2005-08-16
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2005
INDEX
Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group – Lead Agency Status 1.
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION Board recommended actions
2.
a. SP 6-2005 Cingular Wireless
b. SUB 20-2004 J. Threw
c. SUB 2-2005 Jeffrey Clark
d. SUB 4-2003 T. Schiavone
e. SP 26-2002 Green Mt. Development Modification
f. SP 56-2004 Queensbury Partners
Off Premises Sign No. OPS 1-2005 Joe McMurry (Cont’d Pg. 40) 5.
Site Plan No. 47-2005 Joseph & Carol Scrivo 6.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-37
Subdivision No. 16-2005 R. Case Prime 9.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5
Site Plan No. 34-2005 WGF Emergency Squad & Park & Ride
15.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-82, 83, & 84
PUD SP 8-2000 Michaels Group & Bay Meadows Corp.
27.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO
BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL
OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
ANTHONY METIVIER
GEORGE GOETZ
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL; MARK
S.
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 21, 2005: NONE
June 28, 2005: NONE
June 30, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, JUNE 28, AND JUNE 30, 2005,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTION:
SITE PLAN 49-2005/AREA VARIANCE FOR STARK GROUP [PROPOSED FOR (4) STORY
COMFORT SUITE HOTEL]. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS
MR. SANFORD-I think it’s Lead Agency.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-We’re doing a variance on this?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. The resolution is for us to Seek Lead Agency Status.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what the application is for.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Area Variance was done in 2005, and they just put this on the
resolution. I don’t know what the variance was for, but that’s what it says on this.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IS SEEKING LEAD AGENCY
STATUS ON SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 STARK GROUP FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING
SEQRA REVIEW, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance
application for a proposed four (4) story Comfort Suites Hotel, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be
a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency
for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community
Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent.
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
BOARD RECOMMENDED ACTION TO STAFF ON THE FOLLOWING:
a. SP 6-2005 Cingular Wireless
b. SUB 20-2004 J. Threw [SP 66-04 approved 5/10/05]
c. SUB 2-2005 Jeffrey Clark
d. SUB 4-2003 T. Schiavone
e. SP 26-2002 Green Mt. Development Modification
f. SP 56-2004 Queensbury Partners
MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is a Board recommended action. In our packages, there
were a number of open Planning Board items, a total of six projects, and what Staff has
suggested is that a letter be sent saying that if they don’t file their applications, they have 60
days to file their final applications. If not, that they would have to re-apply and their
application would be denied without prejudice I don’t know if there’s any discussion from the
Board. There is a memo dated August 1 from Craig Brown.
MR. VOLLARO-I talked to Craig Brown a little bit on this subject, and the 30 day, the 60
day requirement was just kind of put in there. It’s not something that we have to adhere to.
We could choose 30. We could choose 15 if we wanted to, we can put any number we want in
there. That was just a number that Staff stuck in there. So it doesn’t have to give them 60
days. What Craig is saying in here is he’s having a problem even focusing on some of these
late items. So, we have an option in there to do that, whatever we want, with the 60.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, if I could interject. We have received applications for a couple
of these items.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. RYBA-We received an application this month for Jeffrey Clark and I think it’s Tom
Schiavone, and I do know that Green Mountain Development did get their low income
housing tax credits. So they’ll probably be coming in for their second phase for that.
MR. SANFORD-So they’re off, then?
MRS. RYBA-They wouldn’t be needed in this resolution. Well, actually, we would keep
Green Mountain in until we made sure we had an application, but Jeffrey Clark and Tom
Schiavone both came in with an application on the 15.
th
MR. SANFORD-Jeffrey Clark, Thomas Schiavone and Green Mountain. So now we’re
dealing with Cingular.
MRS. RYBA-Well, actually, Green Mountain didn’t come in with a modification, but I know
that they will. So you should probably keep them in the resolution, just because they
actually haven’t come in with an application.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how long would that be for, Marilyn? Do you have any idea? Because
I think the intent of this is to try to clear some of that back log out.
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. RYBA-I would think that they would be in. We want to send them a letter, so I would
hope that they would be in within the month. I mean, we’ve been actually looking at some
items for several months now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, supposing we were to back away from 60 days and use 30 days as
the timeline for that.
MR. SANFORD-I would prefer 30, because look at, some of this stuff has been kicking
around, in the case of Cingular, since the end of April, and Threw early May, and Queensbury
mid-May. So, the materials, if we all still have the materials, it’s just a mess.
MRS. RYBA-Well, it would certainly get anyone off the dime that wants to come back.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well I think that, on Jeffrey Threw, I think Jeffrey Threw may have a
problem there. I noticed that he had, he’s been in on 5/5, and was tabled with conditions, but
he also is waiting for a DEC signoff, which, in this world, takes an awful long time. So I don’t
know whether I’d want to treat him the same way on some of this, because I think he’s up
against a DEC time line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually, if you look at the resolution, it says that they just submit
a status update.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would keep it open. So, in a case like that, if he’s waiting for a
permit from DEC, he can just say something in writing, I’m waiting for a permit from DEC,
when that comes in, we’ll be back.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, Chris, when did we draw a line, though, we’ve had this going back a
few years now, where we had a particular application that kept dragging on and on and on,
and on and we were concerned about, and so was the public, about being able to hang with
the application as it kept coming back. I remember, I think it was a development, actually,
off of Bay Road, was the one I was thinking of. So what if we gives us the status update and
the DEC thing takes another six months? I mean, when do we finally say enough’s enough?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we still have the discretion of saying, you know, it’s been
too long, you need to file a new application.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way we do that, I guess, is deny without prejudice and that
automatically means you can come back. So that’s one of the things, on Green Mountain
Development, I don’t know what to, you know, they can also choose that term, I suppose,
submit further, submit status update, but because they got their money, or they’re supposed
to have their money, may very well not be solidified that they really have it. I mean, I hear
people getting their money, but that’s another year to get signed off or something like that.
MR. SANFORD-So all right. So what do you want to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how do people feel about a 30 day? Staff suggested 60. There’s
nothing magical about either date.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All we’re looking for is the status, 30 days is fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think 30 days is fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll make the motion on the following. That on Cingular Wireless.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a draft resolution, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there? I’d make a resolution. I don’t know what the number would be
here. It’s blank. Well, we’ll go along, as far as Cingular Wireless is concerned, with the
resolution, I would prefer them to withdraw their application or deny without prejudice.
That was my note on Cingular wireless. They’ve been out since April.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think what Staff was looking for is just a resolution from us to send a
letter to all of those on the list saying they have 30 days or 60 days to get their information in
or else it would be a denial.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, for everybody, you mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it that way. I saw it that we could make motions to do things
other than that. I mean, on something like Cingular Wireless, I think we just ought to get
them out of the way. They’ve been on this thing since April, and how long do we want them
to hang on? They’re going to get their antenna regardless. I mean, it’s just going to happen.
MR. SANFORD-I guess the question is Staff is recommending that basically, I mean, I’m not
sure that that’s any better than not doing anything. I mean, basically we’re saying, hey, you
know, give us an update or just tell us where things are going, and then we’ll keep it in the
active thing. I think what Bob’s suggesting, Chris, is that on some of these, let’s just let them
know that, look it, it’s been a long time. We feel that if you’re interested in pursuing it, you
need to come back to us with a new application.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can do that.
MR. SANFORD-And that’s what I would suggest on Queensbury Partners, at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we would just take one resolution for all six applications, but if
you want to do individual resolutions, do individual resolutions.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, some of them are so different from each other, like with Jeffrey
Threw, 30 days may or may not be applicable to his DEC signoff. There I would say, you
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
know, submit us a status update, Mr. Threw. Let us know what the DEC position is, rather
than give him a note that says you’ve got 30 days, and if you don’t make it in 30 days, you’re
out. There’s unique circumstances that are applicable to each one of these, and I think that
lumping them all together is unfair to some of the applicants. That’s my position at least.
MR. HUNSINGER-I also think it’s unfair, though, to make a motion to deny without
prejudice a specific application where there’s no one here from the, there’s no applicant here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Since we don’t know where these applications are right now, can’t we just
request a status update within 30 days, and then decide what to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought we were doing, yes. Well, if they don’t provide it
within 30 days, then it’s automatically denied without prejudice.
MR. SEGULJIC-And in the case of Jeffrey Threw, he might say it’s held up in the DEC. I
don’t know how long that’s going to be. So at least at that time, we’re not operating in the
dark as to what the applicants are doing.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I mean, why don’t we just leave them alone, then. I mean, because
all that’s required to keep this active, according to the resolution, what I’m reading on this
August 1, 2005, is all they’ve got to do is send a letter in requesting that, one paragraph
stating where they are. We’re considering are our application, please keep it open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t have to make that resolution. We can say that they all
have 30 days to get their application complete and in the office or it would be denied without
prejudice. That was the Staff suggestion.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Is that what you’re recommending?
MR. HUNSINGER-We can take whatever action we want.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Mine would be, in some cases, because I have some strong feelings on
at least one particular application here, that we just, at this particular point, deny without
prejudice, period.
MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I would have a hard time suggesting we do that without them in
attendance. I would not have a hard time saying they have 30 days to submit their final, you
know, to submit the needed information, though. I think that would be acceptable.
MR. SANFORD-There’s no needed information in Queensbury Partners. It’s just, it was just
left, as I saw it, they stood up and left, if I remember that. There was no real, like, here’s the
list of things we’re looking for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wasn’t here that evening. So all I can tell is what the notes say is
that they were supposed to come back with another plan.
MR. GOETZ-And I don’t see how you can single out any one place to get a letter saying they
have 30 days and another place you have 90 days, another 60. I think a rose is a rose, and we
have to keep it that way.
MR. SANFORD-My recommendation would be that we take no action at all, and we just
leave these where they are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t see any reason why we can’t contact folks. I might word the
resolution a little differently, but I think we need to know where these folks stand.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tony, do you have any comments?
MR. METIVIER-I agree with Gretchen. I mean, I think that, you know, you can’t deny
anything right now, with or without prejudice, based on the fact that I just don’t think that’s
fair, but I think to notify all of the applicants and let them know that they have to respond
within a specified period of time, 30, 45 days, whatever, and just tell them, if they don’t have
their stuff in at that point, we will deny it.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On that basis, I’ll make a motion.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING STAFF WILL SEND A LETTER TO
CINGULAR WIRELESS, MR. JEFFREY THREW, JEFFREY CLARK, THOMAS
SCHIAVONE, GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS, AND THE LETTER WILL STATE THAT WE’D LIKE TO GET A SUBMITTED
STATUS UPDATE ON THEIR APPLICATION, AND IF THEY DON’T GET IT INTO STAFF
BY 30 DAYS, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUIDICE,
INTRODUCED BY ROBERT VOLLARO, WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED
BY THOMAS SEGULJIC:
Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. OPS 1-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOE MC MURRY
OWNER(S): GAIL DE GREGORIO ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION: CORNER ST. RT. 9 &
KENDRICK APPLICANT PROPOSES AN OFF PREMISES SIGN FOR PLACEMENT OF AN
ADIRONDACK CAR WASH DIRECTIONAL SIGN AT THE CORNER OF RT. 9 AND
KENDRICK ROAD. OFF PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/05 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 296.13-1-6 SECTION 140-6
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MRS. BARDEN-This is an application submitted by Joe McMurry for an Off Premises sign.
The applicant proposes placement of an off premises directional sign for the Adirondack
Carwash. The sign is proposed to be placed at the corner of Route 9 and Kendrick Road. The
property is zoned Highway Commercial Moderate Intensive. The project is a SEQRA
Unlisted Action. It’s a vacant parcel. Staff comments. This sign is proposed to be ten square
feet in size and will be three feet high. The sign will relay the message, carwash 1000 feet
ahead. Per Section 140-6, Subsection Five, signs for the convenience of the general public and
for the purpose of directing persons to a business activity, such signs do not exceed ten square
feet of area per establishment, and text shall be limited to name or identification, arrow or
direction, and distance. The submitted plot plan shows that the 15 foot minimum setback is
met as required per Section 140-6, Subsection One, from the front and side, at 25 feet and 35
feet respectively.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? I guess we will move
on. We’ll hold it to the end of the meeting, and if someone shows up, we’ll re-address it.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question before we do, Mr. Chairman. Is this applicant the
owner of the property he wants to put the sign on?
MRS. BARDEN-No. He has a signature from the property owner as part of his application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll hold that item until the end, if he shows up. The next item
is Joseph and Carol Scrivo, Site Plan No. 47-2005.
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2005 SEQR TYPE II JOSEPH & CAROL SCRIVO AGENT(S): FRANK
DE NARDO OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION: 189 ASSEMBLY POINT
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING 576 SQ. FT. SUNDECK.
BOATHOUSES/SUNDECKS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/05 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE:
0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-37 SECTION 179-5-050
FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes, please.
MRS. BARDEN-This application is made by Joseph and Carol Scrivo. The applicants
propose to construct a 576 square foot boathouse/sundeck over an existing dock. The
property is located at 189 Assembly Point Road. The property is zoned Waterfront
Residential One Acre. The project is a SEQRA Type II Action. Staff comments. Waivers
are requested for stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping
plan. The site plan includes a calculation of the mean high water mark, from July 7, 2005.
The proposed boathouse appears to meet the height and setback requirements for boathouses
in a WR-1A zone. The applicants have indicated that an Lake George Park Commission
permit has been issued for the proposed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could just state your name for the record.
MR. DE NARDO-Yes. Frank DeNardo for Joseph and Carol Scrivo.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just tell us about your project a little bit.
MR. DE NARDO-Basically we have an old boathouse up there right now. Winter of
2003/2004, it was hit by ice. We went back, put it back together to make it usable for the
season. It’s in disrepair. We want to replace it with a new one. Basically it’s a total rebuild
and we have to come in front of the Board for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Could I ask a question of Staff on this? Why do they have to come in front
of the Board on this one? The zoning clearly states that a permit is not required for repairs to
existing dock if the repairs do not alter its size, shape or location. Where is this any different,
if you look at the site plan, from what’s already there? Except that it’s being repaired or
replaced. I guess I just don’t understand why, if he’s just replacing an existing dock that’s
already there, why they have to come in.
