2006-01-24
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 65-2005 Charles E. Seeley 1.
Tax Map No. 309.18-1-1
Site Plan No. 68-2005 RPS Property Holdings, LLC 9.
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11
Site Plan No. 72-2005 Schermerhorn Properties 16.
Tax Map No. 288.0-1-63
Subdivision No. 14-2004 Jane Potter 40.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27
Freshwater Wetlands Permit Michaels Group & Bay Meadows Corp. 43.
FWW 6-2005 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2
Subdivision No. 26-2005 Michaels Group & Bay Meadows Corp. 43.
PUD SP Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2
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 01/24/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
GEORGE GOETZ
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS FORD
MEMBERS ABSENT
ANTHONY METIVIER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to the Planning Board
meeting of January 24, 2006. On public comment tonight, I’d like to allow 10 minutes for
public comment. I’m going to have a timer over here. I think 10 minutes should be adequate
for you to say what you have to say. I will allow follow-up if it’s necessary, and that’s about
all I have for that. I wanted to ask the Board members whether or not they wanted to have
the Staff notes read tonight or do they feel they have enough information to go without that?
George?
MR. GOETZ-Well, I think it’s good to read the Staff notes, just for the audience to know
what’s going on.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, if they can relate to it, that’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was always my thought. The Staff notes were being read for
the audience, not for the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-A summary is enough.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. Gretchen, how do you feel?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think you ought to.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do that. So with that we’re going to start with Mr. Seeley, in Site
Plan No. 65-2005.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 65-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CHARLES E. SEELEY AGENT(S):
CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S): CHARLES & BARBARA SEELEY CRAIG SEELEY
ZONING LI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 7,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 12,116 SQ. FT. MACHINE SHOP.
EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 33-94, SUB 14-94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT
SIZE: 7+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-4-020
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
CHARLES SEELEY, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-And the public hearing remains open from last time on the December 20
th
hearing, and if Mr. Seeley would like to approach.
MR. SEELEY-Hi. I’m Charles Seeley. As far as I know, everything’s in place. So you’ve got
to tell me.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the end of your presentation?
MR. SEELEY-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me go up and down the Board and ask, and I’ll start with you,
George, again. Do you feel that we’re in pretty good shape on this particular one?
MR. GOETZ-It sounds like mostly he’s made a lot of changes to make the plan more
understandable, and I still see a few things he might address.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How about you, Chris, how are you feeling about this?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there were a couple of outstanding questions from Staff
comments. Specifically related to the retention basin and septic system.
MR. SEELEY-What do you want to know about it?
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s additional, the additional drive area is displacing the existing
retention basin, and a septic system. Now the plan shows a relocated basin but does not show
a relocated septic system.
MR. SEELEY-The basin is where it’s always been. Never changed, since we built the
building.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what about the septic system?
MR. SEELEY-As far as driving over it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEELEY-It’s right next to the building. We don’t drive over it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEELEY-They drive across it to park in one area, but as far as the main drive, no, it’s
not driven across.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any way to avoid driving across the septic system?
MR. SEELEY-You know, most of the time it isn’t driven across, but there are times when
cars will pull across to park.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about trucks? You don’t have trucks going across it, do you?
MR. SEELEY-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEELEY-No, the main drive area is free and clear of any septic.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification. The septic system is located to the rear of the site in
the area where the parking is?
MR. SEELEY-Run that by me again?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s in the rear of the site?
MR. SEELEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the eastern side of the site where the parking is. That’s where the new
relocated system is going in?
MR. SEELEY-What relocated system? There is no relocated system.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s an existing system that you’d be using?
MR. SEELEY-It’s the system we’ve had there for 10 years.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SEELEY-Or 15 years, however long we’ve been there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Could you explain to me how the stormwater system’s going to
work?
MR. SEELEY-Yes. There’s a retention basin that’s the lowest part of the property. It goes
right to that retention basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I’m reading this correctly, all the roof leaders are piped to this?
MR. SEELEY-They’re going to be piped to that retention area.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then all of the stormwater runoff is going to be directed toward the
stormwater basin, then?
MR. SEELEY-Actually, the way it is right now, it goes right in to it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there have been no issues with that, then?
MR. SEELEY-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-How about the French Drain, what’s referred to as a French Drain in the
front of the building? Where does that discharge to?
MR. SEELEY-On the north side of the building?
MR. SEGULJIC-On the west side.
MR. SEELEY-On the west side of the building? It’s on the original site plan?
MR. SEGULJIC-The one in the corner. There’s what’s referred to as a French Drain in front
of the building.
MR. SEELEY-You’re going to have to show it to me. What site plan is it on? That’s on the
front of the building. Okay. No, that’s on the Big Boom side. No, that’s rock all the way
down through the front of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Where does that drain to?
MR. SEELEY-In the ground.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it just drains into the ground?
MR. SEELEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set for now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t really have any other questions, other than what Chris asked. I
mean, that was in the Staff notes about the retention basin and the septic system.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go over my notes quickly. I was out there again Sunday looking
around, taking a look at this site, and the applicant appears to have complied with the
Board’s December 20 motion. I believe that they’ve done that, and the thing I’m not sure
about is the C.T. Male reply. I guess it looks a little bit like it’s a signoff to me. Jim Edwards,
usually, when he signs off on a C.T. Male letter, he puts, he or Mr. Houston, puts signoff on it.
So I’m going to take that letter as a signoff. I don’t know if the rest of the Board would
concur with that, but it seems like it to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only real comment that he had left was similar to the question
I asked, saying that it’s highly recommended that traffic be kept off the leach field.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And there appears to be ample room if additional parking is needed.
Because they are under what’s required normally.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Yes, I agree with that. I’ll just go through my notes, however, I’m
relying on the latest drawing revision dated December 23, coupled with two previous site
rd
visits, in looking at this, the December 23 revision seems to adequately describe the site
rd
conditions, as far as I’m concerned, walking around the site, and as far as the 7800 square foot
proposed addition is concerned, relative to stormwater, C.T. Male concurs that based on the
soil logs, which is on the drawing, I believe, there’s a set of soil logs on the drawing, on this
drawing, it looks like that, and based on those soil logs, it looks like the soils are uniformly
well drained, plus the addition of the 82 foot eight inch storm drain into the recharge basin
seems adequate for containing the roof runoff from the 5400 foot portion of that system. So, I
reviewed this application against 179-9-080, requirements for approval of site plans, and find
that it seems to meet most of the criteria of that section, and based on review of that section
of the Code, I have only two remaining questions, and that’s parking and lighting. On the
parking thing, I’m considering your machine shop as being light manufacturing, which I
think it is. I know during the December 20 meeting that we had here, you said you had two
shifts in that building.
MR. SEELEY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-How many people are on each shift?
MR. SEELEY-The first shift there might be 20.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty people on one shift?
MR. SEELEY-Yes, approximately.
MR. VOLLARO-And on the second shift?
MR. SEELEY-I would say five or six.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s an evening shift, at night?
MR. SEELEY-Yes, right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Our Code allows one parking space for every two employees. Now
that’s probably based on the fact that they expect some of the people to be carpooling, and
when I look at the spec itself, it probably, the requirement in 179-100, 179-4-040, it seems to
me it’s pretty hard to say you’re going to have one automobile for every two employees. It
doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. So you’re asking for, on your site plan, I think, you asked
for.
MR. SEELEY-I think we have 26 spots on the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-six spots, yes. I had 27. You have a handicap in there as well.
MR. SEELEY-Okay. Right.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-And so I think I’m going to allow that, based on the number of employees
you say you have. You have, you say, 20 employees on a single shift, on the morning shift?
MR. SEELEY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about that? He’s got 20 employees on a single
shift, and if they all drive, you need 20 spaces. You know what the Code says, one for every
two. We’ve all agreed, last time, that one for every two is not.
MR. SEELEY-Some come by taxi. We have some employees come by taxi.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. That’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, this site plan is similar to the plan that we looked at last
week and tabled. There’s a lot of gravel area on the site plan, and basically the way that the
parking spaces are counted is by a line on a map, and if more spaces are needed, there’s
certainly plenty of room there. I mean, I would ask the question, I mean, I never visited your
property when you had, when you were in full production, and there’s always ability to park
on the adjacent lot as well.
MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with you, Chris, on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think there’s certainly plenty of room there, if that’s the question.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we go along with what’s on the drawing, the 26 plus one
handicap. I think that’s reasonable, myself. So we’re going to go with that, and the only
other thing that I’m having somewhat of a problem with, with giving you that, and taking a
look at our lighting plan, 179-60-20 is our lighting requirement. We have lighting
requirements for the Town, and you need to show photometrically, one foot candle on the
ground in your parking area, for safety reasons. Your parking lot should be lit up. Now,
when I looked at the number on the new building that you’ll have, you’ve got some, I don’t
know that you’ve got any lighting on that building at all, that I could see.
MR. SEELEY-Yes, we have one light.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got one light, but, see, one foot candle, what I’ve got on my drawing
here, you need a pole light, up in this corner of some kind of light to help you light up that
parking area.
MR. SEELEY-I can put a light. That’s not a problem. I just didn’t want it shining down on
the neighbors.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you do is you put up a particular kind of light. You’ve got to
specify that it’s downcast, that it doesn’t shine up into the night sky and so on. Now, we
have people that go around and take a look at these sites, to see that they’re being developed
according to these kinds of plans. So, I’m going to put in the motion that you will install one
pole light.
MR. SEELEY-I would rather have it on the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know that it’s going to give you one foot candle on the
building. Where on the building would you want to put it?
MR. SEELEY-Right on the rear.
MR. VOLLARO-Right here? That would be on the northeast corner of the building.
MR. SEELEY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about that, if we make it a condition that he put a
light on the northeast corner of the building, and we’ll have Bruce Frank go out and make
sure that the light is up there. Does that make any sense to Board members?
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of light would it be?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be a wall pack, downcast wall pack, and since he doesn’t have any
cut sheets, and I can’t even be assured that that one wall pack, at 185 watts, if that’s what he
uses, will give him one foot candle on the ground. There’s no assurance that that’ll happen.
So we’re going to have to decide. The spec is the spec. Our requirements for lighting is one
foot candle in a parking space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any existing lighting over the main entrance?
MR. SEELEY-Yes, there must be a street light or something because it’s light up there. I
don’t know. I never paid any attention.
MR. VOLLARO-It can’t be a street light where you’ve got the parking indicated on the map.
MR. SEELEY-There must be a street light on Big Boom Road apparently.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll never carry over to this parking lot from Big Boom.
MR. SEELEY-I’m just saying it’s never dark out there. So, I mean, it’s not pitch black. I
don’t know. I have no problem putting a light up, or two lights up, you know.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m coming from the other angle. If he doesn’t want to put up a
light, I’m fine with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I look at the lighting code as a maximum, not as a minimum.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, it says one foot candle, and one foot candle is for a certain
amount of security out there. It’s probably pretty black.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, security’s not our purview.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. Safety is a part of the thing this Board looks for. We do look for
safety. Let me poll the Board. George, how do you feel about this light thing?
MR. GOETZ-I think you’re right on target, Bob. I think for the security of his employees
and security of other people in the area, it definitely should have a light. I would think for
your own liability.
MR. SEELEY-As long as the neighbors aren’t bothered, but on the north side, it shouldn’t
be.
MR. GOETZ-If you do it according to Code, as Bob was trying to explain to you, there
shouldn’t be a problem.
MR. SEELEY-That’s fine with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have strong feelings either way. My only concern is if we require
a light, we need to specify what we want. Otherwise, Code Enforcement won’t know if he’s
complied.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s true, I could pull a spec out of my head, a downcast wall pack at
185 watts. That’s all I can, I can’t give you a manufacturer because I don’t want to do that,
but I can give you the characteristic of the light, 185 watt downcast wall pack, mounted
approximately 12 feet in height in the northeast corner of the building. That’s what I would
put as a requirement, and we’ll have somebody come out and take a look.
MR. SEELEY-Twelve foot approximate, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Approximate. You don’t have to be, you don’t have to put a micrometer on
it, if that’s what you’re thinking.
MR. SEELEY-I’ve got 16 foot walls. So wherever easy access is.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-All right, and with that, I am finished with this application, unless any
Board member has another question.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is still open. Does anybody here want to talk to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We need to do a Short Form SEQRA on this. A Short Form SEQRA was
supplied with this application.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 65-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CHARLES E. SEELEY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Would somebody like to make a motion for this?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2005 CHARLES E. SEELEY, Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
7,800 sq. ft. addition to existing 12,116 sq. ft. machine shop
WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/05; 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 12/20/05 and 1/24/06 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
WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site
plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and
density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN
the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements
of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of
Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7,
Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards.
WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal,
Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws.
WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter,
specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the
description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity
of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the
nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities
which will follow the approval of the proposed use.
WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create
public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or
be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such
projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and
circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate.
Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are
appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated
by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal
roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking
areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection
way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall
be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider
interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and
circulation.
WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic,
aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the
Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services
made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential,
recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the
determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the
project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the
project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-
9-080 of this article.
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. The applicant will install a wall pack light on the northeast corner of the building at a
height of approximately 12 feet. The fixture shall be downcast and the wattage shall
not exceed 185 watts.
2. All fixtures and bulbs must be inspected prior to installation.
3. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
4. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning
Administrator on approved plans.
5. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting,
shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and
no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy.
6. 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 24th day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to get something struck out of the motion prepared by Staff.
While we talked tonight about septic, we didn’t really apply the requirements of Chapter 136
in depth at all, and one of the Whereas has it, “Whereas the use is in conformance with
Chapter 136 Sewage and Sewage Disposal, and Chapter 147, stormwater management.”
MR. HUNSINGER-I have no problem striking that Whereas from the prepared resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set, Mr. Seeley.
MR. SEELEY-Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Before we get into the next one, is anyone here to listen to Gary & Linda
Long, by any chance? Gary and Linda Long have been removed from the agenda this
evening.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-For what reason?
MR. VOLLARO-They didn’t get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. SALVADOR-Until they get that, they will not be eligible for site plan review?
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. There’ll be a little change in the agenda tonight. We just
finished with Mr. Seeley. The second one up is RPS Property Holdings. The third will be
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
Schermerhorn Properties. We’re moving them up to three. The fourth will be The Michaels
Group for Freshwater Wetlands, this is the Bay Meadows Corp., and for Subdivision No. 26-
2005.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will Potter be last?
MR. VOLLARO-Potter is last, yes.
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2005 SEQR TYPE II RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING MU LOCATION 17 MAIN
STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,075 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK TO AN EXISTING 2,755 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. EXPANSIONS OF
SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REF. AV 91-2005, BP 2005-109, BP 99-216 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/14/05 LOT
SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11 SECTION 179-4-020
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett along with Sean and Todd Jorgenson. Since our
last meeting, we’ve addressed the C.T. Male comments, and I believe you have signoff, or
essentially signoff from C.T. Male, and we also updated the drawings to reflect the discussion
at the last meeting. We modified the landscaping and we modified the rear portion of the new
parking area to accommodate snow removal. I believe those were the two major issues we
discussed. So I’ll open it to any questions that the Board members have.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me start at the other end. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now. Just let me gather my thoughts.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that was mentioned in the Staff notes is snow removal
plans, and how you would accommodate with the new configuration.
MR. JARRETT-The original design had a fence or a shrub at the end of the new parking
area. We removed that to soften the berm and flatten that slope, and we added a shoulder.
So we don’t need a fence or a shrub. So we now have that rear stormwater basin to push snow
into.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s all the questions that I had.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. George, what have you got, anything?
MR. GOETZ-I’m just trying to remember what you’re doing with the lighting.
MR. JARRETT-We’re maintaining some of the existing lighting. The pole on the east side of
the lot we’re maintaining, and the new wall mounted fixtures on the new addition are
compliant fixtures at the front of the site. So there’ll be no spillage off site. I’d have to dig
out our drawing. I believe that’s essentially what we’re proposing for lighting. Does that
answer your question?
MR. GOETZ-Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I liked the revised landscaping plan. I think that was exactly what we
had in mind when asked you to address it, and the tree location, shrubs and everything. I
think the only outstanding question that I really had is on the retaining wall, and there was
even a comment from, and part of my confusion, I think, is from the comment from C.T.
Male, where Jim Edwards comments, we would recommend that further review of the
retaining wall and grading be completed, and of course my question is by whom, if we’re not
going to address tonight.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. JARRETT-C.T. Male has suggested that this Board review it, and we suggested in
rebuttal that it would be appropriate at the building permit stage to review that retaining
wall, and I think they’ve deferred to that and said that would be fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I’m confused as to what you anticipate that retaining wall
looking like.
MR. JARRETT-Well, part of the reason I want to defer it is that it’s really just a functional
wall in the rear of the building to support the parking lot, until such time as the septic system
can be abandoned, and then we can come back to this Board to expand the parking lot
further if we need to, and we can abandon the retaining wall as well. I’d like to coordinate
that wall with the building design, and that building design wasn’t totally finished, as far as
color scheme, when we first put that on the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-So are you suggesting you may not need the retaining wall?
MR. JARRETT-No, we need the wall.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, but you can’t put it in until you can abandon the septic system?
MR. JARRETT-No, we need the wall now to protect the septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-And I’d like to give the Building Department details on that wall. We put
on the drawings that it would be designed by a licensed engineer, and we plan on giving those
details to the Building Department. It’s really just a functional wall at this stage.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, it’s not like it’s going
to be viewed from the street or anything like that.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know how we were going to review the design of it, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly. That’s the only outstanding question that I had.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got a couple. I think the general notes and the landscaping
improvement with Main Street, per our tabling motion of December 27, revised plans dated
th
12/29 show revised planting details, and I think it looks good. General notes on C-1 addresses
the landscape improvement with the Main Street right of way. So I don’t have a problem
with that. Now, with the light statistics, the lighting statistics look good to me, but I just
have one question. When you get on the lighting statistics area, we talk in here about having
the, basically six lights. We’ve got four of those poles and it two wall packs. Now, does the
light that was always there, that’s on the existing pole light as we talked about last time,
right in the parking lot, right here.
MR. JARRETT-On the east side, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, was that figured in to the lighting statistics?
MR. JARRETT-It was, but you’ll notice that there’s a lot of trees surrounding that light,
and it’s very difficult to mimic those trees in the computer analysis.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay, but it’s in there, in other words, as an existing. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-On the parking for Professional Office on parking is one space per three
hundred. So you’ve got 3,330 foot floor space here, so you’re.
MR. JARRETT-We’re actually reducing the parking from what we have right now, and we
asked for a variance from the ZBA for parking over what is allowed.
MR. VOLLARO-So if we give you the 20%, you’re entitled to 12, based on the math, right,
3,330 divided by 300.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. JARRETT-Twelve or thirteen.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s close, twelve to thirteen, it think it’s 12.2 or 3, something like that,
then we can come up with 20%, and give you another three. So that would be fifteen, and
fifteen is shown on the drawing actually. So I think the drawing is pretty much in line with
our spec. You’re okay with that?
