Two QUPA 73015 TOQ ltr MEYER&FUILLER
PI C
Attorneys Retired
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq. Howard I. Krantz, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Meyer, Esq.
Mary-Ellen E. Stockwell, Esq.
July 30, 2015
Hon. John Strough, Supervisor
Town Board, Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
Re: Applicant: Queensbury Partners, LLC
Project: Fowler Square Planned Unit Development
Location: Southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads, Queensbury
Tax Map Nos: 289.19-1-23 through 35, inclusive
Dear Supervisor Strough and Town Board Members:
As you know, our firm is counsel to Queensbury Partners, LLC, the owner of property located in
the Office Zone in the Town of Queensbury. I am following up relative to the workshops and
Town Board meetings concerning the potential for a PUD in the Office Zone. Following Town
counsel's suggestion as noted at the meetings, we are submitting the enclosed application
materials for a PUD on the Queensbury Partners, LLC property at the corner of Bay and Blind
Rock Roads in the Town.
To that end, I enclose herewith the following:
- Application (note that we have utilized the Zoning Amendment application submitted
with materials per Article 12 of Chapter 179 of the Town Code;
Application includes:
o ZBA record of resolution August 22, 2013;
o Planning Board determination August 23, 2013;
o Excerpt of Planning Board minutes April 23, 2013 for negative SEQRA
declaration;
o Excerpt of Planning Board minutes August 27, 2013 for confirmation of
negative SEQRA declaration;
o Map of adjoining uses;
o Water approval;
"Hain+..)i'_FAWA SI LAKE C:rB*'ORIC�E, NY 1I264,'.5
Page 12
o Utility Evaluation;
o Traffic Impact Study;
- Check for$250; and
- Site development stats;
Fowler Square Planned Unit Development plans, stats and specifications include the
following:
o L1.1-L1.3, Site Preparation and Erosion Control Plan
o L1.4, Site Phasing Plan
o L2.1-L2.3, Site Layout and Materials Plan
o L3.1-3.3, Site Grading and Drainage Plan
o L4.1-L4.3 Site Utility Plan
o L4.4, Sanitary Sewer Profile
o L5.1-L5.3, Site Landscape Plan
o L6.1-L6.3, Site Lighting and Photometric Plan
o L7, Site Details
o L8, Site Details
o L9, Utility Details
o L10, Drainage Details
o Ll 1, Drainage Details
o L12, Drainage Details
Understanding that pursuant to Article 12 of Chapter 179, the application must be forwarded to
the Planning Board, we hereafter turn and address the criteria and review under Article 12 of
Chapter 179 of the Town Code.
SEQRA
Though opponents challenged portions of the underlying ZBA and Planning Board
determinations, they did not challenge the SEQRA negative declarations. The Town Board can
take notice that the project is and remains as proposed, shaped, and ultimately approved by both
the ZBA and Planning Board. As such, we see no reason to upset the SEQRA determination. If
needed, we can resubmit a full EAF, but again, we see no reason to do so.
Article 12 of Chapter 179 (Zoning) of the Town of Queensbury Town Code
§179-12-020, General Requirements
Pursuant to §179-12-020, General Requirements, we offer the following:
A. Ownership. The tract of land for a project may be owned, leased or controlled either
by a single person or corporation, or by a group of individuals or corporations. An
application must be filed by the owner or jointly by owners of all property included in
a project. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved plan shall be binding on all
owners.
Page 13
Response: The property will be entirely owned by one entity with the exception of
the "south parcel"which the property owner reserves the right to convey to a future
purchaser depending on interest. That is, if a future developer seeks a large office
and wants to own that office on their own parcel, we would like to reserve the right to
convey that parcel to a third party who would also have rights over the internal roads.
We would recommend that such future option be subject to Town Board approval, as
with any planned unit development, and of course such project would likely require
site plan approval from the planning board as well.
B. Minimum area. The minimum area for a PUD shall be 30 contiguous acres of land.
The Town Board may consider projects of lesser acreage where the applicant can
demonstrate that the characteristics of his holdings meet the purposes and objectives
of this article.