MR. SANFORD-Is that what you’re doing?
MR. DE NARDO-That’s what we’re doing.
MR. SANFORD-That’s a good point, Tony.
MR. DE NARDO-I’ve been doing this for years now and I’ve been in front of the Board
many times before for the same reason, and nobody can come up with that answer. So, if you
guys come up with an answer tonight, it would be really nice.
MR. METIVIER-The only reason, I read this in the zoning book, and it stuck in my mind,
and I just don’t understand why, in cases like this where he’s just rebuilding, I mean,
everything’s the same, footprint, he’s just repairing or replacing what’s already there. He
doesn’t even need a permit for that, technically. So, why does he have to come in front of us
for site plan?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tony, I only have one comment on this. Your position is well taken.
I understand what you’re saying. However, in looking at this, on looking at the drawing, I
see that, I’m looking at 14 feet from his property line and not 20.6. There’s, unless that’s a
tremendous overhang.
MR. DE NARDO-No, that’s the dock on the bottom you’re looking at. It’s 20 foot 6 to the
eaves of the boathouse.
MR. VOLLARO-And what’s the overhang on the bottom? That should be 20 feet from the
property line and it’s 14. Now this may be pre-existing the Code. I said that in my notes.
MR. DE NARDO-The dock is nonconforming. It’s against, it’s closer to the property line
than what it should be, but the boathouse is within the setbacks.
MR. METIVIER-And again, if he’s just repairing something that’s in disrepair.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, I’m wondering if, my notes to myself were side yard’s over 20, do
you have a variance or does this dock pre-date the Zoning Code?
MR. METIVIER-It pre-dates, most of the docks up there pre-date.
MR. VOLLARO-If it pre-dates the Zoning Code, then Tony’s right on the target, what he’s
looking at.
MR. METIVIER-So, I don’t want to cause an upheaval. I mean, obviously there’s no issue
here, but I just wanted to ask Staff, and maybe at some point we could get some clarification
on it for future.
MR. DE NARDO-It would be nice.
MR. HUNSINGER-I assumed it was because it was a sundeck, because they have a sundeck.
MR. METIVIER-But it was already there, you know, and I just wonder how long it’s held
him up, or held them up from doing this project, you know. I’m just curious, but again, I
have no issues with this particular application at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-If there are no comments, Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion.
MRS. RYBA-I did find something here that says a permit is not required for repairs to an
existing dock if such repairs do not alter its size, shape or location, but obviously the Zoning
Administrator made a determination that it needed review, and I’m not exactly sure why,
unless it somehow exceeded the height, or because it’s nonconforming and the purpose is to
try to make it conforming, but then he would have needed an Area Variance, and that’s not
the case here.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right.
MRS. RYBA-So I’m not really sure, we’re looking in the application to see why the Zoning
Administrator made the determination he made.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, my assumption was because it was a sundeck and not
just a dock, but, who knows.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, while Staff is looking at that, we could just approve this and
then have Staff take a.
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know if there are any dimensional changes, and that might be the other
thing, and Susan’s looking that up right now.
MR. DE NARDO-No, there are no dimensional changes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when we looked at it on Saturday, we looked at it from the road, and I
saw what you were trying to do, and I understand that, and it looks like a strictly
replacement/repair, to me, as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we move to approval, we do have a public hearing scheduled
this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak, either for or opposed to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Now I can entertain a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no SEQRA on this at all.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Type II. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2005 JOSEPH & CAROL SCRIVO, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Applicant proposes replacement of an existing 576 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouses / Sundecks
require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/12/05; and
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site
Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code
of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the
Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 16 day of August 2005 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic,, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2005 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A R. CASE PRIME AGENT(S): THE
CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION HILAND DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS
RANGING FROM 1.4 ACRES – 5.4 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW
BY THE PLANNING BOARD. LOT SIZE: 16.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5
SECTION A 183
STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; R. CASE PRIME,
PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MRS. BARDEN-This is a subdivision application made by R. Case Prime, and this is Sketch
Plan. The zoning designation for this 16.4 acre parcel is SR-1A, Suburban Residential One
Acre. This is a proposal for a five lot subdivision, resulting in lots ranging from 1.4 acres to
5.4 acres. One residence is currently on the project site, Lot Two. The plan would result in
four new house sites. Four of the lots will have access from Hiland Drive, and one lot will
have direct access from Rockwell Road. Within the submission, either as part of the
application or on the site plan, the applicant should show a density calculation. This figure
would be the result of subtracting the wetland area stream and road right of way from the
total acreage, divided by the minimum lot size of SR-1A, per Section 183-22. The applicant’s
existing driveway is 1,275 feet in length. This is the distance from the intersection of
Rockwell Road to the end of the turnaround area. The actual length of the dead end road
would be approximately 1,475 feet in length, from the intersection of Rockwell Road to the
end of the road at Lot Three. In Section 183-23, it reads, “Dead end streets shall not be
longer than 1,000 feet and shall be provided with a turnaround at the closed end.” An
alternative may be to have a shared driveway to Lots Four and Five coming off the east side
of the turnaround along the two property lines, and eliminating Lot Three. In the application
cover letter it is indicated that all development is proposed to be located at least 100 feet from
the wetland area. It does not appear that the proposed house site on Lot Three is 100 feet
from the wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record and tell
us about your project.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. My name is Stuart Mesinger with the Chazen Companies. This is
Case Prime, the applicant. Let me just very briefly tell you about the project. Mr. Prime
owns a little over 16 acres, bordering both Rockwell Road and Hiland Drive. His house is at
the end of Hiland Drive on the left, on a lot on the 16 acre parcel. What he’d like to do is to
create four additional lots, one lot of a little over five acres, fronting on Rockwell and getting
access on Rockwell, and then three additional lots off of Hiland Drive. The only issue that we
particularly see is the issue identified by Staff with respect to the driveway length. On your
plan you see we shaded Mr. Prime’s existing driveway, and that driveway is 1275 feet in
length, or rather the total length is 1275 feet. So that exceeds the 1,000 foot limit. What we
have proposed to do is to create a turnaround, a loop here, that’s approximately the same
length of his existing driveway, and then we’d like to be able to bring in two additional
driveways off of that, and as Staff has identified the longest of these would add about 200 feet
to the total length of lots served. It’s a private drive. It’s not serving a great deal of density.
So we wouldn’t see a great impact to public safety there. With respect to the rest of the site,
there are a couple of areas of wetlands. These have been delineated but not surveyed by
Charlie Maine, and we’ve been out and walked the site, and we think that the lines are pretty
accurate. So there’s not a problem with respect to locating houses at sufficient removed from
the wetlands. They’re Corps wetlands. So we don’t have a 100 foot buffer with respect to
that issue, but we’ve tried to keep everything away from them. Mr. Maine also did test pits
on the site, and the soils look pretty good for an on-site system. These would all be served by
an on-site systems and wells. We’re not a Health Department jurisdictional subdivision in
this case, but obviously we’d have to do test pits and perc tests if we go to the next step. So
that’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very nice piece of property. We’re proposing to develop it
lightly. Mr. Prime would retain five acres, the lot fronting Rockwell would be five acres, and
we’d have three other additional lots. They’d be tucked in among the trees. It’s a very pretty
little piece of property, if you get out to look at it. So we’re here for Sketch Plan application
and to hear your thoughts about it before proceeding to the next step.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll read mine, if you want. I always make notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-On the dead end street requirement, even if we followed Staff’s
recommendation to go down and have a driveway between Lot Four and Five, that would
still leave you with 1270 foot of drive, according to my calculations.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’d still be over by some there.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. MESINGER-Right. Although that would be the same as existing. If we did it the way
Staff has suggested, we could, we would lose a lot, and we would serve those two other lots
with a driveway of the same length as Mr. Prime’s driveway now.
MR. VOLLARO-About 1275.
MR. MESINGER-About 1275.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. The other thing I noticed, in A183-24C, we talk about the 40
foot requirement, you know, it says that all lots fronting shall have access to 40 foot on the
road. Now, unless that’s going to be changed, the drawing shows 20 feet. So we’re going to
have to do something with that.
MR. MESINGER-We’d have to increase this piece here, and widen that out.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’re going to have to get at least down to where you get on to the
main road there. You’re going to have 40 foot of access there, 40 foot of frontage.
MR. MESINGER-In other words, this lot here doesn’t have 40 foot of frontage on a road.
We’d have to jiggle the lot line around.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to have 40 foot of frontage on Rockwell Road.
MR. MESINGER-On Rockwell? Not on Rockwell.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. Where Hiland Drive intersects Rockwell Road, the frontage of
all of these lots on the main road, their frontage would be Hiland Drive onto Rockwell Road.
That’s where your 40 foot has got to be.
MR. SANFORD-You’ve lost me, Robert.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-You lost me on that one.
MR. VOLLARO-Hiland Drive is the road that essentially is part of this gentleman’s
driveway. Is that right?
MR. SANFORD-Right. Hiland Drive then meets the driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MESINGER-Hiland Drive is a public road.
MR. VOLLARO-A public road.
MR. SANFORD-And I think what you’re saying is there needs to be, what?
MR. VOLLARO-There needs to be 40 foot on Hiland, and not Rockwell. Okay. I see. I had
a note here. It looked to me like Hiland might have been a private road. I had private or
public on my notes, and the 40 foot that I refer to is on Hiland Drive.
MR. METIVIER-Does that 40 foot pertain to a private right of way?
MR. MESINGER-That was going to be my question because Mr. Prime only has 50 feet now
on Hiland. So that’s not possible to do.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s go to 183-24C and read the words, see what it says. Under layout of
lots, each lot shall abut on a street built to the Town specifications. The required frontage for
each principal building shall be 40 feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access
to and from the lot to be built upon for the purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by
emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and/or ambulances. That’s what it says.
MR. MESINGER-Well, that’s the question. Is there a precedent, or in the past, if you have a
private access, do you allow this situation? If you don’t, the alternative for Mr. Prime is to
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
simply extend Hiland Drive as a public road and put in a cul de sac. I mean, that would be
the other way of doing it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought you were proposing, actually.
MR. VOLLARO-Is Hiland Drive a public or private road?
MR. MESINGER-It’s a public road.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a public road to that dotted line, to that intersection, because there’s
another house right here.
MR. MESINGER-Right, and Mr. Prime has 50 feet on the road. So it’s not physically
possible for him to do what that rule requires. He just can’t do it. What he could do, instead,
this is proposed as a private roadway, what he could, instead, do, is make this a public
roadway, and thereby we could make it so that you had the 40 feet. I mean, that’s a possible
thing to do. He’d rather not, because he’d rather not have to build a public roadway.
MR. SANFORD-What are the pros and cons associated with building the public roadway
versus the private?
MR. MESINGER-It’s expensive.
MR. SANFORD-Well, explain in more detail, the cost, why is it more expensive?
MR. MESINGER-Because you’d have to build it to Town specifications, which are going to
be more, I mean, in essence what this is is a glorified driveway, and so if I have to build the
road to Town standards, it’s going to be a more robust road, and it’s going to be more
expensive. It’s doable. The issue is does it make sense in this case, or for Case, to do that.
MR. PRIME-And also, if I could say something here. The history of this property goes back
into the 60’s, before there was zoning, and all of the surrounding properties are at least two
acres plus, and what my proposal here is to preserve that kind of ambience and that property,
and certainly if we only end up with two more lots where my house is, a private road certainly
would seem to be adequate, and would seem to be appropriate. To try to put a public road in
there just impacts the area in, I think, an adverse way, as opposed to what I’m trying to do.
I think a private road is certainly appropriate and certainly ought to be able to accommodate
those lots.
MR. MESINGER-That’s the other point. If you get back there and take a look at it, it’s.
MR. VOLLARO-We were up there on Saturday.
MR. MESINGER-Yes. It’s a nice wooded piece of property, and it doesn’t make a lot of
sense, to me anyway, to put in a couple of hundred foot of cul de sac, with all the things that
involves, to, in essence, serve two lots, if we follow the Staff recommendations. It just doesn’t
seem sensible.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we have the, we can’t do a waiver on this, but they could go
for a variance on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, you’d have to go to the Zoning Board.
MR. MESINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a good thing to know on Sketch Plan, at least.
MR. MESINGER-Well, that’s why we’re here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that turnaround that’s on the drawing, is that there now? Because I
remember we drove up on a dirt road that wrapped around.
MR. PRIME-Yes.
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. GOETZ-Yes. I went around that today. If it becomes a public road, that means that it
becomes, actually could become the Town’s responsibility for the plowing and that kind of
stuff. Is that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. GOETZ-Whereas if it stays as a private road, you have to take care of it.
MR. PRIME-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-How does the Town handle it now? They plow right to the end of your
driveway? Is that what they do?
MR. PRIME-They plow to the end of Hiland, and there’s a turnaround there that they have
access to, and so that they, it’s the same as the other road, Summit Lane that goes up to the
south. That’s dead ended, too. So they take care of both of those roads with turnarounds at
the end of the public road.
MR. METIVIER-And this is a private right of way. This driveway would be common land, I
guess, for everybody?
MR. PRIME-It would be easements for the property owners of the other lots, the three of us.
Whoever bought the other lots would have an easement along that driveway.
MR. METIVIER-So who owns it?
MR. PRIME-I do.
MR. MESINGER-The way it’s drawn now, it would stay on Case’s land.
MR. PRIME-I own the fee, and there would be an easement to any other property owner.
MR. METIVIER-And is that something that’s technically like irrevocable type thing?
MR. PRIME-Yes. That’s a standard way of doing it, and, yes, it’s a way to be accessed, and
it runs with the land, and it would be permanent for all those other lots.
MR. MESINGER-You don’t see a lot of it in Queensbury because Queensbury’s kind of a
more suburban town, but in the rural towns that we both work in and represent, it’s very
common.
MR. METIVIER-Right. Well, I’m thinking up by Lake George, if you go along 9L, there’s a
lot of private right of ways that service a lot of people. So one person owns it and technically
pays taxes on it but everybody else has the right to use it.
MR. MESINGER-That’s how this would work.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. PRIME-Yes. I think that the way it would be done would be to share the expense of
any maintenance or plowing, that sort of thing. There can be an agreement that could go in
place that would do that.