MR. JARRETT-I’m agreeing.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things, I would like to go through the function of the cross
section of A C-1. I had a little problem with that, relating that to the drawing. Now, the
drawing talks about A D-1. Is that a mistake, or should that be A C-1?
MR. JARRETT-No, actually it’s Section A, which is referring you to drawing D-1 on the
plans, and then when you go to the Details sheet, Section A is referring you back to the plan
drawing C-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-It’s common nomenclature in our business, and it’s rather confusing if
you’re not familiar with it.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m looking at is that roughly 33% slope there. How does that play
into the overall parking and stormwater basin section? What are we looking at there?
MR. JARRETT-The section on Drawing D-1 is cut through that rear parking area looking
east.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, just like it shows here.
MR. JARRETT-It shows the expanded parking area and then the slope down to the original
grade, and if anybody’s been to the site, there’s an approximately five or six foot elevation
difference between the parking area and the rear lawn. That, you see over to the right of that
section, that’s what’s existing right now at a steeper slope than what we’re proposing. We’re
extending the parking area out, and then building a new slope that’s actually flatter than
what’s there now.
MR. VOLLARO-Changing the slope.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, stabilizing it somewhat more, and then the stormwater basin is out
beyond that, further to the north.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Parking expansion area, that means that those trees are designed to
keep the cars out of that slope. Is that what you’re?
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In other words, that’ll be a barrier to anybody?
MR. JARRETT-On the sides. We don’t need a barrier on the north end now because we’ve
added that shoulder and flattened the slope.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you.
MR. JARRETT-That’s where our snow removal will be.
MR. VOLLARO-That was my next question. How does this section address the snow
storage.
MR. JARRETT-We don’t have that fence there anymore, so we’re just pushing snow off the
embankment.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go right off and down that slope.
MR. JARRETT-And it’ll be retained in the stormwater basin.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you worried about the snow overburdening the stormwater basin,
though?
MR. JARRETT-I mean, it potentially could happen, depending on what rain we get, yes, but
I’m not overly concerned about it. I mean, that’s a good spot to put snow and it’ll melt in
that basin, but it’s hard to predict what Mother Nature will do in our climate in this period of
time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JARRETT-If it overflows, by the way, it flows into the general lawn area around it,
which is already a natural retention area.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, have you got your thoughts collected on this one?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Only one comment. With regards to the four lots they refer to as A.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They only appear to be 20 feet apart. Why don’t we just have one in the
middle, and have two lights instead of four?
MR. JARRETT-The one surrounding the new parking area?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t want to put a pedestal in the center of the new parking area. I want
to do it on the perimeter.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, why not one, you know, one on either side in the middle of where
they are now?
MR. JARRETT-I see.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re only 100 watts, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re only 20 feet apart.
MR. JARRETT-We kept the pole heights low, as you know, and you see the wattage is low,
and can’t answer it, offhand, I’d have to go back into our notes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But you think it’s necessary at this point?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I was looking at was he’s pretty close in uniformity ratio. He’s
paying attention to that, obviously, and one of the things you have to do is vary your
wattage to get the uniformity ratio, and I think you’re close here, to what our Code is.
MR. JARRETT-I can’t say offhand that it wouldn’t work with just two poles, but I think we
felt that four was better. I don’t know the details yet.
MR. VOLLARO-How does everybody feel with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay.
MR. VOLLARO-There is, the public hearing was closed, and there’s no SEQRA. This is a
Type II. It’s listed as a Type II. Don’t ask the logic to that, because I don’t ever know.
MRS. BARDEN-I think the public hearing is still open.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I just checked my notes.
MRS. BARDEN-It was advertised on the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It was closed. I did the same thing when I did this review.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Since it was advertised for having a public hearing, should we?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s up to you.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s listed on the agenda as still open, but not advertised in the paper.
It’s up to the Board. You have no obligation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, then we’ll do nothing about it, I don’t think, and with that, I we
want to get a motion from the Board for this application.
MRS. STEFFAN-So there are no conditions, Bob, based on your discussions?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t see any conditions. I think he satisfied my conditions. I
wouldn’t get into a condition mode on it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2005 RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 1,075 sq. ft. addition and associated site work to an existing 2,755 sq. ft.
medical office building. Expansions of site plan review uses require review by the Planning
Board.
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/15/05; 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 12/27/05; 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
WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site
plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and
density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN
the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements
of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of
Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7,
Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards.
WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal,
Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter,
specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the
description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity
of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the
nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities
which will follow the approval of the proposed use.
WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create
public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or
be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such
projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and
circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate.
Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are
appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated
by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal
roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking
areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection
way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall
be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider
interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and
circulation.
WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic,
aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the
Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services
made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential,
recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the
determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the
project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of
this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the
project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179-
9-080 of this article.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
WE FIND THE FOLLOWING, The application is hereby Approved / Denied 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. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright.
3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning
Administrator on approved plans.
4. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting,
shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and
no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy.
5 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 24th day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you and good luck.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lapper, can you approach for a moment. On that subdivision that Rich
did, on the corner of, do you have something, because I don’t have anything. I know what
your problem is, because I don’t think we ever put, we ever said we want one for ten there.
MR. LAPPER-You discussed it.
MR. VOLLARO-I said it was going to be on the site plan. I believe that’s what I said. It was
a site plan issue. When the site plan came up it would be a site plan issue, but if it’s a
condition, one of the things I’m trying to do, a lot of these conditions get plugged in, and.
Some of the times these resolutions now are getting to be three and four pages long.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I just have a small other additional issue to discuss with the
Board. When we were here last month for the Rich Schermerhorn project on the Glens Falls
Home property at the corner of Haviland and Meadowbrook we got the resolution from the
Planning Staff a couple of weeks after the approval, and were surprised that there was an
additional condition in it that the Board specifically discussed and decided not to include, but
it was in the written condition, and we talked to the Zoning Administrator, and he suggested
the best way to address, he read the minutes also and saw that there was the discussion and
thought we should bring it up tonight and have the Board react to it and hopefully amend it,
but the Staff had proposed in that resolution a condition that there would be one commercial
building built for every 10 units of single family housing, and the Board discussed it and there
were members of the public that said we’re not in any rush for commercial, and the Board
decided not to include that, but it did wind up in the resolution, and that will effect us, in
terms of the closing on the property. So we’d like that to be stricken, which just mirrors what
you did at the meeting. It just shouldn’t have been put in that resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I also discussed that with the Zoning Administrator as well today
and I understand what the problem is. One of the things that I noticed our conditions that
we get on prepared conditions are rather lengthy and sometimes I look through them and I
just didn’t catch that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to make a resolution to modify that?
MR. LAPPER-To modify that, to just strike that condition.
MR. HUNSINGER-To strike that condition. Do you know what the condition number was,
or how?
MR. LAPPER-It was just a condition that required one commercial building for every ten
units.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what the Site Plan number was?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any of that information. He was supposed to call me, put it on
an e-mail, but I never got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have no problem.
MR. LAPPER-I think you could just generically describe it as the Schermerhorn project from
the December meeting on the Glens Falls Home property at that address.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this it?
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Susan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s Condition Number Nine.
MOTION TO MODIFY FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 SCHERMERHORN
PROPERTIES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
George Goetz:
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
To correct the previous resolution, to remove Number Nine of the prepared resolution stating
the development of one commercial lot per 10 residential units to be struck from the
conditions.
Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 72-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES
OWNER(S): THOMAS MEATH, SKI & SHORE CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER;
NACE ENG. ZONING PO LOCATION WEST MT. RD. & GURNEY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 92 TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED
UTILITIES, ROADS, PARKING AND SITE WORK. APPLICANT PROPOSES
APPROXIMATELY 1700 LINEAR FEET OF PRIVATE DRIVES. MULTI-FAMILY
PROJECTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. PZ
6-2003/ AV 2-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/11/06 LOT SIZE 0.90 AC., 16.12 AC.
TAX MAP NO. 288.0-1-63 SECTION
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-For the record?
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with and on behalf of Rich Schermerhorn and the
project engineer, Tom Nace, Landscape Architect Jim Miller, and Vicky Green, who we
haven’t introduced yet, who is a senior employee of Rich’s companies, and portfolio manager
of his properties. We’re going to start off with a small presentation from Vicky. I guess, in
general, we’re here, we view this as sort of a culmination of where we’ve been with this Board,
in terms of the genesis of Rich’s townhouse projects. We’ve incorporated all of the design
changes that this Board has asked for in the past. So this is sort of the highest and best, in
terms of the architecture. We’ve done what we’ve been asked to do in the past, landscaping
as well. Rich always views his role as to try and make the Planning Board happy, and that’s
always our goal, in terms of site plan review. As Vicky will discuss, he’s got 100% occupancy
rate on all of his townhouse units in the Town of Queensbury, and so Rich was looking in the
Zoning Code for a zoning map for a location where he could build more in the Town of
Queensbury, and this parcel is one of the few that can accommodate it, and for that reason he
got it under contract and here we are. We’ve read in the paper that some of the people in that
part of Town wish it to stay green and, you know, that’s easy to understand if somebody asks
you if you’d rather have a tree or a building, it’s always going to be a tree, but we certainly
are trying to do a very responsible and nice project, as Rich has proven you in the past. For
example, this project can accommodate 138 units and we’re here seeking approval of only 92.
So this is certainly not maxing out the density at all, and there are some nice amenities that
we’re offering as well, but we’ve been working with C.T. Male and then our engineer
responded to our comments. After we do our initial presentation, we’ll go through the
engineering issues, but we did receive a C.T. Male signoff letter today, which we are
appreciative of, and we’re certainly here to respond to all comments of the Board and of the
public.
MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me just a second. On the C.T. Male signoff, I see a couple of things
from Jim Edwards here. Is the last one that you gave us.
MR. LAPPER-There was a list of about five or six.
MR. NACE-What I put in front of you, Bob. There were two go rounds to respond to clean
up items that C.T. Male had, and the last thing, what was just put in front of you, is an e-
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
mail, actually a cumulative e-mail, but the top of it has their final signoff, per se, that came
late this afternoon.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess we all know, for the benefit of the audience and for the
applicants as well, that we really can’t come to a vote on this this evening, you realize that,
because of the variance situation with the ZBA. So we can discuss this, obviously, but we
can’t come to a vote this evening. The ZBA has passed this to us, if you want to call it that,
for a recommendation.
MR. LAPPER-It was kind of a Catch-22. The ZBA really seemed that they were supportive
of the request for the additional parking. It’s the same variance that we’ve asked for on other
Schermerhorn projects, so that there’s sufficient parking, in Rich’s experience, which is more
than the 1.5 per unit. The Queensbury parking code is unique that, instead of a minimum,
it’s a maximum. So the Board just felt that they would rather that you granted site plan
approval and then go back to them, make it conditioned on the variance, and that’s what
their resolution said.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they said they passed it to us for site plan review. That’s how I read
their.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, they wanted you to approve it for site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-Not to approve it. They wanted us to look at site plan review. They didn’t
say to approve it. That would have been a little, for them to tell us to approve something.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Rich can do it with or without the extra parking. He just thought that
was the responsible thing to do, to add the parking.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-As in the past, just from experience, as I’ve been in front of the
Board before, it’s nice to have the extra spaces just to keep people off the side of the roads
going in and things like that. Certainly there’s no indication at all that we’re going to get any
approval here tonight, but it is possible that I meet the requirements without the variance,
but as usual, I came in. I was honest, and I’d like the extra spaces if I can get them. So if
any approval was granted, it certainly could be part of the Code without the additional spaces
I’m requiring, and I could certainly always go back for the variance for the parking spots,
couldn’t I?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you asked for, really I think you proposed 197 and the Code is 138. So
it’s a 43% variance for the parking.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I think it was 27 extra. I think it ended up being 27 extra I
needed, because you’re allowed 20% over the.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the 20% is something that we can give you. We can allow, we can
do that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I would request if we could do that, and then certainly, you
know, I could go back for the variance after, but I certainly don’t need it tonight, for an
approval or some sort of contingent approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a number of things tonight, and I won’t get into them until
you’re going to do your presentation.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and we understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-I want to give the audience a chance to speak, and so if you will get on with
your presentation, we’ll be glad to hear it.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MS. GREEN-Good evening and thank you for your attention. Basically I put together a
little presentation for the benefit of the Board, as well as for the benefit of many of the
members of the community who may or may not know kind of what the project is about, or a
little history behind it. I have the benefit of having worked in the office and seeing what kind
of effort goes in there and why the effort is going in, and how we’re really trying to meet the
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
needs of the community and the needs of the upcoming population, and try to do it in a way
that will, of course, be profitable for the development side of it, but mostly you don’t want to
profit without contributing something to the community. I don’t know quite, if you don’t
mind, how many people have actually seen some of the apartments that Schermerhorn owns?
One of the other things is that he’s been a longtime member of the community, living here,
working here, creating jobs, creating homes for people. I don’t know if you’ve seen the
evolution of the product over the time, both commercial and residential, but this is what he
has been building recently. So, I hope that that will be kept in mind. This is also what the
project being proposed to the most degree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which project is that?
MS. GREEN-That is Hiland Springs.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so. I just wanted to make sure.
MS. GREEN-Okay. Some of these are truncating. The screen that I built them on was
bigger, obviously, but Schermerhorn, as it says, does develop both commercial and residential
properties, and it’s based on zoning guidelines. They consider the needs of the municipality,
the needs of the neighbors, as well as what the most successful development is going to be.
Not only does he build developments, but they are professionally managed. There are people
on staff, 40 hours a week for the most part, and then over time to take care of the properties
on the weekends if that’s needed as well. So you’ve got professional people landscaping and
maintaining the buildings, which says a lot about how it’s going to be kept in the future. By
the way, these are some of the projects, both commercial and residential, that Rich has built.
There is a choice. Right now this is, it’s zoned PO, right, Professional Office. There are very
few places in Queensbury that are zoned that way, and a lot of thought and planning went
into deciding which areas were going to be allowed to have professional development, or, you
know, some special use type development. In this particular property, it could be professional
office buildings, as I’ve read through the minutes, a number of people have indicated that
they thought that that would be the best use, and then, as I said, Hiland Springs is an
example of the kind of property that we want to be able to build there. So, in a mode of
comparison, just so that everybody understands what’s involved, and there aren’t minimal
misconceptions, possibly, when Rich was developing this, one of the things that was taken
into consideration was what the vision for Queensbury was. There is an Open Space Vision,
and nearby the project is this little green piece right here, is the Gurney Lane recreation area.
Being that that’s nearby, residential use seemed like it would be a good idea to have residents
be able to use that property as well. It’s not the only reason. When we’re looking at the site,
a lot of the concern about having the green space and having, you know, the rural look was
mentioned. This spot up here is actually a gravel pit. As you can see, that’s part of the area
that’s going to be developed, and driving by that gravel pit, there will be a different
landscape if this project is approved. That’s kind of an indication of how the proposed project
lays over the land here, here and here. Now if you look at the overall land that is being
looked at in this plan, you’ll see that quite a bit of green space is available. By the way, as I
said, a number of studies have been done looking at the potential use for the lands, and one of
the studies was the build out study, and it was identified as underutilized residential
properties in March of 2005. So what’s going on with, why does he want to build? Has
anybody ever heard of the Echo Boomers? Okay, but you’ve heard of the Baby Boomers,
right? They had children, and they are now turning 21 at the rate of four million a day.
That’s quite a few. They’re coming. We can’t stop it now, and they’re going to need housing.
In the next 20 years, the increase in the number of housing units that is going to be needed is
astounding. Not only are we talking about people that are entering the market for their first
home, or their first apartment. We’re also talking about Baby Boomers who are downsizing,
and trading in weekends doing the lawn for the ability to leave and go to Florida when we get
this kind of weather. So it’s a lifestyle change. Forty percent of all renters rent by choice.
We need to have good places for people to move to. We’re going to need an increase in
housing. Not only is it just those first time homeowners and seniors or Baby Boomers, but
think about how we want our nurses and our teachers and the people who live, a number of
police and sheriff employees that live on our sites. Your children are going to need somewhere
to go, unless you want them to stay home. So, we want to provide an upscale, meaning a
quality housing, and we want to be able to do that here in our community, because the
statistics show that people don’t want to drive more than 45 minutes to get to their job. So
where are we going to do that? There aren’t that many places in the zoning allowance, in the
zoning plan to be able to build this type of community. Again, these are some of the types of
places that Schermerhorn builds, and as I said, it’s not a matter of, this area has been
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
designated as an area to be built out, whether it’s Professional Offices or whether it’s
Residential, right? I mean, it’s not a matter of, this is green space or this is development.
Not according to the zoning plan. So, what do we put there? We can put office buildings, as
some people had determined that they wanted to have their, but again, thinking back of the
overall usage of that area, and the homes that people were concerned about, you know,
building homes there and the noise factors and everything else, which will be addressed, but,
again, it’s near a lot of other green space. It’s near a wonderful Gurney Lane recreation
center. It falls within the plans that Queensbury had had for the Town, as far as the usage,
other than the fact that it needs to go through a site review, and I’d like Rich to speak a little
bit about the alternative, because, as I said, the residential piece is one piece, but there is an
alternative.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just something I want to bring up. I do both, as she’s indicated.
I do office plus apartments, but one of these, these are real numbers right here. If you look at
the density calculations on the apartments, and you go to site utilization, the building square
footage proposed, adding all the buildings, is 67,958 square feet, and if you go down below,
you know, I’d like to have 197 spaces, but I need the variance because I’m over the required
20%, but what’s important here is the permeable area, it’s 73.7% of what we could call green
area that’s being left on the site, as proposed. Thirty percent is all that’s required. Now,
again, I’m not opposed, if we walk out of here tonight and this does not go through tonight or
the next night, for whatever reasons, that I don’t meet the zoning requirements and the codes
and regulations, I certainly can come back for the office buildings, which I’ve stated I will,
because I think it’s a wonderful spot there, too. It’s just I’ve chosen the apartments now
because it’s less impact for traffic, because it’s no secret that traffic is definitely an issue, but
if you look at the calculations for the office buildings, the site will accommodate up to 300,000
square feet of mixed, you know, whether it’s two or three buildings or four or five buildings.
Now I’m not making these numbers up. These are real. It’s right out of the Code books. The
site is 16.54 acres. It’s a large site. It’s a great site. It’s sandy. It’s great percolation,
everything. Now if you go down below to where it says, you know, I’ve got permeable area.
