormwater infiltration techniques and moving stormwater around on
the site. Those are, within that entire right of way a lot of stormwater treatment for
infiltration will be occurring throughout that area. The designs now days are, instead of
ganging it up and putting into a pond, is to treat it immediately as soon as you can
capture it, whether it’s off of the side of a house, you know, the driveway. It’s localized
treatment with rain gardens and swales and that type of thing. That’s the kind of design
that we’re looking at for this site, because of the excellent soils that we have. We really
have good soils on site.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact that you’re kind of on the top or side of a long hill that goes
down to Country Club Road. So you’ve got some natural drainage to the east that helps.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s on the west of that property? Is that where the trailer park
was?
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s an individual property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s up at the top, but where it sticks out there.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, there’s an individual property that has like a driveway entrance
from Country Club Road, and then quite a chunk of property, and then on that side is the,
I think this is the trailer park right here.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. That’s what I thought.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. O'CONNOR-But there’s a separate home in here that this fellow has like a 50 foot or
35 foot strip that goes all the way back there, and he has some acreage with that. I think
the three basic areas we’re looking for your guidance for is what’s your feeling about
maintaining setbacks of 10 feet minimum, 30 foot combination for each lot? Does
anybody have a problem with that? I know this is not binding, but I don’t want to go do a
design and then have somebody say no way José.
MR. SIPP-Mike, would it hurt the bottom line too much if you were to remove one house
from the inner circle and therefore it gave you more side space?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve already, we have done that by not protesting or, if I actually get
right to the, if I real protest all the measurements and everything else, we’re entitled to I
think 31 houses, and rather than argue that, we have taken one out voluntarily. We
probably should have come in with some of our alternative designs. We think that we’ve
already backed off on that. So we would prefer not to do that.
MR. SIPP-I know you’d prefer, you’d lose one house.
AL CERRONE
MR. CERRONE-The problem we have with this is really these become half acre lots and
if you have a one acre lot, you can maintain 25 foot setbacks, side line setbacks are no
problem, you know, I’ve got plenty of room there. When you have a one acre lot and you
have like 100, 110 feet wide
MR. FARRELL-The ones on the outside are about 130, and the ones on the inside are
about 100.
MR. CERRONE-Yes, okay, 100. So you’ve got a 100 foot wide lot. You’re going to take
50 feet right out of it, you know, and then you’re stuck with, you’ve got no, you know,
you’re going to wind up with basically some small homes, and that’s not the intent of this
subdivision. I don’t want to build monsters either.
MR. OBORNE-Can I comment, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I haven’t seen the 30 lot subdivision so I can’t verify any of the numbers
that are being discussed here. I just want to make sure you all know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we haven’t seen it, either.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing is we don’t want to get into a problem, which
sometimes you do when you have real tight, tight lots, going back to the Zoning Board
saying, we missed it by a foot, and we need a variance. We want a little bit of flexibility in
pushing the house around on the lot. If we end up with very, very strict sidelines, without
any flexibility, that creates problems when you’re constructing them. I don’t think with Al,
Al’s had, he’s probably had four subdivisions in Queensbury, and I don’t think I’ve ever
come in for a sideline setback variance, after the fact, but it just becomes problematic.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many lots need a variance, all of them?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. FARRELL-The 30 lots shown on the board here meets the 25 foot setback, but that
shows you, that’s how the houses, you know, they’re so uniform we’re not able to put the
houses tight against the lots and then create open space between the houses to the next
lot.
MR. O'CONNOR-What’s the width of the houses on the inside circle?
MR. FARRELL-The width on the houses on the inside circle are, they’re 50 and 55 foot.
There’s a variety. On the of the circle they’re 60 foot wide.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are probably 10 or 11 lots within the circle.
MR. CERRONE-When you have a 50, 55 foot home, okay, and somebody wants a 24
foot garage, okay, you’re left with 26 feet for a house. That’s not much of a house.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How much roadway do you add by going from the 27 to the 30
foot?
MR. CERRONE-Three hundred.
MR. HUNSINGER-Three hundred feet, to gain five houses, three houses, I’m sorry.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know how you want to do this, Mr. Chairman, but our concern is
the Board’s feeling about 10 foot setback minimum with a 30 foot setback. Even if we
phase it, I mean, this is going to be a specific subdivision. You can put, if you want to,
put it on the inside circle, those measurements, and give us, and we’ll give you the 25
feet on the outside, if somebody has real heartburn about this thing, but I like Mike’s idea
is that when you have the ability to do houses 10 feet apart, you then, on the other side
of those two houses, every two houses you have a big side, big appearance of a big side
yard between those two houses, and you can maintain no cut zones. You can do all
kinds of things between those two houses.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds as though, basically, you’re still in the process of a lot of
discussion with the Town in various ways about this somewhat unique project because
of the timing and the fact that the zoning regulations were changing, to some degree, the
character of the land and so on. So really what it boils down to, it seems like in my mind,
is really the number of houses that you can place in this project, and that’s going to be
determined by the outcome of your negotiations with the Town’s interpretation of where
you’re at in terms of the setbacks and so on. So I think really what we can look at this
evening is kind of the general concept of the plan that you’re proposing to us until you
get some more information and we all know, together, whether you ultimately can come
up with a solution in your tradeoffs with, it sounds like what you’re proposing with the
Town or if you’re going to be looking for variances or whatever, but we’ve also been, the
instruction that I have before me says that we’re not in a position to wave the setback
requirement as a Planning Board, and I know you disagree with that, but that’s part of
the.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have not gotten an opinion from the Zoning Administrator to that
effect, and I don’t think Keith does.
MR. FARRELL-Well, for the setbacks, yes, that was the letter.
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, it seems as though there’s a lot of things that are kind of up in
the air at this point, in terms of how these various issues are being interpreted. I mean,
certainly we can look at the general outline of the concept of what you’re doing and it
sounds as though, for you, in a worst case scenario, it might mean that you might need
to change the number of houses, but it wouldn’t substantially change your basic design,
which is what we’re looking at in terms of Sketch Plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think it depends upon what flexibility you think that you want to
apply to it, and we can comply with the letter of law, as somebody tells us the law is,
even at 30 houses. It may not be the same quality of a subdivision that you’d have if you
allow us some flexibility. That’s all, and the question is, we will go through the effort and
make the design, and do the arguments, if the Board doesn’t have a problem with that
type of range of setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 30 feet total, which was the prior
zone setbacks for that particular area, and I think some of the other houses around there
are built that way, and even though we’re isolated from everybody else, I’m not trying to
set up something new. This property is unique because we have the remains of this
borrow pit that we’re working with, and we could go in and bulldoze a lot of slopes and
bring them flatter, but there’s some old trees already have grown on those things, and it
would, I think, destroy the idea that Mr. Krebs said that this is what the Committee was
looking for is something that preserved the.
MR. TRAVER-And it would reduce the value of your property, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Short-term, maybe.
MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, but I was under the understanding that one of the
reasons for side setbacks and rear setbacks was that if you were talking about a lot that
was going to have a septic system on, you wanted to separate the septic systems from
one lot to the next lot. We’re not talking about that here. We’re going to have public
water, public sewers, so that requirement isn’t, I mean, the requirement from a
standpoint of separation isn’t there. Personally, I think that 30 lot subdivision is very
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
good. I think that’s the concept that the Town was looking for when we promulgated the
new law.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that’s why there’s the density bonus if you have public
water and sewer. It recognizes that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other question, I guess, do you have a problem with us seeking
permission from the Highway Department to put the sidewalk in the right of way, and
then asking you for a waiver that we not have an easement that we’re not going to later
use?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that meets the intent of the law, of the Code.
MR. KREBS-Personally, I think if Mike agrees to it, I think that’s satisfactory
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-The intent of the Code is to provide a vehicle for the sidewalks to go
in, and so if you’re going to build them.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing is I think that we’re trying very hard to make this a
unique subdivision. I think it should qualify for the density bonus. Do you have a
problem with that? I mean, this is going to be one of two subdivisions in the Town that is
served by both water and sewer, and any planning seminar that you go to says that if
you have water and sewer, you should actually concentrate your development in that
area. The only other one I know of is the Hiland Park. I don’t know of another area that
has water and sewer. Maybe some houses on Meadowbrook Road, but I think some of
the individual houses along, I’m told some of the individual houses along Sweet Road
might already be hooked in, that had failures of systems, that had a failure of their
existing system, but, you know, I think we meet the intent.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think so.
MR. SIPP-My position here is that if we set a precedent, we may be in trouble in the
future.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I think if you take a look at the new Ordinance, it says much of
this will be determined on a case by case basis, and I think it’s set up specifically so that
you’re not bound to have a precedent. If you have a reason, and, Don, you’ve got your
own Town Counsel, whatever, to consult with, but if you have a reason and justification
for giving a particular applicant a particular requirement or relief or whatever, that’s not a
precedent that’s binding when somebody else comes in, if they don’t meet those same
standards.
MR. CERRONE-Just to answer that question of yours, this is, based under new Code, is
if you have, it’s two acre zoning now. Am I correct?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. CERRONE-All right. So if you have sewer and water, okay, you have the, it’s one
acre. So anybody that comes in, you know, how many places in Queensbury have
sewer and water.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not many.
MR. CERRONE-No. So basically whoever’s going to come in is going to come in with a
two acre, or under a two acre zoning situation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. O'CONNOR-Is there anything that you know of, that you think that you want us to
particularly address when we come back, other than to try to get an understanding,
better understanding of our own Ordinance?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Fire Marshal asked about hydrants, but if he’s got the water
line, it’s going to be right on it.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. FARRELL-Correct, every 600 feet. Yes, from a design aspect of what the Planning
Board would like to see going from this point forward on the design. We’re still in
concept, so as the site develops, we can implement some of those things of wishes at
this point, if they fit into the design. I mean, certainly when we talk about the setbacks
we talk about not expanding the building, as far as 60 foot is the base building width of
what we’re talking about here. It’s not building a 75 foot by changing. It’s being able to
move the building over towards a side lot, in order to develop the same trees on this site.