MR. VOLLARO-They can still do that, Tony, but I think they’d have to get a, I don’t think
we can jump over the regulation. I think have to go for a variance on this to be able to do it.
MR. METIVIER-And that’s just because of the length. Right?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, no, it’s because they need 40 foot of frontage on a public road. So that
driveway would need 40 feet of frontage because it starts to feed those lots. It would need 40
foot of frontage on Hiland Drive.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. MESINGER-Do you have the ability to waive the length requirement, or do I also need
a variance for that?
MR. VOLLARO-We do.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we do. I always vote against it.
MR. VOLLARO-The Chairman’s tough on that one.
MR. MESINGER-What’s the difference between your jurisdiction between those two things?
How do they differ that you can waive one and not the other?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a good question. Actually, since it came up, in my mind, this is
different. Most of the ones where we see a dead end road that’s more than 1,000 feet, it’s not
an existing condition. Here you have an existing condition. You’re just adding a couple of
lots. In my mind that’s different than what the other ones were, but it is still an issue,
obviously, as Staff has pointed out.
MR. VOLLARO-We could still waive it, if we wanted to.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I always wondered who owned the meadow on Rockwell, because
that’s a beautiful piece of property.
MR. MESINGER-It is. It will be a beautiful house.
MR. METIVIER-Now there’s no hydrants over there anyway. Right?
MR. MESINGER-No.
MR. METIVIER-So that’s a non-issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to have the wetlands delineated?
MR. MESINGER-We will have the wetlands delineated, certainly. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because on Lot Three, as was pointed out, as it is it’s proposed to be into
the 100 foot.
MR. MESINGER-We would try to stay 100 feet away. There’s not a regulatory requirement
that we do so, though. If I have to lose a lot, again, it’s a non-issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then in regards to the, you had indicated you were going to do test
pits and perc tests.
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the areas of the proposed septic systems.
MR. MESINGER-Right, exactly. We will, you know, assuming that we, if you’re going to
send us for a variance, assuming that we can get a variance, we’d come back with a full plan
set. We’re just trying to get out any other issues you’d have right now. You don’t typically
require grading plans for single family lots.
MR. VOLLARO-For my own benefit, I guess, and comfort, if you want to call it that, in
looking at where the test pits are now, I would prefer, when the Preliminary comes in, that
the test pits be located a little closer to where the septic locations are going to be.
MR. MESINGER-They will. These are Mr. Maine’s, this is Mr. Maine’s work, and we’ve
relied on it for concept planning, but to do a Preliminary set and get a building permit we
know we have to have them where the system is going and so that work will be happening.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. So that would certainly satisfy me a lot.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. SANFORD-Now will these pits be verified or will it just be, you know, what is our
criteria on that? I mean, are there certain conditions that require verification of test pit data,
versus just the applicant’s engineer’s representation?
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no specific requirement that test pits be verified, but we have
asked for it in the past, and we could ask for it here, if that’s the will of the Board.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, again, I see the data here, but I don’t think it’s too much of a
burden, and I’d like to start regularly on subdivisions like this, requesting verification test
pits. I personally feel good about that.
MR. MESINGER-And verified by the Building Inspector or the Health Department?
MR. SANFORD-Well, what we’ve had in the past has been the Health Department, and Mr.
Vollaro could speak to exactly the kind of thing that we’re looking for. It’s a log that they
keep.
MR. MESINGER-We know. We do it all the time. It’s just a question of whether they’re
invited out or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the issue.
MR. MESINGER-We do it all the time.
MR. VOLLARO-Usually it makes life a lot simpler when the logs are part of the application,
then there’s no question about it.
MR. MESINGER-We put them directly on the plan set.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, we would like to see that. Again, I’m not saying that this site
is going to necessarily present any problems, but there have been some problems, there’ve
been problems with septic systems failing, and there are wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-There are wetlands there.
MR. VOLLARO-One thing I would like to ask, Mr. Mesinger, in our Chapter 136, which is
our Code for on-site septic systems, I’d like to see those test pits dug around between
someplace between March and June, as opposed to November or October or something like
that.
MR. MESINGER-Well, I really can’t do that, without waiting a long time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, it says, 136 has a note. It says if test pits were dug in other than
March and June, then the person must be qualified and approved by the local Board of
Health. Now, I assume anybody that you would have do it in November, this November,
would be an approved person. We need to know that, at least I do.
MR. MESINGER-We have people who do this for a living, and they’re trained and certified,
and so forth.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. Since this is Sketch Plan, we’ll get everything out on the
table so we don’t have to talk about it when they come in later on.
MR. METIVIER-Make sure you put your sign up, before you come in for an application.
Make sure you put your subdivision sign up.
MR. PRIME-There is a sign up.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little one. The sign you get is a standard big sign.
MR. PRIME-That’s the one they sent me. So that’s the one I used.
MR. VOLLARO-They’ll be sending you another one so the neighbors have an ability to know
that you’re going to be subdividing.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. METIVIER-That’s nice and big.
MR. MESINGER-I’ve seen those signs.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They’re like two by four.
MR. SANFORD-We’re trying to give advice to them, and they’re going to have to get a ZBA
variance on the road frontage, but we’re going to have to wrestle with the length.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-And so, you said just a little while ago, Chris, that you’re not comfortable
with giving variances on the 1,000 feet. So where do we stand with that? I mean, I don’t
want to send them packing and then they come back and we’re not comfortable with the
extending road or private road, driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess, if you’re asking me my personal opinion on it, I don’t
particularly see it as a, I mean, even though it is essentially a 1400 foot dead end, the existing
dead end is already 1200 feet. So all you’re really doing is adding three lots to an existing
dead end street. So I see it a little differently than I would if it were a new road going in. I
mean, in essence it’s a pre-existing dead end road. So, I don’t have the same kinds of concerns
as I would as if it were a new road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Plus, I would add, there’s a turnaround in there.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that that position is variable, based on what happens at ZBA.
If this becomes a public road, then I might have a different view. Right now, I have the same
view you do, but if it becomes a public road, then I’d have to look at it in a different light.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, either way you’re just adding three lots to an existing road.
MR. MESINGER-Right, and the request is, we’d like to keep it a private road. So we’re
interested in hearing, you know, on the assumption that we’re able to get a variance.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you get the variance, I would go with the Chairman on that, I
believe, that the road already exists. I would go along with the road going all the way up to
Lot Three. That’s how I would feel.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And actually, just some advice, I guess, for Mr. Prime. You’ve lived on this
property for a long time. It’s a beautiful location, and you’re about to have neighbors, if this
all goes through, and as you look at that maintenance agreement, the easement for the
driveway, the shared driveway, you might want to consider language about ATV’s and power
scooters and things like that, and so just because you’ve lived there a long time and you have
a quality of life, when you have neighbors, you can’t always control those kinds of things, and
if you’re considering that in advance, you may be able to put some language in your easement
that may improve your quality of life going into this.
MR. PRIME-I thank you for that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, on this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MESINGER-Thank you very much.
MR. PRIME-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 34-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WGF EMERGENCY SQUAD & PARK &
RIDE AGENT(S): JAMES DALY TOBIN ARCH. OWNER(S): Q.E.D.C. ZONING MR-5
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
LOCATION: 83, 87 LUZERNE RD. & NEW CONNECTOR ROAD WEST GLENS FALLS EMS
CONSTRUCTION OF A 9.950 SQ. FT. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FACILITY AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING 4 PARKING SPACES, TOGETHER
WITH A TOWN SPONSORED PARK & RIDE FACILITY OFFERING 53 PARKING SPACES
FOR SHARED USE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/2005 LOT SIZE: 5.79, 1.0, 3.92
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-82, 83, 84 SECTION 179-4-020
JIM TOBIN, SHAWN RIVERS, SANDY BOUCHER, TIM LARSON, REP. APP.,
PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-As you know, last month there was some discussion, and I brought back the
aerial photo with some overlay on it, on how this project fits in with the Main Street Re-
development Program and the connector road. The entire reason the West Glens Falls
Emergency Medical Squad is even here this evening is because the Town will be forcing them
out of their current facility in order to build the connector road from Main Street to Luzerne
Road. To make life even more fun, and actually to really, I think, do something that benefits
everyone, the Town, as part of their Gateway Grant, has received funding to do a Park and
Ride and there is proposal to utilize this Park and Ride as parking for the West Glens Falls
EMS and their new location. What this means, however, is that the project has a separate
applicant, West Glens Falls EMS, to go over the site and the building, but then we also have
our Town consultants, Barton and Loguidice, who are working with us on the Gateway
project and the Park and Ride in particular, putting together the Park and Ride facility. In
the Staff notes, I’ve attached information about zoning determination. There’s SEQRA
information. This will be an uncoordinated review. Part of the reason for that is because we
do have involved agencies such as the New York State DOT, but the review will be SEQRA
and NEPA, National Environmental Protection Act, review as well. So I think we’re
definitely getting everything covered, plus we did both a SEQRA and a NEPA review for the
connector road and did not find any problems there. Let’s see, what else can I tell you. This
is property that will go to the Town. Right now it’s owned by Queensbury Economic
Development Corporation. There is language in our Code that says that land under 100 acres
that’s to go to the Town is exempt from subdivision regulations. So at some point this will be
subdivided, but you won’t be seeing that, and I know that’s something that the attorneys are
working on, so that the Town will own the Park and Ride lot. The West Glens Falls EMS will
own their particular parcel with the building on it, and as I said, that’s something that our
attorneys are working on together. I know I went through quite a bit last time. I think when
you look at the site you’ll see that, or look at the site plan, care has been taken to provide
additional buffer space between property owners to the east and also north of the Park and
Ride lot. There is information here about the local commuter traffic, the estimated traffic
volume. In terms of parking and circulation, I think the Squad members can tell you more
about what they expect to see, and also Barton and Loguidice, in terms of Park and Ride
facilities and that’s really all I have at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If could identify yourself.
MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin, and I’m the architect on the project, and to my left is
Shawn Rivers of Schoder Rivers Associates, who did the site plan design for the EMS. To my
right is Sandy Boucher, the President of the EMS, and at the far end of the table is Tim
Larson from Barton and Loguidice who designed the Park and Ride. Generally what I would
like to do is, if you could direct your questions to those individual parties who participated in
that section of the design, I’ll give you an overall view of the project. The project is on the
corner of Luzerne Road and the yet to be built new connector road. It’s on the northern end
of the parcel, owned by the QEDC. It’s approximately 3.3 acres, of which the EMS will
occupy approximately half of that project, and the Park and Ride will occupy the southern
half of the project. The project will be built more than likely in two phases. The first phase,
which hopefully, if we have an approval from the Planning Board, in the near future,
hopefully tonight, that we would like to go out to bid this fall. We would like to complete the
project in early spring of next year. That will dovetail in with the construction schedule for
the new connector road which Tim Larson may be able to talk about, but that new connector
road will not start until the Spring of 2006. What will really happen is that the EMS facility
will be built and occupied before the Park and Ride is actually completed, but they will follow
soon after. In the interim, the EMS will not have a parking facility for a short period of time.
The access to the EMS during this temporary period will be off the Luzerne Road. When the
project is complete, the access will be Luzerne Road and the new connector road, and the
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
most likelihood, the facility, although it has a drive thru, the entrance will be off Luzerne
Road and the egress of the EMS vehicles will be onto the new connector road. The building is
at approximately 10,000 square feet, slightly less than that, a one story building with a small
basement, is a wood frame, has brick veneer, metal standing seam roof. It will blend in to the
current site that’s there. The landscaping is on your drawings, and that’s basically the
project in a nutshell. Would any of you fellows like to add anything at this moment, any
questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I’ll open it up to the Board. Any questions,
comments?
MR. SANFORD-Just a quick question. Has there been any work done regarding traffic
impacts? I’m a little concerned with the Park and Ride. I anticipate most of the people will
probably be using the Northway to get to the Park and Ride. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but
I know when you get near that Exit 18 it’s a congested area, and if you have a bunch of
people leaving, let’s say, at the same time, close to the Northway like that, that could prove
to be a traffic problem. So I was wondering if there’d been any work done at this point?
MR. LARSON-In specific reference to the Park and Ride lot and the connector road, there
have been traffic counts for the connector road. There has not been any generated for the
Park and Ride lot. Upon completion of the connector road, in conjunction with the
improvements at County Route 28, or Main Street, there will be a lighted intersection where
Big Boom Road is going to be realigned with the southern terminus of the connector road. So
there will be a traffic light with turning lanes. We haven’t looked at the impact of the cars,
specifically to the Park and Ride lot, onto that additional traffic volume from the connector
road, but that’s something we can look at. I don’t think it’s going to be, given the new
improvements on Main Street, I think the impact will be, I guess not a big impact.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, you know, we discussed this at kind of a workshop environment
the last time around, and it’s a unique situation, we’re getting, and this whole corridor, if you
will, has been worked on for a number of years now, and we’re kind of getting it at the twelfth
hour for Planning Board review, but typically something along these lines, and I’m speaking
as one member of the Planning Board, we would want a traffic, some form of a cumulative
traffic study report prior to, as part of the application. Now I don’t know if I speak alone on
that, but I just throw it out because, you know, I mean, this is a little bit of a different
animal, but typically we would want something like that.
MR. METIVIER-I guess my comment to that, and maybe I’m totally misunderstanding this
Park and Ride, and if I call it Park and Fly, just bear with me, but is to alleviate some traffic
going or getting onto the Northway. Is it not?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I guess my only concern, though, Tony, and again, is, I’m assuming
it’s for commuters. So in the morning you’re going to have the cars arriving and then taking
some form of a common carrier to the south, and then coming back by common carrier, and
then everybody leaving at around five, five thirty or so in the afternoon, and hitting that
intersection, Main Street I guess it is at that point, Main Street road, and I’m just concerned
about congestion on the connector road entering into Main Street, and having all kinds of
little bottlenecks. Now I’m not an expert by any means with this, and it may be that the
traffic flows off of these Park and Rides in a very incremental manner, and in fact some of
them that I have seen along the Northway never seem to have problems. You might even
know more than I do about this stuff.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, I don’t frequent them, but I mean, I’ve been to them and
overall it is very evenly distributed throughout the morning and night.