Well, if I did 300 square feet, I have 31% permeable area, and we allow for driveways and
walks and parking and everything. I’m still above what, I still had more room to go, because
30% is required. Right now, under the current zoning for the parking, it’s one parking spot
for every 300 square feet. So, if I come back with an office, and I’m not saying I’m going to
build this out fully, but if it wasn’t me or if it was somebody else that came in for an office
proposal versus the apartments, the build out, well the cars could be 1,000 cars. Now we’ll
address traffic later because I know that’ll come up, but you’re talking 450 cars per peak hour
versus, with the apartments, which we use all historical numbers, because I’ve done this
before, it’s roughly 75 cars, but I do have Creighton Manning here tonight to talk about
traffic because I know that’ll be an issue, but again, if people feel very strongly they just
don’t want apartments, and there’s strong reasons that convinces me to go otherwise, I can
come back with the office, and again, it could be maybe something that people, maybe it’s
something to think about. Maybe people would prefer to have this versus the office. So,
that’s all.
MS. GREEN-One of the things that I want to just mention before we end this and this is
actually the last slide, one of the things I want to mention is that people’s perception of the
type of people who will rent sometimes is a little skewed, and we’re talking about upscale
housing. It doesn’t mean that it’s unreal as far as affordable. It’s intended to be able to take
care of the needs of the people in our communities that maybe aren’t in a position that they
want to be able to buy a home, because many jobs are transferring folks now, or people are
just starting off, or people are, unfortunately, splitting up and need some place to stay, and
like I said, there are people who rent by choice. It’s a lifestyle. The other thing is, a lot of
times when people think about professional office buildings, they think about, well, it’ll be
Monday through Friday, nine to five, but in truth it’s not always that way. So if you’re
thinking that, you know, you won’t have to deal with the traffic when you come back home,
if a call center or some other kind of business, who knows who the space would come from,
they determine the hours, the landlord doesn’t. So it could be a situation where you think
you’re avoiding something, but you may not be. So, you know, hopefully everyone will keep
an open mind on the kind of properties and looking at the kind of properties that Rich has
developed and also the professional management that goes into taking care of them, screening
residents, making sure that, you know, if it is commercial tenant, that it’s a good one, a long
term. Everything that he has done has been with an eye towards quality and towards
meeting what the Board has been looking for. The properties that have been built have been
built with zoning and planning approval. So, I’m not aware of any problems with the
properties now, and I think that they are well maintained. I know the people that do take
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
care of them and I know everyone takes pride in what they do, and I know that Rich puts his
name on everything, and he obviously has to take pride if he’s going to live here among
everything that he builds. So, hopefully, you know, as we go forward, you will have a better
understanding of how this project came to be, what’s involved, and what the alternatives are
and like he said, you know, he’s going to do whatever he needs to do as far as meeting the
requirements of the Board, and developing the property with a good, clean, conscious,
upstanding and conscientious. Thank you for your time.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Vicky. At this point, we can go through the engineering details if the
Board would like, or answer any questions. Tom can do a short presentation on the changes
that he’s agreed to with C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-I was just looking those over, while I’ve heard the presentation a couple of
times now. So I wanted to look these over while I had a chance, and some of this is
duplication, I can see that. There’s some duplicate stuff. I’m trying to weed out the message
here, okay.
MR. NACE-I apologize. I didn’t know how much of it you had gotten from the Staff during
the past couple of days.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we didn’t get any of this. This is the first I’ve seen any of the
responses.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the bottom line is the sentence on Page One which says
provided that the proposed changes identified in the January 24, 2006 letter are incorporated
into the final set of plans, the responses address our prior comments. That’s as close to a
signoff as I’ve ever seen.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have some additional questions that I’d like to ask. In one of the
C.T. Male questions said Mr. Schermerhorn will certainly consider connecting to pumping
sewers if they become available on the west side of the Northway at some time in the future.
I’m just wondering if there’s any way to get it over to Route 9 now. That’s one of the
questions that I had in my own, and I’ll go through some of that.
MR. NACE-Okay. One of C.T. Male’s original questions was, can you take the sewer across
and connect, provide municipal sewage by connecting to the existing sewer on Route 9. The
great difficulty there is getting under the Northway. As you’re aware, a couple of years ago
the Town put a water main across the Northway, and it turned out to be extremely expensive
and extremely difficult because of the boulder and cobble soils, typical with the Northway,
obviously you can’t dig up the pavement. So you have to bore or jack underneath the lanes,
and with the cobbly soils, it’s very difficult. It would be prohibitively expensive for this
project.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there any way to attach it to the bridge that goes over the Northway?
MR. NACE-Not if you want approval from DOT within the next 10 years. I’ve done that
before with DOT. On the Northway bridges, it is extremely difficult.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s too bad.
MR. LAPPER-But if the Town were to do it or the County were to do it, at some time in the
future, it might provide an opportunity to hook up the facility to it, but it’s just not
something that this project, in and of itself, can afford.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The next one says I will review the proposed method of stormwater
treatment with Bill Lupo. I guess that’s up at DEC, and that’s Warrensburg, I think.
MR. NACE-That’s DEC Warrensburg, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And if necessary submit the plans to them under their 60 day review
process. So somebody up at DEC wants to look at the stormwater management.
MR. NACE-Well, no. The C.T. Male question was, does your just use of drywells conform
with the new DEC regulations.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-This is the 20 foot separation you’re talking about?
MR. NACE-This is their first letter, which was January 18, Item Number One of their
th
January 18 letter. Okay, and the way we’re using the drywells, they’re all in grassed areas
th
well back away from the pavement. We’re using the shallow fairly flat grass swales as pre-
treatment methods, prior to the stormwater entering the drywells. So, Jim was just
questioning whether this region of DEC considered that to be adequate, and we will certainly
run that by them before we go further. It’s really just a DEC compliance issue.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve agreed to move the drywells with as much separation as practical, in
answering his question.
MR. NACE-Correct, and in all except three or four cases we can get the full 20 feet that they
had requested.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are you about finished with your presentation?
MR. LAPPER-Unless the Board has any questions at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-I have questions, but I’m going to reserve my questions until I hear what
the public wants to say.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. I’ll make it quick. I just want to clear up some confusion
with the recreation for the development. In the past, it’s always required that over 50 units
you have to have a playground or some form of recreation. All I stated at a ZBA meeting
that I think got twisted a little bit. What I did is wrote a letter to Parks and Recreation,
Steve Lovering , and said in lieu of me putting a swing set in on my property, that
traditionally costs me about $10,000 to buy these playground sets. I would donate that
additionally to the rec fees that I have to pay per unit for this development, if it was
acceptable by this Board and Mr. Lovering, from Parks and Recreation, wanted it. It’s
simply just a liability thing, but certainly if the Town said, gee, we’d rather see the
playground set, no problem, we’ll do exactly what we’ve done on Northbrook and Hiland and
all the rest of them. I have no problem adding it back, and the bike path, that was the other
thing. The mission, at least what I’ve been reading about with Mr. Strough and Boor and
some of the other Board members, is the Rush Pond corridor, trying to get a connector for a
bike trail. I automatically put that in there. We’ll leave it as an easement, and at such time
that if they do get all the other people to participate, to make the bike trail connections that
they want, I’ll certainly place an easement or find a way to give them the land to go through
with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, on the $10,000 payment, I don’t know whether this Board is
authorized to accept the $10,000 donation in lieu of swing sets and things of that nature.
Legally, I don’t think this Board has that authority to do that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re looking toward me. This Board doesn’t have the authority
to accept any money, unfortunately for you all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-But there are provisions, as I recall, that do talk about the recreation fee
and/or recreation facilities, and I think you do have some authority, and we can check while
your public hearing is going on.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the $500 fee that we talk about.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, you certainly have that authority.
MR. VOLLARO-That I understand, but to accept a donation of $10,000. That’s my
question.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, over and above.
MR. LAPPER-In lieu of the swing sets.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, you’re not accepting it, but you can, I mean, it would be the
Town, ultimately, that would be accepting the funds.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can certainly make a recommendation or weigh in on that if you’d
like.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And Rich said he would build it if that was your preference. It just seems to
make more sense to donate it so it would be good for all the kids in that area, rather than just
the few that might be living at this complex.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I would like to do now is to open up the public hearing and
I’m going to ask that speakers are limited to about 10 minutes. I know the good professor did
this last night, and I timed him and you were about 10 minutes last night. So with your
presentation, are you going to do the same Power Point presentation tonight?
MR. LINKE-Similar.
MR. VOLLARO-Similar. Okay, and what I’ll do is we’ll let him go first, because I know he’s
got something here that we all would like to see. I saw it last night, but we’ll look at it again.
MRS. STEFFAN-While he’s setting up, I just wanted to remind the Board that earlier last
year we had made a decision as a Board not to accept documentation on the night of a Board
meeting, and tonight we’ve received several pieces of information, the night of the Board
meeting. So I wanted to remind the Board that we had made a decision that we would not
accept that, and we are going against our policy by accepting all this information this
evening.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I agree with you. What I wanted to do is take a look, I’m going to go
back and review this myself. I don’t have time to do that tonight. You’re 100% correct. I
just wanted to make sure that what I was looking at I understood, in my discussion with Mr.
Nace. So I don’t think we should be accepting stuff on the night of the meeting. We can’t
absorb it. I mean, this is a fairly complex project and to get information on the night of the
meeting is not too easy.
MRS. STEFFAN-We also received some other information on other applications. So that
was a general comment, not specific.
RICHARD LINKE
MR. LINKE-Hello, and I’m sorry I’ve got my back to you folks, but I mainly want to talk to
you, and some of you have heard me talk before, and some of you I don’t know. My name is
Richard Linke. I grew up in the area. I’ve been 30 years up at Gurney Lane. We see all the
lawyers and engineers and whatever, and let me just up my credentials a little bit. I’m a
Professor of Art at Skidmore College. I also have undergraduate and graduate courses in
landscape architecture. I also consider myself an engineer. I worked for NASA during the
early 80’s. So I just want to state that. Now, I’m going to run through this first part because
we’ve got to get to the end. I can’t believe this project has gotten this far at all, and it should
not have. At any rate, welcome to Queensbury. Queensbury, most people Exit 18, but we’re
going to let that alone. That’s not a nice place to go, and let’s drive up the Northway to
Queensbury’s second exit, 20, looking pretty nice. Nice looking bridge, and hints of the
mountain behind. By the way, I’m also an author. I’m working on a book of history of
Adirondack Art. Now, this scene I want you to look at very, very, very, very carefully,
millions, millions of people see this scene going up our interstate highway system. We’re
going to come back to this, but let’s take a look. Queensbury’s website here, “Home of
Natural Beauty….A Good Place To Live”, let’s take a look, let’s jog down here, Exit 19, and
let’s start at the south end of Queensbury, and by the way, I didn’t see any Queensbury signs
here. You wouldn’t see them anyway, and I don’t think Queensbury really wants to own up
to this kind of congestion, but I’m not blaming, it happened. We all need groceries. We all,
and I in particular love Dunkin Donuts. We all take advantage of all of this support material
here. Unfortunately, probably because of lack of planning and as Glens Falls kind of grew,
Queensbury has gone to the dogs. It really has. The parking, the traffic, the development,
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
the sprawl, the power lines. I don’t see how anyone can think that we can continue to sprawl
and spread onto new ground without leaving the old ground behind and leaving is in ashens
here. Sooner or later people are not going to want to be down there in that mess. So let’s
move up the highway. We don’t want to go up there. Aviation Road, no, we don’t want to
go down Quaker Road either. I’m talking about just for example tonight Route 9. Let’s go,
maybe just a little. Almost crashed there. That guy almost ran me over. Let’s go up Route 9
and let’s just have a little bit more development. It’s a good life in Queensbury here. Just a
little more, please. We need a little more, and let’s move north, and I’m going to go right
through here. I go to Home Depot. Wal-Mart, I’ve been there. Let’s keep moving up. Here,
yes, great, we’ve knocked down a lot of beautiful 200 year old pines for this one, Steakhouse,
just what we need, but it’s all together here in Route 9, doesn’t look pretty. What’s that sign
say, office space available? And by the way, couldn’t some of this commercial property,
couldn’t somebody build office buildings here? Is that against the zoning to restore some of
these areas here that could use some maybe vertical development instead of all this
horizontal, go on, fill up the space, just a little more. We just want to develop a little bit
more. Moving north. Great, our cash cow here, the Great Escape, take us for a loop, well, the
kids have to play. I’m okay with Great Escape, although I don’t think that they should
continue developing forever. They’re doing their best here. It looks like, I think of this as a
chocolate factory rather than the mess that it is, that big building with the tubes in it, and
they’re trying their best at landscape. This is not good landscaping. Let’s move up, come on,
we’ve got to move up here. Wait a minute, some green trees. Well, unfortunately, that’s the
Warren County. That’s not Queensbury. If it was Queensbury’s land, there’d be a
McDonald’s here. This is the County. They’ve kept it green. Let’s just develop a little bit
further, a little bit further, a little bit further, congestion. Wait a minute, folks, here’s the
Open Space Plan for Queensbury, right here. What are you complaining about? There’s your
open space plan, the Schermerhorn open space plan. I’m getting madder as I’m going up the
road, honky tonk, going toward lake honky tonk up the road. Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go, and
let’s turn around, go back down towards those trees. Now, we cannot turn the clock back.
This is Route 9 and 149, back in 1870 something. Could they have planned ahead? Well, we
have government, the County and the Town, with Planning Boards and Zoning Boards what
not, and the plan, at least for 35 years that I’ve been here has been keep the development on
that west side of the Northway, and keep the low density on the other side. Look how
beautiful that looks, but stop the development and keep it to Route 9. Don’t let this
firestorm of development go across the Northway. That red dot indicates the property in
question tonight. All of the stuff on the east side we can’t do anything about, but we can plan
and the planners had already planned that this was to be low density, for years and years and
years. In fact, I remember we, a lot of us, have been here before, when the man from
Whitehall wanted to put a used car lot in this particular site, and a number of other times.
The planners, in their wisdom, said, no, this is not good planning, but, somehow, neighbors
didn’t know what happened, and I sure would like to know what this property was zoned as
when the owner purchased this land. We hear about fair investment or fair return on the
property, it was probably one acre residential. I’d like to know when this project got initiated
and Mr. Schermerhorn got involved and why we have spot zoning in a place that is not what
you would consider, anybody consider, reasonable planning, Planning Board. There’s the
property, bull’s eye, right between the Gurney Lane recreation area and Rush Pond, a very
beautiful sensitive place. Who in their right mind would think about office buildings or
apartment buildings or anything right here, this apartment site, a little elevation here down
to Rush Pond, 50 feet, three tenths of a mile away from Mr. Schermerhorn’s 90 separate
septic systems. Now I’m not a hydrologist, but water goes down hill, and people in these
apartment buildings are going to be dumping antifreeze down their sewers, and 50 years from
now Rush Pond is going to be dead. Now, look down the Northway, an aerial shot. We have,
on the right side, land that we just lost this summer to The Great Escape. Here it goes, tore
down the trees, build the road. Well, it’s our cash cow, but now you want to start developing
the west side, and you’re going to be left with the median of the Northway as being
Queensbury’s open space plan. This is what you’re going to have in Queensbury is a median
of the Northway, and I think it’s really ironic that Queensbury’s sign at Exit 20 is in the
median of the Northway because they can’t find another decent place to put it, because they
wouldn’t be able to see it. Now, I was over here the other day. I was looking at some of these
complexes, and by the way, your sign needs painting. It looked mighty shabby, but at any
rate, let’s not get into that. Here’s an aerial view, right next to Town Hall here, everybody’s
familiar with it, and in the magic of photo shop I’ve taken an aerial view here and
superimposed, very similar to the map we just saw, although his map shows less development,
I put this in because he was talking about, well, if you don’t grant me the variance, I’m going
to build more. I don’t need your variance. I want 92 units now, but, gee, if you’re not nice to
me, I’m going to build even more. Here’s the land that got lost last summer, still on that east
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
side of the Northway. Stop Building Here. This was spot zoned, it was not, I don’t know the
legality of it, but how in the world did anybody think that this was a good idea, and, this
looks like the tip of a match, doesn’t it. Here we go, it’s on fire. Here we’re back to this
scene. I ask you, we’re looking for unexpected consequences. Millions of people are going to
be looking at his buildings, three stories high. Even though they’re two stories, the roof goes
up, way up there to two stories, and I’m sorry I’m over the time limit. I’m going to finish up.
This is the ideal Queensbury. This is what people think of when they see Queensbury, and
you’re going to put roofs and development and start a fire over there. Stop it. It’s not a
home, and by the way. This is a separate issue. Nobody is going to want to live in these
apartments. I’m sorry. If you’ve been down there and hear that Northway noise, those
trucks downshifting and up shifting those two hills, nobody of means is going to want to be
there. It’s going to become an undesirable situation. We don’t want it, this kind of density,
whether it be office buildings with 400 cars an hour. It’s crazy to put it here. Stop it, and if
you would like some pressure, Town Board, if the developers are pressuring you, we can put
that pressure right back, the people, we can have a website. I’d be glad to support that, and
we can get even more public support behind. Thank you for your time.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Okay. Would the next speaker like to come up,
anybody else?
BOB FALLMANN
MR. FALLMANN-Hi. I’m Bob Fallmann. I live on Gurney Lane, and I’ve brought with me
tonight a petition signed by 182 people, in the area that is affected by this project. If I may,
may I read it?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you may.
MR. FALLMANN-It says, “We, the residents of Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old
West Mountain Road, Bell Mountain Road, Court House Estates, Buckbee Road and Lewis
Road strongly and respectfully encourage the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to deny
site plan approval for the construction of 92 Townhouse apartments presently under
consideration for that section of West Mountain Road where it meets Gurney Lane. We are
seriously concerned that the construction of a townhouse complex situated in such close
proximity to the Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, Rte. 149, I-
87 Exit 20 and Route 9 interchange will only serve to exacerbate the growing problem of
traffic congestion. This congestion has resulted in recent years from the increasing and
unrelenting amount of traffic generated by inter-state travel, the Route 9 factory outlet
stores, and the continued expansion and on-going construction of The Great Escape &
Splashwater Kingdom. We are also concerned that the construction of multi-family
residential units in this area of Queensbury will violate the intended use of this property,
property originally designated single family residential. The construction of a large
townhouse apartment complex certainly does not support the purpose this property was
intended to serve when it was re-zoned Professional Office Space as recently as 2002.
Furthermore, we are gravely concerned that the construction and existence of 92 townhouse
apartments at the intersection of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road will alter for all
time the distinctly scenic and rural character of this section of Queensbury. There are few
sections remaining in the Town of Queensbury which have retained this character and Exit 20
of the Adirondack Northway is the only one of three exits within the Town of Queensbury
which has not been developed. We feel that it is not only in our best interests, but in the
interest of all Queensbury residents to protect and preserve this section of Queensbury from
the unchecked construction of apartment complexes which is spreading inexorably across the
Town’s landscape.” Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Do you want to bring that up to the Staff. Next
speaker.