I mean, certainly, and on the east side of the site, we have a lot of nice old growth in that
area, that, with some creativeness, which is the intent of the Code, actually, I think we
can achieve a lot of salvage of some of those trees as the development comes through.
The mining area is, it’s all clear, it’s clear cut now. So it’s a reclamation. So it’s basically
a half reclamation job and then a half save of the old growth that’s in there what we can
to break the subdivision up some more. So that’s kind of where it’s headed at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final thoughts from the Board?
MR. FORD-Just another question. On the anticipated square footage that you’d like to
have, what’s the range?
MR.CERRONE-The way things are today, we’re probably looking, you know, between
1800 and 2500 square foot homes.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. OBORNE-With garage.
MR. O'CONNOR-And your question also sparks an answer. There’s a lot of people
looking for ranches now as opposed to two story, and that’s another problem that.
MR. CERRONE-We have more call for ranches today than anything else.
MR. FORD-Especially masters on the first floor, no matter how many stories you’ve got.
MR. CERRONE-Yes, and that’s why what happens, that’s what happens that the
footprint of the home gets larger, and with those sidelines, it’s really tough.
MR. O'CONNOR-Don, in your comment you’re saying well what’s the bottom line, I think,
as to the number of lots, and I’d look upon these things as always being somewhat of a
trade, what we put into it, quality wise, as opposed to what we think we can get out of it.
We’ve had some thought, and basically if we can maintain the number of 30 and have
some flexibility on those sidelines. We would not be opposed to trying to incorporate a
sidewalk along Sweet Road, although we don’t, you know, actually, I don’t know where it
would connect to. It doesn’t go all the way to the bike trail, but it goes down toward, if we
went easterly to our property line, it would be substantially down to the bike trail.
MR. CERRONE-Right in the event, later on, the Town wants to connect to the bike trail
that’s quite a few, you know.
MR. FARRELL-And that’s another intent of the Master Plan that when you do do these
sidewalks inside these developments that you’re connecting to a school, a park, and we
do have the availability to that bike trail. Here’s the corner of the site and the bike path is
right here. It’s, I would say, 500 to 600 feet
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad, because at the
other end of the sidewalk, you’ve got a dead end. Kids go down the sidewalk, what do
they do when they get to the end of it? They go out in the road, and based on the
speeding I see on Sweet Road, I’m not so sure I’d want to.
MR. O’CONNOR-Well, that’s what we want your input on now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FARRELL-Maybe an easement or something in that area for a future sidewalk that
comes through that does connect that could alleviate that. At least it’s in place on the
front of the property.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We had the same problem on Meadowbrook Road. You’ve got,
the sidewalk’s got to go somewhere.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I CHRISTIAN &
EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 55.65 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING
IN SIZE FROM 3.07 +/- ACRES TO 23.53 +/- ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO
ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND
PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE
SKETCH [5/28/09], AV 14-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 55.65 TOTAL
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-29, 30 SECTION A-183
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Okay. Tonight the Planning Board is to acknowledge Lead Agency
status, conduct SEQRA review and issue a written recommendation to the Zoning Board
of Appeals concerning Area Variances for Subdivision 3-2009, Christian and Eustacia
Sander. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief
requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community is the requested action. Location is 572
State Route 149. Existing zoning is RR-3A. SEQRA Status is a Type II for Area
Variance, Type I for subdivision. The whole project is considered a Type I Realty
Subdivision. With that in mind, applicant proposes to subdivide 55.25 +/- acres into 10
residential lots ranging in size from 3.07 acres to 23.5 acres off of State Route 149
outside of the Adirondack State Park. Staff comments: The Planning Board conducted a
Sketch Plan review on May 28, 2009 and as such it has been determined by staff to be
reviewable under the old code for dimensional purposes. It appears the applicant has
followed the Boards direction by eliminating 3 of the 5 curb-cuts associated with the
access drives and has planned for the main access road to be owned by a future
Association. What follows is review. I do want to just quickly go over the additional
comments. Utilities to be placed underground per the applicant. Finished road slopes to
be a maximum of 10%. I feel, as your planner, the applicant should be credited with
preserving to the best extent possible existing stone walls, establish hedgerows and
mature tree lines for the establishment of lot lines. As per §A183-16D, shared
driveways, cross-access driveways, interconnected parking, and private roads
constructed to provide access to properties internal to a subdivision shall be recorded as
an easement and shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Operating and
maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded with the deed. As per
§A183-16E, if the subdivision is to be managed by a homeowners' association or
condominium, obviously it’s not a condominium but an HOA, copies of their regulations
and agreements, indicating any restrictions required by the Planning Board, shall be
submitted. If the subdivision is to be sold fee simple, copies of deeds indicating any
restrictions required by the Planning Board shall be submitted with the final plat, and
application protocol, I just want to let you know that the ZBA did approve the Area
Variance associated with this and it dealt with road access and lot frontage, back on the
st
21 of this month, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as
Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury. With me is Stacia Sander, who is owner and
applicant of this parcel. As Keith mentioned, the Sander’s propose a subdivision of a 55
acre parcel they’re owners of into 10 residential lots. Lot One would remain their primary
residence. The remaining nine lots of three plus acres in size, they vary a little bit, would
th
be new single family residences. We were here last May, I believe it was May 28,
where we presented what we felt was a fully compliant subdivision, although it involved a
number of cuts into 149. We listened to the Board and we believe we’ve revised the
subdivision in accordance with your suggestions, and in pretty darn close accordance
with your suggestions. We have gone to a loop road with two proposed cuts to 149. We
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
are, we still have a little bit of gray area to overcome on the 149 upgrades. It’s a lot more
evident now where that’s going than it was when we were last here. There are some
grading issues, which was one of the comments your engineer had made is we didn’t
grade the roads. Well, the reason I didn’t grade the roads is because where our
proposed cuts are, we don’t quite have a starting elevation yet, and we really need a
starting elevation to grade the roads. So the profiles you see are based on elevations
from their plans, but the final grading of the roads may differ a little bit from their plans.
The other thing we are, this revised plan relies on, is a variance with regard to frontage
on a public street. These are proposed as private roads, association owned and
maintained as suggested by this Board, and we really like this layout better. Actually, it
does, it creates more rectangular lots. We’re trying to accomplish wooded, well sized,
amply sized residential lots that are private, yet we have a neighborhood feel here.
We’ve preserved a number of nice features, and we do like this layout better, although it
does require the variance. We’re here tonight to request a referral from this Board,
preferably in support of the variance that we are requesting tomorrow night before the
Zoning Board. We did meet with the Zoning Board last week and they had, and we had
some discussion. The purpose of the meeting, I think, was to acknowledge some of the
Lead Agency issues. We did have some discussion with them. They were generally
supportive of the variances we request, and so we’re back here to discuss it with you and
again, we’re not seeking Preliminary or Final approval at this point. We’re seeking your
supportive recommendation for the variance hearing that we have tomorrow night, and
with that, I would turn it over for questions from the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, it seems as though the design is very supportive of the environment,
much as Keith commented, and I think that the, under the circumstances and with the
development, this type of development, the variances they are looking for are quite
reasonable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Seeing how this is the first public hearing of the evening, there
is a handout on the back table of information on how the public hearing is conducted. It
is designed for members of the public to comment to the Board on the project. I would
ask anyone that wants to comment on the project to state their name for the record. We
do tape the meeting so that it can be transcribed into minutes, and I would also ask that
you address any comments or questions to the Board. Is there anyone that would like to
address the Board? I’d also mention, if you could try to keep your comments to within
three minutes. That’s the beep you hear, after three minutes, you will hear a beep go off.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFF MEYER
MR. MEYER-Fortunately I’m one of the quieter objectors to periodic applications before
the Board. Chairman Hunsinger, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Meyer. I’m an
attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth in Glens Falls. I’ve been retained by Todd
Engwer, who is the property owner immediately to the south, essentially where the little
spur is on the property, and two lots are being proposed. It’s our opinion that the
variances should not be granted. The design of the, the proposed design is generally
acceptable. We think there’s too many lots for too small an area, even though it is fairly
good soils, and for the purposes of tonight, we think the Board should require additional
information at a minimum, in order to complete the Long Form Environmental
Assessment. I’d also like to point out that we’re not in agreement with the Town as to the
interpretation of which areas and dimensions should apply. Just generally speaking
there’s, the time it took for this application, from Sketch to where we are today, you
know, a lot of things have changed in the Town of Queensbury, including members of
this Board, and we think everything should go forward with the new laws that apply,
particularly as to the application. We do have an issue with the road. The roads, the
regulations, both versions of the regulations require roads be built to Town specs. We
think, we do have an issue with the gravel driveway, kind of internally, and we have
questions about maintenance. We think some kind of agreement, whatever is going to
be governing the maintenance of the road and the stormwater and those types of
controls should be available for public comment before you essentially evaluation the
environmental concerns of it under SEQRA. Another concern we have is 149. They’re
going to do a, they’re in the process of re-doing all of 149 in the Town of Queensbury
and the proposed design, having gravel and loose sediment, this development is going
to be bringing, you know, rocks, stones, dirt and all these loose impediments out onto
this highway that’ll just get kicked up and become a safety concern. Cars do travel fast
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
on this road. I believe the effective speed is over 60 miles an hour, and if you have cars
coming in and coming out on this gravel driveway, it’s going to force them to drive slower
and proceed with more caution and could create a safety concern. Particularly we do
have concerns over Lots Seven and Ten. They appear to be sandwiched in, you know,
to take advantage of that little spur there, the ones that are in closest proximity to my
client’s property. We have concerns over stormwater. The way it’s set up is there’s a
retention basin on the side of the slope that appears to be almost a mid step between the
house and the ravine and everything just kind of drains onto my client’s property and
further along into the watershed. So those are concerns. I will wrap up and just note the
SEQRA items where we think are potentially large, the massive change to the project
site, the significant impacts of surface and groundwater quality and quantity, drainage
flows. We have no idea whether there are threatened or endangered species. That
wasn’t included. Same with historic and paleontological sites, transportation systems,
and just generally public health and safety. We would ask that the Board require the
applicant to address the Town’s Engineer comments before you weigh in on the
environmental impacts. Thank you.