MR. SANFORD-How many cars will it hold?
MR. METIVIER-Fifty-three, right?
MR. TOBIN-Right, 53.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, I look at it, you know, there’s 53 less cars coming and going, if it’s
full to capacity, and of those 53 cars, let’s say you throw three people in a car.
MR. SANFORD-I hear you.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. METIVIER-You know what I’m saying. You’re looking at technically, I don’t know,
just for kicks, 20 cars dropping people off to those 53 cars.
MR. SANFORD-This will probably be more carpooling, I take it, rather than everybody
meets and gets into a shuttle or?
MR. TOBIN-Right, at least in the interim.
MR. LARSON-And just for clarification, when we did the traffic counts for the connector
road, consideration was also taken into effect for the future Northway Business Park, and the
future traffic that would be generated by that development which is proposed to be at the
corner of Veterans Way, I believe, and Luzerne Road. So, I mean, we have thought about all
the issues to the community impacts and taken everything into consideration.
MR. METIVIER-And I’ll tell you, the other thing that we will never know until it’s built is
what kind of impact that connector road will actually have on Main Street. It could have a
tremendously great impact, as far as alleviating some of that traffic going into the City and
getting out of the City. You just don’t know until you build it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you can do here is usually what we look at in traffic studies are
peak hours, and we’re probably more concerned about the peak hour problem than we are
their continuous problem during the day. I think that’s what Mr. Sanford is really talking
about is the peak hour analysis, because that’s something that a traffic study would yield.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think, according to Staff notes, the traffic was looked at from
Luzerne Road but not necessarily on the Exit 18 road, and so I understand the intent of the
Park and Ride, but usually that’s the kind of information we would look for, traffic studies in
both locations. This is an unusual situation.
MR. METIVIER-And I guess just to add one comment to, well, an extra comment, how
many more cars would that potentially lure that didn’t usually get over to 18, but are now
using it as opposed to 19 or 20? I mean, I don’t know if you could ever figure that out, but is
it possible that it would generate more traffic flow because you’re welcoming people to that
spot now?
MR. VOLLARO-Tony, all these traffic studies that we see, every one since I’ve sat on this
Board for the last almost seven years now, talks only to the particular project that it’s dealing
with. It doesn’t talk about an integrated traffic study. None of them do, and if I was doing a
traffic study, I would tell your project was fine. Otherwise you would fire me.
MR. METIVIER-Have they done any traffic studies with the Main Street corridor project?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know.
MR. HUNSINGER-The question was asked if there were any traffic studies done for the
Main Street.
MRS. RYBA-Yes, there was, and I did not include the Main Street information. I just
included the Luzerne, because this particular application is coming off Luzerne, but there
were, and I think, and I’m trying to go from memory, but I think that where this area was, it
was 10,000 vehicles per day at that one point, and like I said, I’m going on memory, and if
you wanted I could even run down and get the design report, but I think one way to look at
this is when you’re looking at the peak hour traffic, typically the Department, New York
State Department of Transportation asks for a traffic study if there’s going to be an
additional 100 vehicles per peak hour, and if we’re talking about 53 possible vehicles coming
into the area, at the most you would have 53 additional peak hour trips. So that wouldn’t
even require New York State DOT to get a traffic study for that, and when you look at the
total volume, it’s also a small percentage of the total volume. So that’s another way of
looking at it, and like I said, if you wanted to, I could even run to the office and get the design
report that has the numbers for Main Street.
MR. SANFORD-The only reason it raised a flag for me was because I’m familiar with Main
Street around where Carl R’s Restaurant is, and sometimes the traffic backs up and it’s very
difficult to get out of that road that’s headed to the south, where you’re saying eventually
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
you’re going to line it up with the Big Boom Road, and sometimes it’s very difficult to get out
of there onto Main Street and I’m just saying, are we actually contributing to more traffic
congestion with this connector road and the Park and Ride, so that, you know, it’s already a
problem. I mean, if this was a more rural situation, I wouldn’t anticipate a problem, but I
know that Main Street can get very congested. So that’s why I threw it out.
MRS. RYBA-Well, all of the factors in the Main Street program come in together. One,
having a traffic signal there and looking, you not only look at the one signal, but then the
other signals and how they tie in along Main Street. The other is widening the road so that
there are turning lanes. That’s another way of helping to alleviate some traffic. The other is
that connection, so that you don’t have an offset in terms of Big Boom Road and the
connector road. So all of those items work together to try to alleviate some of that. That’s
one of the reasons this project’s being put together. Not just for economic development
purposes, but also to make the traffic flow much more smoothly along Main Street.
MS. BOUCHER-Can I just add something, too. Over the years of being in the Emergency
Squad, people have used the back of our lot for a Park and Ride. At this time we now have
probably 10 cars a day that park out back there. So it is at the peak time that we have more
traffic, right at our building, and, as Marilyn said, five o’clock in the afternoon it’s very
difficult for us to get out, or get there, you know, to get the emergency vehicles out.
MR. METIVIER-I was actually going to ask you that. What’s the impact going to be of
moving over to the next street? It could be great.
MS. BOUCHER-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-However, you’re losing access to the Northway.
MS. BOUCHER-We don’t have a choice. The road’s going through us. The road is going
through our piece of property.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the whole idea, the reason why they’re moving the building, because
the road’s cutting right through their piece of, their building.
MS. BOUCHER-We didn’t want to move.
MR. METIVIER-But, I’m saying, what is that going to do to response time by moving it
over?
MS. BOUCHER-Actually it’s not really going to affect us response time wise, because where
we’re going to be located is only going to give us two accesses. One way could go towards the
City, so one end of the district we could go right up Luzerne Road to West Mountain Road, or
we could actually take a turn on Pine and come right out on Main Street, or use the connector
road to go to the Northway.
MR. METIVIER-I just see it so convenient, but what a disaster. The other day trying to get
through there, I was, I think, four lights.
MS. BOUCHER-I think it will actually be better for us to get to the building, where we’re
hoping it’s going to be located because of the other accesses to it. Right now to get to our
building is very difficult at peak time. It’s very difficult.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other comments or questions, Richard?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-During the presentation you indicated that the Park and Ride is going to be
built after the EMS house building. So I guess if I’m correct that the EMS building is only
going to be four spots, where is everybody going to park, especially during training, and how
long is the timeline going to be?
MS. BOUCHER-Well hopefully it’s not going to be that much longer after the building is
built. I mean, Marilyn was talking to me a little bit about that earlier.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MRS. RYBA-Yes. We did put together a timeline, and there had been a discussion with the
architect, Mr. Tobin, and Barton and Loguidice, and the timeline was attached as part of this,
and it’s all like a puzzle, all the pieces fit pretty closely, but we’re looking at having the
construction of the building completed at the same time that the, I mean, the Park and Ride
can be roughed in, but then paving the Park and Ride at about the same time as the building
is completed. So might there be some period where it doesn’t quite, you know, it takes a little
bit longer to find that last piece of the puzzle, that’s a possibility, but, based on the timeline
we talked about all of the details, and this is one of the reasons why I think they’re here
tonight, and as Mr. Tobin pointed out, trying to get this to fit, so that the Park and Ride can
be finalized, can be paved at very close to the time that the building is completed.
MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if it’s not completed, the Park and Ride?
MR. METIVIER-How many squads do you have, two?
MS. BOUCHER-We have one.
MR. METIVIER-You only have one?
MS. BOUCHER-Yes, we have one. Well, we have one in our district. We’re the largest
district in the Town of Queensbury, but we have, at that time, I mean, if it’s a month time,
then we’ll just have to adjust.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it sounds like.
MS. BOUCHER-We’ve had to do it before.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to be waiting for DOT money, it sounds like.
MR. METIVIER-You only have one ambulance?
MS. BOUCHER-We have three ambulances.
MR. METIVIER-That’s what I asked.
MS. BOUCHER-Buildings, I thought you meant.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if it’s six months, which is probably more reality because.
MRS. RYBA-Well, I know.
MS. BOUCHER-Everything we’ve seen hasn’t stated that it’s going to be six months.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you got the DOT enhancement grant?
MS. BOUCHER-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-Yes, we have that one. Tim, did you want to say something?
MR. SEGULJIC-Construction never goes as it’s supposed to, as we all know.
MR. LARSON-Right. From our end, or from B & L’s end, and the connector road and the
Park and Ride facility, it’s more of a process standpoint. We have certain hurdles and
procedures we have to go through to get DOT approval and get the funding, the funding
that’s secured, but to make sure that the funding isn’t jeopardized for the Town. So we have
various design reports that we submit to DOT for their approval and concurrence, and other
milestones that we meet with them, but as I see it now, if we stay on track as we are, there’s
no reason this project can’t be either let in the winter and construction begun in early spring.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, you only have four parking spots, and you have to do
training. What are you going to do? I would just think you would have to have some type of
an alternative plan, just in case.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MS. BOUCHER-Well, I think from what we’re being told is that there’s going to be a spot
that’s going to be cleared at that time. It just might not be paved or blacktopped, you know,
crushed stone or whatever, and I mean we didn’t have our building finished when we were
running an ambulance out of the firehouse before. So we stayed in ambulances. We can
adjust to doing what we need to do in order for the project to go forward, and our members
are very well aware of that. We have people who stay at the building.
MR. METIVIER-How many people respond to each call, two or three?
MS. BOUCHER-It depends. Like tonight we have a duty crew on that’s got four people.
MR. METIVIER-Four. So potentially three ambulances, that’s 12 cars.
MS. BOUCHER-No.
MR. METIVIER-No. It doesn’t work like that?
MS. BOUCHER-Usually you have like two during the day. Somebody will come in for paid
staff during the day, there’s two. Somebody might come in and out. Evening crew, there’ll
be one person, two people that stay at night. The rest of the people respond from home.
MR. METIVIER-To the scene.
MS. BOUCHER-Right.
MR. METIVIER-So that’s not too bad.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the only issue, really, is training then.
MS. BOUCHER-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One other thing, and maybe it’s my confusion, but the, as I look at
this plan, it looks like the firehouse and parking lot are going to be in an Empire Zone
property. Is that correct?
MS. BOUCHER-Emergency squad?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, Empire Zone property. Is it going to be?
MS. BOUCHER-It’s an emergency squad. I just wanted to clarify that. Sorry.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that correct? Is it an Empire Zone?
MRS. RYBA-What you’re seeing on that large map is the whole Queensbury Economic
Development parcel. It’s a large parcel of land. This is just taking up a portion of it. So
there is potential for, I think the purpose is to put something together towards economic
development purposes in the future. So there is that potential.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t look at this as economic development.
MRS. RYBA-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So why are we locating EMS’s and parking lots in areas earmarked for
economic development?
MRS. RYBA-Well, and maybe that’s more of a Town Board question, and maybe Ms.
Boucher can discuss a little bit more, but I do know that the EMS looked for many different
sites and then also in terms of, I mean, they’re leaving because the Town is requiring them to
leave their current facility and also assisting with them going into the new home. So if there’s
land that’s already available, versus buying land along Main Street, I know, for example,
even with the Park and Ride, there was a piece of property that we were looking at when we
put together the grant application. It’s an eighth of an acre, and the property owner wants
$250,000 for it. Well, we’re not going to pay $250,000 for an eighth of an acre of land to put a
Park and Ride facility. So, here’s land that’s available as well that the Town basically has
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
control over, for a Park and Ride facility, but you can explain maybe a little bit further how
your process of looking for property.
MS. BOUCHER-Right. Well, for a little history, this project began six years ago for us, when
the Town came to us and told us that, we wanted an addition, and we were told to put it off a
little while. Six years later it’s because their road’s going through us. So we did look for
property over that six year period from pieces of property from $300,000 up to $2 million.
We, as an agency, didn’t feel that that would be fair as taxpayers’ money eventually paying
for this piece of property. So when the time came that the Town said, okay, what about this,
we didn’t really want to leave Exit 18 area because of the Northway access, that that would
be feasible for us to go to the other end of the connector road, and our piece of our property,
where it’s located, is a pretty valuable piece of property, at Exit 18. So we’ve worked out a
deal, between the lawyers, they’re working up the property paperwork. So that’s where the
best site for us to go and the most cost effective for us to go.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just ask a question. You’ve got six years of history. My history
on this is about a week. So I’d just like to ask a couple of questions. When you were looking
to expand your existing building, I noticed that you have three bays on the existing building,
and there’s six bays on this building, and plus an ambulance. So this building is 10,000
square feet. How big is your existing building, roughly?
MS. BOUCHER-Roughly 3700 feet. There’s three bays in the new building. It’s just going
to be drive through bays. So it looks like there’s six.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we were up there to the new site, we drove up and got into the
new site, the new area, and then we went over to the West Glens Falls Fire Department and
took a look. How long did it take us to get there. Questions that we had, among us when we
were doing this site visit, was the West Glens Falls Fire Department location looked at as a
possible site for the EMS squads.
MS. BOUCHER-Are you talking about Veterans Road?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MS. BOUCHER-Yes, it was.
MR. VOLLARO-And for what reason was that rejected? I mean, I’m just trying to come up
to speed.
MS. BOUCHER-Honestly, it was a Town Board issue at that time, and a Fire Department
issue. We did try to purchase a piece of property next to that, but it did not work out. That
was in the plans in the past.
MR. VOLLARO-To me, that would have been a very cost effective method of doing it, I
thought. Just from a layman’s point of view, going up there and saying, look at the amount
of property that’s available on, I guess that’s the West Glens Falls Fire Department.
MS. BOUCHER-On Veterans Road.
MR. VOLLARO-And all of us in the car were saying, gee, this would be an ideal location.
Some place, I see Mr. Strough back there from the Town Board, he could probably answer
this question. I tried to call you on the phone, John, to find out what it was about. Anyway,
that was just a question I had, what was the history on this is interesting to me, as to how
you got to where you are now.
MS. BOUCHER-It’s been a very long, rough road. I’ll be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m not clear where you’re going, Bob. We have a site plan in
front of us to review. I mean, the history’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m trying to come up to speed, Mr. Chairman, because I don’t know
anything about this project, and in order for me to sit in any kind of judgment on it, I’d like
to know some of the history on it, and that’s all. The only thing I have here is that I read Mr.