DENNIS FRANKLIN
MR. FRANKLIN-I’m Dennis Franklin. I live on West Mountain Road. I’ve been in the
building business for 50 years. My comment on this development is it’s a cheap apartment
development. I’ve built many, many nicer ones. Mr. Schermerhorn stated the other day that
most people in his developments do not go outside. There are no amenities. There’s no reason
to go outside. The back of this property has been cut down to provide leach fields. He’s
cutting through a mature, deciduous forest with no undergrowth. Seven months a year, when
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
the leaves are not on the trees, the back of the apartments are visible. It doesn’t show one
single bit of landscaping, only perennial rye to maintain the leach fields. That’s not being a
good neighbor. That’s good landscaping. When the original, when this was originally looked
at being rezoned multi-family some years ago, it said that the buffer of the hill, the ridge,
should be maintained to separate the two zones. In the verbiage that they gave to the Town,
it said that they were only going to address the existing face of the mine, which is a slope of
about this, for safety. That’s the statement. The grading plan shows that the entire ridge is
leveled, below the floor of the existing mine. So that’s how we’re going to restore the mine,
taking the whole hill away. You have an opportunity there to conceal whatever’s built there,
with this ridge. So we’re going to open it wide open and not restore it. That’s just not right.
Now if anyone calls this high end, there’s no on-site laundry facilities. There’s no on-site
maintenance. There’s a dumpster with a fence built around it. The only landscaping that’s
being provided is the store front landscaping where the person that’s renting there sees it
when he drives in, but the surrounding area is left barren. There’s one slope in the rear that
they are building that says, very simply, this is the landscape plan. Provide perennial rye
grass and then one gallon plants. That’s what I read. It doesn’t say how many plants. It
doesn’t say what kind of plants, and if those areas were to be treated sensitively, I don’t think
the neighbor should have to wait 20 years for the under story to re-grow. That’s the view
that we’re talking about, and the entire back of this is leach field, and I think you people, you
should change your requirements. You should require sections through the adjoining
property to show when there’s going to be a 14 foot grade change. You shouldn’t have to be
somebody who’s done this for 50 years, go over to the Town and study the grading plans and
make my own sections of that, so I can see what’s going to happen to the adjoining property
and what’s going to change in the views. It should be straightforward so the average person
can look at it and say, you’re creating a wasteland here. You’re giving us nothing on the
outside of this project, and when you look at the fronts of all these buildings, there’s trees, but
go over and look at the actual buildings. The rears and the sides that face you, you, or me,
there’s nothing. There’s nothing to build those, bring those buildings gently into the ground.
This is a make money project with no amenities. Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks. There’s two, this lady right here.
ANNIE BANG
MS. BANG-Hello. I’m back. My name is Annie Bang, and I live at 1218 West Mountain
Road. That would be three houses down from where this project is going to be the same side
of the street. I’m watching this. I can’t be the only one. I saw the pictures of the residential
on those slides. Well, they all have garages, which means they’re not the apartments.
They’re the townhouses. You don’t put garages and then ask for 197 parking spaces. I didn’t
see a picture of an apartment. The scenery up here is gorgeous. So I’m presuming these
apartments all have decks, but I’ll bet my sweet tush they don’t. You know, they’re built
like city housing, city projects in New York, for those that are middle class and under, no
decks, no patios outside. I heard her say that 70% of the acreage is going to be green. Well,
you know, that’s a nice word, but it has no meaning whatsoever. If it’s grass on leach fields,
well, it’s kind of, if you’re planting one gallon plants, I can’t believe that you guys just don’t
chuckle, just don’t laugh. I mean, I’m a homeowner. When I built, there was like not a cent
left. So I bought my one and five gallon plants, because I couldn’t afford anymore. A one
gallon plant is a joke. These people who are building need to put in something that one can
see, like a 10 foot tree. A one gallon plant, I’ll be long gone. There was a man who said, at
one of the meetings, that we’re all gray haired, so by the time this all comes around, we’re not
going to get anything because in fact we’re going to be in old folks homes, but the point is, a
one gallon plant, that would be the minimum requirement. A one gallon plant on a hill or by
a street is never going to deck, like Mother Nature has decked the side of West Mountain
Road. Nobody ever seems to notice it. If you plant, I mean, I just bought land and planted,
and I have a lot of irrigation I had to put in, because this is sand. Things don’t grow on their
own on a hot summer. It makes wonder whether there’s going to be any effort at that, and
there’s traffic. Supposedly there’ll be so much traffic generated that at the corner where we
just put the stop sign in, down West Mountain Road, that’s recommended to be a stop light.
Well, if that’s a stop light, what are you going to do at the corner by Prospect School?
Because it’s very difficult to get out there in the winter when it’s plowed. You can’t see. The
city plows one way. Prospect plows its parking lots that way, and there’s a big hill, and you
need to have the front of your car out in the traffic lane. I don’t know that one stop light’s
going to be the answer, and I grilled Dennis on this thing with the hill, because I had trouble
understanding, and I just can’t believe that one of the nicest parts of West Mountain Road is
the fact that the land is not flat like over by Hiland. Hiland looks like a wasteland, a cultural
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
wasteland. It was very pretty when the field was there and the old folks home down back was
kind of in a gully, it looked attractive, but I’ll bet you that property along that road there is
going to be sold and built on, and it’s just going to be horrific. I can’t believe that they’re not
required to sort of, at least in the front, keep some semblance of hills, which is what we have
on that road. Why do you want to make it flat? It looks like Route 9, the last place I’d want
to live. I don’t believe this project fits here. I don’t believe it should ever have gotten this
far, because I do not believe it should ever have had the zoning change, and I hate to tell you
this, this responsibility sits on all you guys at all these meetings that we’ve been going to for
the last year, plus there’s some, I know that I should be more up on what goes on in Town.
Now that I found your website, I actually do kind of read and look. The answer is this has
been going on a while, and I get my first letter on the 17 of January saying there’s going to
th
be a major change, 1500 feet away from my house. I don’t believe I pay my taxes on time to
be treated that way. When you’re thinking of such a big project at that corner, you need to
tell the people, long before it has ever gotten as far as this, and that didn’t happen. I don’t
know whose fault it is, but it’s made me suspicious, and so now I will read everything that’s
published on that website, to make sure that I can’t find myself between a rock and a hard
place one more time. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
LOU BUCK
MR. BUCK-Good evening. My name is Lou Buck. My family and I reside at 251 Gurney
Lane in Queensbury. I’d like to make only one comment. Over the course of evening’s Town
Board meeting, the point was made abundantly clear by several members of the Town Board
that the West Mountain property on which a 92 unit apartment complex is being proposed
was rezoned Professional Office space in 2002 by the Town Board for two purposes. First, for
health concerns raised by the Federal Government, which encouraged communities not to
situate homes or residential complexes immediately adjacent to interstate highways because
of various forms of air pollution, and, second, to help spur economic development within the
Town, and balance both commercial and residential development within the Town. This
being said, I’ll conclude by asking rhetorically, why is the Planning Board even considering
site plan approval for this high density, multi-family townhouse apartment project? Thank
you.
DAVE HODSON
MR. HODGSON-Good evening. My name’s Dave Hodgson. I live on Bell Mountain Road in
Queensbury, and there are a couple of issues I’d like to address at this time. One is the
Karner blue butterfly habitat. In a number of areas in that spot there is ideal habitat for the
Karner blue. The sand pit is a primary one. There are other open areas that could be
identified as Karner blue habitat as well. The Karner blue feeds primarily on wild lupine, and
lupine prefer the disturbed, sandy open areas for wild lupine, and that was confirmed by a
DEC wildlife biologist, Kathy O’Brien, who took a look at an aerial photograph of the
proposed site and determined that there could be some places where Karner blue habitat
exists, but she recommended that those spots be surveyed for lupine habitat, and as far as I
know, that has not been done. The survey could only be done late in May when the lupine
does bloom. She also said that she could not give concrete answers to what if questions that
were posed based on speculation. She also stated that situations like this, this building site,
need to be approached on a case by case basis. This Planning Board should not approve
projects based on speculation either, and a habitat survey must be done, a complete habitat
survey must be done. A full environmental assessment should also be done. Karner blue
butterflies are found nearby. They’re not very far away. As a matter of fact, there’s a site
located on the side of Route 9, just north of the new entrance to the Water Park and south of
the motel on the west side of Route 9, and it’s been marked for years, Karner blue habitat.
Now even though the Karner blue does not fly very far, as the crow flies, it’s only about four
to five hundred yards from that known site of Karner blues to the sand pit on the other side
of the Northway. The two greatest threats to Karner blues in this area, to their survival is
development and the suppression of forest fires. We can do something about development.
As pertains to the Critical Environmental Area, the Town of Queensbury has determined that
the edge of Rush Pond and the wetlands to the north of Rush Pond is a Critical
Environmental Area. The stream that runs to Rush Pond and then to the Fen and finally to
Glen Lake is contiguous with this property. The south side of the property abuts the stream
and the wetland. Has the DEC or the Town flagged the wetland boundary and the contour of
the Critical Environmental Area? Has anyone looked at that property with the idea of
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
flagging that wetland? This should be done before permits are issued. The process of flagging
that wetland cannot be done down because important indicator plants are not growing.
They’re under the snow and they cannot be found. Soil sampling can be taken, but they are
not the only source of information in determining what a wetland is. This Spring, a valid
flagging can take place, but it can only take place after the plants have started to grow. In
addition, in this Critical Environmental Area, trails exist that could connect the Aviation
Road, Fox Hollow area with the Gurney Lane recreation area and the Warren County Bike
Trail via the intersection at the Warren County center. Has any consideration been given to
the possibility, not just a possibility, but a definite probability. Septic and stormwater
runoff. This site generally slopes towards the south, towards the Critical Environmental Area
of Rush Pond. The site is very sandy with very rapid percolation rates, and I know that
percolation rates have a critical limit where they can be too slow or too fast and this is a very
sandy area with very, very rapid perc. It’s my understanding that the 92 units would have
individual septic systems. If not properly installed, such a volume of fluid would not be
filtered by the existing soil. Groundwater and water tables could suffer and Rush Pond
wetland could also suffer. In addition, urban runoff from roads, driveways, rooftops and
lawns must be dealt with in a very sandy environment. More than drywells probably should
be looked at here. Holding ponds on the south side of the property would rapidly empty into
the water table carrying soluble pollutants. Scenic vistas. Gurney Lane and the Northway
have been designated by many Town government panels and boards as valuable scenic areas.
Has any stipulation been made to secure a tree buffer zone between the townhouses and the
West Mountain Road, Gurney Lane and the Northway? If not, this issue must be addressed
before old trees are cut exposing a barren landscape. Finally, as Councilman Strough pointed
out last night, the New York State Department of Transportation does not recommend
construction of homes near the Northway because of airborne particulates, aerosols, exhaust,
noise and vibration. Winter salt aerosols can travel a long distance, as evidenced by the
Conifer needle damage every Spring, brought about by vehicles whipping road salt into the
air to be carried by winds to the trees. Everybody has seen the damage to the trees on the
side of the road. The proposed project is very close to the Northway and very close to
negative impacts for the future residents of those townhouses. In summary, this project
should be denied, or at least delayed until a thorough analysis and full Environmental Impact
Statement and its impacts on the site, on the Critical Environmental Area and the future
residents of the townhouses can be determined. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive on Glen Lake, President of the Glen
Lake Protective Association. The Association is very concerned about this project. It is
within the Glen Lake Watershed, as you know, and I agree with virtually everything that
Professor Hodgson just said, and all the questions that he had about the effects on wetlands.
Rush Pond is a major source for inlet waters to Glen Lake. We’re very concerned that there’ll
now be this kind of intense development within the Watershed, and we ask you to go and look
at the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan which the Town of Queensbury accepted in
1998 and said it would use in looking at any development within the Glen Lake Watershed.
This level of intense development within the Watershed is unacceptable, according to that
plan. We’re concerned about the individual leach fields. We’re concerned about the runnage
of water towards Rush Pond and stormwater, and we would definitely like to see, if the
applicant hasn’t done it, a full Environmental Impact Statement to go along with that, and
also that we could be, if this project did go forward, that we be informed and included in the
process since it is within our Watershed, but at this time we ask that this Board deny that
project. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
WANDA GECEWICZ
MRS. GECEWICZ-I’m Wanda Gecewicz of 61 Sara-Jen Drive, Queensbury. All of the
previous speakers have brought up very valid points. I would like to just bring up one other
point that has not been mentioned. We all know that home values and school districts are
very closely linked. If you have 92 more units, you will have an overflow into the Lake
George School District, which will impact the School District terribly. Our schools are small.
They are not the type of school district than can accommodate such a large number of
students coming into the school district, and I think that this Planning Board should
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
carefully consider what you’re doing, because our schools do not have the size to allow 92
more units to be brought into this school district. I think there’s an awful lot that has to be
thought of, because the buildings would have to be renovated. The buildings would have to
be enlarged, and we would be increasing our taxes tremendously because of this, and I think
this project should not go through. I have nephews who live in this District and go to the
Lake George School District, and I firmly feel that it’s a big mistake. Thank you.
WILSON MATHIAS
MR. MATHIAS-Good evening. My name is Wilson Mathias. I reside at 14 Lewis Road. I
just would like to point out a few things. One has to do with the history of the ownership of
this property. It actually was, in the 60’s, the Warren County Board of Supervisors declared
it surplus lands, and sold it to what then would be considered, I think, real heavy hitters in
this area, Bob Nolan, Al Trudel, and Tom Meath. At the time they purchased the property,
actually Queensbury didn’t have zoning. A little bit after that, though, the Town adopted its
first Zoning Ordinance, and from 1970 until 2002, that property was zoned Single Family
Residential. In 199, the Town took a really hard look and did a significant revision of its
Zoning Ordinance and land use plan, and, interestingly enough, as part of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1998, one of the recommendations contained in this report dealt with that
property, and indicated that actually the Single Family Residential use wasn’t necessarily
appropriate for it and suggested some other office type duplex type uses. I think that my
neighbors and I, when the Town Board was considering changing the zone, assembled en
masse, came down, and said wait, don’t change it, don’t change it, and the Town Board
didn’t. In 2000, if you look at the map, I brought one, but in 2000, that property is zoned
Single Family Residential One Acre. Everything west of the Northway was zoned Single
Family Residential. In 2002, the property was rezoned, really at the insistence of the Town
Board. Not the applicant. The applicant came forward, with the owner, came forward with
the proposition for 14 clustered single family residences. The Town Board said, no, this is
appropriate for Professional Office buildings, and subsequently the property, in 2002, was
zoned Professional Office. Now I’d just like to say the purpose of Professional Office, it seems
to me, as a layman, is just that, Professional Offices. It came as a shock to me, actually, that
Multi-Family Residential use would be part of Professional Office. I don’t think that’s a
typical zoning scheme, and I’m not sure really why, when you look at the Ordinance and it
talks about Professional Offices within 1,000 feet of an arterial, why we’re even considering
having Multi-Family Residences here. Now I know that there’s been a determination by a
Zoning Administrator, but that was a determination that wasn’t on notice to us. We didn’t
have any input on that. It’s just, someone says, here’s the rule. Well, I say maybe you
should ask that question again. The Town Board said they rezoned this Professional Office
because that’s what they were looking for. In fact, one of their rationales was to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of potential residents in that area, and say, you know what, you
shouldn’t live there 24/7. Well, what are we doing making that available for 92, or 184 or 250
apartment dwellers? That just doesn’t seem to make any sense, and I also don’t think that
the determination made by somebody to whom we had no notice or an opportunity to
respond or say, hey, did you think about this, that we should be bound by that. I think you
ought to take a look at this question again and say, wait a minute, Professional Office space
means Professional Office. Is this a Professional Office? No. Well then maybe you need to
get a Use Variance, but you shouldn’t get approval from this Board. Finally, I’d like to make
just a brief comment about traffic. I understand that there’s going to be something
submitted with respect to traffic, and I think that’s a big deal here. It’s a big deal whether
it’s apartments or whether it’s office building. It’s obvious that that’s a concern, and
anybody who drives down the road and goes over there in the morning or comes back late at
night sees people trying to make lefts and turn there. It’s a very, or can be at times of day,
very congested area that needs some extremely careful and well thought study, in terms of
what are going to be impacts, and as some of the other speakers have alluded to, I think that
if you get past the issue of whether it’s appropriate to have this particular use as an allowed
use, that you need to have a full Environmental Impact Statement to go through the process
because of the great impacts that this is going to cause. Clearly, traffic is one of them, and
the other thing that I wanted to point out, and again, I don’t know how accurate the
mapping is, and maybe it’s in the applicants materials, but within our land use plan back in
1988, one of their recommendations, and at least my computer didn’t print out numbers on
the site, but it’s right there in the middle, and it’s right by Recommendation 3.2, it shows a
drawing of this area, and it shows the Critical Environmental Area boundary going through
this property. Well, that to me should be a trigger for you to say, we have to treat this very
differently. It’s not a slam dunk for anybody, for either the developer and the neighbors, and
again, the appropriate vehicle for that is a full Environmental Impact Statement, and that’s
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
what I’d ask that you require in this instance, if you consider that approval is possible. Now
we know you don’t need an EIS if you’re going to say no, and of course that’s what we’d
prefer. Thank you.
KATHY SONNABEND
MS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, Cedar Court in Queensbury. When I first heard
about this project, I thought, great, here we go again, you know, more multi-family
residences built in what’s supposed to be Professional Offices, eroding our tax base. We’re
building far more residential and we’re not getting a good balance. After seeing the
presentation last night by the Professor, I was shocked to realize that this parcel was so close
to an environmentally sensitive area, and I wasn’t even sure if maybe Professional Offices
should be there, but I heard John Strough speak last night, and listening carefully to him, I
began to realize what the vision really was for this property, and that was a Professional
Office area that wasn’t a big, multi-story office building like we saw in Mr. Schermerhorn’s
illustration or slideshow, but more like the kind of Professional Offices that are across the
street from ACC where you have doctor’s offices on nice little winding streets. The parking
isn’t on Bay Road. It’s behind. You have lots of trees, it has a residential look and feel to it.
That kind of development I could see going there, as long as we’re careful with the
environmentally sensitive areas. That property, while there may not be as much demand
right now for Professional Offices as there are for family residences, that property ought to be
extremely valuable to our Town in the next 10 years or so, especially if the nanotech park
takes off. Being right off the Northway like that, I can imagine a lot of professionals that
would love to be located so closely so they can get to the airport, to the park, etc. So I’m just
encouraging the Board to stick with the true intent of the Professional Office zoning and to be
very careful about how dense a development is allowed to be there.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
TOM GRAFF
MR. GRAFF-Good evening. My name’s Tom Graff, 52 Sara-Jen Drive, Queensbury. I just
have a question on the whole scope of the project, Professional Office or residential
apartments. On top of probably the largest Critical Environmental Area in the Town of
Queensbury, 100 and some cars, be it office buildings or apartments, on top of the largest
wetland habitat left in Queensbury just blows my mind that it’s progressed this far. It would
be a wonderful addition to the green space area of Queensbury to make it a park or some
other use. Having personally hiked the land, there is a feeder stream that flows right into
Rush Pond that would be impacted by either project, and I just think the Town needs to sit
back and do a full environmental review as has been suggested by previous speakers, and let’s
not let this slip through our fingers. It’s a beautiful area and it should be kept green. Thank
you very much.