Response: At 34.050 acres, the parcel satisfies this requirement.
C. Residential density. Base residential density (BRD) in a PUD is that density as
permitted in the original district or districts in the current Zoning Ordinance. The
residential density allowed in a PUD (PUD density) shall not exceed 100% of the
original base residential density except as set forth below.
Response: At 142 units, the project complies with the density requirements and
limitations.
Also,please note that we are NOT seeking available density bonuses under §179-12-
020(c)(2). We note this simply for the record to head off any suggestion that
Queensbury Partners, LLC seeks a PUD for purposes of increasing residential
density. That is not the case, is not the plan, and will not be sought by Queensbury
Partners, LLC for this PUD.
D. Nonresidential density. Nonresidential densities may not exceed 20% of the total
residential square footage in a PUD.
Response: At 56,180 square feet of office/retail space, the project complies with the
requirements of§179-12-020(4). Note however, that with this particular project, the
density was calculated"commercial first". That is, based on calculations with the
Town's zoning and planning staff, the commercial and residential square footages
allowable in the district were calculated. That said, the project still meets the
requirements of the Office Zone and Article 12 of Chapter 179.
E. Allowed use.Any type of residential use is permitted within a PUD, subject to the
base density provisions in Subsection C above. Only those nonresidential uses which
are compatible with the residential portion of the proposal as well as compatible with
Page 14
the existing neighborhood or general area are permitted within a PUD, subject to the
base density provisions in Subsection D above.
Response: Suggested uses are convenience store, coffee shop, food service, small
retail,personal service, general office, and bank. We believe as per the prior
approvals that these uses are complimentary to the residential uses, and vice versa.
F. All homes and townhouses shall be ENERGY STAR qualified homes, meaning they
meet guidelines for energy efficiency set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Response: Buildings will be Energy Star qualified.
G. All other buildings, including multifamily buildings, shall be "designed to earn
ENERGY STAR,"meaning they meet guidelines for energy efficiency set by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Response: Again, all buildings will be designed to meet energy star compliance.
H. Open space ownership. The type of ownership of any land that set aside for open
space shall be selected by the applicant, subject to the approval of the Town Board,
and shall be indicated on the final plat.
Response: All open space shall be owned by the project developer as the owner of
one of the lots. This complies with §179-12-020(H)(4).
§179-12-010 Intent and Objectives
Pursuant to §179-12-010, Intent and Objectives, we offer the following:
Objectives. In order to carry out the intent of this article, the Planning Board shall consider the
following objectives and find that the following objectives are satisfied by the project proposed
pursuant to this article in order to issue a favorable report to the Town Board as provided in §
179-12-050:
(1) Whether the project provides a choice in the types of environment, occupancy tenure
(e.g., individual ownership, condominium leasing), types of housing and sizes and
community facilities available to existing and potential residents at all economic
levels.
Response: The residential aspects of the project will be scaled based on the location
of the units within the development. For example, the individual units to the western
portion of the property will likely command a different rent structure than those
above the commercial spaces. We believe this fits within the demand for housing in
Page 15
this area of the Town as well as permits greater economic flexibility with the
commercial space in the development.
(2) Whether the project provides more usable open space and recreation and the linkage
of open space areas.
Open space recreation areas are provided by linking sidewalks within the
development and open areas usable by tenants within the development. In general,
there are no other sidewalks in this area of Town, but the project is designed such that
links can easily be established should future neighboring developments incorporate
such links. In particular, thoughts turn to the college property across Bay Road as
well as the Town's property located diagonally from the project site. Both properties
should focus future efforts to connecting to the walkable portions of the project site to
expand recreational opportunities and walkable communities. The project factors in
these potential future improvements with the existing design.
(3) Whether the project provides more convenience to residents in the location of
manufacturing, commercial and service areas, if applicable.
Response: As noted, the project includes sidewalks to permit pedestrian access and
walkable community considerations. These improvements will permit easy access to
commercial and service areas within the development.