MR. MEYER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening.
FRANCIS MARTINDALE
MR. MARTINDALE-I’m Francis Martindale. I live on 478 State Route 149. I live right
next to the property. I have no problems with the subdivision. I have a problem with the
two entrances, gravel roads, coming onto State Route 149, which is a Federal road. It’s
the, if you look closely, I believe it’s the second heaviest traveled commercial road in
New York State. The truck traffic is unbelievable, and I’m concerned about bus stopping,
if you’ve got nine houses or eight houses, you have the potential of 15 to 20 children.
There’s, you’re asking that school bus to stop on the road, that was suggested they’d
have a pull off, but you still have got a very serious hazard. Gravel roads, now you’ve
got a Homeowners Association. You’re going to ask for fire trucks and ambulances to
go down in on a gravel road. We’re just spending millions of dollars in this Town for new
trucks. Are we going to put them on a gravel road that could go, in the Spring, thaw
come along, the road gives out, cars are going to be parked on both sides of the road.
You’re going to get emergency vehicles in there? That’s, safety, safety, safety. I’m
concerned about that road. You’ve got, at five o’clock, UPS goes through with a double
trailer. In the morning it goes back through with a double trailer, many, many days, not
every day, many days. You’ve got Yellow Freight that is going through with double
trailers. Being a Federal road, this road is really a commercial road. It’s commercial at
the Bay Road corners. It’s commercial at Lake George Road, and many places in
between. So you’ve got such a mixed use, that wherever you’re having a subdivision
come out of, we’ve got to look at the safety end of it. Also, I agree, my property, which
was built way back in the 50’s, is very close to the line, the private line, and I would like
to see a little further than 30 foot setbacks, only because I have a lot of equipment there.
We’re grandfathered in as a farm, and I don’t need kids running over there getting into
trouble.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening.
CAROLINE MARTINDALE
MRS. MARTINDALE-Good evening. My name is Caroline Martindale, and I’d like to
point out that all of the back of our parcel is contiguous to this development, and it will
seriously affect us. I believe there is a danger element with children. As my husband
has pointed out, we are an existing farm grandfathered in, and we have a lot of heavy
duty equipment, and it’s a temptation, with just a 30 foot barrier or division between us
and that, our property borders within, the pole barns are within five feet of the property
because it was built in the 40’s, and I think it’s going to be a major temptation for
children, and I think that if this is going to be allowed to have like, 30 feet is nothing for a
child to go into the woods and to be trying to get on this equipment, and I think if they’re
going to develop it within 30 feet, there should be a large stockade, a high stockade
fence or something put on our border against that to protect us and our children because
I’d hate to see some children get hurt because of that, and, Number Two, I mean, if this
other development can have, with 29 acres, why can’t, what’s the hardship that we can’t
have a Town road in this development with 55 acres? I mean, a Homeowners
Association can fail, I mean, financially. Look at our State government. Look at banks
failing across America. I mean, we’ve got to look at a serious financial aspect involved in
this also. Indiana Bat, I know when the State workers were working on our road last
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
year, last Spring, they had to stop work on the road because of the Indiana Bat. This is
what the workers on the road told us, and I can verify, one morning we woke up, we had
no hot water, and we had a man come to see why we didn’t have the hot water, and
there was a bat that had gotten into our furnace and died, and it caused a short. So that
we had no hot water. I’m also concerned about water supply. We have five apartments
there, and this development going to, I don’t know what the groundwater is, is it going to
affect us and what’s going to happen if it does affect us and our water supply? I do
believe they should have a development there, and I don’t want to interfere with
neighbors, but I do have a lot of serious concerns about this, and I think, if a road goes in
there, it should meet Town standards, and in light of the fact that there have been so
many failures, monetary wise, with everything, with banks, and like I mentioned, and
what kind of protections is a Homeowners Association going to give, financially, to issues
that can arrive? I mean, today it could be a Homeowners Association, and because of
failures, then the State may have to, or the Town may have to take it over. So why not
put a Town road in there initially and have it all done with, and to prepare in case
something like this should happen. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other commentors? Keith, you said
there were written comments?
MR. OBORNE-I have one written comment. “My property borders this proposed
subdivision and I have several concerns about a project of this scope. Much of the
surface and ground water runoff from this property runs downhill onto my land and into
Glen Lake brook. Several small streams erupt from below ground onto my land and flow
directly into Glen Lake brook. Additional run off and the lack of sewers is going to have a
negative impact on the surrounding properties as well as the wet lands below the
proposed subdivision. Is the owner or the Town going to make provisions to drill new
wells on surrounding properties or provide Town water in the future when the ground
water is no longer potable or the aquifer is over used and our wells begin to dry up? Ten
additional wells and septic systems could certainly cause some problems here. This
property is also in close proximity to the border of the Adirondack Park. The eco system
that is part of the beauty of this area would certainly be impacted with this project. What
little that is left of our rural lands will no longer be able to support the wildlife we now
enjoy. Many rare birds and an abundance of other unusual wildlife live in this area. This
project would create the addition of at least 20 vehicles regularly entering this very
dangerous section of Rt. 149. It would be just a matter of time and someone will
certainly suffer the dire consequences. Not to mention added traffic on Martindale and
Tee Hill Roads. We all must be mindful of the urban sprawl that was allowed to prevail
during this last few decades. If possible we should try to minimize this now and in the
future. Maybe fewer homes clustered together leaving more open space would be
appropriate here and have less of an impact on this beautiful area. I would like to thank
you all for hearing my concerns. Phillip G. Robertson” And that is the only public
comment I have at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have any responses to some of the
questions and comments raised during the public hearing?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, I’ll take a shot if the Board would like that. I don’t have all of
them, obviously. With regard to the safety concerns on 149, that’s everyone’s concern.
That was this Board’s concern when we were here the last time. We came back with the
loop, I call it the loop road approach. There was some discussion with the Zoning Board
about taking that to one cut, which could easily be done in the design, and there was
some discussion there that there may be some benefits to having two instead of just one
with nine residences in there. We’d prefer the two as it’s shown. Could it be
redesigned? Could they be nested and clumped together as one? Absolutely. That
could be done. I had that discussion with DOT’s traffic safety guy last week when I
discussed it with him. This has been submitted to DOT traffic safety, and they’re going to
review it and give us their comments as far as the access to 149. We’ve also met with
the, DOT’s construction side personnel, and we did that to get a feel for how their project
was going to impact our project, and vice versa, and they’ve indicated conceptual
support for the locations that we’re showing access, and they’ve even indicated some
ability to help us out with some of this, in terms of entrances and culvert setting and that
sort of thing, if we’re in a position where we have approvals when they’re at that point in
construction. There are some things that are going to have to be modified, and we
expect that to be the case within the preliminary review process. I walked it, I walked it
the other day, and there’s a new power pole in very close proximity to one of our
proposed entrance location, that wasn’t shown on any of the drawings. I don’t think the
pole’s in the way, but the guy wire’s probably in the way. So one of our entrances is
going to have to be shifted horizontally to work around that. That’s something we had no
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
idea where they were going to end up, and I don’t think DOT did either until National Grid
came in and did that. So, there was some comments about the time expired. The
reason for the time has been we’re trying to work around DOT. We’ve had this concept
in the works for well over a year, and it’s obvious that DOT’s work in that area has
significantly impacted what they had to start with and what they have to work with, and
there wasn’t a whole lot we could, we didn’t have a whole lot of influence over what DOT
did up there. It’s coming down to, we understand where DOT’s project is going, and I
think we’ve put together a really rational project here. We’re looking to create rural
residential lots, they’re three acre lots. The Town road concept really doesn’t work with
that lot size. There’s only nine of them. There’s almost 2,000 feet of drive we’re
showing, and with that type of rural layout, the Town road concept, at today’s current
Town standards, doesn’t really work well. We had the direction from the Board on
private roads, and that’s the approach we took, and again, we’re not cast in stone here.
We expect to come back for Preliminary and Final and we expect to modify this, but
without the variance that we’re requesting tomorrow night, without the variance this
doesn’t work, and there’s no need for us to be here. Without your recommendation, we
can’t get the variance. Some of the other comments made, yes, paving a road or a
portion of a road, we may come down to that. We probably will come down to that, and
we’re not wholly opposed to that. We’ve proposed them as gravel roads, and we did that
for a reason, but if the Board would rather see asphalt, then we can probably end up
there and try to meet your desires. Water and wastewater systems. I’ve been through
this whole site with the State Department of Health’s engineer, and we’ve done test
holes for wastewater systems. The soils are amenable. The water supply, before this
project receives approval from the Department of Health, we have to do a test well. We
will be drilling one of the wells on these lots, before we have approval, there will be water
quality analysis done. There will be flow tests done, and without substantial yield and
quality of water, the project won’t receive the Health Department’s approval. There was
a mention of urban sprawl. I don’t think this is urban sprawl. I think this is a wooded
rural subdivision of amply sized three acre lots in the Town of Queensbury and Lake
George schools, and that’s what we’re trying to create here. My other notes here, further
than 30 foot setbacks, I show a line on there that’s 30 foot setback line. We’re rarely
close to that setback with where we’re showing building. Our licensed land surveyor
locates the neighbor’s building one and a half feet from that line, and that’s fine. We’ll
stay away from that. We’re not even close to the 30 foot setback. The setback is there
because I’m showing what the, how close we could go.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we’ve talked about during Sketch Plan review were
specific clearing limits. Is that still the intent?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s clearing limits shown on the layout plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I believe they’re outlined on the layout plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-They are.