MARK HOFFMAN
DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. I agree with many of the comments that
have been made and I won’t repeat them. I think the thing that I was most struck by with
this plan is that it seems to fit into a pattern of what I would term pseudo urban construction,
meaning that it’s creating urban densities without urban amenities. I think if you want to
build a city, it’s a great thing. There’s a lot of people who want to live in cities, and it may or
may not be more affordable than other types of living arrangements, but in order to do that,
and to have it be livable and workable, you need an urban infrastructure, and that’s not just
a sewer, which they’re not going to have anyway, and it’s not just public water, and it’s not
just some thought that you’re not going to have dysentery every time you turn the faucet on.
It’s got to be more than that. It means having the things that make urban life livable, and
just plopping down a high density apartment complex in the middle of a low density
residential neighborhood. To my mind, that’s not an appropriate siting for an urban type of
density, and we see that happening in other parts of Queensbury as well. In terms of the
need, obviously there is a need for people to live. I would wonder whether making better use
of the urban infrastructures that already exist in our region would be more sensible. We have
neighboring communities which are losing population who would love to have more residents
move in, that already have urban infrastructure, already have the potential to develop the
urban amenities that would make for a high quality urban life, and yet we’re competing with
them. In fact we’re making it more difficult for them by creating these pseudo urban
structures in the middle of what really should be lower density residential neighborhoods. So
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
I just wanted to put that comment in, and I just have a question, because I’m getting
confused about the history. I don’t know if I can trouble you to clarify this for me. The last
Town wide rezoning was when?
MR. VOLLARO-2002.
MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate your question, but those questions really go back to the
Town Board. I mean, they’re somewhat irrelevant to the Planning Board. Our role is to
review plans that are brought before us, to make sure they comply with the current zoning.
DR. HOFFMAN-So it was 2002?
MR. VOLLARO-It was 2002.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was changed in 2002.
DR. HOFFMAN-Okay, and is that when this zoning was put into place?
MR. VOLLARO-The Professional Office zone was put in place in 2002, and it had a
descriptive language to go with it, and I won’t get into anything more than that, because it
gets a little controversial.
DR. HOFFMAN-Well, the reason why I ask is because I wanted to clarify the history in my
mind. When the last Town wide rezoning was done, which I lost track of when it was. I’ve
lost track of the timing, our group, Citizens for Queensbury, submitted very detailed
comments to the Town Board, having to do with a lot of issues, some of which are being
addressed by the PORC Committee now, fortunately, but one of the general recommendations
that we made was that if substantial rezonings were done, as part of the Town wide rezoning,
that the neighbors in any of the adjoining areas to places that were going to be substantially
rezoned, that they be notified, and I know that legally they didn’t have to be notified,
because it was a Town wide rezoning, but it would seem that that would be the decent and
sensible thing to do, and it would have prevented some of this aggravation of maybe what
we’re seeing now, and I think the excuse was that it would be too expensive, which I think is
ridiculous considering the amount of money that the Town spends sending out their quarterly
newsletter to every citizen in the Town. So I just wanted to put that in that I think when
we’re looking at substantial rezonings, that we should try to notify the neighbors when that’s
done, even if it is part of a Town wide rezoning. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Betty?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Good evening. Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road. Before I start, I want
to amplify on a couple of remarks that have already been made. Dave Hodgson brought up
the Karner blue butterfly and the blue lupine. I was on the Town Board when we did
Solomon Heights. That was a question on that property where Solomon Heights went.
Before that could progress, we had to go out, and I say we because I was part of the discovery
team, a Town engineer, normally DEC does this, but we got permission to do it with an
Audubon member, the Town Engineer etc. We had to go out and flag every part of that
property where the blue lupine flower was, and then when Solomon Heights went forward, all
that property was marked so no construction material could be put on it, no vehicles could go
near it. It was never to be disturbed. The same way with Hudson Pointe. When Hudson
Pointe came before the Board, the Michaels Group had some of their most expensive houses
along there on the cliffs, which wasn’t a good idea for many reasons, but one of the clinchers
that we could use was, again, we went out and marked the blue lupine plants that were there.
So if there is a question of blue lupine plants, you really can’t ignore it. They do have to be
found and established. I also want to talk about, Paul Derby mentioned the Glen Lake
Watershed study. That is a document that was accepted by the Town Board and is to be used
as a resource material for this Planning Board, and it cannot be ignored, the findings that are
in that document, and I think you’ll find they have a lot of bearing on this particular project,
and my comments about the project are, the professional office buildings would at least
provide some jobs in the Town. If you’ve listened to John Strough’s figures about what types
of uses and property require services and don’t, and what the expense is of the Town, you
know that apartments are a drain on all the resources in the Town, the schools. Tax wise,
they don’t pay their costs. They’re a drain on the schools, the infrastructure, your police,
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
your fire, your water, highways, all that has to be considered. What have you got there to
support that? How expensive is it going to be for the Town and what is the cost to the rest of
the Town taxpayers? I haven’t seen the plans, so I wonder what provisions are in there for
noise pollution from the Northway, because I know when The Great Escape and the new
Hotel took all those trees down, moved land and everything, the noise pollution that spread
through areas of this Town that never had it before from that Northway is excessive, and I
think you people need to really be aware of how noise pollution and light pollution is
spreading through this Town. Not just look at a project, but look at what it’s doing to the
rest of the Town around it, because I’ve been to areas where I never could hear the Northway
and I would say to the homeowner, what is that noise. That is the Northway, and I don’t
think you’re considering those type of issues. Mr. Schermerhorn and his group talks about
Gurney Lane is a great recreation site for these homeowners. It is a great recreation site, but
you must remember that Gurney Lane is restricted in the months that it’s open, the hours
and the day that it’s open. It can’t be considered a true neighborhood park, and you take the
development over there, where do the children play? They play in the road, and I, personally
I’ve raised five kids, and I don’t think that’s a place for children to be playing. I also, with all
these apartments going up in Town, I’m looking at the same architecture over and over and
over and over, with no new ideas for architecture, and I don’t think that that does a service to
our Town. I’ve heard people at the Town Board meeting last night talk about the natural
recreation features on this lot. So why isn’t some recreation done on the lot and take
advantage of these features? Play sets do not make a family recreation area, and if that’s
what you’re thinking of when you tell people to put in a recreation area to service a lot of
families, I think you need to re-think your thinking. I’m also very concerned about the leach
fields that close to Rush Pond. It is a Critical Environmental Area, and I think you have to
think of the effect of a rainstorm that we had this past week, which was not a normal
rainstorm, what that has done to various areas of Queensbury and what effect putting that
amount of leach field, septic systems in an area could do, not only to that area, but to the rest
of the Town going from Rush Pond, eventually it’s going to go into the Halfway Brook
system, and I also served on a bi-county committee for Warren and Washington County on
the Halfway Brook Watershed, and frankly Queensbury is the worst polluter of the Halfway
Brook Watershed, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Betty.
JOHN DAVIS
MR. DAVIS-Good evening. My name is John Davis. I’m here with my wife Susan, and I
have a prepared statement. We only arrived about 10 minutes ago, and I’m sorry I missed
Mr. Schermerhorn’s presentation, which I understand was given earlier in the hearing. At the
risk of rambling on, I’ll just quickly read through this statement. As residents of Gurney
Lane for nearly 29 years, we are increasingly concerned about the development allowed in this
area of Queensbury that continues to modify the rural setting that existed when we moved
here. For example, the traffic increase along Gurney Lane in the past few years is almost
unbelievable. Much of this to date is not due to residential development, but to commercial
development along Route 9, primarily the 85 Factory Outlet stores that have been built.
Because of the congestion in the area, residents in Lake George, Lake Luzerne, and other
points north have discovered Gurney Lane is a convenient, “bypass”, to travel between the
Exit 20 and 21 areas to avoid the Outlet mall traffic. This used to be primarily a summer
phenomenon, but now that people have learned about this convenient and scenic heritage
road bypass, they use it year round, resulting in continuous flow of traffic in this rural setting.
The site plan for this proposal does not deal with the increased congestion that will be created
at the intersection of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. This area is always dangerous,
due to the complexity of roads leading onto Gurney Lane from the various County facilities as
well as the southbound Northway exit and entrance ramps. The Warren County DPW
mentioned these ramps in their December 12, 2005 comments on the site plan, but primarily
focused their concern on the possibility of increased congestion at Bonner Drive and West
Mountain Road. While this should be a concern, further engineering analysis should also be
performed to evaluate the traffic flow and how to solve the congestion at the Gurney Lane
and West Mountain intersection that will be exacerbated by this proposal. Also, Warren
County DPW requested that New York State DOT evaluate this area, and to date there is no
information in the file indicating that they have responded. Another traffic issue relates to
the inadequate 520 foot northerly sight distance from the south entrance to the proposed
apartment complex onto West Mountain Road. Warren County DPW also, in their letter of
December 12, 2005, stated that for a 50 mile per hour zone, there should be a minimum sight
distance of 740 feet. The County only suggests that the applicant try to minimize the impact
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
of this problem. The Town should require the applicant to overcome this inadequacy, not
just merely state that they should try. This is a dangerous situation that could be worse with
snow banks at the south entrance obstructing the view of southbound traffic accelerating
downhill to the south on West Mountain Road. We suggest the applicant fund a traffic
impact study of all aspects of this proposal. This study would be best performed by the
Town. Concerning the Karner blue butterfly, the Planning Board should defer any action
until this Spring to determine if there is important habitat on the project site. Kathy
O’Brien, DEC biologist, states that this is a quote, low likelihood, but it should be shown
conclusively that this is the case. We see Karner blues at our home on Gurney Lane and so
we know that they are in the area. It’s not too much to ask the applicant to wait and to
perform a more thorough evaluation of the situation come Spring. The applicant, in his
proposal, is silent regarding its impact on the proposed west side bicycle path that will
traverse this area. As avid cyclists for years, we have looked forward to this addition to the
Town’s wonderful recreational opportunities. Will the apartment complex block the entrance
to the bike path or in some way impact what is being proposed? Also, how will the proposal
impact access to Gurney Lane Park? The southern portion of this proposed project is in the
Critical Environmental Area. The proposal is a very short distance from Rush Pond, a highly
valued wetland area that is already stressed from surrounding development. Soil percolation
rates are high in this area. Over time, how will Rush Pond be impacted as oil and gasoline
from paved areas and fertilizers wash quickly through this rapidly percolating soil to end up
in this critical wetland. No one knows for sure if this is Karner blue habitat that will be
destroyed. All of these items lead us to the conclusion that a full Environmental Impact
Statement should be prepared by the applicant, not just a Short Form Environmental
Assessment. Lastly, we implore the Planning Board to defer any decision on this proposal
until all of the above is accomplished and the issue of the 1,000 foot setback for residential
development and Professional Office zones is resolved. As you know, this issue is before the
Town currently and will not be acted on by the Town Board until the February 27 or March
th
6 scheduled meetings. Any positive action on this proposal until a setback issue is fully
th
resolved would not be in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of Queensbury. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment.
LENORE GUAY
MRS. GUAY-Hi. My name is Lenore Guay, and I live two properties down from the
proposed site on the same side of the road. I kind of wanted to address younger people in the
area needing a place to live, these lower income apartments. I purchased my property in
1994, at the age of 23. Did not have higher education. I worked, I had good credit, and I
purchased my home just like other people should do. I kind of took offense that young people
can’t purchase homes and have to move themselves into apartments or what I would consider
chicken coops. At this day and age, if someone doesn’t have the capacity to put themselves in
a better place or where they feel they should be better off, then that’s their own problem. We
shouldn’t give them their crutches to allow them to continue to just get by day after day.
With regards to the area, the nature. Approximately three years ago, at Exit 20, we had a
two year old moose hit and killed, right there coming out of Rush Pond. We continue to have
moose in that area. We see tracks all the time. I am out back. My children are out back.
There’s moose. There’s wolf coming into the area. There’s many, many different species.
Because we run along the bottom of the mountain, we see that all the time. It makes no sense
whatsoever to put, whether it’s a professional building or an apartment building, in that type
of a situation. We’ve mentioned Gurney Lane and that the children will be able to go to
Gurney Lane. I, myself, do not let my own children walk to Gurney Lane on that road.
There’s no walkways. The road is very narrow. So I don’t know if the Town of Queensbury,
if this proceeds, is going to take on an added expense of adding walkways and making it safe
for pedestrians to move back and forth to Gurney Lane parks, but as a parent right now in
the area, I do not let my children walk that road. Thank you.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m here with my wife Kathleen this evening.
We’re residents in North Queensbury. I would like to strongly support those who have
suggested that this project be subject to a full environmental impact study for four following
particular reasons. One, traffic. We are about to open an entirely new and different traffic
pattern in that area, dealing with the expansion of The Great Escape. We don’t know if it’s
going to work, and now we’re bringing more intensity of traffic, whatever it is, whether it’s
professional offices or it’s apartments, there’s going to be more traffic across that bridge. It’s
only a two lane bridge, and what I’m saying is the cumulative impacts of everything that’s
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
going on in that area along Route 9 and the Northway should be a part of that
Environmental Impact Statement. The second issue deals with the proximity of all of these
septic systems, one on top of the other, on one piece of ground. The cumulative impact of
that operation, that scheme does not represent State of the Art. I can’t understand. It’s not
even economical. What you do in a situation like this, where you have a high concentration
and a need to treat wastewater, is you collect it together. You treat it under proper
supervision, and discharge it accordingly. Package plants are sold in this regard. It’s
nonsense to do it in this manner. However, if they choose to do that, then it should be
subject to an environmental review, and the cumulative impacts of all of these little septic
systems on the same plot of ground should be quantified. It’s in a Critical Environmental
Area. It’s at least adjacent to a Critical Environmental Area, and that takes another closer
look. Now all we’ve been doing in this Critical Environmental Area over the years is filling in
the floodplain. We think we’ve got problems with water flow in this Town. Look around
you. All we do is fill in the floodplain. We don’t address that. That has an effect on the soils
and their ability to absorb water and storm events. These things have to be quantified. You
know an Environmental Impact Statement is not a rhetorical dissertation. It is a
quantitative analysis, and that’s what we need. Another issue in the Environmental Impact
Statement are the socio-economic impacts. They have to be quantified. Mr. Buck mentioned
the Lake George School District. Our village incorporation committee has taken the trouble
to try to understand what our school tax burden is in these two small communities north of
here, namely North Queensbury and Pilot Knob. Do you know that our area, the Pilot Knob
area, is paying at least $100,000 per student to educate the few students that come from that
area that go to the Lake George School District. In North Queensbury it’s $60, to $70,000 per
student. That’s what we’re paying. Now you bring more students into this School District,
okay, and we’ve already heard that these apartments don’t pay their own way. We’ve heard
that, okay, so there’s going to be a shift in the tax burden where? To the other parts of Town,
and that’s us. So those numbers I just quoted are going to go even higher, if that School has
to expand in any way. Those issues have to be quantified, and that’s part of the
Environmental Impact Statement. I had a fourth issue, but in any case, that’s a very, very
important part of this process, and regardless of which way this project is developed, that is
an essential element, the Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you.
TANYA BRUNO
MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. My name is Tanya Bruno. I live at 119 Gurney Lane. I have
to say I agree with everything that’s been said this evening in terms of protecting our area,
and I could repeat many of the things that many people have said, but I’m kind of going on a
different vein here. I grew up in Massachusetts. When I went to Skidmore College, I met my
husband, and I agreed with him, this was a great place to live. He grew up here. I could go
anywhere, no, moving here, and that being said, I still love it here, but on the other hand, I
think I’m starting to get a little mad about some of the things that I’m seeing around. So
you’ll have to excuse me if perhaps what I say this evening seems a little more emotionally
driven than perhaps professionally or data given, although there is quite a bit of data here. I
commend how carefully the Board reviews all material submitted. I am asking the Board to
please continue to carefully regard all aspects of this project. Mr. Schermerhorn and
Associates are attempting this evening, with their presentation, to simplify the multiple
facets of this runaway situation. Queensbury has had meetings full of discussions about
proper zoning of this site among other sites I’m aware of. We’ve had open space plans
completed, Comprehensive Master Plans drawn up, and a new update is currently in the
works. I’d like to make one comment about the question about the Echo Boomers. There
may be statistics giving the number of young people who be needing housing in the future.
These numbers do not speak at all about the type of environments that these young people
may want to live in. The children of this area are very in tune with what legacy we are
leaving them. Mr. Schermerhorn states that all of his apartments are full because people
want to live here in Queensbury, the foothills of the Adirondacks. Yet if this area saturated
with cookie cutter buildings, lacking aesthetic value, the trend to moving here will change,
because the Town will become homogenized. The ZBA the other night did not vote on the
parking spaces for this project. Not because they disagree with the number of spaces each
apartment would need. My understanding was they did not want to give an okay
prematurely for fear that it would set a precedent for your decision as a Planning Board. Mr.
Lapper brought up the ZBA’s tabling for you to quote accept the project, because he wants to
give the illusion that there are many more people supporting this project than there actually
are. Likewise, Mr. Schermerhorn mentioned meeting with Mr. Boor and Mr. Strough
regarding the bike path. Intimating that they are on board with Mr. Schermerhorn in this
project. Anyone sitting in on the Town Board meeting last night would know that that is
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
just not the case. I resent the insult to all of our intellects that these smooth moves aren’t
noticed for what they actually are. Along those lines, I have duly noted the veiled threats
about going in and building professional office buildings and how others could perhaps build
even more, and the pressuring techniques such as the tractors that were placed on the
property today. It is time that we pay attention to all socio-economic levels of our public and
give all of the planning design and visioning efforts their due diligence. Thank you. I’d also
like to ask whoever is opposed to this development please stand.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody else that would like to talk to this application?
KATHY FRANKLIN
MRS. FRANKLIN-Hi. My name’s Kathy Franklin. I live at 1232 West Mountain Road in
Queensbury, except I probably should be paying you guys rent for this building in the last
week for this building. Since I’ve spent more hours here than I have at 1232 West Mountain
Road. I want to thank Mr. Schermerhorn, because I don’t think, without him, I would have
gotten to know the quality of the neighbors that are not only right close to me, but all over
this Town. I didn’t want to speak tonight because I didn’t want anyone to be able to say that
this is just another one of those Not In My Back Yard campaigns, and I am an adjoining
neighbor. So I’m prime for NIMBY, but I’ve heard so far tonight, and, I don’t know, Mr.