(4) Whether the project provides for the preservation of trees, outstanding natural
topographic and geologic features and prevention of soil erosion.
Response: No outstanding topographic or geologic features were noted, but the
project does preserve substantial vegetation along the western boundary including the
wetland areas. Buffers will be maintained to minimize impact to neighboring
properties and no neighbors voiced any concern with the planting and landscaping
proposals before the planning board and ZBA.
(5) Whether the project provides for a creative use of land and related physical
development which allows an orderly transition of land.
Response: The project has been shaped in working with members of the Town Board,
Planning Board and ZBA to work within the existing site,particularly the natural
features and coordination with neighboring uses. For example, the internal roads
have been partnered with neighboring uses across Blind Rock Road to provide for
orderly ingress and egress, and emergency access further west on Blind Rock Road
has been suggested so that there is better flow of internal traffic and less conflict with
traffic on public roads. The project has been shaped based on the natural features
within the development including the substantial beneficial wetlands within the
property. These features will be supplemented based on the landscaping plans and in
keeping with the current physical layout of the property.
Page 16
(6) Whether the project provides for an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks
of utilities and services, thereby lowering housing costs.
Response: Utilities are internally planned with minimum upkeep and maintenance in
mind. Plans L4.1L4.3 show the plans as proposed.
(7) Whether the project provides a development pattern in harmony with the objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The development pattern is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.
Within the office zone, a mix of high density residential, as well as office,
professional, and limited commercial uses is envisioned. This project includes all of
those facets, and with the southern portion of the property, also maintains space
available for a larger commercial office type employer. We believe this is precisely
in keeping with the vision of the Town for this area.
(8) Whether the project provides a more desirable environment than would be possible
through the strict application of other articles of this chapter.
Response: This is precisely why a PUD is more desirable for this project. As noted,
the project was the result of substantial input and shaping from members of the Town
Board, Planning Board and ZBA. A very small minority of opponents saw fit to
challenge the development based on a technicality within the Zoning Law and not in
keeping with how the Town itself interpreted its own Zoning Law. The proposal
allows the project to proceed as the Town envisioned, while not necessarily upsetting
any precedential effect of the Court determination. In that regard, it is a win-win for
the Town as well as the project sponsor. The Town receives a significant beneficial
project that it helped shape,while the project sponsor finally can proceed with
economic benefit from its now exceedingly investment in its property.
(9) Whether the project provides scenic vistas, historic sites, and prevents disruption of
natural drainage patterns.
Response: No impacts to drainage patterns or historic sites were noted in the review
process, including review and sign off by archeologists. The project actually factors
in the scenic vistas to the East. To the West, no such vistas are impacted by the
proposed project.
(10) Whether the project utilizes landscaping and building design to present a sense of
community, of integrated color schemes, architectural styles and layout.
Response: This too is one of the significant benefits of the project. The `look' and
`feel' of the buildings was a significant part of the discussion before the Planning
Board in particular. The Planning Board voiced significant support for the
architecture to be employed. The landscaping, sidewalks, outdoor seating cafes and
similar features provide the "village"type feel sought by the Planning Board as well
Page 17
as members of the Town Board and ZBA. In short, yes, we feel we have completely
satisfied this consideration.
(11) Whether the project brings nonresidential services to underserved parts of the
Town.
Response: We believe this too is precisely served by this proposed project. The
northeast side of Town has not generally been as served by mixed commercial-office
uses. Indeed, for cafes and restaurants, the closest services are down Bay Road and
one up on Ridge Road near Oneida corners. The proposed project includes options
for all such nonresidential services that will be filled based on demand for the space.
As noted on the plans, space is available for banking, restaurant/food service, smaller
type retail establishments, offices and the like. This is precisely what a PUD should
accomplish, and given the approvals of the Planning Board and ZBA, we believe we
have accomplished those goals.