MR. HUTCHINS-And the intent is to keep it as tight as we reasonably, I mean, we want a
rural, wooded lots, and that’s what we’re showing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you can put the public safety issues to bed if you do two
things. We all know that’s a high speed State highway, okay, and a lot of times when
people have gravel roads they have like a 50 foot to 100 foot connector apron, so that
when you come out of the road and when you plow snow, you hit it. You can’t show that
too much in the drawing until the State sets their grade there, which they’re probably in
the process of doing, but I would suggest that, and the second thing is, from a fire
protection standpoint, you’re better off with two driveways than one when you don’t have
public water, because a structure fire in there requires a tanker operation. You might
want to check with the fire chief in Bay Ridge, get his recommendation. I think he’ll come
back and tell you that, as far as the gravel road, there’s no problem getting apparatus on
that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. That’s in our program, too, to meet with Bay Ridge. We have
not done that yet, and that was part of the discussion we had with the Zoning Board with
one versus two and we, frankly, prefer the two.
MR. FORD-What about the impact on endangered species?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-I have, I wasn’t aware of the Indiana Bat prevalence in this area. I have
from today that we pulled from DEC’s mapping and it shows the project in a non-
impacted area.
STACIA SANDER
MRS. SANDER-I thought those bats were further up 149? I think that was a discussion
that came up with the road with Mr., I can’t remember, but they were further up on the,
yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-There are rare animals outlined on this map and it’s to the west of us.
Our area is not within that, and I do not have a letter from DEC indicating that
specifically. I will obviously have to make that request.
MR. FORD-Animals and plant species as well.
MR. HUTCHINS-Animals and plants.
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, do you have any history with what Mr. Schonewolf had talked
about, the macadam aprons? Any washout failures or that transitional issue? I mean,
does that sound like a good solution?
MR. HUTCHINS-I do not have experience with the dual surface type issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-It seems to me, though, like Mr. Schonewolf suggested, that could be a
good resolution to getting in and out of there without traction issues.
MR. HUTCHINS-That could be a very good resolution, or we’ve even talked about
asphalt on the whole loop.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be better.
MR. FORD-It would be.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The reason people put those aprons there is for plowing in the
winter and they don’t want to pick up gravel and drag it out on the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, questions from the Board? Is the Board
comfortable moving forward on SEQRA is my question.
MR. OBORNE-I think the question is, does the Board feel the application is complete
enough to perform SEQRA, and obviously traffic is part of your SEQRA review.
MR. FORD-I personally do not.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we do know the traffic is an issue, and we did hear two public
comments regarding endangered species and understanding the applicants have a map,
but it would be nice to get some documentation of, and that is certainly a significant
aspect of the SEQRA process obviously.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if we can’t complete SEQRA this evening, then the Zoning Board
can’t hear the application.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. You have to have a determination of SEQRA prior to
issuing a recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The one thing that I think we can do this evening, though, is to
Acknowledge Lead Agency status, and there is a sample resolution in our package, if
anyone would like to move for that.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I’ve got it.
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN &
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, in connection with the Sander project, the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify
other agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA
review; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that the other involved agencies have
been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury being lead agent; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQR review; and
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN &
EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Can members be more specific about the issues that they’re
concerned about with SEQRA? Obviously the endangered species is one of them. Can
someone be more articulate about the traffic issue?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the traffic is the traffic. I don’t have a traffic issue with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t have an issue with the traffic. I have an issue with, unfortunately
we don’t have solidification of that endangered species or wildlife.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s the one issue.
MR. KREBS-I don’t think we’re prepared to do SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Until we have that.
MR. KREBS-Until we have that information.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that’s the only piece of information that we’re lacking on that?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m trying to ascertain here.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. FORD-Well, some Board members apparently feel that safety is not an issue. I’m
not convinced of that yet.
MR. SIPP-I agree to that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m not disagreeing, Tom, that it is a concern. It’s just that I think with
the DOT review, I think we’re going to learn a lot from that DOT review, whether it’s
going to be one entrance or two, and I’m certainly listening to Mr. Schonewolf talking
about the safety of fire access vehicles. So I don’t think I made the determination
whether it’s safe or not. I think that there’s a lot of components still being put together
that are going to resolve those issues for us, and we’ll have more information when they
come back in front of us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. Yes. We need more information.
MR. FORD-That’s it. We’re not there yet.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I am concerned about safety.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Is it important that the access drives be nailed down prior to SEQRA? Is
that an important issue for the Board?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-As to whether there’s one or two?
MR. OBORNE-No, as to where they are. Because it’s not determined exactly yet where
they will be.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Okay, and is the Board also concerned with sight line issues?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Which we would assume that DOT would, hopefully, look at.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what the State would look at.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve had that discussion with DOT, and frankly, right now, they can’t
be definitely measured.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Until they finish the road.
MR. HUTCHINS-To the east they can be measured. They’re a long ways, they’re well
over 1,000 feet. To the west they can’t be definitively measured. There’s a vertical
curve in there and it’s not graded, and it can’t be definitively determined at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have they set a timetable for that?
MR. HUTCHINS-They, the last I spoke with their engineer in charge, they intend to be
back on the project within the next few weeks. I don’t know exactly. I mean, it’s a long
project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know exactly which part, which part, where they’re going to start.
So I don’t know the answer to your question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-They will likely, the area where we need definitive information from
DOT will likely be last because they have to tear out, and it’s right down here.
MR. HUNSINGER-They have to tear out part of the existing road.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s right here. They had to tear out part of the existing road, and this
road’s got to be fully ready for traffic before they do that, and it’s not fully ready for traffic.
So this may be the last thing they do, and that’s where we need the information.
MR. OBORNE-This photo here, we’re talking down here is where your proposed
accesses are.
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-So this is obviously not at grade yet.
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s what we’re waiting for. That’s all. I’m just making a general
comment for clarity, that’s all.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Well, and that’s part of our situation here, and that’s part of the
timeline we’ve been up against, and there’ve been comments made because of the
timeline, and that’s the reason for the timeline, and we’re attempting to resolve that.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we talked about that when you were here at Sketch Plan. I mean,
we realize that, the delay is DOT’s and not yours. This Board’s fully aware of that.
MR. KREBS-But does the Board have any disagreement with the requested variance,
you know, Lot Two not having access to the highway is actually an advantage because it
would be a third cut into the road. So I don’t see any reason why we can’t recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that they approve that and the second one where you’re
looking for relief from the required lots, the lots are certainly large enough. It’s the way
they had to configure the drive that made it not possible to have the 50 feet. I don’t see,
the way the houses are laid out, that it’s going to necessarily affect anybody, the fact that
they don’t have 50 feet of frontage on their lot. So, as far as I was concerned, I was
going to say we could go forward and vote a recommendation to the Zoning Board for
the relief on the lots, which wouldn’t affect the final analysis.
MR. OBORNE-The problem with that is the Zoning Board could not approve that Area
Variance until SEQRA is accomplished.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have to do SEQRA first.
MR. KREBS-You’re right.
MR. HUTCHINS-And the problem with that for us is generally when SEQRA’s done is
near the end of the whole design process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Usually it is, yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-And, again, without this variance this is, it’s a start over, it’s a do over.
What we’re, we felt, at the last meeting, that we had, we didn’t have a recommendation
to the Zoning Board, but we certainly had indication of individual members of the Board
willingness to support such variance, such request for variance, and it’s a, it’s our opinion
that the SEQRA, it’s the SEQRA requirement that’s keeping us from getting to the Zoning
Board to be able to request a variance. If we have that variance we can work further to
iron out some of these details, and that’s, I realize you’re going, you’re working as
directed, but that’s a frustration on our part.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. SANDER-How many cuts did we first have, on the first design?
MR. HUTCHINS-Five.
MRS. SANDER-Five, and I know Mr. Ford was very concerned about that, and that’s
why we cut down so much, so we could really, you know, appreciated your concern, and
that’s why we’ve cut down to just the two entrances. So, I mean, we’ve tried so hard to
make sure that we took everyone’s concerns and changed everything so that it was what
you were looking for and really did everything that was asked. So it is very frustrating.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any guess as to how long it would take to get the letter
from DEC?
MR. HUTCHINS-My guess that it would be a matter of, it would be in days, very few
days, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And then if there’s an issue of course, then we start counting the
months, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. In terms of the final design of the roadways, though, for
SEQRA review, I guess I’m a little confused as to how detailed that would need to be,
because, I mean, obviously if there’s going to be a line of sight issue, you’re going to
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
have to modify it, and DOT’s going to make you modify it, too, but just in terms of getting
this back to the Zoning Board.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they’ll be coming back to you first before the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m begging the question of members of the Board, you know,
how much more information we want on the curb cuts and the designs on the entrances.
MR. TRAVER-With regard to the entrances, would it be possible, and this is a little out of
the box, I realize, but for SEQRA purposes, would it be possible to approach it that rather
than definitely knowing where the entrances are, could we eliminate areas that know
where they could not be, and approach it from that respect, say that they must be at in
these zones, and that would be acceptable for SEQRA purposes. I don’t know. I mean,
that’s the question.