Schermerhorn, do you really want to do this now, after all you’ve heard tonight? I wonder,
and I mean that sincerely because I’ve seen some of the things that you’ve said that make
some sense.
MR. VOLLARO-Ma’am, you’ve got to address the Board.
MRS. FRANKLIN-I’m sorry. I’m not supposed to address him, but I’m just amazed that
anybody would want to go ahead with this, when they’ve heard people who have professional
and personal feelings that run so deep and have so much information, not only on the history
of this process, but the traffic, the environmental, possible environmental impacts, the
worries that coming out have really not too much to do, I think, with people trying to protect
their butts, in a very particular way. I think they want to protect this neighborhood. They
want to protect this Town, and I think that’s pretty unusual, and back to the first meeting, I
thought, why do I want to live here? Why would I want to live where this is happening?
And then when I met all those people, I knew I wanted to live here. This is a good
neighborhood. It’s a good community, and I think with this kind of expertise getting
together, we don’t have to argue about the small question of what to do with this one
property. I mean, we do have to argue about that. Mr. Strough called that one of the flat
tires on this car. I don’t know if anybody was there last night. I know that you all were here
last night. We do have to deal with this flat tire, but I just, I can’t believe that anybody has
sat here and listened to expert, essentially expert talk about what landscaping can do and not
do for buildings, what environmental impacts this could or could not have, and what kind of
process we’ve been having over the history of this project, which has been spotty, but every
time it gets spotty, the neighborhood all comes out. This is a valued neighborhood, and I
think if nothing else this whole process has brought that very clear, and it’s a real bright spot.
The funniest part was even Mike O’Connor wanted to disassociate his part of Professional
Office zoning from this part because he knows that this is held in such low esteem, this
project. I’m drifting, and I’m sorry, but I really think that we all should have been able to
think about this ahead of time a lot more than we have. When this parcel was zoned
Professional Office building the last time, which was, what, 2002, Mr. Strough had to recuse
himself because he has the adjoining property. Mr. Brewer said, well, we don’t have a good
definition of Professional Office building, why would we rezone it to something we don’t even
have a real good definition of, and they read that definition that night. They included
everything. Everything, multi-family housing, Professional Office buildings, graveyards,
schools, churches, drycleaners. I mean, it was an incredible list of possible things. So the
words Professional Office zoning were essentially misleading. If not misleading, at least so ill-
chosen to represent what was in that category, and I went down to that meeting to support
the 14 house, little cul de sac neighborhood that was being proposed. If I had known about
the possible environmental impacts, I might not have been so quick to do that, but I was
quick to do that because I thought, boy, that would be a nice place for a small neighborhood,
you know, a small number of people, enough number of people that you can get to know
them, that they can get to know each other, that they have a certain community that’s there,
and the reasons we were given that that was going to change, that that was not acceptable,
was it was not economically viable for the community to have residential housing, and that
we needed more commercial development, and this was going to be a nice transitional
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
commercial development. That was one of the reasons anyway, and then because of that
rezoning, we are now talking about 91 or 91 different family groups living there. It’s
extremely ironic. Three of the members of that Board voted for that zoning. I think all three
of them probably think very differently now. There was a woman, I think her name was
Thelma. She was 87. I remember that, and she said, where are we going and what are we
going to do when we get there. I think that really said it. Everybody else has had incredible,
thoughtful, careful and expert reasons for what they think, but I think she really put her
finger on it, where are we going and what are we going to do when we get there? What kind
of a neighborhood do you want to go home to? Do you want to go home to an apartment
where you can’t sit outside, you don’t know your neighbors, you’re afraid to go outside, it’s so
big. It’s like a tiny box, except that it’s a big box, you know. I keep hearing Joni Mitchell’s
tiny boxes song and the only thing wrong with it is they’re big boxes. If you go over to Bay
Road and you look on the left hand side, you see these great big boxes, and they’ve got little
trees that are sort of trying to hold them onto the ground. If you go across the way, there’s a
berm. There’s some small housing, and it looks like housing. It turns out it’s Professional
Offices. I had to go there for physical therapy. It was a perfectly wonderful place to go. It’s
not hard to drive around in there. It was not noisy. It was calm, and apparently it’s very
efficient. It’s been going for a long time, and it’s well maintained, I don’t know how much
these apartments are going for. I’ve heard low income and I’ve heard middle income, but I
still don’t know how much anybody is going to be paying for them. I don’t know how long
the Schermerhorn organization is going to manage them. My guess is once the depreciation
goes they may be sold to somebody else who may not take such good care of them. There’s so
many unanswered questions on this project. I just hope you guys will give it a lot more time.
Thank you.
DENISE PADDOCK
MS. PADDOCK-Good evening. My name is Denise Paddock, and I have a residence at 330
Glen Lake Road. We also have some property off of Gurney Lane. So I frequently travel the
Gurney Lane to Route 9, 149 Northway corridor, and just an observation, particularly during
the summer, we’ve addressed some issues here about traffic, but nobody has really talked
about the Northway, and some of the problems that occur with backing on to the Northway
which I think is a real safety issue, that this Board and DOT and probably a few other people
need to address, that because of the left hand turn situation, if there’s oncoming traffic,
obviously you can’t make a left hand turn coming from the north in particular. Likewise you
have traffic backing onto Route 9, into the Outlet malls when they can’t make that left hand
turn to go south on the Northway, and I don’t think that the construction for The Great
Escape ramp is going to make one bit of difference on these particular events. Just a couple
of other comments, I think the comments that have been brought to this Board before mine
are right on target. I have a few more that I’d like to add, including that I think as a society,
and in particular the Town of Queensbury, and even more particularly developers, tend to
totally underestimate the value of trees to our environment, that they are wonderful devices
for cleaning the air. They clean the groundwater, and they reduce noise. The first thing they
do is cut them down and put these little sticks up, and throw down a lot of grass and think
that’s going to be the same, and it is not. It’s not nearly enough. Replacing trees with, old
growth trees in particular, but even middle age trees, replacing them with grass and a few
sticks here and there is just not the answer. It is not going to clean the groundwater. It
doesn’t clean the air, and it doesn’t keep the noise down, and as we all know, the Northway
generates a lot of noise. Glen Lake is already suffering from the construction expansion that
is going on from The Great Escape. Removing the trees, the tearing down of the hill, the
paving the parking lots, have all affected the water quality of Glen Lake, and if you don’t
think so, you are kidding yourselves, and in addition to that we also have the noise now that
the trees are gone. Somebody else mentioned that you can hear the Northway in parts of
Queensbury you never could hear before, and that is certainly true. People on West
Mountain Road and Lehland, when they take those trees down, you are really going to know
the Northway is in your backyard, and just one other comment about the playground and not
putting a playground, using the Gurney Lane facility. We have talked about traffic as being
an issue at this intersection. Well, hello, nobody is going to let their children walk from this
development to Gurney Lane. They are going to get in the car, which means that they can’t
just go out for a half an hour. Somebody is going to have to collect them, put them in the car,
and drive them to Gurney Lane, and it may only be half a mile or a mile or two miles,
whatever it is, but there you go, there’s more traffic through that intersection. There’s more
pollution. I mean, the reality of it is cars are polluting and we are adding to it by putting
another scenario where cars are driving here and there and everywhere. Somebody addressed
the fact that we are urbanizing our suburban areas or our rural areas, and maybe it is time to
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
let some other areas have, develop apartments for people who want this in an urban area,
where it would be more appropriate. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
JUNE TALLEY
MS. TALLEY-My name is June Talley. I live at 13 Pinewood Avenue in Westlands. That’s
an old section, but it used to be wonderful. There were trees back there when I first moved
there, ’63, and then beautiful homes were built, Sherwood, up above Lynnfield, Crestwood,
those. It was wonderful. Before they were built, the Northway was there, but you didn’t
hear anything. When they were built, there’s only a very small barrier behind those houses of
trees. I open my windows in the evening and I’m miles away from the Northway, and I can
hear it. I can imagine what it would be like living in the development they’re speaking of
building there, right next to the Northway. I don’t know how those people are going to sleep.
I really don’t, and traffic, I go to ACC. I’m a senior citizen, but I travel that route and they
talk about Prospect School, the lady who spoke of Prospect School, the snow mountains and
all of that there. It can get very hectic in the winter, and even in the summer, when I get to
the West Mountain Road from, Mountain View Lane, West Mountain Road, and hit Gurney
Lane, and traffic is coming off of the Northway, one way, from the north and from the south,
I can’t imagine what it’s going to be like, those last days of school, people who go there in the
summer, to ACC, if they take the back route, which is much easier than going down through
Town, through all the lights, and up Bay Road. Traffic is not too bad now, but when Great
Escape gets theirs in there, it’s going to be (lost word) but I feel sorry for the people who
would have to live in those apartments that Mr. Schermerhorn is talking about building
there. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
MR. SALVADOR-Just one more comment to reinforce my recommendation that you do a
full Environmental Impact Statement on this project, and that’s whether or not it’s
apartments or Professional Offices, and that is the fact that, under SEQR, it’s incumbent
upon the Lead Agency to identify the events that are likely to occur as a result of your
approval. Now this is a tough task. It’s like having a crystal ball, but you can put together a
list of umpteen items and then go through them one by one and pick out the important ones,
but that’s essential, and that should be done also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask you a question, quick, John. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to put
you on the spot. When you got up before, you said there were four reasons.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s the fourth one.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the fourth one.
MR. SALVADOR-It was the previous speaker that triggered it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody else?
FRANK HARDICK
MR. HARDICK-Everybody’s pretty tired by now. I’ve seen the two presentations, one for
and one against. My name’s Frank Hardick. I’ve been a professional engineer for at least 45
years. My experience has been, because this is a sensitive area, Rush Pond, especially in
Queensbury, you can’t just put three or four holes in and figure out what’s going on. You
have to put many, many holes in, especially on a 14 acre site, because we’ve been surprised
and hit clay layers. We’ve been surprised at hitting channels of water and things like this.
So, on your Environmental Impact Statement, I would say be especially careful to get a good
conditioning on the groundwater and things like that, because you’re putting an outside
water source in. You’re supplying water, a municipal water supply. So you’re going to raise
the water table. Now we ran into this at Surrey Fields and the one next door where I live at
Cedar Court. I ran a water table study, and I advised The Michaels Group as to how much
the water is going to come up and they wouldn’t be able to drain what they were saying, and
they went and spent $30,000 to fix it, but I had to convince them. By the same token, in our
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
area, we had a break out of our septic system which ran the sewage down the street. So it’s
not just a simple thing to analyze what’s going to happen to Rush Pond. That’s probably the
most critical one. I’m just giving you this from my experience of Queensbury and other
areas. So that’s all I have to say is you guys have got a tough job ahead of you. One other
point. To me, a professional office category means that the State of New York, if you have a
license to practice psychiatry or engineering or architecture, that would be in a professional
office building. Not apartments. That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. LINKE-I’m Richard Linke again on Gurney Lane, and I sometimes feel like a little bit
of a rough hooligan. I get emotional and angry and I don’t think you have a hard job ahead
of you, and I echo the other woman there thinking what a bunch of very, very sensible, nice
community people, and I don’t see how you can vote any other way, other than to get this off
the table, put it back zoned the way it always was and intended and planned for, and I don’t
think you should alienate this kind of a group of people. I’m not a social person. I live up in
the woods and I kind of like it that way, but thank you everybody.
MRS. GUAY-Lenore Guay, 1226 West Mountain. We’ve heard a lot, but we have yet to hear
about the emergency vehicles that use West Mountain Road. There’s a firehouse over by
Prospect School, and it comes on Mountain View Road to West Mountain and then hits
Gurney Lane and it covers the outlets, it covers the Municipal Center, it covers The Great
Escape and areas in that vicinity. I would think apartments such as that size or office
buildings, at least the one that we saw on his projector, would then cause an added traffic
issue which could obviously impact loss of life if an emergency vehicle can’t get to an
emergency that it needs to. That’s all I wanted. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MS. TALLEY-This time, a subject near and dear to my heart. Archeology. It hasn’t been
mentioned, only vaguely, but this is a body of water, and I know that when The Great
Escape, that hill, they did an archeological dig up there. There was evidence found of Native
Americans. Now who’s to say that they didn’t also come around on this area of Rush Pond?
I think that if the study is to be done, that archeological finds should be taken into
consideration. That’s my field of study in field, and my avocation and what not now. Thank
you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. Okay. I think that’s about it. I don’t see anybody
else. Would the applicant like to approach the table.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, certainly this is not a welcomed project by any means, and
sometimes you certainly don’t know until you get to this point. I’ve been in this position
before, once before, on an application on Moon Hill where I was within the Town’s Codes, as
my rights to develop it as I had it proposed, and I chose to back away from that one, and I
made a lot of happy people. This particular project is a difficult one. Everyone in the back of
the room would probably say it’s not difficult, just, you know, drop it. I guess there’s, right
now we have zoning in place. It clearly states what any individual can or can’t do with the
project. I’m very sensitive to public input, and sometimes it’s unfortunate that the few
individuals take, I don’t know, cheap shots at someone like myself, they don’t even know me,
when here I said I’m here to work with people. Now, we can move forward on this project
and I can certainly address each and every one of these concerns. I already have a letter from
Lake George School Board. I already have a letter from DEC and the Karner blue situation.
Traffic study. I even have an archeological study. I have a Phase I Environmental Study. I
have everything to address every concern in this room, but is it going to make the people
happy in this room? Absolutely not, but I guess I want to, before, if I make any decision
tonight, whether I table this or whether I pull this application back, I’ve got a significant
amount of time and money invested into this project, and again, that’s my choice. I don’t
expect anybody to feel sorry for me, but the opportunity for me, or should I say opportunity,
the zoning, and I know we’re not here to talk about a zone change, and there’s people keep
bringing it up, though. It would mean office, Professional Office, and again I’ve stated, I
could certainly come back with an office proposal, whether people like it or not, but I guess, I
guess I want to ask the public, given the choice, do they prefer an office complex? I know the
answer, I guess, is no for the apartments, but if I leave this room tonight or if I pull this
application, will I be supported as far as an office complex, on an application for an office
complex? It’ll be very disheartening if I pull this decision back and I come back with an
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
office complex and spend more time, and the people don’t like that either. Now I know
there’s some people that just prefer it stays green. I can’t help that. The individual that
owns the property certainly has a right to develop. They certainly have a right to sell it. I’m
certainly always open to offers if somebody wanted to buy the property from me, but know
that’s not the answer. So, I guess I’m asking the public, before we go forward, and I can
address each and every one of the concerns tonight. I already have, I know we can’t submit
stuff after the fact, but I’ve already done all these studies. I’ve got noise abatement studies.
I’ve got Creighton Manning the traffic engineer is here that did the Route 9 corridor and The
Great Escape, but I need to know, I will rescind my decision on the apartments, but I need to
know, for the record, if I will have, and I’m not, obviously I’m going to have to go through
the same thing on an office complex, but with the general public that’s here tonight, I had 20,
because two people spoke twice, I believe, am I going to have the support if I come back for
the office complex, of some?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you’d be building professional offices in a Professional Office
zone, and I think that’s what I heard the public say tonight, pretty much, Rich.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I heard some people, but I also heard a lot of them that prefer
nothing, but I mean, listen, I’ve stated it before, over and over, in front of this Board, the
Town Board, in the newspapers, I’ve never made fun of a Town Board member or a Planning
Board member. I’ve respected the community, but I certainly have no problem rescinding
this application, but I need to know, at least the feel from the public, if I come back for a
professional office, whatever classification of public office it was, whether it could be a 30,000
square foot building, 60,000, a couple of 20’s, again, it’s a big site.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Two story?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Two story.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that, I’ve been pretty critical of some of my fellow
Board members in the past about speaking to the public, but it’s really frustrating to sit
through these public hearings and I certainly appreciate and understand the public’s concerns
and passion, and, you know, desire to protect their home, but the fact is, multi-unit
residential is an allowed use in a Professional Office zone. It is. I mean, it’s a fact. I mean,
we have to go by the Zoning Ordinance. The maximum building height allowed is 40 foot.
We do not have architectural review in the Town of Queensbury. Can we ask the developer to
come back with a nicer design? Absolutely. Does he have to? No. There’s a lot of things
that this Board can’t do that we may want to be able to do, and I think the public needs to
understand that we can’t just say no without just reason. Now there’s a whole laundry list,
even Mr. Schermerhorn admitted that. I mean, I have a bunch of questions. I’m sure every
member sitting up here has a bunch of questions, but the issue I think is still kind of debated,
you know, are job, as Planning Board members, is to make sure his proposal fits within the
boundaries established by the Zoning Ordinance. Now some of it is a little bit subjective, but
the vast majority of it is very objective, and if they come back with the information that
people raised concerns about, we would be bound by the Zoning Ordinance to give them an
affirmative vote. Are we there right now? No, I think we all know we’re not, but I don’t
think that helps this discussion but I think it’s important that people need to understand how
we got to where we are, and what the role of this Board is.
MR. LAPPER-I just have one comment to make. Sometimes it gets emotional when people
live in an area and they see a vacant lot and it’s green and they sort of take an ownership
interest because they get used to seeing it as green, and obviously it’s a difficult thing when
someone’s got a proposal to develop it, and apparently whatever the proposal is it would be
difficult in this case for some of the neighbors, but one of the speakers talked about that there
was an intimidation factor because a tractor was brought on the site today, and I just have to
respond to that. C.T. Male required some deep hole tests, and so that was an attempt, today,
successful attempt to get on the site and do the work today so that the project engineer could
get back to C.T. Male and it’s just funny when you listen, you know, someone has a
conspiracy theory of what happened, and so from a neighbor seeing a tractor on the site, they
think, there they go, they’re going to start building, and it was the exact opposite. It was a
matter of doing the testing work that the Town Engineer required to make sure that the site
was suitable for development, and I just want to make sure that the record is clarified.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in the interest of time, I guess what I’m trying to explore, Mr.
Schermerhorn, is exactly where, what do you want to do? I mean, are you telling me that
you’d like to withdraw this application and possibly submit a Professional Office application
in that spot?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I don’t want to withdraw the application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I’m also trying to feel the general public out on the other end
of the Professional Office.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think what was said, one of the things I caught, and it’s right in the
area where your other buildings are across the street. It happens to be where, you know,
there’s a physical therapist in there. There’s a dentist, there’s a couple of dentists. That
setting in there is what I think a lot of people are really looking for in the Professional Office
area. It’s where Dr. Bannon’s office is. That kind of thing. When you go in there, you really
get a sense of place. You get a sense of almost residential feel, and yet it’s Professional Office.
I think that’s what I heard when I heard a lot of people talking.
AUDIENCE-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I hate to be the naysayer, Mr. Chairman, but that type of development
also leads to sprawl, which is, you know, creates more traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so at all. I don’t think it leads to sprawl at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I can show you all kinds of definitions that define sprawl as exactly
that. One of the things we always talked about is having mixed uses on sites.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a comment.