§179-12-030 Considerations
Pursuant to §179-12-030, Considerations, we offer the following:
A. The need for the proposed land use in the proposed location.
Response: The services proposed are needed in this area of the Town. In short, there is
demand for higher quality apartments on the residential side, and we believe that the
smaller office/commercial/retail spaces with the flexibility in sizing proposed, will meet
current demand. For services, again, we believe the commercial services such as limited
food service would thrive on this side of Town. We know of no similar outdoor seating
type foodservice on this side of Town,particularly with the views and atmosphere that
can be offered in this area of the Town.
B. The availability and adequacy of water service.
Response: Per letter dated April 25, 2013 as well as the utilities evaluation provided by
the LA Group, both included in the application materials, adequate water is on site.
C. The availability and adequacy of sanitary waste disposal facilities.
Response: Though much controversy has surrounded sewer along Bay Road, even the
Town's most recent July 2015 sewer evaluation by MJ Engineering and Land Surveying,
PC has concluded that adequate capacity exists for approved projects. Those projects
include Fowler Square.
Moreover, Queensbury Partners, LLC has offered to dedicate the sum of$50,000 towards
the sewer improvements noted in the July 2015 MJ Engineering and Land Surveying, PC
report. Thus, the actual per user impact costs noted in that report are inflated as $50,000
Page 18
should be taken off those figures. That offer remains on the table from Queensbury
Partners, LLC.
D. The availability and adequacy of transportation systems, including the impact on the
road network.
Response: The traffic impact study offered by Queensbury Partners, LLC, together with
the improvements already made, and the turning lane to be installed, offer large scale
improvements to existing transportation at the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock roads.
The traffic study noted no further impacts, and indeed resulting improvements, from the
changes suggested. Though the traffic study did not recommend a turning lane on Blind
Rock Road, Queensbury Partners, LLC has nonetheless agreed to install one as requested
by the Planning Board.
E. The pedestrian circulation and open space in relation to structures, throughout the
proposed development, and as part of an adjoining or future connecting Townwide open
and linear pathway system.
Response: As noted above, internal sidewalks with the potential to connect to
neighboring property uses have been proposed on the plans. This keeps open future
connectivity, while also providing orderly pedestrian access within the site.
F. The character of the neighborhood in which the PUD is being proposed, including the
safeguards provided to minimize possible detrimental effects of the proposed use on
adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general.
Response: The project proposes maintaining significant vegetation along the western
boundary. In addition, the buildings have been located along Blind Rock Road in an
effort to maintain views of the professional office immediately across Blind Rock Road.
In terms of the character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood includes other high
density residential apartments, offices, town facilities, and single family residential across
Bay Road. The project is a mix of similar uses and will not conflict with the
neighborhood.
G. The height and mass of buildings and their relation to other structures in the vicinity.
Response: Height had been a discussion at the ZBA and Planning Board meetings, and
the height of the buildings has been decreased in working with those boards to better
reflect uses in the area. Comparable uses discussed included the college buildings across
Bay Road. The buildings should not conflict with adjoining uses in the vicinity of the
project site.
H. Potential impacts on local government services.
Response: There are no readily apparent impacts on local government services.
Page 19
L Potential impacts on environmental resources, including wetlands, surface water,
floodplain, and plant and wildlife communities.
Response: The project has been proposed with a view towards minimal impacts to the
wetlands. The project received a negative declaration from the Planning Board acting as
lead agent. No impacts to floodplains or plant and wildlife communities have been
identified.
J. The general ability of the land to support the development, including such factors as
slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type.
Response: No issues with slopes, depth to bedrock or depth to water table have been
noted. Initial perc rates for stormwater have been more than acceptable given the
sandy/loamy soils on site.
K. Other factors as may be deemed appropriate by the Town Board.
Response: We will gladly respond to any factors raised by the Town Board.
§179-12-050 Application Materials
Pursuant to §179-12-050, relative to application materials, we offer the following:
(1) Sketch plan drawing. The application shall include a sketch plan drawn to scale,
though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing, and it shall
clearly show the following information:
(a) The location of the various uses and their areas.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(b) The general outlines of the interior roadways system and all existing
rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(c) Delineation of the various residential areas.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(d) The interior open space system.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(e) The overall drainage system.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L3.1-3.3.