MR. OBORNE-I would recommend against it, only because it’s too nebulous, working
the way, at least my mind works, is I like definitives.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-And again, I’m not speaking for the Board, but from a SEQRA point of
view, you’d certainly want to be specific.
MR. TRAVER-I warned you it was a little out of the box.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, obviously if there’s a drastic change the road plan, from
what’s been presented, you know, that DOT changes the alignment or the heights.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the alignment’s pretty well set.
MR. HUNSINGER-If that changes then, you know, you’re going to have to change the
plan anyway or they’re going to have to come back for a modification and we’re going to
have to, you know, reconsider SEQRA. So, I’m kind of begging the question of the
Board, again, how much detail is needed? They have a plan on paper.
MR. HUTCHINS-Here’s what I foresee could possibly happen. This cut could get shifted
slightly this way or this way, and likewise with this one could shift slightly in either
direction. We’ve got some unforeseen obstructions, but we anticipate sticking with this
concept and just adjusting this, this, we followed Old Hickory Lane. There’s an existing
line down there, the existing parcel line between the Sander’s two parcels, and there’s a
line of Old Hickory’s. I don’t know the history of it, but it’s, we’ve preserved that line, and
we want to keep whatever drive we end up with on that line. So this could adjust a little
bit this way or this way. This could adjust a little bit this way or this way. If necessary, as
a requirement of approval, to get it to one entrance, then it’s likely that where I’m
showing a walking path would come together to one or two, at whichever entrance is
more favorable. Other than that, we don’t propose to substantially modify it.
MR. TRAVER-And DOT basically has their plans done, right?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s the point. The plan is, they’ve got their plan cast in
stone. The thing they don’t know is when they’re going to build it, because they haven’t
got funding.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I’m wondering if, would it be possible for you to get,
hypothetically, a letter from DOT stating that, according to their plans as they exist, that
this design would be okay for traffic purposes, or something to that effect.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve submitted it to DOT with that request. I’ve submitted it to DOT with
a request for their feedback.
MR. FORD-And how long ago was that, Tom?
MR. HUTCHINS-That was last week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any timeline for when you expect to hear back?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-I expect an answer reasonably soon, but, no, I don’t have an exact
timeline. I would say within a week or two I would expect some form of an answer.
MR. TRAVER-So fairly quickly you could have the EnCon and the DOT letters? It
sounds like.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the DOT letter, it may be a comment letter, it may be, it may
request more information, but the DEC letter, yes, that can be reasonably quick.
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, when you said slight adjustments, is that 20 feet or is that 100
feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-That is 20 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Maximum of 20 feet.
MR. HUTCHINS-Twenty to thirty feet, yes. I mean, I don’t foresee sight distance issues,
okay. I’ve stood at both these points and I don’t foresee that being an issue. I know I’ve
got to move one of them because the pole’s in the way.
MR. JACKOSKI-But based on what Mr. Traver was mentioning before, a 20 foot
differential, is that really going to affect SEQRA? I guess I’m kind of trying to understand
that. I mean, to me, if it shifts 20 feet left or right, I don’t know how that’s going to affect
my SEQRA determination significantly.
MR. OBORNE-Why not, this is just a suggestion is possibly, obviously the endangered
species is an issue that needs to be clarified it seems. Is that correct, or do you have
that clarification?
MR. TRAVER-They’re going to get a letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, they’re going to get a letter.
MR. OBORNE-So maybe something along the lines, pending submittal of the DOT
documentation or letter that satisfies the Board, instead of getting extremely specific,
because they can’t get specific at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I guess on the endangered species or whatever issue, to me, if
they had that letter right now, I’d go through SEQRA, so there’s no way to go through
SEQRA without having that. We couldn’t say, assuming, and if that letter came in
otherwise, then we’d have to negate SEQRA?
MR. OBORNE-Right, and you also would have to deem this Preliminary application
complete to your standards, as a Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-I would be frustrated, too, if I was just missing one piece of paper to do
a SEQRA and I can’t go through to the next two Board meetings. Is there any work
around?
MR. OBORNE-That’s amongst you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s got the sheet that says there isn’t, species is not an
issue. Who’s going to tell us it is?
MR. HUTCHINS-I have the on-line mapping, but the general procedure is to get a letter
from DOT, and I do not have that.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d be looking to table this to our meeting in June.
MR. HUTCHINS-Is May a possibility?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it would have to be the first meeting in May, because we
have Tuesday Thursday meetings, and then the ZBA is on Wednesday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that right?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would have to be May.
MR. OBORNE-Or it would be the second meeting, and then you’d bump back to the ZBA
in June. You obviously have the agenda before you.
MR. FORD-Let’s get it on as early as we can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, that’s why I asked earlier how quickly do you think you
can get these letters?
MR. HUTCHINS-I think I can have the letter in very short term.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s the endangered species and the DOT letter?
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know about the DOT letter. I can work on that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think since we’re just looking at one piece of paper, tabling
this to our May meeting is fairly reasonable.
MR. FORD-I like that idea.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-And as it was mentioned, it would have to be the 18, our first
meeting in May.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because he’s got to go to the ZBA the next night.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no other new submission really being requested, except for
those two letters.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and with those two pieces of information, then we’d be
comfortable with at least beginning the SEQRA process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-How about if, and this is somewhat hypothetical, but what is the Board’s
feeling on the specifics of the variance we were requesting, hypothetically if the SEQRA
process was complete, or wasn’t part of that referral? Do these variances seem
reasonable that we’re requesting?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they were almost directed by this Board.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, a lot of the concerns that were mentioned this evening are
Site Plan issues. They’re not really related to the variance request itself.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-With the exception of the comments about the maintenance of the
shared driveway, which is something we haven’t really asked you a lot of questions
about, but did come up several times in the public comments. So you just might want to
be prepared at the next meeting to address those concerns.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. TRAVER-And the gravel issue.
MR. FORD-Yes, gravel versus blacktop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Comments about additional setbacks, that’s a Site Plan issue,
subdivision issue. It’s not a variance issue. The stormwater concerns, I mean, they’re
SEQRA issues, but they’re not related to the variance requests.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to put forward a motion to table this application
thth
to our May 15, I’m sorry May 18 meeting? And it would be pending the submission of
a letter from DEC on endangered species.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN &
EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
th
To the May 18 Planning Board meeting. The tabling is so that the applicant can provide
the Planning Board:
1) With a letter from DEC indicating no endangered species on the
subdivision,
2) A letter from DOT supporting the proposed location of the entrances,
th
3) That the subdivision application is also tabled to the May 18 meeting so
that the applicant can provide the letters to Staff, to the Planning Staff, no
th
later than May 14.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-Do you want a drop dead date on that, or do you want to run it all the way
thth
up to the 18? Say Tom gets both those letters at 5:30 on the 18, would that be
acceptable to this Board?
th
MR. TRAVER-Well, if we table to the May 18 meeting, when is the deadline for?
th
MR. OBORNE-April 15.
MR. FORD-It’s already passed.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the conundrum.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t intend to make a resubmission. I mean, I can make copies of
letters and drop them off with Keith. It wouldn’t be my intent to resubmit a submission
day package type thing.
MR. OBORNE-That’s not a problem, but the thing is that they receive my Staff Notes the
Friday prior to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So, again, I’d like everything tied up in a bow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It should be in the Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-When do you prepare Staff Notes?
MR. OBORNE-Staff Notes are an ongoing issue. I send them to you on the Friday prior
thth
to the 18, which would be the 15, which happens to be the deadline date for June also.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the May meeting is Tuesday and Thursday in one week.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
th
MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, the 14 would be the.
thth
MR. HUNSINGER-The 14, okay. So if they got the information to you on the 14, that
th
would, noon on the 14? I’m asking you.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s up to you. I mean, if it’s not an issue for you to have them in
my Staff Notes in your packets, that’s fine. He can hand it to you on the Tuesday. That
gives them an extra four days.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they should be distributed with the rest of the materials.
th
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. Then they should be in by noon on the 14.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And, just for the record, the public hearing was left open, and we will
th
hear additional comments on May 18, members of the public.
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 SEQR TYPE TYPE I REAFFIRM ANGIO DYNAMICS
AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) IDA OF WARREN/WASHINGTON
COUNTIES ZONING CLI LOCATION CORNER HICKS ROAD & QUEENSBURY
AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED PLAN
TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO LIGHTING, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING.
MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING APPROVED PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-08, SP 33-07, SP 37-06, SP
20-06, AV 52-06, SP 19-02, AV 26-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 APA,
CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 12.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-
10 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-We did receive a letter this evening that they have requested that this
th
be tabled for further submissions by June 15. So they want to be put off until July,
Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would make sense, because they’re probably not going to be
able to get on an agenda until July or August at this rate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the
Board on that project this evening? Okay. So I will, we did have a public hearing
scheduled. I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf 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 modification to existing approved plan to include
changes to lighting, parking and landscaping. Modifications to an existing
approved plan require Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/27/2010; and
3)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced
by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Tabled until the second meeting in July, July 27.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf,
Mr. Hunsinger
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2010 SEQR TYPE II K TWIN FOUR, LLC AGENT(S) RICHARD
JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION
343 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO OFFICE USE. CHANGE OF USE IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-201
1392 SQ. FT. RES. ALT., UV 7-91, SP 41-92, UV 126-92, AV 118-92, SP 55-92, SP 13-
94, SP 19-94, AV 36-98, AV 54-98, SP 37-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010
LOT SIZE 0.52 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-12 SECTION 179-9-010
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 27-2010, K Twin Four, LLC, requested action is a change of use
in the CLI zone. Location is 343 Corinth Road. Existing zoning: CLI. It’s a Type II
SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of a single family
residence to Commercial Office use associated with the operation of a property
maintenance company. Staff Comments: The parcel is located on the south side of
Corinth Road and is accessed off of Merritt Road. The parcel appears to be currently
occupied by the property maintenance company Adirondack Resource Management
Associates as observed during site visits on April 1 and April 7, 2010. The Planning
Board may wish to ascertain the amount of time the company has been operating from
the premises for general information purposes. Having conversation with the applicant’s
agent, and Mr. Jones stated today that they are just parking their vehicles on the lot.