Sopczyk letter, Scott’s letter, I guess you saw that, about the Park and Ride, and I think he
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
had some very good suggestions in there, and a condition of approval, on this, I guess, is
based on a C.T. Male signoff of their letter of August 9, and I’m finished, Mr. Chairman.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Not for now.
MR. HUNSINGER-George?
MR. GOETZ-Yes. I feel like we are here. We really don’t have much say in this project
anyway. I think it’s probably been given a tremendous amount of thought and
consideration. I do want you to know I feel very safe having all of you in this room tonight.
I hope you have a vehicle outside in case one of us needs it, but I do have a couple of
questions. Have you purchased the land or whatever, or have you taken eminent domain or
whatever for the road?
MS. BOUCHER-The lawyers are working together for the property right now.
MR. GOETZ-Okay. So there’s been nothing purchased or it’s not cast in concrete?
MS. BOUCHER-Well, it is kind of in writing.
MRS. RYBA-We have surveys, and I don’t have 100% of the details from the attorneys,
because I do know that that’s what they’re working on, but I can actually show you the
surveys I did bring them with me tonight. So it’s as far along as a project like this can go. I
think, and I don’t know, are you here on behalf of QEDC?
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-I can fill you in. I’m Jon Lapper. I’m on the Board of QEDC, and just to
address some of the comments, I was going to come up in the public hearing, but the QEDC
put this together, as a traffic alleviation project to start with, so that what Rich was talking
about before he left, that the intersection where all the UPS trucks come out of Big Boom,
the idea was to move that intersection 200 feet towards the City, so that it could be
signalized, so there would be left turns, with the traffic light, rather than right now where it’s
impossible to make left turns, and everybody sits there. The other traffic alleviation, the
Barton and Loguidice study said that 15% of the traffic on Main Street would be going either
to the west side of the Northway, or just north of Main Street, and would immediately come
off of Main Street if this connector road were built. So it’s a way of alleviating the congestion,
both during construction and after construction, on Main Street, and solving the problem of
left turns on Big Boom, and that’s how this all started. So QEDC purchased the property and
owns it now, and is going to convey the property to the Town for the construction of the road,
and also convey the property for the Emergency Squad, and the Town is going to convey to
the Emergency Squad and retain the Park and Ride facility. So that’s how that’s all going to
play out, but right now, QEDC already closed on it, demolished the houses on Luzerne Road,
and owns the property.
MR. GOETZ-Okay. Well, thank you. Since you are with the QEDC, and we do have a Board
member here tonight, I used to be on QEDC, and one of the problems we have in the Town of
Queensbury is good land for industry or for building, and I see where you left open the
possibility of an additional phase for like, did I hear 3. acres or something like that?
MR. LAPPER-There’s almost four acres after the Emergency Squad gets relocated.
MR. GOETZ-Yes, and I would hope it would be kept for economic development.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, there are actually two companies that have already talked to us, right
now, that are interested in relocating facilities there and building larger facilities that are
already in Town, and that is in the Empire Zone. To answer that question, the area where
the Emergency Squad is going to go would come out of the Zone because that land could then
be allocated somewhere else. It wouldn’t be necessary because that’s obviously not a taxable
entity, but certainly the remainder of the land, after the road goes in and the Squad is
relocated, will be used for economic development, and there’d probably be at least two
companies, maybe three, in there.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. GOETZ-I think that service road would help draw somebody in there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s convenient to the Northway, but it’s off of the traffic, Main Street.
It’s going to be a good location. People are already interested.
MR. GOETZ-Those were the only comments I wanted to make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tony, did you have any questions, comments?
MR. METIVIER-No. I was just saying, this is becoming a very strange site plan review. It’s
getting really off the wall, but informative at the same time. So I just wish you all the very
best, and thank you for your service.
MS. BOUCHER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a comment. I thought, after our workshop, we were pretty
much just going to look at the parking lot, because most of this has already been taken care
of. There was a note in our package from Glens Falls Transit, Scott Sopczyk, the
Transportation Director, to Sue, and there were a couple of things in there that I thought
were good recommendations, and one that I didn’t think was a good recommendation. So
that’s what I thought I would speak to. One of the things that he mentioned was that a
passenger shelter is probably not needed at this time, and I tended to disagree with that, from
the point of view that, from living in a metropolitan area, oftentimes folks are dropped off at
Park and Rides when the carpool, and so they don’t always have a car in the parking lot.
Like if you pick up the train somewhere in a metropolitan area, somebody drops you off, and
so a shelter is a good idea, because if your ride’s not there when the bus drops you off, or
something like that, or your carpool drops you off, it’s nice to have a place. So I disagree with
that comment, and I think a shelter is a good thing at this time. There’s also another
recommendation in there that I thought was very good, an alternate layout, so that there’s
two one way driveways in and out. I thought the configuration of the parking was a little
odd, because people would have to hook in and out of the parking lot to find a space, or to
back out and get out of the lot, and so I thought that was a good recommendation to look at a
different parking configuration, and there was a third comment about directional signage on
Main Street and Luzerne Roads, and I thought that that was a good comment. So those were
the only things that I wanted to speak to in the package of information that was there, and I
also had the same question that Tom had earlier about only having four parking spaces and a
handicap space for the Squad building, but I understand that it’s a transitional land, and it’ll
all be taken care of once that other piece is there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else to add, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to, just taking a second here to look at this EMS, the
August 12 letter from C.T. Male, does that now supersede their previous letter, or is this in
th
addition to?
MR. RYBA-Their previous letter, I believe they said that they, for some reason, did not get a
copy of the stormwater plan for the Park and Ride. It was submitted to them. They did get
another copy. They provided comments on Friday. So these comments that were submitted
on Friday, are in response to their review of the stormwater management plan, but I believe
any other comments that concern the Park and Ride still apply.
MR. VOLLARO-Because there’s a letter, their letter dated August 9, rather extensive letter
th
dated August 9, that deals with Park and Ride and it also deals with, I believe, the EMS
th
building itself. So I’m really looking at two letters from C.T. Male. One dated August 9 and
th
one dated August 12. Are they cumulative? Are they one edge to the other?
th
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a couple of questions. Looking at Page A-8, the building
elevations. Just had a couple of comments. I really liked some of the different elements of
the design, the use of different materials, you know, the bricks and things like that, and the
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
cupola. I noticed how, on some of the other elevations, you provided, not necessarily color
schemes, but color concepts, but there weren’t any on the elevation plans.
MR. TOBIN-I believe on the elevation, there’s a comment on there on the brick colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TOBIN-I mean, at this point in time they’ve not been selected, but it’s basically red
colors with maybe dark red banding or something like that. The stucco, or the efface color
that’s in there would be a complimentary color, I think. Right now the roof would probably
be dark. Those are the general descriptions of the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I actually kind of like the standing seem metal roof.
MR. TOBIN-Actually, you’ll see the Northway, from the Northway the roof only, basically,
going north.
MR. HUNSINGER-I also had a couple of questions, on Page C-1. With respect to the test
pit locations and data, and I thought that perhaps maybe it was mislabeled or there was an
error in the labels, because you have, on the actual map you have labels of TP and then you
have labels that are just plain P, but then in the legend, you only have just plain P. So I
wondered if the legend should have been TP, to match the actual.
MR. RIVERS-Basically we did one formal deep test pit, okay, where TP-1’s located, and
then we did perc tests at all the other four locations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-We actually tried to dig, actually P-2 we also dug a deep hole there, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of a minor issue, but.
MR. RIVERS-Actually, you’re right. One of them is mislabeled. I did two test pits out
there. TP-2, for some reason, isn’t even showing up on C-1. No, I see, here it is, it’s way over
here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s near where the old shed remains.
MR. RIVERS-It’s in the building, that’s why. I just didn’t see, I had to jog my memory.
We did them back in June, but, yes, I did four perc tests and two test pits.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from any members of the
Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wants to address
the Board? Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we all set with traffic, then?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just said, unless there’s any other questions or comments or
information.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, because Rich had essentially recommended a traffic study. I don’t
know how the Board felt about that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want a traffic study.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a done deal. Why are we messing with this?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MRS. RYBA-I was just going to say, I mean, there are probably, I can get you four or five
volumes of traffic study at this point. I mean, I don’t want to make light of it. I do want to
be able to address any concerns that you have, and like I said, I did offer, I can go get the
draft design reports.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure, Marilyn, that the traffic study concerns are valid across the
Board, but the Chairman may want to poll the Board, but I don’t believe, I, for one, have no
concerns with traffic studies on this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I was just raising the point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have a particular concern?
MR. METIVIER-I guess I don’t. I just think that there’s no way we would be able to know,
until this is all done, what’s going to happen, and you’re not even talking 2006. You’re
talking when they start and finish the whole project. I mean, a traffic study for 2006, in
today’s standards, is going to be so different than when the Main Street corridor is done. So,
would it even be feasible to do one for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I do know that, as Marilyn pointed out, there have been a
number of varying and different traffic study’s done. DOT did a major traffic study on Main
Street, and that’s how they determined, you know, to make Main Street three lanes as
opposed to four or five.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, since then there were subsequent traffic studies for
different components and pieces, including the road extension.
MR. METIVIER-I honestly don’t have any issues. I think, overall, when everything is done,
it’s going to be a lot better than it is today, and this particular project is going to have very
little impact to the overall grand scheme of things, as to what’s going on on that road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do members feel comfortable moving forward with SEQRA and Site
Plan approval?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I do. I think with the amount of research that’s been done on this project,
the Main Street project, it’s the best information that we have to make decisions, and so I
have to trust our Community Development Department, that they’ve done all that
groundwork for us. So, I’m okay with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It is a Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 34-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WGF EMERGENCY SQUAD & PARK & RIDE, 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.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to have to abstain on this vote. I really didn’t have enough
information to make a yes or no on any of these. That’s why I remained silent during the
paging.
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Sanford
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to put forward a motion? We do have outstanding
engineering issues.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I was going to say, we have to get a C.T. Male signoff.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s two, August 9 and August 12 are C.T. Male signoff. That’s the only
thing I can think of.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2005 WGF EMERGENCY SQUAD & PARK &
RIDE, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Goetz:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
West Glens Falls EMS construction of a 9.950 sq. ft. emergency medical services facility and
associated site improvements, including 4 parking spaces, together with a Town sponsored
Park & Ride facility offering 53 parking spaces for shared use.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/05; and
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site
Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code
of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on
the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That the project get C.T. Male Associates signoff on their letters dated August 9, 2005
& August 12, 2005.
2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
3. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright.
4. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the
Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt.
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Sanford
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MS. BOUCHER-Thank you.
MR. TOBIN-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
OLD BUSINESS:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD SP 8-2000 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS
GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S):
GARTH ALLEN ZONING PUD LOCATION NORTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD 97.3 ACRES:
23.1 ACRE LOT FOR 39-UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT INCLUDING GOLF DRIVING
RANGE, 70.2 ACRE LOT FOR AN 8 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT, ONE PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE BUILDING, GOLF COURSE AND RELATED AMENITIES, ONE LOT OF 4 ACRES
LEFT AS OPEN SPACE AND DEDICATED TO THE TOWN. PLANNING BOARD WILL
REVIEW PROPOSED PUD ZONING CHANGES ONLY. CROSS REF. TB RES. 337. 2005 &
338,2005, FW 5-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/05 LOT SIZE: 97 +/- ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 SECTION 179-12-050
JON LAPPER, JOHN MICHAELS, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes.
MR. BAKER-Good evening. You have rather lengthy Staff Notes, which the applicant,
agents, and owners have all received as well. With the Board’s permission, rather than read
through these in full, I guess I’d like to summarize.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. BAKER-This evening the Planning Board is being asked to make a recommendation to
the Town Board on a proposed change to the PUD zoning. Any subsequent subdivision or
site plan review activity related to this project and property will come back to the Board for
future review and future SEQRA review. In terms of substantive comments, in terms of
environmental impact, I noted that the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands on the north side
of the new road at the Dreps subdivision have not been shown on the materials submitted to
date with this PUD change, and I also had recommendations related to conveyance of the
four acre parcel to the Town and access to that four acres, recommendations related to the
proposed conservation easement on Lot Number One, the golf course portion of that, and
comments regarding the PUD agreement language, and the need to bring the Code references
in that up to the 2002 Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. We’re trying to outnumber you tonight. For the record, Jon
Lapper, with John Michaels, who is here on behalf of The Michaels Group, which is
purchasing and developing the townhouse portion of this. Garth Allen is the President of Bay
Meadows Corp., the existing owner. Jim Miller is working with me and John Michaels on that
part of it, and Stu Mesinger is working with Garth Allen on his part of it. So for the sake of
the PUD amendment, it’s really two portions of the project that we have to talk about for
SEQRA and for the PUD amendment, and then we’ll come back separately to talk about the
site plans and subdivisions for the two projects. Just very briefly, the Staff did a very
thorough job in their notes of covering the history and going through standards for why the
amendment is appropriate under the Town standards. We had received approval, two and a
half years ago, for a PUD from the Planning Board and the Town Board for what would have
been a 97 unit senior project. The applicant didn’t get the tax credits. They, instead, went to
the one on Bay Road. So the applicant never closed on the project. At one point, Garth
Allen had come back and said, okay, then he’ll just take over the PUD, in the name of Bay
Meadows Corp., but soon after that The Michaels Group made an offer to develop what would
have been the senior project into a much smaller, much less dense townhouse project. So
we’re going from a total of 97 residential units to 39 units on The Michaels Group portion of
this on Cronin Road, plus a maximum of eight units plus a small office building on the Bay
Road side, and of course that utilizes the curb cut that’s being constructed for the Dreps
subdivision to the south. So, just in terms of traffic impacts, that’s the right way to do it.