IPage 110
(f) If grades exceed 3% or portions of the site have a moderate to high
susceptibility to erosion or a moderate to high susceptibility to flooding
and ponding, a topographic map showing contour intervals of not more
than five feet of elevation, along with an overlay outlining the above
susceptible soil areas, if any. Ifgrades are less than 3016, the topographic
map may be at ten foot contour intervals.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans and no areas noted for
susceptibility to flooding. See L2.1-2.3 & L3.1-3.3.
(g) Principal ties to the community at large with respect to transportation
(pedestrian and vehicular), water supply and sewage disposal.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3, L7, L8 and Traffic
Impact Study.
(h) General description of the provisions of other community facilities, such
as schools,fire protection services and cultural facilities, if any, and some
indication of how these needs are proposed to be accommodated.
Response: The applicant has previously coordinated with the fire
department resulting in the suggested emergency access along Blind Rock
Road. No impacts to schools or other community facilities have been
noted or voiced.
(i) A location map showing uses and ownership of abutting lands.
Response: Supplied on the adjoining parcels map in the application
documents.
0) A long form environmental assessment form.
Response: Not supplied, neg dec already issued.
(2) Additional sketch plan documentation. In addition, the following documentation shall
accompany the sketch plan:
(a) Evidence of how the developer's particular mix of land uses meets existing
community demands.
Response: Discussed above.
(b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned and
maintained.
Response: Discussed above.
IPage 111
(c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the staging
is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged, the sketch
plan of this section shall show the intended total project.
Response: Staging plan provided.
(d) How the plan is in conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Discussed above.
(e) Evidence of the applicant's physical and financial competence to carry out
the plan and his awareness of the scope of such a project.
Response: The applicant would be happy to provide whatever financial
information the board might request. However, we note to date that we
have installed a sewer line at our expense, and have financed countless
engineering plans, specifications, and also funded a more than a year long
legal battle. We do not believe the applicant's finances are in question.
(f) A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment applicable to the project for review
by the Town Board. The draft shall identify all amendments to the
ordinance required by the PUD.
Response: Enclosed herewith.
(g) A fiscal impact analysis identifying projected short- and long-term
impacts on municipal and school district budgets.
Response: No impacts to the Town's or school's budgets have been
expressed. In the past, some opponents attempted to use the school budget
by implying that people who live in apartments have more children than
those living in single family residences, which statements have been
disproven ad nauseam.
Conclusion.
Queensbury Partners, LLC has addressed every question posed to it in the review process of this
project. We started with a compliant project, and proceeded down the Town's path of a project
with a more village/community center type feel. Many variances piled up, and were then
whittled down to but two that were acceptable to the ZBA. Now the project remains in the Court
system, where it will likely remain regardless of the outcome of the pending case, when the
parties factor in likely appeals. The PUD process permits the project as ultimately shaped by the
Town Board, Planning Board and ZBA. Town counsel has passed on this process as well.
The time has come for the Town Board to act to permit this project to proceed. There are some
that will never accept any development at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads. That is
IPage 112
irrational. The property owners have invested literally millions of dollars in this project. The
owners ran the sewer line that the Town has specifically benefitted from, at no cost to the Town.
That line was installed to accommodate development on this property. Indeed, even with this
development, there is capacity within that line to accommodate even out of district users. Would
changes be required downstream for out of district users? Likely yes. However, the Town
cannot continue to hold hostage a development that the Town actively worked to shape while out
of district users decide, again, whether or not they want to connect or whether or not they
approve of the project.
In reviewing the Planned Unit Development criteria, this project satisfies all of those criteria,
considerations, and application requirements. Indeed, what the Planning Board, Town Board,
and ZBA ultimately proceeded through was a planned unit development review.
Please approve this amendment to the Town's Zoning Law and allow the Fowler Square Planned
Unit Development to proceed.
We thank the Board for its consideration of this project.
Sincerely,
Matthew F. Fuller
mfuller e,meyerfuller.com
Enclosures