They are not using the office. That is my understanding. What follows is Site Plan
Review. Not a ton of issues. Some stuff. I do want to say, additional comments, the
applicant has requested a waiver from grading requirements. The fence fronting on
Corinth Road has been removed. The evergreen has also been removed, and a Type A
required on south property line has been adhered to as far as this plan is concerned.
With that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I’m the architect
representing K Twin Four. Basically what we’re proposing to do is convert the single
family residence to an office use for the property maintenance company. The building
was renovated approximately a year and a half ago as a single family residence. The
maintenance company is proposing to take over the site. We aren’t expanding the
parking area. We’re really not changing any of the outside of the single family residence.
It has handicap ramps that were constructed for the occupant that was going to move
into the facility. The site has been cleaned up and the fence was removed, and some of
the trees were removed when it was actually being proposed to be utilized as the single
family residence. In reference to the Staff comments, I know Keith indicated that the
property did have vehicles on it, and the two pickup trucks that are on the site currently
are there because the maintenance company actually closed their office in Saratoga
Springs, contemplating their move to Queensbury. The owner of the company lives in
Queensbury and did not want to park them at his residence, and that’s why they’re
parked there on site. They’re used during the day, and left there at night. In reference to
the location where they’re being parked, the two vehicles are parked in the back, it would
be the southwest corner of the property, and there’s one of the two. The basic reason
that they’re parked there, they were actually parked at the end of the pavement where
the vehicle is there now. The neighbor directly to the south wanted to be able to see the
side street and the intersection on Corinth Road from his porch. The owner of the
property, K Twin Four, is directing the maintenance company to park them on the
pavement. That’s where they’re intended to park. In lieu of that, they will be moved to
the back side of the building. So they’ll actually be on the opposite end of the parking lot,
directly behind the single family residence that’s going to be converted, about where the
snow plow is right there. There is no damage to the field as such. K Twin had someone
come in and actually do an inspection of the septic system, and I do have a copy of that
report. I have not submitted that yet to the Town. Basically they looked at the tank,
pumped the tank, they checked the distribution box and inspected the laterals in the area
where the tire tracks are, and there is no damage to the system. The system is currently
functioning and functioning correctly. With regard to Item Two, the landscaping,
basically we have added some major trees to the site, one on each property line, or on
each property front I should say, one along Corinth Road and the other along the side
street. We’ve added sugar maples. We’ve added landscaping at the perimeter areas of
the parking, as part of the shielding of the parking areas, both along the side street and
toward the buffer zone to the south side. In reference to the parking, vehicles did access
the site. They drove across the back side of the site, and it is the intent to maintain the
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
entrance, where the paved entrance currently exists, and once the shrubs and the
planting and infiltration trenches are actually installed at that location, there will be no
possible access for vehicles without going through the main access point from the side
street. The lighting, basically we put lighting on the building and it’s all downcast fixtures.
We placed them at the locations for the entrances into the building and along the front
side of the storage garage, and it is our opinion that they do conform to the standards.
There are hot spots under the fixtures that are, I believe you can have up to five foot
candles for a building entrance, and I believe it’s actually more than that for, it’s close to
20 for a loading or unloading area, and the loading and unloading area would be in the
front of the two garage areas. We have one on either corner there, and then we have
one at each of the rear entrances into the building, and then one in the walkway that
exists between the garage and the back side of the residence that will be converted. As
Keith mentioned, we aren’t doing any grading on the site. Basically everything that’s
there is going to stay. We are removing a portion of the pavement on the south edge,
the fringe area of the existing paved area, so that we can get into better conformance
with setbacks for the paving to the property line. The fence was removed when the
residence was being renovated, and all of the front drive area has been removed. So
there’s no access point to Corinth Road on the front side of the property. The
evergreens were removed. The ones, the tall spindly evergreens that are there now will
be removed as part of the re-landscaping, and we are doing, as I said, street trees on the
Corinth Road and the side street, and then foundation planting around the front side of
the building a swell, and we did maintain the buffer to the south side and we did plant
that additional to what was there, or what exists at the current time. With regard to the
comments from Paragon Engineering, I had an opportunity to speak with Clark Wilkinson
this afternoon, and to get an understanding of what his comments were, and basically his
clarification, or the clarification that we provided was acceptable to him, with regard to
the method that we were using for creation of a stormwater report. Basically he had
indicated that, in his letter, that the rationale method was not to be used, and if you go
into your Schedule A of the stormwater management, it does allow that, and that’s what
we were using. He then indicated that basically he would want us to use the 1.5 gallons
per square foot of impervious area. When you actually compute that at 1.5 for the
impervious area of both the building and the paved area, the actual volumes are less
than what we had in our report. We are in agreement that a portion of the infiltration
trench needs to be below frost, and it would be our intent to do the portion that exists
along the edge of the pavement on what would be the east side of the property, facing
the side street, Merritt Road. We would need 10%, which would be approximately 30
feet. We would actually be doing 60 lineal feet of infiltration trench at approximately four
foot depth. Based upon those comments and those areas that we’re talking, both our
storage and infiltration far exceed the volumes that we were talking about both in our
report and what Clark wanted us to change to the 1.5. So based upon that, Clark was in
agreement that the infiltration trenches would work, and that basically anything that we
would be doing on site would be maintained on site. I know currently it exists as a single
family residence. There is no evidence of runoff from either the roofs on any of the
structures, nor the paved area. Everything is caught and collected on site, and currently
infiltrated in either grass areas or dirt areas along the perimeter of the parking area. With
that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? Could you clarify for me, you
mentioned a couple of times that there were plantings on the corners of the property, and
looking at Site Plan One, SP-1, I guess I’m not sure where those are.
MR. JONES-Yes. The two large trees with the SM designation are sugar maples that
are being planted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. SIPP-Is there any thought of a sign being put up?
MR. JONES-There probably will be some type of sign which would be provided in
conformance with setback requirements and size requirements for the Sign Ordinance
for the Town.
MR. SIPP-Okay. I’m (lost words) infiltration trench, you’re going to supply a new
diagram as to depth?
MR. JONES-As to the four foot deep one?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. JONES-Yes. We talked to Clark today about that, and we would provide a new
detail for that, yes.
MR. SIPP-And on your landscaping plan, you made those junipers that you’re planting
out front, you just reversed the code. They’re supposed to be “JC”.
MR. JONES-We’ve got them “CJ”.
MR. SIPP-And you’ve got them “CJ”.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch.
MR. JONES-Actually, when you look at the common name, they are, yes, the symbol is
backwards. You’re correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board, questions? We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Not that I know of, but let me check. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no comments received. Is the
Board comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. This is a Type II action. So no
further SEQRA review is necessary. In terms of any conditions, final signoff from the
engineers. They did request a waiver for grading. Is there any other items that need to
be included in an approval resolution? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2010 K TWIN FOUR, LLC, Introduced by
Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes conversion of a single family residence to office
use. Change of use in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/27/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2010 K TWIN FOUR, LLC,
Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
Paragraph Four A complies. There is a waiver granted for grading.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)SEQR Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by
the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
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 the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)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)Motion is made with the condition that the applicant receives the Town
Engineer’s signoff on the project.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set.
MR. JONES-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN 36-2009 SEQR TYPE II APA CLASS A REGIONAL PROJECT CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) JARED LUSK, NIXON
PEABODY LLP OWNER(S) ARTHUR L. HULL, CHRISTINE D. HULL ZONING MDR;
LC-10A LOCATION 311 WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 120 FOOT TALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. NEW
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV 66-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/09
APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 147.23 +/- TAX MAP
NO. 307.-1-31 SECTION 179-5-130
JARED LUSK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Site Plan 36-2009, Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon
Wireless. Requested action is Site Plan Review for a new telecommunications tower.
Location is 311 West Mountain Road. The existing zoning is bifurcated MDR for
Moderate Residential, and Land Conservation 10 Acres. SEQRA status for this
particular project, due to the fact that it’s a Class A Regional project within the
Adirondack Park is a Type II for the Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes the
installation of a 120 foot tall monopole cell tower with a 12 foot by 26, let me drop back
and say 12 foot by 30 foot equipment shelter. It’s on the west side of West Mountain
Road, within the Adirondack Park. I’m going to assume, and I’ll just do an abridged
version, you know, you’ve seen this before. You’ve issued a recommendation to the
Zoning Board. The Zoning Board has approved the Use Variance for this application.
Most of Staff issues have been taken care of. There’s some outstanding issues. I think
the big issue would be Paragon Engineering comments, specifically towards the SWPPP
that was part of this application. So right now we are at the final stage of this project.
The applicant is seeking Site Plan Review approval obviously, and that’s really all I need
to say at this point, because I’m pretty sure the Board’s up to speed on this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. LUSK-Good evening, I guess gentlemen of the Board and Madam secretary. It’s
nice to see you again. I assume you’re all familiar with the project. So I don’t want to
bore you with additional time.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, could you identify yourself, please.