We have made one change since we submitted everything, based upon what Stu Baker just
said. Jim will show you this, but on the Bay Meadows parcel, where the Army Corps wetland
needed to be delineated, in order to completely avoid any wetland impacts, the eight
townhouse units, plus the office building, have been consolidated into one mixed use building,
which we’ll show you now, and it just gets them completely out of the wetland area and just
eliminates the wetland permit as a part of this. We did re-submit to the Town Board all the
other issues last week that addressed the other issues that Stu mentioned. The conservation
easement area has been delineated by a surveyor and shown on the map. That is most of all
of the existing golf course, or what the golf course will look like after this project, but there
was a little bit of land left behind the Club House, in case that ever needed to get expanded,
or there was any need for additional parking. That’s outside of the Conservation Easement,
but the rest of the golf course that will remain will be subject to the Conservation Easement,
and then, with respect to the last issue is the four acre parcel that we’d agreed, two and a half
years ago, that would be dedicated to the Town as a recreation parcel, although we weren’t
going to get the recreation credit. There would still be the $500 per unit for the Park and Rec
fee, paid, but it was felt that the Town should own the stream corridor. The question came
up about where somebody might park if they were going to go fish, and the problem is that all
the area, understandably in a stream corridor, is all wetlands. So there’s nowhere to put a
parking lot, and one suggestion that Staff made was perhaps people could park in the existing
parking spaces by the Club House, and that’s a possibility, but it’s kind of a long walk over to
the stream, and another possibility that Jim Miller came up with would be to have some
spaces added on the shoulder of Cronin Road, because the Town owns a pretty wide shoulder
there, and we would expect you wouldn’t have more than two or three cars at any point for
fishing, but that’s something that is a Town Board issue for the PUD amendment, and
certainly something that the Planning Board can comment on, and we’re pretty flexible
about that. It just can’t be in a wetland. So that addresses the issues that Stu mentioned. I
guess, let me just hand it over to Jim and just walk through the project, show it to you, and
then we can answer questions.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. MILLER-Good evening. The parcel goes from the Cronin Road to Rich Schermerhorn’s
development along Bay Road. This area here is the existing Club House. The main portion
of this is the golf course, and the project that was originally approved was a senior housing
project, was 23 acres that accessed off of Cronin Road, and this was the reason for the original
PUD that Jon talked about, and this is the area that was being purchased and re-designed as
39 townhouse units by The Michaels Group. What we’ve done, this project, as part of the
approval that it went through, they went through full DEC permitting, Army Corps
permitting, plus all the permits from the Town. So what we’ve done is basically revised that
plan, eliminating the parking lots, and basically putting the buildings in approximately the
same locations as the original buildings. So all of the wetland permitting and all the wetland
mitigation and everything, those plans are still in effect. We’d have to resubmit them, but
basically this project is reduced, not only in density, number of units, but in the amount of
pavement and building coverage from the original project, and there’d be sewer and water,
municipal sewer and water to serve that property. So that’s the one piece of it. The four acre
parcel along, as Jon was talking about, along Halfway Brook that would be dedicated to the
Town is this area, and he talked about the access to that. The other portion that, recently
there was an approval for an office park called the Dreps subdivision where there would be a
cul de sac in off of Bay Road, and what was proposed originally was an office building and
eight townhouses, which would be a separate project from The Michaels Group, which Garth
and the Bay Meadows Group would do, that would be located off the north side of that cul de
sac. Stu Baker had pointed out and questioned some of the flagging of the wetlands in that
area. Some of the wetlands in here, there’s a culvert that comes under Bay Road and
basically drainage drains to the north here. There were some wetlands in that area. So we
went back and reviewed that with Stu and Garth and we revised that plan, and this is
obviously different than what you had, but what we’ve done is gone from having two
separate buildings there, actually three buildings. We’re talking about doing a single building
and parking lot, because what happens here is the first hole of the golf course comes up to the
green which is up in this area, and then the tee is here and comes back north, and then this
side, it shows the delineation of the wetland which continues to the north, so we have a
developable area between the golf course and that wetland. So this has been reduced down to
a single building, accessing off of the cul de sac, and at this point, it would be either
Professional Office or Mixed Use with some Residential possibly on an upper floor, and
looking at a two story building. The Conservation Easement would include the entire golf
course piece, and would only exclude three pieces, one would be the 39 unit townhouse
project. It would exclude the potential development north of the Dreps cul de sac, and then
the Town Board asked us to leave the Club House area out of the Conservation Easement, in
case at some point in the future they wanted to do some renovation of the Club House area or
expand the parking or something, they wouldn’t be encumbered by the Conservation
Easement. What we’re here tonight for is looking for a response back to the Town Board, and
each one of these projects would be back before you for site plan approval in the future.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-A simple question. What exactly are we doing here?
MR. HUNSINGER-All we’re doing tonight is making a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I get hung up, it’s already zoned PUD. It’s going to stay
PUD.
MR. LAPPER-There’s going to be a change in the PUD agreement to reduce the density.
MR. BAKER-The primary changes in the PUD are reduction in the number of units, the
addition of the development on the north side, and the addition of the development off the
north side of the Dreps road. Those are the most significant changes in the PUD.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, are we saying that they can then now have a maximum of 39
townhouses, I think it is?
MR. LAPPER-Forty-seven, thirty-nine plus eight.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. BAKER-Forty-seven.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re saying you can have a maximum of 47.
MR. LAPPER-Residential, plus a small office building.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the Conservation Easement on the golf course.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the golf course.
MR. SEGULJIC-That clarifies it for me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-And again, future subdivision and site plan review would come back before this
Board for review and for SEQRA review.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess also, why would we need a Conservation Easement on the golf
course?
MR. LAPPER-Well, you could have a total of 99 units on 99 acres, and what we’re proposing
is less density than the maximum. So the Town Board said, if you’re going to do that, we
want to know that that’s going to be perpetual.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not like a deed restriction?
MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, it could be covered with a deed restriction. It’s also covered in
the PUD agreement because it’s a question, you know, a future Town Board could decide to
change it, zoning could change. So this is just sort of insurance, and since we’re not looking to
develop it any more, you know, it’s fine with us.
MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially this is like a land use plan, setting the limits on a land use
plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a fair comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a question. On the new drawing, which I haven’t seen, you’re
eliminating eight townhouses?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re not?
MR. LAPPER-They have the potential in that bigger building now to have a mixed use of
office, with residential.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess what I’m driving at, Stu’s analysis on his memo of June 25,
2005, I was looking at the traffic study on that. The senior parking, in other words, what
we’re doing here does not effect what you did on that study, Stu, is that correct? Those
numbers are still valid.
MR. LAPPER-It would probably be less, but it won’t be anymore.
STUART MESINGER
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the reason I’m asking the question is not just to talk. I mean, the
original study showed that we had about four seniors going in and out, and the townhouses
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
would have 21. Now, in the peak hours it shows that the seniors would have seven and the
townhouses would have twenty-five. That’s in your, so I see that both of these things have
about, one has a 19%, that’s on the AM peak there’s a 19% increase over what the seniors
had, and the PM peak is a 28% increase over what the seniors had. I’m trying to determine,
you know, because knowing what is happening at Cronin and Bay, the Dreps subdivision
that’s going in now, the units we just approved, the Amedore units that were approved out on
Quaker and Bay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not approved yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re coming down the pike. One way or another they’ll get on the
docket I’m sure of it, and what I’m really looking for here is some sort of an integrated traffic
study here. I beat this drum every time we meet with this Board, and what I’m starting to
see is, for example, study the integration of Bay Road and Cronin correlated with the starting
classes at ACC and the subsequent changes of those classes at ACC, coupled with the normal
AM peak hours, Monday through Sunday, and also recommend that the Town Board, because
this is a recommendation that we’re supposed to be transferring to the Town Board. This is
what they’re asking for in our review here is a recommendation. So there’s statements I have
that will go along with that, but my recommendation to the Town Board is that the study be
conducted by an out of town firm, and not casting aspersions at any of the people who have
done traffic studies for us, particularly Creighton Manning, who’s done most of them, but
that we have an integrated study of the traffic, particularly as it impacts Cronin Road and
Bay, and all the other, because you’ve got Lowe’s in there now. This is becoming a very
congested spot.
MR. LAPPER-Well, let me respond to that. I’ve been working with the County because they
need to take a little piece of the Lowe’s property for their project. So I’m very familiar with
the County project, and what’s going on now, and you’re probably aware, Bob, is that the
width was always there in Bay Road to make it a three lane road with a center left turning
lane, and that was obviously re-paved last week, and it’s going to be re-striped, and what, the
County did a detailed traffic study, that’s a large road improvement project for the County,
and they did a traffic study, and they didn’t feel that any traffic lights were warranted, and
certainly, you know, an extra 19 cars, whatever, isn’t going to warrant a traffic light, but the
fact.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not the 19 cars I’m worried about. It’s the integrated position. I know
what they’ve done, and I’d like to see some of that, but I’m not looking at just 19 cars.
MR. LAPPER-But I’m saying that they’re aware of everything that’s been done so far, and
they just re-paved and re-striped, and they’re going to have left turning lanes that aren’t
there now, which is going to alleviate, now there’ll be through traffic, passing traffic. So it’s,
you know, right now, if somebody’s trying to make a left, everyone from the College is backed
up waiting, and now the left turn lanes will be in the center, in the median, and everybody
else can bypass, which is a huge improvement, in terms of the capacity of the road.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s an improvement. I haven’t seen any of that. So I haven’t been able to
look at it and understand it. I mean, I like to understand things.
MR. LAPPER-Sure, but that is a County road, Bay Road, County jurisdiction, and that’s a
County project, a County improvement project with tax dollars. So they did not deem that a
traffic light was needed at Cronin Road when they did that, and I know that they looked at
all of that, and so my only point, in terms of this project is that, yes, in the peak hours, senior
housing has seven cars, and now we’re going to twenty-five, which is eighteen cars, and I’m
just saying that for eighteen cars, we really shouldn’t be bogged down in a traffic report,
because eighteen cars is nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-Jon, for as long as I’ve sat on this Board, I have seen traffic studies, and
never one traffic study that passed through this Board said you folks are in trouble. Never
one. So maybe there isn’t. I’d just like to see a better integration of the study problem, as
opposed to each and every one looked at.
MR. LAPPER-What I would suggest is, we can get you a letter from the County.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to see something that addresses, I don’t know how the rest of
the Board feels, I’m just mouthing off here as one member, but I’d certainly like to have a
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
comfort feeling that we’re not getting, you know, to a point where we’re going to start to get
real congested at that corner. I find it congested now.
GARTH ALLEN
MR. ALLEN-As far as this, just the history here, though, again. We’re asking for an
amendment to a previously approved PUD. We’re not really coming in from scratch. We’re
going to have half the density we had. Originally this land was zoned five thousand square
feet. Could have had four hundred and fifty units in days gone by. Now we have ninety-nine
acres with under fifty units, probably in a prime location in Town, and maybe a traffic study
may be warranted and we can get something from the County, but for this project, to amend
the PUD with reduced density and reduced traffic, I just don’t know if we need to be part of
that big process for a long term plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I noticed that Stu did it in his analysis, and that’s what triggered me
to take a look at it, and I think he did it correctly.
MR. ALLEN-And the ninety-seven units are going to thirty-nine.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-While we’re on the subject of traffic, I did have a question on that. Jon
just made a statement that there’s reduced traffic. In the traffic study that was provided, we
don’t really have the comparative data to make that conclusion.
MR. MESINGER-There’s a comparison chart on the last page.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let me just finish. You have, on Table Two, Trip Generation
Summary, that has the 24 hour, two way volume for the elderly housing, but you don’t have
it for the.
MR. MESINGER-Table Three and Four do the apartments and the townhouse, but Table
Five is what compares it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but you don’t have an equivalent of Table Two for the proposed
townhouses.
MR. MESINGER-I don’t do it by AM peak hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t have the 24 hour total, unless I missed it.
MR. MESINGER-No, I don’t have a 24 hour total. I do it by peak hours, because that’s
what we.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I could follow that.
MR. MESINGER-That’s the standard that we use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MESINGER-The difference is eighteen and nineteen cars, over the two hour AM and
PM peak hour period. So we’re talking about a nine car increase. It’s not a decrease. It’s a
decrease in density. There’s a very slight increase in traffic, nine cars over an hour, and, you
know, in all honesty, that’s just not a significant impact, and I hear Mr. Vollaro’s concerns. I
think they’re reasonable to take up by the Town on a regional level. I don’t think that it’s
reasonable to hang up an amendment to the PUD such as this, given what the number is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’m just interested to see what the overall traffic is on that
road, and every one of these add incrementally to it, and we always look at it individually.
MR. MESINGER-A reasonable request to make of the Town that it fund a study of the
corridor, but I don’t think it would be reasonable to hang us up here, given what our
numbers.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think anyone was suggesting that we hang you up, but a couple
of pieces of data would be really helpful, and that’s kind of where I was headed. Again, you
have the total 24 hour traffic for the elderly, but you don’t for the townhouses.
MR. MESINGER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-What is the existing conditions? I mean, you provide us with some data,
but you don’t provide us with enough data to draw specific conclusions.
MR. MESINGER-Well, I’d hoped that I had, but if you need more data, I can certainly
calculate the totals.
MR. HUNSINGER-What I was going to say is, you give us the totals at the end, and then
I’m sort of left to decide is, you know, seventeen additional trips in the peak hour significant.
MR. MESINGER-It’s a two hour peak.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the only way to really say that is to say there’s, you know, peak
hour traffic on Bay Road is X number of trips, then I can say, hey, this is a tenth of a percent
increase, which is probably what it is. I can conclude that it’s insignificant.
MR. LAPPER-We can get that.
MR. MESINGER-That’s an easy count to find out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I figured, but right now it’s kind of like, well, seventeen trips, but
what’s the background, you know.
MR. MESINGER-I hear you, and I can get you that. I would think, though, for purpose of
discussion, I mean, we all go up and down Bay Road regularly, and you can use your
imagination what eight cars is coming out and it doesn’t intuitively strike me as a significant
increase.
MR. METIVIER-It’s only eight cars if I’m the one that’s waiting, and I’m the ninth car.
MR. MESINGER-I hear you.