MR. VOLLARO-Surely.
MRS. STEFFAN-I live in this neighborhood area. I live on Buckbee Road, about eight
tenths of a mile from this site, and as I was reviewing this application, I couldn’t help but
think that the timing of it was ill-timed, and for a couple of different reasons. One, the
Planning Board has asked for a comprehensive traffic study in the region, and this was one of
the areas that we were thinking about, with The Great Escape’s addition, and some of the
traffic patterns being changed, obviously that’s going to have some impacts that are very
hard to calculate. One of the other issues is that we’re in the process, the Planning Ordinance
Review Committee, is in the process of having the Comprehensive Land Use Plan re-written,
and some of the zoning of the Town changed, and that’s why I thought the timing of this, it’s
unfortunate, because it was ill-timed, and I think that, based on some of the public comment
tonight, it certainly seems like the community would like it if this wasn’t multi-family
residential, but there’s part of me that, you know, we’re making so much progress in the
Town, as far as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and I know that you’re anxious to
develop the site, but we are doing a lot of work right now to try to re-define where we want to
take the Town, and address some of the issues that folks have talked about tonight, and so if
you could wait a few months, that could be helpful.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I agree with things that you’ve said, but you also, it’s
concerning you just said about the outcome of Route 9 and the traffic and things like that.
Now an office building is going to, if I come back with office, or whether it’s a year from now
and they do the studies and pass the zoning, traffic will be much more, I would assume it
would be much more of an issue, and I have traffic consultants, but we probably won’t even
get to that tonight, but I would assume the traffic is going to be far greater with the
Professional Office buildings in that corridor. Because I don’t see any quick fix or quick
change to that, the bridge and Route 9 and everything else. So I honestly chose the
apartments because I thought it would be lower impact on that area, and I do both, so it’s
not like I’m making this up. I have office buildings on Bay Road. I have them in Glens
Falls. So I just thought I chose something that was going to be the least amount of impact as
far as traffic, and I brought the big blow up board, not that it means anything, but if you
look at the surroundings, a lot of the individuals, I have everyone’s name on every piece of
property up to the Lake George border, and a lot of these people, like the first speaker, Mr.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
Linke, he’s 1.45, he’s a mile and a half, basically, from the site, a lot of people live distant
from that, and I thought to myself when I first started this project, I truly thought, well, gee,
what concern would they have, other than driving by it, maybe the aesthetics, that they just
don’t want to see it. So I honestly thought I picked something that I thought would be
something that would have minimal impact. I’m not going to say no traffic or no impact, but
I picked something that I thought was minimal. Now, if I stopped the process on this
particular application, and I go to the office buildings, now I’m faced with the traffic study,
which I already have done. It’s probably going to be very limiting to how many office
buildings I can get in there. Now I know everyone says, well, gee, how many do you need to
have in there, or whatever, but cost of property today is very expensive. Nobody’s giving
their property away. This is how I make a living. I provide a lot of jobs and a lot of jobs to
subcontractors, and I have a lot of employees in this area. I mean, it’s not all bad that
developers do. So, that’s the dilemma I’m in. If I pull this application back, I go for the
office buildings, I may be restricted there because we’ve got a Route 9 situation which is still
an unknown, which we won’t know. So how long, I mean, obviously sellers of property, they
can’t hang on forever, and I can’t imagine the seller who’d want to see this property go back
to residential. They just did a Comprehensive Land Use and it was changed two or three
years ago. So I guess there’s a couple of things. We can certainly table the meeting tonight.
Would the Board, I know Chris Hunsinger has indicated, but would this project be reviewed
fairly under the current zoning? Because again, this rezoning that they’re talking about, and
again, I’m not going on about it, but we don’t know what’s going to happen. There’s been a
lot of if’s and’s and buts. I’ve seen a lot of things in my short 20 years in business here. This
may never materialize. So, we may get a couple of months down the road, and the zoning
stands as it is, but again, it may go the other way. I don’t know, but I’m certainly not trying
to upset any of the public. I’m not trying to take advantage of the Planning Board. I’m not
trying to take advantage of the Town Board or anybody. I always lay my cards on the table.
So, I guess if the Town Board could give me a clear indication of how they’ll review this, then
we certainly can table the meeting tonight and I can come back in a couple of days with a
determination or where I choose to go with this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Rich, I guess maybe I ought to come out and say what I’m thinking
at this particular point.
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, excuse me for interrupting. Can I make a comment?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Remember, I don’t know what you’re about to say, and you’re the
Chairperson. You’re a member of the Planning Board, say whatever you like, but remember
that my job here is basically to make sure that all the processes that you go through as a
Planning Board are legal, and are upholdable if challenged, and I have a concern. The public
has raised a whole slew of concerns which sound very appropriate, very logical, very rational,
and are concerns that I’m sure this Board will take very seriously, if and when review of this
project continues. The applicant has raised some questions and concerns which also strike me
as fair, reasonable and appropriate, but not necessarily resolvable by a Planning Board in the
State of New York. The applicant, if I understand the applicant, is trying to now gauge the
Board, and/or the public, as to what your reactions might be in the future if the applicant
changes gears and submits a different kind of application, and you don’t really have the
lawful authority, on your behalf, and even less so on the public’s behalf, to make any
statements that could be construed as promises or anything that an applicant or the public
could rely on in the future when you’re not dealing with an actual application pending before
you. So I think it’s important to point that out, and the only other comment I’ll make is
procedurally, a lot of people in the room, including perhaps some Planning Board members,
seem to be my perception is thinking that this application might be decidable this evening,
and as a matter of law, you’re way, way, way far from that anyway, because of the legal
processes that this Board would have to undertake in order to make a decision on this
application. I assume that at least some of the Board members realize that, but in case any of
the Board members don’t, and especially in the likelihood that the public doesn’t realize that,
you can’t lawfully decide this application tonight, under any circumstances anyway, because
there are a number of legal processes that you have to go through first, prior to issuing any
decision of any kind on this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-While you’re making comments, I have a question. We have an
application before this Board currently. We all know that there’s a proposal right now to
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
change the Professional Office zone. If that proposed change were to be approved, how would
it impact this current application?
MR. SCHACHNER-It depends, and the reason it depends is because it depends on, I’m sorry,
if the rezoning is approved, it depends on how the Town Board deals with the issue of
applications that have already been previously submitted. I will say, however, that as I
understand the current proposal before the Town Board, the current proposal for rezoning
before the Town Board would indicate that projects for which applications have been
submitted are not grandfathered under the existing zoning, in other words, that the new
zoning would take effect, and that this particular proposal, for example, would no longer be
reviewable by this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I was going to say when I started, and Counsel made his
comments, was that I’ve looked at this application, in some depth, and I’ve looked at its
environmental impacts, what I consider environmental impacts, and I’ll go through my notes,
as I wrote them, and they’re not really all that long. I see 46 separate septic disposal systems
on 16.54 acres of ground. Now each field, each one of those disposal fields, occupied about
1250 square feet, by scaling them off. That turns out to be, for 46 systems, it’s 57,500 square
feet of disposal over 16.54 acres, and that tells me that there’s eight percent of that site is
occupied by septics. Now, taking in the fact that if you look at the drawing there’s a CEA
line on that drawing. It’s, I think, 500 feet from the 430 foot elevation mark. I think that’s
what’s on the drawing itself. I scaled that off a little bit in terms of the entire 11, or 16.54
acres. I think about one third of this property is in a Critical Environmental Area,
approximately a third. Now, estimating the CEA, Critical Environmental Area, at one third
of the site, I also get that there are 15 septics within that site, the Critical Environmental
Area, and therefore there is also eight percent of that site, of the Critical Environmental Area
is occupied by septics. Now couple that to some of the perc rates that I put down, I think
there’s 20 seconds, 33 seconds, 18 seconds, and one minute and twenty. Now, if you look at
those numbers, and then you take the fact that we’ve got the stream that goes to Rush Pond,
and that stream runs about 2600 feet, as I scaled it off, to the first entry to Rush Pond, and
what I see there is that the disposal field, in terms of its association with that stream, is 130
feet away. That’s within the Code, by the way. It is, I can’t fault them. They’ve got it right.
The 136 Code, that’s our Wastewater Code, talks about 100 feet, but 130 feet, with that kind
of perc rate, bothers me, and I know what can be done. The soils can be changed. I
understand that, and we can slow that perc down and do all kinds of stuff, but that’s the kind
of thing that I looked at. The closest point of approach of the Northway to the southbound
ramp is 55 feet. Now that’s close. I might be wrong on this next one, and I want the engineer
to discuss that with me, but the septic fields, where they sit now, most all of them seem to be
surrounded by a slope, about 30%. So that what we’re going to be seeing is water going down
onto those fields. I think there’s about a 30% slope there, the way I gauged it out. It’s not
hard to do. You know how that’s done. The traffic impact has not been defined yet. We
haven’t heard anything on traffic. The parking, I know what you’re asking for there. You’re
asking for 197, and there’s 138 allowed. So we’ve got to, that’s where I think the ZBA got
hung up the other night, on 43% variance. I read the letter from Kathy O’Brien. I read it
very carefully, and I must have read it three or four times. My conclusion on that is it’s not
absolutely conclusive as to what’s going on, but she does recommend that it be done on a case
by case basis, that whole thing. So we’ve really got some environmental concerns from the
Karner blue butterfly area. What am I getting to with all of this? I thought this out, and I
said, look, what I would like to do is I would probably like to have, at least I’m
recommending at this time, and I think Counsel might be able to help here with this one, but
a coordinated review. I want to go through a coordinated review with agencies that are
involved.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re talking about, just for the benefit of the public especially, you’re
talking about what’s called coordinated review under the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act or SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Quality Review Act, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess I have a couple of comments to make about that, but I guess
first I’m not, maybe I’m the only person here who’s getting confused, but I understood that
the applicant was contemplating either withdrawing the application or asking that the
application be tabled, from the standpoint of efficiency, and, you know, process. That’s
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
something that I got the impression we were sort of about to hear from the applicant on that
issue, and I don’t know why you want to start a SEQRA review process if the applicant may
be saying don’t do that.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I didn’t say I wanted to start one. I’m thinking about what the process
might be, okay. Mark, I’m trying not to become a lawyer.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a good goal. People should aspire to that goal.
MR. LAPPER-Actually, this is very helpful to us, because what Rich has stated, both
publicly and tonight, is that if it’s not multi-family then it would be an office project, and
these comments are equally applicable to an office project, because it would be the same
environmentally issues. So that’s important for us to here.
MR. VOLLARO-I certainly don’t think that it would be to the extent that you have it here.
I think this is, you know, certainly not. I don’t think the impact would be anywhere near
what this impact is. That’s my opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re going to trade off smaller septic designs for motor vehicle traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-No. That’s not true, Mr. Hunsinger. What I’m saying is maybe this doesn’t
fit the neighborhood. There’s things that we look at, as Planning Board members, in terms
of, does something, when it’s put into the neighborhood, what does it do to the character of
the neighborhood? Does it fit, does it not fit? This is not all numbers with us here. We’re
supposed to look at the overall thing, the overall position, not just one thing or another, not
just traffic, not just trees, but everything, you understand that, so, you know, I don’t see
why.
MR. FORD-Bob, I’m not going to get technical, but I do want to respond to the applicant’s
request for information, either tonight or at any future meeting, you will be treated fairly,
and you will get a fair hearing. I can assure you of that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I feel very much the same way. I mean, I live very close to this site, and I
feel very strongly that you’ll get a fair hearing. We judge, we have very specific criteria that
we evaluate projects on, and, you know, based on being on the Planning Board for a year, and
as an alternate for a year, I think you will get a fair hearing on this, whatever project you
bring forward.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I need to hear from you before I go any further with my position.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, I don’t want to waste anymore of anybody’s time
here. So, I’m not going to waste anymore time. I’m not going to table it. I’ll pull the
application back, but what I would like to do is, because of the public’s input, I would like to
come back with an office proposal project, and I would only ask that they’re somewhat
supportive of what I come back with, and I’ll take everything into account of what they’ve
said, but I will pull the apartment proposal back, but I will be back with an office proposal,
and I do appreciate the fact that I get a fair hearing either way, but I have taken into
consideration the things that have been addressed. Now, I honestly feel, for the record, if I
was to move forward with this application, I don’t want to say it would be a race against time
because if this Town rezoning doesn’t go through, I see, one of the reasons for my success in
this Town for the last 17 years is because I have dotted every I, crossed every T, and I’ve
followed every Code and every regulation that’s ever been written in any Code book, and I’ve
compromised. So I do feel strongly that this would be approved, if, under the circumstances,
everyone treated it like they just suggested, but, due to the fact that the people in the
audience are very, very much opposed to it, I will pull it. I have no problem with that. A lot
of the information I’ve already gathered that’s been asked for tonight I already have will be
used to come back with the office proposal, but I would simply hope that I will get some
support on the office proposal, because I know on the office proposal there will be some
things, I know traffic will be greater than a, it’ll just be greater, compared to the apartments,
because apartments are known to have very low traffic impact. Now, as far as the aesthetics
of these office buildings coming back, we’ve always, I’ve always said, and I think a lot of
people agreed with me, when you have big office buildings, it’s sometimes hard to make them
aesthetically attractive. Well, I certainly can try and make the buildings smaller, but a lot of
it depends on the market. So if I do come back with a large office building, please don’t be
surprised, and I will aesthetically try and make it as attractive as I can, and don’t be
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
surprised from some of the parking lots, and these aren’t threats. People seem to misconstrue
things. This is, I’m not threatening. I will come back and do the best job that I can, but I
think tonight what I’ve heard is office would be preferable. I’ll come back and hopefully it’ll
be an acceptable proposal that we can work with the people.
MR. VOLLARO-What I would suggest, if you do that, Rich, is to come back to us, to this
Planning Board or to the Town Board, whatever, to the Town of Queensbury, with a sketch
first that we can talk to one another on a Sketch Plan basis and try to get so we can get
comfortable with what you’re proposing, before you get into a full blown site plan.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, no, I’m fine with that. I certainly can come back with a
Sketch.
MR. FORD-I concur.
MR. HUNSINGER-At the PORC Committee meetings, there’s been a lot of discussion about
architectural designs, and we don’t have design standards right now, and, you know, one of
the design types that’s been talked about for that area is an Adirondack style building, and
I’m sure, you know, Staff can give you some guidance on, you know, what that means. In
fact, it is described somewhat in the current Zoning Ordinance, to what would constitute an
Adirondack style.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly can try it. I have an Adirondack style. I’m sure we can
try and come up with something.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of good models around for Adirondack styles that you can look
at. They’re in this area, actually. For example Dr. Bannon’s office gets close to that, the way
he’s got a green roof and you get almost a log effect. You don’t have to build it out of logs.
It’s a fascia, you know, but you can do a lot in terms of getting it to look a little more
attractive in that area.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Well, enough said. I know where I’m at with the Board. I
appreciate everyone’s time and I’ll see you next month.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Rich.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Before everyone leaves, this is a really good opportunity, because we have
some Planning Ordinance Review Committee meetings coming up for the community, we’ve
had a lot of public participation this evening, and the meetings really depend on public
participation, and we would really encourage everybody who’s here tonight to be involved in
those processes, so that we make sure our new Comprehensive Land Use Plan and our revised
Zoning Code reflect the wants and needs of the community.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if I could just elaborate on that, on the Town’s website is a draft
Visioning Statement and Goals that would sort of be the theme throughout the revised
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and we are, right now, soliciting comment on those Visioning
and Goal Statement. The next regular meeting of the Planning Ordinance Review
Committee, we meet the third Thursday of every month. So it’s not until March. We meet at
seven o’clock in this room, but there is a Town wide workshop that was just scheduled today.
It’s going to be on March 4 , which is a Saturday. The meeting will be at 9:30 in the Scoville
th
Learning Center at ACC, and everyone in the public is invited, bring all your neighbors and
friends. That will be an opportunity for the entire community to review some basic concepts
and themes for the revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Thanks, Gretchen.
SUBDIVISION 14-2004 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JANE POTTER
OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION SHERMAN AVENUE MODIFICATION TO
APPROVED SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT REQUESTS CONSIDERATION OF NEW
INFORMATION AND SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL OF THE CONDITION THAT HOMES HAVE
TO BE BUILT ON SLABS. CROSS REF. APPROVED 5/17/05, SB 4-98, SB 8-03 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 SECTION A-
183
JANE POTTER, PRESENT
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I am probably as perplexed as I’ve ever been with this particular
application.
MS. POTTER-Really?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It concerns me that I have the same professional taking data, a Soil
Scientist, that comes up with two different sets of information like that, and from my point of
view, I don’t know which one is right. I have no idea, and what I would probably want to do,
because the second set of information, by the way, that was taken by Mr. Maine requires a
DOH agreement with that. It’s a five lot subdivision, and it needs.
MS. POTTER-No, four lots.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s four lots.
MS. POTTER-It’s only four lots.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s only four lots. So I don’t need a Department of Health.
MS. POTTER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-But I do know what the test holes really look like here, and so we’re going to
need to put somebody else in there to do that, other than Mr. Maine. I don’t know which of
his reports are correct.
MS. POTTER-Well, he tried to explain it to you in his letter.
MR. VOLLARO-I read his letter. One was with an auger and one was with a bigger thing,
with a bigger back hoe, that he used a bigger hoe. It’s just, to me, I’m going to have to get
another piece of information from either our own engineering department here, somebody’s
got to go out and tell me, will the real data please stand up. I don’t know which one of these
two I can accept. I really don’t. There’s no way I can tell whether the first one was good or
the second one. I don’t know. When you get conflicting data like that, the only thing you
can do is take another test.
MS. POTTER-Well, you mean keep testing?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re going to have to have another source. You’ve got to
understand, the same person took this data and got two separate responses with it. One was
taken in April and one was taken in November.
MS. POTTER-Right. The timing doesn’t have any difference. He tried to explain that when
you do it with an auger in a heavily wooded area it doesn’t give you a true test, but when you
take a backhoe and dig a hole where you can get down and look at the levels, then you can see
better.
MR. VOLLARO-He may be right and he may be wrong. I don’t know. He should have done
it right the first time.
MR. FORD-One might ask the question, with that information, why would he use the auger
in the first place?
MS. POTTER-I think that’s his normal way of doing it.
MR. FORD-Even in an area where it’s wooded?
MS. POTTER-That I don’t know. I only went by what his letter was.
MR. VOLLARO-So what my recommendation is going to be on this is that we’re going to
have to get our own engineer in here to do the test holes there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to observe the test holes you meant, right?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, to observe it. We’ll get somebody different, but somebody’s got to be
there from C.T. Male. We’ve got people that do that, and this way we’ll know, because right
now.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m in full agreement. I mean, I would have been one thing if they had
come back with readings that were more restrictive, but to come back with readings that now
say, well, we now can put basements, full basements in, whereas before we thought we were
only doing slabs.