MR. LUSK-I’m sorry. My name is Jared Lusk with the law firm of Nixon Peabody.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LUSK-And with me is Herb Glavoda, from Techtonic Engineering and, Mike Orchard
from Techtonic Engineering.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. LUSK-There were a series of Staff and Engineering comments that we provided a
thth
letter that’s dated April 6. We mailed it on April 15, to you, regarding, responding to
the Staff and Engineering comments. Would the Board be comfortable in having me go
through the comments? The bottom line at the end of the day is we believe we’ve
addressed all the questions to the engineer. Obviously, from speaking to Keith within the
last few business days, that the engineer hasn’t had the opportunity to provide full
signoff.
MR. OBORNE-That’s true.
MR. LUSK-I can say, as someone, you know, I personally went through these
comments. Most of it is, I want to say housekeeping in the sense of putting notes on
plans and making sure stuff is there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Obviously if you have other Site Plan questions that weren’t in
the letter to us, I’d be happy to answer those, but otherwise, I’d sort of like to sort of
count on the letter and our responses there, too, to allow those to be resolved internally
with those, unless you would like to address them individually.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we haven’t seen that letter.
MR. OBORNE-You have not seen, you’ve got Clark’s letter in front of you. There was a
response submitted to the Department on the fifth of May, I believe, which did not get
into your Staff Notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly.
th
MR. LUSK-Actually it was mailed on the 15 of April.
MR. OBORNE-We didn’t.
MR. LUSK-I don’t know why, that’s what I’m, again.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s March 19, 2010 of, whatever, it didn’t get into the Staff Notes
and get to you at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Well, many of the Staff comments are noted as completed, so maybe we
could just address the few that remain as an issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to suggest as well, yes. Do you want me to,
well.
MR. LUSK-Well, I can answer them. We have them in this letter, and none of you have
seen this letter?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. LUSK-Okay. Well, let me go, because we’ve sort of provided the Staff Notes and
then the comments on them, and then they sort of build on one another, sort of complete,
and then, so I can go, well, why don’t you ask me the questions you want answers to and
then I can provide that.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, looking at the Staff comments, I think there were only,
well, there were four items in total that were either partially addressed or not addressed.
The first one is relative to the stream and the stream distance to the development.
MR. LUSK-I think I would turn that over to Herb Glavoda, the engineer for the project, to
just describe how that is, and if I could show it to you on the Site Plan, how it’s been
addressed. As I said to you at the last meeting, and I said to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, based upon the line of the map, there appears to be some confusion, but I’ll
allow Herb to explain it.
HERB GLAVODA
MR. GLAVODA-On our original survey, if you look on the SU-1 Page, you’ll see that
there’s a dashed line which is indicated as a wet area, and then there’s a double line that
indicates the actual stream, and I believe some of the confusion was that that wet line, or
that single dashed line was considered the stream and that’s where the 28 feet came
from.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GLAVODA-From the Staff comments. We’ve, in the new plans, have actually taken
what’s shown on the survey and incorporated it into our other sheets, and shown clearly
that this is a wet area, as indicated by our surveyors, and that the stream we’ve actually
extended it based on site visits and USGS maps to sort of, because they just basically,
when they surveyed it, they surveyed it at the closest point, and from that point it moves
farther away from our roadway, or our access road. So we do maintain that. We actually
are 50 feet, 55 feet from any fill, permanent fill. There was also a question of, we put in
temporary sediment or we’re proposing to put in a temporary sediment basin, which will
actually encroach on that 50 feet, but that’s more of a protective measure, as part of the
overall stormwater protection. So that’s how we addressed it.
MR. LUSK-So that the line that was originally causing confusion is just a, it’s a confusing
line as opposed to reality.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the reality is you’re never within more than 55 feet of the stream?
MR. LUSK-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LUSK-Except for a temporary basin, which.
MR. HUSINGER-There was also the issue, and I think you had actually addressed this
the last time you were here, the size of the building, whether it was 12 by 30 or 12 by 26.
MR. LUSK-I swear, it’s 12 by 30.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GLAVODA-It is 12 by 30. That’s actually completely our fault. We keep, for
whatever reason there is the icon, and it just keeps not getting transferred and we’ve
finally taken a ruler and measured each of these sheets before we printed them off.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was the answer you’d given last time as well.
MR. GLAVODA-Yes, it is 12 by 30.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The next one is on the, and I think you kind of addressed it
already, the outlet protection and permanent turf reinforcing mats that are donated on
Page C-1B. Outlet protection wasn’t donated, denoted on the page.
MR. GLAVODA-Yes. We’ve actually incorporated the turf reinforcement mat, and we’ve
actually added the, we’ve also included and shown the outlet protection.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the other, just above that, on the slope compaction, a
note was not added to the sheets.
MR. GLAVODA-I’m sorry. We’ve added that as well.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think that was it in Staff Notes. Did I miss anything?
MR. LUSK-Would anybody like to particularly see those notes on the plan? We can
show them to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we trust you that you’ll put them on there. A lot of times we’ll do a
conditional approval, you know, with those notes.
MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, you won’t get the building permit without his approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t have that much power, but that certainly would be Craig and
Dave.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, and then there were outstanding engineering questions. I
mean, some of them were, you know, notes on a plan, or denotations, but as Keith had
mentioned when he summarized Staff Notes, the SWPPP narrative and Sheet One did
not include a draft NOI.
MR. GLAVODA-And we’ve incorporated, we’ve added a draft NOI to our, we’ve provided
a new stormwater protection plan and it’s included in there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else from anyone on the Board that we didn’t
discuss or address? Are there any other questions or comments by members of the
Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public
hearing, actually, the public hearing was left open from the last meeting in April, or, I’m
sorry, in March. Let the record show there’s no one in the audience to comment. Is
there any additional written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are none, no.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a class two action. Are members comfortable moving
forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Conditions of approval obviously would be final signoff from the Town
Engineer, and just clarification that the notes discussed are made on the final plans. Is
there anything else we need to be concerned with? Everyone’s quiet.
MR. OBORNE-I would say you hit it on the head. It is the engineer. It’s a SWPPP at this
point. They are, as Jared said, housekeeping issues, to a certain extent, and that’s my
only comment on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Have you seen final plans that show the notes that you had
addressed in Staff Notes?
MR. OBORNE-I have not. I have not reviewed that yet. I haven’t had a chance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that would need to be a condition.
MR. OBORNE-They’ve been submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-That the final plan satisfies Staff comments.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the final plans haven’t been submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. OBORNE-But the follow up revised plans, which may be the final plans. We don’t
know at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GLAVODA-We’re hopeful they’re the final plans.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Stephen Traver 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 construction of a 120 foot tall wireless
telecommunications facility. New Telecommunication Towers are subject to Site
Plan Review and approval.
2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 3/23/2010
as required; and
3)The ZBA approved the use variance request on 3/24/2010; and
4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/09 & 4/27/2010; and
5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Six A complies.
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)SEQR Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, 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 the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and
f)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 Zoning Administrator.
i)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System]
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
k)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A
building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has
been provided to the Planning Office.
l)This motion is made with the following conditions:
a)That the notes as were discussed with this Board be noted on the final
plan
b)That the applicant obtain final signoff from the Town Engineer.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. LUSK-Thank you so much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION,
INC.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn or consider any other business, in our package for
this week was a note from Staff regarding the Rifenburg Construction project that we
reviewed last week. Apparently, we did not complete SEQRA?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to, I don’t know, officially, how we do that, other than to
re-consider the motion.
MR. OBORNE-I think it’s basically a resolution approving the Site Plan, which you
already have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think you need to rescind it at this point. So basically it would be a
reaffirmation, after you’ve completed SEQRA. That’s how I would approach it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-The big thing is we have to get this conditions of the approval taken care
of, and those are the three highlighted ones in the resolution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-All right. My suggestion is, would be to conduct the SEQRA review, issue
a neg dec, and that would be one resolution. The next resolution would be to reapprove
the Site Plan, based on the complies or does not comply with A, B was a negative or
positive declaration, and the waiver was granted for landscaping and lighting plans for
this fill operation on this property. We did miss this, myself, the secretary, the Board, you
know, however it is, we did miss this, and we have to get this straight for the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was it a Short Form or a Long Form?
MR. OBORNE-Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone comfortable moving forward and taking care of
this?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought we did it last week.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we did, too, but that’s all right.
MR. TRAVER-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted
Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. TRAVER-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources;
or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?”
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified
above?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?”
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?”
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. TRAVER-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 25-2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of, April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward the corrected motion?
Would anyone like to put forward a new approval resolution? It’s already highlighted and
everything.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s those three items that need to be put on the record. They’re
highlighted.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 25-2010 RIFENBURG
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes grading & filling associated with the Main Street
project on a 17.7 acre parcel. Further, applicant to gain approval for past filling
activities which are currently in violation of Town Code. Grading of land
exceeding 0.25 +/- acres requires Planning Board review and approval; and
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/20/2010; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4)MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 25-2010
RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Four
B is negative, and the waiver request for landscaping and lighting plans are
granted. This is approved with the following conditions:
a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this
proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
and
b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have
been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration;; and
c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, 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 the site plan is developed according to the
approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
e)Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans
f)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
g)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP
[Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] -
see staff
h)That the applicant will satisfy engineering comments from the 4/15/2010
letter, specifically Items Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine,
and that the stormwater management report will have the appropriate
signatures.
i)They need to obtain a Paragon Engineering signoff prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-And I just want to add, I commend Staff for catching that. Very
impressive. The only other agenda item this evening I want to discuss briefly is the
backlog of applications. Keith gave to me this evening the current list. We have full
meetings in May, and there’s actually 11 items that have already been bumped to June,
and I just want to discuss with the Board their thoughts on a potential third meeting in
either May or June, or if they’re just comfortable continue as is, that’s fine, too. There’s
nothing that says that we have to hold a Special Meeting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d like to continue the way it is. Because I’ve already filled in the
things I’m doing in those two months.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other comments?