MR. METIVIER-Then it’s a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things this Board, I believe, Mr. Chairman, has to do is
make a recommendation to the Town Board. That’s what we’re going to be doing.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’re doing tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-And one of the things, I have some recommendations I’m going to make
other than this, but one of the recommendations I would like to make to the Town Board is to
take a look at providing an integrated study along the Bay Road. Now, I don’t know, we
have one member of the Town Board here, and he’s just hear to listen, but that’s one of the
recommendations I would like to put in here, is that, and maybe the letter that you’re getting
from the County would be sufficient for us to understand that, but right now I have to agree
with the Chairman. There is not sufficient data for me, or apparently for him, to draw a final
conclusion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we’re also not being asked to approve a site plan right
now.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’re only being asked to make a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s one of the recommendations I would throw to the Town Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board members?
MR. GOETZ-I just have a question. Isn’t that pretty muddy over there?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. ALLEN-That’s why all the wetland studies were done before. This is the only good land
on the project.
MR. GOETZ-Okay. Do you have to do much fill at all for this?
MR. ALLEN-There is some filling, yes.
MR. LAPPER-All of that was approved by DEC and Army Corps., the wetland mitigation,
where it’s going to be filled, and that’s what Jim was saying, we’re going to use these existing
permits.
MR. ALLEN-We’re actually going to use less square footage than was filled before.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a smaller project.
MR. MILLER-Yes. What happened in the planning of the seniors project, all the wetlands in
that area were all flagged by Deb Roberts, and then when grading plans were done, originally
there was four tenths of an acre being disturbed for the project, and seven tenths of an acre of
wetland was being created for mitigation, and that’s what was permitted and approved, and
we’re basically looking to renew those same permits.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re leading in to my question. I noticed that the ACOE letter
was dated 15 June 2005.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And it said the inspection was done on November 29, 2000. So if there was
an inspection done five years ago, and the DEC letter was done in 2001, all I would be looking
for is an updated letter from those agencies agreeing with their prior. That’s all.
MR. MILLER-We have to renew the permit.
MR. VOLLARO-So if they’ll give you a renewed permit based on prior data, I guess I’d be
happy, but I noticed it’s been five years out since.
MR. MILLER-We have to resubmit the wetland maps, as well as the mitigation plans and
the project plans, and they’ll reissue those permits.
MR. VOLLARO-Because that would be a recommendation I would be making to the Town
Board.
MR. LAPPER-That’s really not a PUD amendment issue. That’s really a Planning Board
site plan issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I thought what we were doing here was making recommendations on
this PUD to the Town Board.
MR. LAPPER-The PUD deals with the agreement and the density, and reduction in the
density.
MR. ALLEN-We’ll be back here for all those.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand we’ll be back here, but I just wanted the Town Board to
understand where at least one member of the Planning Board is coming from on
recommendations. You’d come back with the updated data on site plan. I understand that.
While I’m talking, I might as well finish off. Again, a recommendation, I would recommend
that the agreements be completed with the Town of Queensbury, possibly the Rec
Commission, I think that’s where they’re going to be, and the Queensbury Land Conservancy,
concerning the conveyance and acceptance of the land to both parties. So that we know that
that will be consummated, there’s no question about that.
MR. LAPPER-It probably will be the Town Board rather than the Land Conservancy.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, either way. I said the Town of Queensbury, you know, I assume that,
they talk about four acres along the Halfway Brook and other remaining open space. I don’t
know what that means.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the golf course conservation easement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but the four acres is going to be conveyed to the Town of
Queensbury?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I would like to see that that conveyance is accepted.
MR. LAPPER-It’s required in the PUD agreement..
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a letter of acceptance from the Town, the Town says yes, we’re
going to take this property? Because when I read the.
MR. LAPPER-The Town Board is requiring it in the PUD agreement, that it be conveyed.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, okay.
MR. LAPPER-And they’re also the entity that accepts it.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I noticed it in the minutes of the Town Board, which I read,
concerning this application, is that there was some concern about the fact that, and I guess
the Town is going to take, is the Rec Commission or the Town the person that’s going to say
we’ll accept this property? Who in the Town is going to accept this property?
MR. LAPPER-The Town Board is going to accept it.
MR. VOLLARO-The Town Board. Okay, because there was some words in the Town
minutes that said there was concern about acceptance, and that was made by Mr. Boor.
There was concern for acceptance. The Town Board didn’t say, yes, we’re going to take this
and that’s it. There were some words in the Town Board.
MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about the conservation easement and not the four acre rec
land.
MR. VOLLARO-What I want to make sure of here, without knowing all the details, is that
whoever the conveyance is going to accepts that conveyance and agrees with it. That’s what
I’m saying.
MR. ALLEN-The actual conveyance, though, won’t be made until there’s a site plan
approval and subdivision. It’s just an agreement to convey.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as there’s an agreement to convey that’s fine. I don’t want that sort
of floating out there that says, well maybe when this is all done we’ll get together and talk.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a requirement in the PUD agreement, in the amendment. It’s already
there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. GOETZ-Why would the Town want that?
MR. LAPPER-The stream corridor?
MR. GOETZ-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Because the Town owns other parts of Halfway Brook in Hiland Park, and
it’s deemed a valuable recreation resource because of fishing.
MR. BAKER-In essence that parcel would be another piece in a greenway corridor being
developed along Halfway Brook.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. GOETZ-What is there like a long term plan maybe to put a path down through there or
something like that?
MR. BAKER-That’s a possibility, but again as has been mentioned, much of the land along
the stream is wetland. So any sort of access through there would have to be carefully done,
but the primary benefit at this point of putting together such a greenway is water quality
protection.
MR. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a little late for that on Halfway Brook, I think the horse is out of
the barn on that one, pretty near.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can conservation easements be revoked?
MR. LAPPER-The party that it’s granted to has that control. So, in this case, if it was
granted to the Town Board, the Town Board could grant it to somebody else.
MR. BAKER-But the grantee can’t, in the future, say, I want those development rights
back. Once they’re granted, they’re gone.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s why I asked.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I asked the question because it’s a golf course now, and I just wanted to
know if, in the future, somewhere down the road.
MR. BAKER-Good question. A good question.
MR. LAPPER-So the Town Board could do something else, but it would be up to the Town
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have other comments, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No. We’re going to be getting into the SEQRA. I’m going to have just
minor comments on.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had some comments on the SEQRA, too. Any other questions,
comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-We are going to be doing a Long Form SEQRA tonight. Is that correct?
MR. BAKER-Actually the Town Board is responsible for the SEQRA on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I had a question on that. The question was exactly that. If the
Town Board has taken Lead Agency on SEQRA, they’re the one that’s going to do the
SEQRA on this.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thought that’s what it was, but I wanted to ask the question.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no other questions, comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering, with the discussion that we had, if we go forward and
make a motion to approve this, do we put additional recommendations to the Town Board on
Bob’s recommendation for a traffic study? Or is having it in the meeting minutes enough?
MR. METIVIER-It’s definitely not enough.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Town Board is looking for us to express not only an approval for
this but a recommendation for this PUD, and a recommendation usually says either plain yes,
we approve, or yes, we approve, but with the following recommendations to you, Mr. Town
Board, as to how you look at this as Lead Agency.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we can put anything in it we want. The Town Board,
it’s up to their discretion to decide if they want to, you know, take it at face value or dismiss
it or consider it or whatever. It’s just a recommendation.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’ve heard two additional recommendations. One to ask for
specific updated traffic data, specific for this project, and then I heard Bob say that he would
like the Town to conduct an integrated traffic study of Cronin and Bay Roads.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the questions that I had asked about traffic were related more to
site plan review rather than, you know, anything the Town Board needs to consider.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in approving the PUD, the Town Board is asking for our
recommendation to approve or disapprove a PUD, this modification to the PUD, essentially,
and all I’m saying to the Town Board is, hey, you know, I, as one member, have some
concerns about traffic. They may be able to be mitigated by a letter from the County.
MR. LAPPER-The County.
MR. VOLLARO-Which would be sufficient, the Town Board could look at the County letter
and determine whether this answers the question yes or no, but I want them to be aware of
the fact that this Board considered, at least one member of this Board, is considering an
integrated traffic, and what does that do to the Bay Road and Cronin. I want them to
understand that. Any recommendation, as the Chairman said, any recommendation we
make, they may just say, too bad. It’s up to them. It’s their discretion. They’ve asked us for
recommendations. That’s what we’re supposed to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re looking for a Town wide integrated traffic study, which includes
Cronin and Bay?
MR. VOLLARO-No. Just a traffic study which includes Cronin and Bay Road, and again,
that traffic study may be able to be mitigated by a letter from the County, as to what their
plans and structures are.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could ask Staff a question, on the draft resolution, it does have a
comment in here, whereas the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors
found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury. That’s not specific to SEQRA, though.
MR. BAKER-No, but certainly if you have any recommendations for the Town Board to
take into account in their SEQRA review, it’s appropriate to include those as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’ve looked at is I’ve looked at the applicant’s Part I submission,
and I have some questions in their Part I submission that probably the Town Board ought to
look at as well, because it’s incumbent upon us not only to do Part II, but to also look at Part
I and examine Part I.
MR. BAKER-Well, again, the Town Board is going to be responsible for SEQRA and Part II.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s absolutely correct, but I think the Town Board needs, from us, any
observations we have made to Part I that they should be looking at.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly, Bob, if you have questions on SEQRA Part I, now
would be the time to raise them.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’ll just go through them quickly. On Page Four of Twenty-One,
where it says, does the project site contain species, plants or animal life or endangered species
and so on. It says no, and it’s according to New York State DEC. Is there any supporting
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
documentation for that. I mean, that’s something that I would want to see. It’s got a no
there, but no must be based on something.
MR. MILLER-I’d have to see if we could get that in the file. That was originally signed off
on when the original PUD. So we’ll investigate that and get that documentation.
MR. VOLLARO-On the same page, Four of Twenty-One, it says, lakes and ponds, wetland
along Halfway Brook and portions of the site. I think we already said that that data would
be upgraded. So you’re going to be upgrading the 2000 and 2001 data anyway. So, I didn’t
know that when I went through this though.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had some sort of comments on Page Five of Twenty-One, under project
description B. I mean, if you just take this at face value, Item C. it says project acreage to
remain undeveloped, and it says 77 acres, but that is actually the golf course.
MR. MILLER-Well, actually, what that number would include is green space within the
projects also. For example, in the townhouse project, a substantial amount of that area is
going to remain as wetland and undeveloped. So that was in that acreage because it dealt
with the entire 97 acre parcel, not just what’s in the conservation easement.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess what I was saying, in my mind, saying that the golf course is
undeveloped land, is that technically correct? It’s being used as a golf course.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s all permeable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but that’s not the question. It says to remain undeveloped.
MR. LAPPER-It depends on how you define undeveloped.
MR. VOLLARO-On that same page, looking at the new proposal, the numbers that are in
there initially for condominium 39 and ultimately 47 have not changed?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. Okay. On Page Six, where it says, liquid waste disposal is
involved, you have yes, and you’ve got sewer. I think what we need to know in there, or
there’s got to be some inference to the fact that we require an extension to the Town’s
sanitary sewer district in order to do that.
MR. METIVIER-It’s not an extension, though, is it?
MR. VOLLARO-It is.
MR. LAPPER-It’s adjacent, the sewer line is in Cronin Road, and in Bay Road it’s adjacent,
but it has to be added.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. Sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s in accordance with Mike Shaw’s letter. It’s something I didn’t dream
up.
MR. METIVIER-All right, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the project or any portion, again on Page Six, Fifteen, is the project, or
any portion of the project, located within a one hundred year floodplain, and it’s got yes, and
I don’t know what implications that has. Probably none of the development of the project is
going to be within the floodplain. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-The finished floor of the units will be above the floodplain. That’s the area.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s all slab construction? Okay. That’s probably smart.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you remember, there was a lot of discussion about that, when we
approved the previous PUD.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. METIVIER-Well, don’t you have any implications with financing the project on
floodplains anyway?
MR. ALLEN-We’re going to be above it. The floor plan will be above it.
MR. METIVIER-I’m just saying that you’re in a floodplain.
MR. ALLEN-As long as we can prove that we’re above it.
MR. MILLER-The floodplain just sets the elevation that the living space has to be set at, and
we’ll be above it.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. On Page Seven, will the project use herbicides or pesticides,
and it says no. I assume that the answer is, yes, the project will use, I mean, you know,
you’ve got a lot of grass out there.
MR. MILLER-Well, don’t interpret that question to mean people treating their lawns.
Obviously, everybody and every lawn on offices and things, there’s a standard maintenance.
We interpret that question as being something unique, like an agricultural operation that
would require extensive spraying or something out of the ordinary.
MR. VOLLARO-The question is very generic. It says will the project use herbicides or
pesticides. It doesn’t get clarification.
MR. MILLER-Well, the project doesn’t, but the homeowners probably will.
MR. VOLLARO-So I’m questioning whether that should be yes or no.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think, Bob, the other thing, you’ve always got to look at the, you
know, how extensive it is when you get to the other part of it, and obviously you have a
townhouse project with limited lawns.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t give us that option. They give us a yes or a no. Not much I can
do about it.
MR. MESINGER-The context of that is like right of way clearing projects, is what that’s
really intended to get to, and (lost words) it’s not asking about homeowners. It’s asking, if
this were a NiMo power line project, the answer would be yes because they come along and
douse it. So that’s really what that question is after, is herbicides an integral part of the
project.
MR. VOLLARO-Neophytes like myself wouldn’t.
MR. MESINGER-It took me years to learn that myself. I had the same set of discussions 22
times until I finally got that out of somebody at DEC.
MR. VOLLARO-On Page Eight at the top, you’ve got both of them checked, you know, City,
Town, and Village, yes and no. I think you’d want to get rid of one of those. Now, I guess
there’s a question in my mind, the next one is City, Town and Village Planning Board, and
the site plan approval, I understand that. Is there going to be a subdivision analysis on this?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that also should be in there, and I don’t see it.
MR. LAPPER-The PUD Ordinance is always silent about that, and it called everything a site
plan, but it is going to be a subdivision for the individual townhouse units.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So that probably should be both subdivision and site plan approval on
that line. Okay. Then further on Eight, under State Agencies, you’ve got the homeowners
association, and in there, I put that it should be some pro forma offering plan that we get to
look at as part of this.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. LAPPER-Not with the Town Board on the PUD. That would be part of the Planning
Board process.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but it just has HOA down there. It doesn’t say anything about what
should be provided. To me, the HOA means we’re going to look at a pro forma offering plan.
That’s what that looks at. Okay.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think I’m getting to the end, gentlemen, and I think that under C, Zoning
and Planning Information, that subdivision should be checked, now that we just discussed
that.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the end.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually one of those questions, one of Bob’s questions triggered one of my
questions. We’ve talked about these townhouses will now, we were talking about senior
housing in the last PUD. This time we’re talking about houses that are going to be in the
Glens Falls City School District. Has the Town Board talked with Glens Falls? Have you
talked with Glens Falls City Schools about that? This will obviously have a big impact on
them.
MR. LAPPER-Not a big impact, but I can tell you that when we did the project that’s still to
come before you for final approval across the street, on the corner of Bay and Quaker.
MR. VOLLARO-This is Dreps you’re talking about?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Amedore.
MR. VOLLARO-Amedore.
MR. LAPPER-We did talk to Tom MacGowen, the Superintendent, and unlike the Town
School District, the City School District has capacity for additional students.
MR. MESINGER-The generation is low. These are townhouse units. There’s a very low
generation.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that there’s calculations you use, but I don’t always support some
of those calculations.
MR. LAPPER-We’re looking at some of the other Michaels Group projects, like Waverly
Place, right here, which are primarily empty nester projects, so that’s why we anticipate it’ll
be similar.
MR. ALLEN-It’s going to target the same market. As far as I know, there’s maybe one kid
in Waverly Place.
MR. MILLER-I drive up there in the morning, and I see, it looks like one grandparent with
one kid waiting for the bus.
MR. ALLEN-Yes, there’s one kid in the 48 townhouses.
MR. MILLER-As opposed to the Schermerhorn’s, you know, they’ve got a group down there.
MR. ALLEN-That’s what we’re going to design them for. Of course we can’t control who
buys it, but our target market is the empty nester, maintenance free type person, with master
bedrooms down, wherever possible.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready? Would anyone like to put forward a
recommendation resolution?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-
2000 MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
97.3 acres: 23.1 acre lot for 39-unit townhouse project including golf driving range, 70.2 acre
lot for an 8 unit townhouse project, one professional office building, golf course and related
amenities, one lot of 4 acres left as open space and dedicated to the town. Planning Board
will review proposed PUD zoning changes only.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/7/05; and
WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and
application materials in file of record; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a recommendation to the Town Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code
of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PUD SITE PLAN
NO. 8-2000 MICHEALS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP. in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions:
1. Under recommendations: We’d like that the Town Board be looking for an integrated
traffic study of the intersection of Bay Road and Cronin, with starting of classes at ACC and
subsequent changing of classes at ACC, coupled with the normal AM and PM peak hours,
Monday through Sunday. Also recommended to the Town Board that the study be
conducted by a firm that’s not a local firm.
2. Since the Town Board is the Lead Agency on SEQRA, I’ve made some comments, and
they’re on the record concerning the submission of the applicant’s Part I, and the Town
Board would be advised to take a look at the minutes of this meeting to determine what they
were.
3. The applicant has agreed to re-submit Part I with the changes that were looked at by this
Board.
Duly adopted this 16 day, of August, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sanford
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. ALLEN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. ALLEN-We’ll be back.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did have outstanding agenda item. Off Premises Sign 1-2005.
Apparently the applicant has not shown up. I don’t know if this has ever happened, where an
applicant hasn’t shown up for a meeting, since I’ve been on the Board. Should we open the
public hearing?
MR. BAKER-Well, the public hearing was advertised. I’d recommend opening it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I will open the public hearing for Off Premises Sign No. 1-2005.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll keep the public hearing open, and table it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, is it necessary for the applicant to be here for us to make an
approval?
MR. BAKER-No, you can act on the application without the applicant being here.
MR. VOLLARO-I think this is pretty straightforward. Let’s not back it into a tabling. It’s
bad enough we’ve got.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just think it’s a silly application.
MR. METIVIER-It’s a silly application, and I don’t see why, I don’t think there’s got to be
an issue with this Board on this application. Let’s move forward on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely. I agree with that.
MR. GOETZ-I would just like to make a comment.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead.
MR. GOETZ-I used to do that road all the time, when I lived on Wincrest Drive, going onto
Route 9. That’s one of the most dangerous intersections on that highway, next to the one in
front of our place, that goes to Wal-Mart, but it’s very, very dangerous, and you have a
tremendous amount of traffic coming out of Cumberland, you have a tremendous amount of
traffic headed north and south. You have those billboards which are going to be behind this,
this 10 foot sign is going to be hard to read. People are going to be trying to read it, and I
think it’s, it could be dangerous, having done that many a times, because I had a daughter
who was in a serious accident on that turn, and it’s not really as straightforward as it looks.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, when I made the comment a little earlier that I thought it was silly,
it’s just, I don’t really see what the purpose is for it. I had a different point of view, I think,
than Tony did.
MR. METIVIER-So maybe we should table it, wait for the applicant to come back and
answer some questions.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not really sure what value it adds to that corridor. That’s my opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it adds value to the corridor at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s just a sign that portrays a piece of information that may, now
that it was raised by Mr. Goetz, you know, I went up there and looked, and I didn’t readily
see that as an impediment, but it might be when you, by closer look, it may be, I’ll go up and
take another look at it. So maybe you do want to take a look.
MR. GOETZ-It used to be worse there, because they had hedges that came out forward
towards the road and I notice they’ve taken those down, but it’s still not as innocent as it
sounds.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MRS. STEFFAN-And also when I said I don’t know what value it will add, when we look at
that intersection and what’s been approved, I mean, across the street there’s a shopping
center, but then we’ve, the motel is going to go through major renovations. There’s going to
be an Outback Steakhouse. The trees are going to be taken down between the Outback
Steakhouse and largely taken down between the Steakhouse and the Carwash. The visibility
of the Carwash will be improved, and so I’m not really sure what value the sign adds to that
particular corridor. So that’s how I feel about it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, first I’m uncomfortable approving something without the applicant
here.
MR. METIVIER-Why don’t we table it, and find out where they are.
MR. BAKER-I’d like to recommend, if the Board’s going to table it, that you do table it to a
specific date.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re better able to pick a date, based on what’s on the board in
your office, rather than us.
MR. BAKER-We’ve got room on either agenda, at this point, for September. So if the Board
wants to pick a date, then we can notify the applicant what date they are expected to be here.
MR. VOLLARO-The second meeting in September.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Let’s do it the second meeting in September.
MR. METIVIER-What’s that date?
MR. BAKER-The second meeting?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-That’s the 27.
th
MOTION TO TABLE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2005, JOE MCMURRY Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
To the September 27, 2005 meeting.
Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Sanford
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any other business before the Board?
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, did Marilyn give you that letter from Bartlett, Pontiff
regarding Northway Christian Family Church?
MR. HUNSINGER-She did, yes.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to discuss that? They’re asking to be on a meeting in August.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Let me just sort of summarize this for the Board. Marilyn
delivered to me this evening a letter from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart regarding the Northway
Christian Family Church. If you might recall we approved the site plan on Homer Avenue in
June. Part of the approving resolution was that they would obtain written leases from
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
adjacent neighbors for 36 parking spaces. The motion to approve, as I understand, I don’t
have it in front of me, referenced the specific two owners. Apparently one of the owners said
no. The daycare center next door, but the Chiropractic office said yes. The Chiropractic
office actually has enough spaces, as approved, but again, the resolution was specific in
mentioning both sites. What they have asked is that they get onto the August agenda for
this, as they call it, slight modification. Yes, I guess that would have to be next week.
MR. METIVIER-It sure would be.
MR. VOLLARO-And we already have seven on for next week. Do we?
MRS. BARDEN-Five items.
MR. VOLLARO-We have five for next week?
MR. HUNSINGER-I have the agenda right here.
MRS. BARDEN-Five items.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then there’s room?
MR. HUNSINGER-There is room.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. Let’s do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll address it next week.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just for purposes, well, you already handed us our packages.
What I would at least find helpful is to have a copy of the approving resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-We might also, if we’re going to do it next week, at least have copies of
Marilyn’s letter so we all have an opportunity to read that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just get a copy of this letter and the approving resolution.
MRS. BARDEN-I’ll get you the lease as well, from Dr. Tackett.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t know if we need that.
MRS. BARDEN-No?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you have it on file. I don’t know if we need to really see it
specifically. Anything else?
MR. METIVIER-I have a quick question. I think Bob is really onto something with traffic
studies, and I’m going to be 30 seconds on this, or maybe a suggestion, that somehow we ask
the Town Board to pay for and do a Town wide traffic study type thing, and then every
project that comes before us, significant project, has to respond to their impact to that traffic
study. Do you think that’s possible?
MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn’t DOT go out and rate the intersections already, A through F?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I’ve actually brought that up at the Planning Ordinance Review
Committee meeting recently. There was a traffic meeting a month and a half ago on the
Aviation and Route 9 corridor, and Marilyn said that there’s a great deal of information that
is available from a local transportation authority. I’m trying to remember. Stu, maybe you
can help me with the name of that.
MR. BAKER-The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. They have a tremendous amount of information, and some of the
feedback that Marilyn had given to me on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee is that
there was a great deal of information that we could kind of pull together, that the Town may
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
not have to do their own independent study, but we may be able to pull some of that
information together. I do think it would be important for us to ask the Town Board to pull
that together, because we have been having issues with our traffic studies that have been
coming in front of us.
MR. METIVIER-Well, there are no traffic studies coming in front of us, that’s the problem,
and I really think we have to have a threshold, at some point, to say, enough is enough.
Somebody has to do one. We can’t pin it on the next applicant per se, but someone
somewhere along the way has to do it, and then moving forward every application that comes
in front of us, how will that impact the Town wide or the corridor traffic study for Bay Road,
Aviation, Quaker, you know, and Bob’s on to it, but where do we start requiring it be done?
Is it with this PUD? No, but is it with the next one, maybe.
MR. VOLLARO-Does it have to be with any one at all? I mean, the Town Board would have
to identify dollars, and I think there’s enough money in the Town budget to do something like
that, to go out and contract for, I think you’re onto something. Town wide thing that we
take a look at every time somebody comes before us, how do you impact this study.
MR. METIVIER-Well, they have to answer the question, how do you impact the study.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it goes to the question that I raised tonight, you know, at what
point, what’s significant?
MR. METIVIER-Well, what is.
MR. HUNSINGER-They give us some numbers, and it’s like pulling a number out of a hat. I
mean, there’s no background information.
MR. METIVIER-And you know that these studies that get done by the applicants are
always in favor. It’s so minimal, it’s two, three, four cars.
MRS. STEFFAN-No significant impact.
MR. METIVIER-Right. There’s no significant impact, but I’ll tell you what, sitting at
Stewarts the other day, and actually I wasn’t at Stewarts, I was at the Bank, at 8:15, was a
disaster, and granted there was a dump truck that was pulling in to Dreps subdivision that
slowed things up. I kid you not when I say I was there probably a good like six minutes
waiting to get out, and I was the fourth car at Stewarts trying to get out. I mean, it’s just a
disaster, you know. It really is getting bad.
MR. VOLLARO-And ACC isn’t even in motion yet.
MR. METIVIER-In session yet. So there are some serious issues, and it’s not traffic jams.
It’s the fact that you never, ever, ever get a break on Cronin Road and Bay Road to get out,
because every time there is a break, you’ve got so many people coming from Rich’s stuff and
the day care and all the other offices. It’s like you never get a break to get out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, is part of our agreement with Saratoga Associates to do some traffic
work, for the revision of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
MR. BAKER-Well, traffic is certainly something that can be addressed as part of the Comp
Plan update. The actual full scope of the Comp Plan update is going to be the topic of the
first meeting with Saratoga Associates.
MR. VOLLARO-To my recollection, that was not part of the statement of work, I don’t
believe.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we talked about that, Bob, in a subsequent meeting.
MR. BAKER-Saratoga Associates has received the Top Ten List that the PORC did and
traffic concerns were listed prominently amongst all those.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly agree about the traffic study. One of the statements I made
when they did the presentation, the consultants were with the Town Board and the
Community Development Department representatives when they talked about the
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
improvements that were going to be made to Aviation Road and Route 9, and something that
just keeps ringing in my ear is that that intersection will fail in the Year 2025, and we had
just approved the Outback Steakhouse about three weeks before, and their traffic study said
no significant impact, and so who do we believe? What’s real?
MR. METIVIER-They really said something’s going to fail in 2025?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-We don’t even know if we’re going to have cars at that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which intersection?
MRS. STEFFAN-The intersection of Route 9 and Aviation Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-They can’t expand it anymore. They’re going to make some changes.
There will be a few additional turning lanes, but that intersection will fail in its current
configuration, current size, it will fail in 2025.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not surprised.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s 20 years from now, and we keep talking about the percentages of
growth that we’re expecting, that’s with a two percent growth rate, and, you know, is that an
accurate growth rate? I’m not sure. Those are certainly the numbers that are acceptable and
we’re using, but I don’t know whether.
MR. VOLLARO-At certain times, I’ve seen the data at peak hours where that intersection
has received an F, it failed at certain peak hours.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, but I’ve seen peak hours where that intersection, you just fly right
through it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-And that was as recent as today. I mean, it wasn’t bad today. Nice day.
In a rainy day, you’re there for hours, not hours, but you know what I mean.
MR. VOLLARO-People are at the beach today probably.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. Well, it did rain pretty hard, but still it wasn’t bad today, I have to
say, but, all right. I’m done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the conclusion, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Well, the conclusion, I think we have to make a recommendation, but we
also have to put one together, and I think Bob should put one together because, if you don’t
mind, and maybe at next week’s meeting we should make a recommendation to the Town
Board that they have to do it. They have to do a full blown traffic study, and somehow
incorporate that any future applications have to respond to that traffic study, and I think
that’ll solve a lot of problems.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-No pun intended here, but the last time I made a recommendation to the
Town Board, it cost me big time.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll make it. E-mail me something. I’ll make it next weekend. We’ll work
together on it.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. That would work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn is always in
order.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 8/16/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Seconded.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
49