MR. TRAVER-I mean, in the past we have held additional meetings, just for such a
purpose.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-But if, you know, I mean, I suppose applicants are in the pipeline, that’s
the way the system works, so we just tackle them as we can.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s good for the economy.
MR. TRAVER-We may have to re-visit that issue later.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we’ll bring it up again in May, and see where we
are.
MR. TRAVER-Right, see where we are.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we get further behind, we might want to think about doing
something.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve actually been fairly, I hesitate to say lucky, but we have not had to
bump too many, you know, table too many things to add to the existing agenda in recent
months it seems.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-We’ve been better at managing it. So that helps a lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now the application that we’ve tabled this evening to our May
meeting, are members comfortable with that being an extra item?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think if they either have the data that we’re requesting or they don’t,
and if they do, it’s a matter of quick SEQRA and we’re off to the races.
MR. OBORNE-This is the Long Form. So it won’t be all that quick.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Keep that in mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my feeling as well. I just wanted to make sure
everyone was comfortable with that. My only other comment on the May meetings is on
th
the 18 we are scheduled to re-hear Fedorowicz, and I just want to make sure that we
have counsel available.
MR. OBORNE-Your counsel is apprised that they need to be there, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I’m not flying solo on that one.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no way.
MR. TRAVER-There was also some communication with Staff, through e-mail, regarding
suggestions regarding the resolution. I don’t know if everyone saw that, but I know I
commented that it might be something we might want to consider after we hear the
applicant is scheduling a meeting, perhaps a workshop, to address how we feel about
the application after looking at it and with the advice of counsel.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m glad you brought that up. The applicant is coming here seeking
preliminary review and approval for this, and your comments make a supposition that
you’re going to table. You didn’t specifically say that, but you wanted, you know, a
workshop after that meeting. I’m not sure what your intent was with that. You want to
front end that, I would think.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Maybe you may want to have something prior to the meeting on that day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would people be open to maybe a meeting at 6:30 with
counsel?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
MR. TRAVER-How about six?
MR. HUNSINGER-Six?
MR. TRAVER-I mean, I’m just, a half an hour is.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, 6:30 is too tight. Six would be good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that the one where you asked for counsel being present?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or was that the one on Knox Road?
MR. TRAVER-And evidently the Chairman has asked for counsel that evening as well.
So we just need to make sure that she knows to be here at six.
MR. OBORNE-And Cathi, particularly. She heard that case.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can you advise counsel?
MR. OBORNE-I shall.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course that would be an Executive Session.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Prior. Can you call an Executive Session without there being a
meeting? I think it should be just a workshop, don’t you, or?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can ask counsel’s opinion after we convene.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, it’s a legal matter, so you can make a motion to have an
Executive Session, as long as you make a motion to get out of it when you’re done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
th
MR. TRAVER-That’s on the 18, Chris?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the 18.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the first meeting in May.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Tuesday, Tuesday the 18.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It might not be a bad idea to e-mail everybody a reminder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’ll be a reminder. I was going to say, there’ll be reminders.
Any other business this evening?
MR. KREBS-Is there any way that we can get printed copies of the minutes, or get them
in a different format? I have difficulty sitting there reading that whole thing on the
computer and I don’t have the ability to print a legal size.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe the solution is to e-mail the word document to the Planning
Board members?
MR. OBORNE-In what form do you get it in? Regardless of what form it is, you’d rather
have the paper copy anyway?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because we, these things that go on, at least I like to sit there
and read them before dinner or something and make some comments on them, and then
I keep them until.
MR. OBORNE-You all mentioned that last week I believe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I mentioned it to you, but I thought it went right by you. You
weren’t listening.
MR. KREBS-Not only that, but I have a stack of minutes home like this, and oftentimes,
like with who we’re going to talk about, I go back and look at those minutes, and see
what we said at those meetings, so it’s easier for me to do it in a hard copy than it is to
try and remember which.
MR. OBORNE-I will say that there is an effort, town wide, spearheaded by a supervisor,
to reduce the paperwork that we’re dealing with.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ll speak to him.
MR. OBORNE-You do that, please.
MR. TRAVER-And with regards to that, I was going to say, maybe it’s more complicated
than it needs to be, but I don’t need a paper copy. I can deal with, because I can look at
the PDF, and if I want something I can just print it out.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-So, I realize that that’s another project that people don’t need, but.
MR. OBORNE-I’m going to put the onus on Board members that want paper copies to e-
mail me, okay. E-mail me, and I’ll be able to shoot them out to Maria.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks. Anything else?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but I noticed how fast the meeting moved when we all made
different motions. I thought that was great.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good.
MR. KREBS-I did have another comment that I made to Chris earlier today, and that is
when we get the new, like a new subdivision reg, I think it would be very helpful if we had
a workshop where the Staff, who’s much more familiar with that, went through and
pointed out to us the changes, so that we would have that background. It’s very difficult,
unless you sit and read the old one against the new one, to pick out exactly what the
changes are.
MR. OBORNE-Well, certainly talk amongst yourself and set a date and we’ll certainly
acquiesce to that. Acquiesce is probably not the right word.
MR. TRAVER-That could help with the training requirement, too.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. FORD-I like that.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why not. It’s up to the Town Board to decide if it was or
not.
MR. OBORNE-And they quite frankly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t care. I shouldn’t say that.
MR. OBORNE-I didn’t say that.
MR. TRAVER-I think that they’re relying upon us to track that. So we can maybe let
them know that we’re doing such a workshop, and they can acknowledge it in some way,
and then it’ll count.
MR. OBORNE-One more time? I’m sorry.
MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I think that they’re not disinterested. They’re depending upon
us to police that ourselves and keep track.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-So perhaps if we were to notify them in some way that we were having
such a workshop, they could sign off on it and therefore it would count.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t even think it’s on their radar screen. I think what it deals with
is to be put into the tracking system we have now, which basically is a folder.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And we are tracking it diligently now.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-And I’ll discuss that with the Senior Planner and see if that fits into the
mold, and if so we could certainly add that to your hours accrued.
MR. KREBS-And we also would certainly like to know whenever there is training
available to let us know about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did the Association of Towns set their summer schedule yet?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. It said in the latest book that in the next issue they would, or
they would tell us when it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Planning Federation is in September up in Lake Placid, from
thth
the 13 to the 15.
MR. FORD-September?
MR. OBORNE-September, yes. I know that. Any other training I’m not aware of at this
point, and not to dismiss your concerns. It’s difficult for me to even find out and research
that. It’s not even on my radar screen, and I apologize for that. Busy right now. I would
have to say that I’d have to lean on each individual member of the Board to try to get
training, and not to schlep it off. It’s just.
MR. KREBS-But it’s like we had that training down in Fort Edward. You had a meeting
that night, but I never even knew the training was happening, and I happened to be back
here, okay.
MR. TRAVER-A lot of the activities take place weekdays, you know, it can be awkward to
attend some of those, and unfortunately they’re great. A lot of them are really interesting
training’s, but, you know, it can be difficult.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Well, especially the conferences. I mean, you can knock all your
requirements out in January in Saratoga Springs, that’s every year. That’s Saratoga
Springs Planning Department that does that. Not Saratoga Springs, the County of
Saratoga that does that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It’s fabulous.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that Hudson Headwaters project on the radar screen?
MR. OBORNE-I have not seen anything. It certainly is in the change in zoning screen,
that’s for sure.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Absolutely, it’s on t.v.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I will say you’ll be seeing the Wiswall property coming in also.
They’re out there surveying that right now. That has not come across my desk. Again,
that’s two, three months out because of the backlog at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-We do have a diner coming in on Aviation Road. There are issues with
that left turn out onto Aviation Road. Besides that there’s really not very many issues
with it. Again, I haven’t done a full blown Site Plan on that.
MR. TRAVER-There’s issues with the derelict buildings behind it though.
MR. OBORNE-There are some issues with that, absolutely. They’ve been promised that
by the end of August is it, Don, I think that’s what the Town Board wants.
MR. TRAVER-I thought it was bumped until October.
MR. OBORNE-I think it was bumped. That’s what Pyramid wants. So, I’m not sure how
much the Town Board is keeping their feet to the fire.
MR. KREBS-Well, we just won’t give them a Site Plan approval until they have the
buildings down.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I haven’t seen it, but did that Tire Warehouse thing with that
sewage, did that ever get resolved? Is that what they were yipping about the other
night?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. I haven’t seen the most recent one. I’ve just heard about it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You need to watch it.
MR. OBORNE-But there is still an issue there, and Homer Avenue is still being flooded
out.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-All right. That was the lady that came to the Town Board meeting.
Yes, she’s been there so many times.
MR. SIPP-Well, it’s been going on for years. I mean, this is not a one year project. It’s
been going on for years and nothing’s ever been done.
MR. OBORNE-It’s been, since I’ve been here and obviously a couple of years before that
I believe.
MR. SIPP-It goes way back to when Grand Union wanted to put up a structure in there
over Quaker Road, and everybody raised hell because they weren’t going to do anything
about the drainage in that area.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s true in an industrial park that office is a permitted use.
MR. OBORNE-Was the public hearing set or did they do a resolution on that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, they did a resolution to change it, but a guy came out of the
audience and made the point, and I’ve heard this before, but I didn’t know whether it’s
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2010)
true or not, that in an industrial park that’s already set up, office is considered an
accepted use.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an accessory, as an accessory.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, but Hudson Headwaters is not an office, at least in my mind.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that’s the last place I’d put it, but these guys have come to
fisticuffs over it, just about.
MR. OBORNE-That’s what I hear.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the fisticuffs one.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it was four, one, wasn’t it?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, Strough was against and the other four guys all were for it,
and I don’t know what they were thinking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL
27, 2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Jackoski:
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
49