MS. POTTER-They didn’t say you could put full basements in. We only gained a foot on
some. We gained a foot and a half on others. We still didn’t get full basements.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-On the strength of this, though, you wanted to get away from slab on grade
construction.
MS. POTTER-Well, the word “slab” implies top of the ground, and I’ve lost three buyers
already because they use that word “slab” as having to build on top of the ground, and that’s
not true.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not.
MS. POTTER-Right. We can build into the ground to that mottling line, or within a range of
that mottling line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. POTTER-And because that mottling line is so high, on the first test, and when you got
into the ground and we gained another foot, that’s a foot of fill we don’t need on a large area.
There’s a lot of money involved, in a foot of fill, and that’s what we’re trying to gain some
footage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. How did you decide to re-test?
MS. POTTER-The first person who wanted to buy one of the lots said this is not feasible.
Every house in the area has full basements and no fill. Why is this particular parcel that
looks perfectly level, the same as the one right that borders it, he questioned it, and he
brought in a backhoe and had it tested.
MR. SEGULJIC-So a potential buyer tested it, then?
MS. POTTER-A potential buyer tested it.
MR. SEGULJIC-They tested it on their own?
MS. POTTER-And when we got that number, we said there is something wrong and we got
the backhoe and re-tested all four of them.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then why is the testing addressed to you, then?
MS. POTTER-Because I’m the one that brought the backhoe in and had all four re-tested.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the potential buyer questioned that he did his own testing, brought this
to your attention?
MS. POTTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then you brought back Maine Enterprises to test all four?
MS. POTTER-All four again, to verify what he had found, and that man, in the meantime,
has moved away and did not buy, but he brought it to our attention.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would have to agree. I mean, we have conflicting information.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-In order to know what this Board would be able to tell you, in terms of
whether you can go down a foot or two foot, we need to know the true number for the
mottling information. We’ve got to know that.
MS. POTTER-That’s fine. That’s what I thought we were doing, but if you need it tested
again, that’s fine. It’s sitting there. It’s doing nothing because nobody is building.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re just sitting here with two sets of data and don’t know which one
is right. That’s our problem. That’s the dilemma.
MS. POTTER-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-So what I’m going to do is we’re going to have to table this and get a hold of
C.T. Male, which is our supporting engineer, and ask him to go out to that site. You’re off
Ferriss Lane, I believe, is that right?
MS. POTTER-I have two on Sherman and two on Ferriss.
MR. VOLLARO-Two on Sherman and two on Ferriss, and we’ll get him to witness a new dig.
We’ll have to, and I don’t know if somebody wants to make that motion. If not, I’ll make it
myself.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
Until such time as we can get our engineer, C.T. Male, to witness a new set of test holes, in an
appropriate position. Have that done in accordance with the latest plan showing the septic
installation. That plan is dated 5/18/05, done by Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors.
Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. VOLLARO-Does your site plan show approximately where you want the septics?
MS. POTTER-They’re all marked on that map.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re all marked on the map.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry about that. I know it’s an imposition, but we’re doing the best we
can up here with that one.
MS. POTTER-Okay.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 6-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP &
BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S): BAY MEADOWS
CORP. ZONING PUD LOCATION NORTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 40 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 23-ACRE PARCEL.
SPECIFICALLY 39 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK IS ALSO PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SUB 21-93, SUB 12-93, PZ 6-91,
PZ10-89, FW 5-03, PUD SP 8-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.68,
19.79, 4.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2 SECTION A-183
SUBDIVISION NO. 26-2005 PUD SP SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP & BAY
MEADOWS CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S): BAY MEADOWS
CORP. ZONING PUD LOCATION NORTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 40 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 23-ACRE PARCEL.
SPECIFICALLY 39 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. ASSOCIATED SITE
WORK IS ALSO PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SUB 21-93, SUB 12-93, PZ 6-91,
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
PZ10-89, FW 5-03, PUD SP 8-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.88,
19.79, 4.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. LAPPER-Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, we have resubmitted, Mr. Nace has resubmitted a
response to C.T. Male. We’re agreeing to all of the changes.
MR. FORD-Is that the one we just received again tonight?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we know that there hasn’t been time for the Board to look at it, and
we don’t have a response back from C.T. Male, but the reason that we wanted to come tonight
was so that we would hopefully be ready for an approval at the next meeting. Just to remind
the Board, this was the project that was previously approved as a PUD for 97 residential
units, and now that it is a Michaels Group project, it has been revised so it’s 39 townhouse
units for single family rather than for apartments as it was previously approved, and then the
owner of the Bay Meadows Golf Course is going to have an office building on the Bay Road
side. We’ve gone through about a year with the Town Board back and forth to change the
PUD to get it just right and that has been approved. So now we’re here for subdivision and
the Freshwater Wetlands Permit with the Planning Board for obviously a different project, a
smaller project than what was approved previously, and the Planning Staff had, in their
notes, talked about traffic because that was something that the Planning Board had made
issue or raised as part of the recommendation to the Town Board. We recommended that the
PUD be modified, but that traffic be reviewed. There were two issues with traffic. One was a
left turn lane on Bay Road coming onto Cronin, and one was a left turn lane from Cronin.
The left turn lane on Bay was constructed by the County when they re-did Bay Road last
year, and John Michaels is agreeing that as part of the project, as a mitigation, we will
construct the improvements on Cronin Road, or he will construct, so that now there would be
a right turn lane heading north in front of Stewarts. We had the project engineer and
surveyor check. There’s enough right of way that the Town owns at that corner so that it can
be constructed without acquiring any land from Stewarts. So that would allow for the left
turn lane for people heading south onto Bay and a right turn lane, a by-pass lane for people
heading north. So you won’t be waiting for people to make lefts, and with that, we expect
that we’ll get a C.T. Male signoff letter and we hope that we’re ready to go and so this project
can be in the ground as soon as the ground thaws.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll start off with one quick comment, Tom. I think if you go into your
stormwater management report, on your first page, now, you’re talking about, this report
addresses drainage issues pertaining to the construction of 96 senior apartments.
MR. NACE-The stormwater report in my submission to C.T. Male was completely revised.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I wanted to make sure that this didn’t reflect that. That’s all I
wanted.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure it doesn’t, but I wanted to make sure.
MR. NACE-That was corrected.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we will get a corrected report?
MR. NACE-Staff has one now. If you need 14 copies, I’ll be glad to submit the additional 14
copies.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether that would be necessary. Is the new one updated for
the correct amount of buildings?
MRS. BARDEN-We just have one copy.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I’m noticing it doesn’t bear resemblance to this one.
MR. NACE-No.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The packages out to have an updated report and a correct.
MR. NACE-The package is a complete new set of plans and a complete new report.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The stormwater report that you’ve got is going to be updated.
MR. NACE-There also, Bob, is an updated permit on file with DEC or from DEC for the
wetland disturbance and mitigation.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That was a question I had in here, because I think theirs is 2001, if I’m
not mistaken, your old one.
MR. NACE-There was a brand new permit issued December 6, 2005.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because that was a comment in mine, I looked at that and I said
that’s a little bit old.
MR. NACE-We had Deb Roberts take care of that, and she just got that, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I noticed that she got an updated Army Corps one, and I was
wondering how come she didn’t.
MR. LAPPER-It just took a little longer.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So we’ll submit that to Susan so that it’s in the record.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. We’ve got to go through a Freshwater Permit. We don’t have to
do a SEQRA. There is no SEQRA review here.
MR. LAPPER-You would just have to reference that the SEQRA was done previously.
MR. VOLLARO-It was done by the Town Board. Then I’ll, just for the record, say that we
understand the November 28, 2005, the Town Board as Lead Agency adopted a SEQRA Neg
Dec amending the Zoning Ordinance to rezone the PUD owned by Bay Meadows Corporation
and authorizing amended PUD agreement. So the record shows that we know that that
happened. I went through the PUD agreement, and I have possibly some questions on it that
I would like to ask, but I wanted the Board members to get into that first to see if there were
any comments by Board members on either the Freshwater application and the Subdivision
26-2005, before I get into mine.
MR. FORD-Where do we stand, as far as the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing on this right now is not open yet. I haven’t opened the
public hearing, but I will.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was opened on the 27 of December and tabled until tonight.
th
MR. VOLLARO-It is still open.
MR. FORD-It’s open.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford, would you prefer that the public have a right to speak first, before
we get any further into this?
MR. FORD-I would, yes. That’s the protocol we accepted a couple of meetings ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. First of all, is there anybody here that wants to talk to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RICH KROLL
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. KROLL-My name’s Rich Kroll. I live at 68 Cronin Road, I’m the house just below
where it says Cronin Road, and it appears that the development is going to be right in a flood
zone. I’ve got, I think anything they do to that flood zone is going to affect my house.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re on the other side of the street, right?
MR. KROLL-Yes, that house right below where it says Cronin Road. Yes, the bottom of my
basement is six inches above the 500 year flood level, and anything they do is going to
directly affect that, I believe. I don’t know if they’ve done any studies on it.
MR. VOLLARO-We have a stormwater management report that is going to be upgraded and
we’re going to have to take a look at it. The one that we’ve got tonight isn’t satisfactory to
support this application, but there is a stormwater management report that should talk about
containing stormwater on that property, as opposed to pushing it over onto yours in any way.
MR. KROLL-Okay. It just seems there’s been so much development on Meadowbrook Road,
with The Michaels Group and Schermerhorn’s developments, I mean, the last rainstorm we
had shut Meadowbrook Road down. I just don’t think we can handle what we’ve done
already.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got some interesting things going on, even in other parts of
Town. I was wading around, and that’s the truth, in a pair of boots on Homer.
MR. KROLL-I know it was a little bit unusual, that particular storm, but the entire swamp
next to my house was flooded, and my neighbor’s real close to the river, and he was real close
to being in harm’s way just from that.
MR. VOLLARO-That one house there that’s very close can, he’s been here before.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That would be me.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be you. Okay. When we get to the stormwater management
report, we’ll look that over. Our engineer has to look that over.
MR. KROLL-Okay. These maps, they haven’t been updated since I think the last one I got
from you guys was 1984. Is that flood level, are they going to re-evaluate and see where the
new flood levels are going to reach now with all this development?
MR. VOLLARO-I really don’t know. I don’t know if anybody on this Board knows the
answer to that question. I don’t.
MR. KROLL-It just seems that that ought to be addressed. They’ve just done so much so
fast there. They really ought to look at the new flood levels, and also the wildlife in the area.
We’ve got deer, turkey, coy dogs and march hawks, owls, and there’s less and less room for
them now. I know they can’t build next to my house in that small area behind me, but it just
seems that there needs to be some area there for the wildlife.
KIM KROLL
MRS. KROLL-They also talk about addressing the traffic problem. It’s not down at the
corner that the problem is at. The corner is a problem, but the other corner, or out where the
entrance is going to be, along Meadowbrook, all of Meadowbrook until you get from that
corner that they’re talking about, by Stewarts, all the way down to the four corners stop sign,
and beyond is just treacherous. It’s treacherous. There’s no shoulder at all on that road,
none whatsoever. There was a 12 year old boy hit by a car three weeks ago from the traffic as
it is at the four corners because people don’t stop, and it’s going to get worse at that four
corner.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the Meadowbrook and Cronin Road intersection?
MRS. KROLL-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Ma’am, your name for the record?
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MRS. KROLL-I’m Kim Kroll. I’ve lived in this neighborhood for 44 years, and it’s getting
ridiculous, and it’s sad what everybody is doing to the environment around here, and
especially our wetlands.
MR. KROLL-I’m just not so sure that it’s an ideal place to be building anyway. I mean, I
golf at Bay Meadows, and if you go on the first fairway, and jump on the fairway in the
Springtime, it’ll make a wave, the sod actually floats, and it’s just not a good spot to build
anything to build anything, in my mind. I’m not opposed to their buildings. I think they’re
aesthetically pleasing, but I just, I’m worried about mostly the floodwaters.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. How long have you lived there?
MR. KROLL-This was her family’s property for maybe 20 years.
MRS. KROLL-I’ve lived down the road all my life, on the other end of Cronin, across from
Regency Park. My parents previously owned the property next to Mary Cronin’s property,
which is now owned by Jim Girard, and that’s the other issue I want to discuss here. We
don’t know what he’s going to be doing with that chunk of land, on top of what’s going to be
happening across the street from us.
MR. SEGULJIC-What have you seen occurring there with the waters over the years?
MR. KROLL-There’s some drainage. In the Springtime, the river actually flows right
through the back yard. I have drainage under my driveway.
MR. FORD-Through your back yard?
MR. KROLL-Yes, and goes right back out into the swamp.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you seen it increasing over the years?
MR. KROLL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Significantly, marginally?
MR. KROLL-It first it seemed Halfway Brook kind of got choked off when they put Lowe’s
and what not in, so it was less for a little while there. All this development downstream has
kind of, for some reason, it’s just not flowing like it should. The swamp is filling up with
water, with the heavy storms. I’ve never seen Meadowbrook Road closed because of flooding
before either.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s accurate to say that your property floods more so now, more
routinely now?
MR. KROLL-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KROLL-I haven’t had water in my basement or anything like that, but I see more and
more water coming across the lawn, in the Springtime and during the heavy rains and what
not.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. KROLL-Also, with all these new buildings going up, the garbage along these roads is
just tremendous.
MR. KROLL-The other thing is I know they’d have to bring in a tremendous amount of fill
to make any kind of a fill to make any kind of a stable base to build something on in that
area, and that’s, the more they bring in, the worse it’s going to be, I feel, for me, being
upstream, and those are my main concerns. Thank you.
MRS. KROLL-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
GLENN RODE
MR. RODE-Yes. My name is Glenn Rode. I live at 51 Cronin Road, and I’m the little white
house next to the brook, and that last rain event we had, it was literally that close to my
house. The back yard was completely underwater, and to reiterate what the Krolls have just
told you, it has gotten worse. Every bit of blacktop that’s put down, any bit of concrete
that’s put in, any fill that’s put in, takes away from the ground absorbing capability of that
land, and it comes down to hydraulics. Hydraulically, Halfway Brook cannot drain the water
fast enough, and basically it’s under the State’s register of impaired waterways. So what used
to be a good spawning ground for trout is now listed as an impaired waterway with the State
of New York, and it is due to construction and development, salt or sand, silt from, you know,
building and sanding the roads and basically Halfway Brook technically, I mean, they stock
it every year, but it’s become a big drainage ditch, and I think, long term down the road,
there needs to be improvements to relieve the hydraulics from that area. I mean, it’s just a
matter of time. My little house has been there since 1960, and I’ll point out, I actually have
two properties on that. This is my lot with the house here, and I also own this 3.19 acres that
borders the brook to the east of the Bay Meadows property, and you had a slide that actually
showed my house, and I can show you how much of that house or that yard, it was a previous
slide, can you bring that up, or, if you can’t, it’s okay. Anyway. So everything, my good
neighbors have mentioned traffic, garbage, noise, lighting. I’m sure this development’s going
to have lighting, and I would also like to mention, I was at the meetings for the other
proposed development there, and I would suggest that any data that was collected for that, I
overheard you saying stormwater management plans, how the stormwater’s going to be
handled. I personally felt, before their plan was flawed because they talked about, you know,
getting water into the brook, when I pointed out that water doesn’t come into the brook, it
goes out of the brook when you have heavy rain events. So I would give strong consideration
to that. I heard people talk tonight from the other plan, development, about a full
environmental review. I think that’s warranted in this case as well. I think it’s a bad idea to
build where they’re going to build, and as a Planning Board, if you have the jurisdiction to
grant a wetland permit to build there, I think you should give it careful consideration,
because I think there’s a lot of, you know, land on high ground that developments of this
nature could go in, because as the Krolls stated, any, they’re probably talking a good seven
feet of fill wherever this goes, and I think that was what I was told at the meeting when they
were talking about the 97 unit senior housing, and as we know, if you, the only thing that
saves my house now is water running, there’s that slide, that actually you can see my house
on that slide, and the only thing that saves my house from getting flooded now is water going
across the brook into this field, and if fill is brought in there, where is it going to go? The
house that’s been there since 1960, that’s never gotten wet, from any of the things, Hurricane
Floyd tested it. This last event tested it and it came the closest it ever has. Who’s to say that
if they put this development in, with the drainage, the roads, I mean, I don’t know how
they’re going to have retention capabilities when the retention’s probably going to be
underwater. That’s going to be constantly draining that property. Any retention you put
in’s going to be full. I mean, it’s, hydraulically, the land is overloaded there.
MR. FORD-Glenn, may I ask, is your house on a slab or does it have?
MR. RODE-It’s on a slab. If it was a basement, it would be a swimming pool. I guarantee
you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You had indicated the only thing that saved it was the water
flowing across?
MR. RODE-Flowing in a westerly direction into that field, where they’re showing the
wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the Halfway Brook overflow in a westerly direction?
MR. RODE-It overflowed, covered my whole back yard. There’s a pond. You can’t see it on
that. The pond overflowed and actually connected with the brook, and there was a stream. I
got home too late in the day to take digital photographs. I wished I’d gotten home a half an
hour earlier, because I could have shown you pictures of a good stream of water running in a
westerly direction right into that property, and any plans they’re developing over there I’m
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
sure is going to impact that ability to do that hydraulically, and I had a bunch of notes all
laid out very neat, but I overheard all these other people and I wrote all these good things
down. Now it’s kind of a mish mash. So bear with me. I did want to point out that back in,
when was this study done, Halfway Brook Watershed Stormwater Assessment and
Management Plan prepared by Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District in
September of ’99, and there’s direct reference to this, you know, the stormwater management
issues in the area as well as recommendations, and one of the sites that they had noted, if I
can find it now, for location of potential stormwater improvement sites in Warren County, is
that lot that’s pointed out in yellow.
MR. FORD-By “that lot” what lot are you referring to, please?
MR. RODE-The Bay Meadows property, the whole parcel is outlined as a stormwater
improvement area. Now I don’t know how you can make a stormwater improvement area
and also develop it for living as well. This little spot right here, that is the proposed property,
and there was also another study done, Halfway Brook Watershed Management Plan, and
the reason why I’m bringing these up, they were done under grants through either EPA or
DEC or a combination of both, and there were a lot of recommendations made in here, a lot of
references made to Halfway Brook, as to how the Brook as been impaired and the reasons for
it, and it’s spelled out very clearly that it is development, and now you’re proposing a
development of this nature right basically on the Brook, and I see no way that it can not
impact existing, you know, shortfalls in the brook already, as well as the surrounding
properties. Let me see what else I had written here. I did mention lighting. Here, I’ll give
you this one as well, and you can, I’m sure they’re on record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show me on this map where the pond is that you mentioned?
MR. RODE-Sure. The pond is right there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RODE-And the pond actually has a small tributary that connects to the brook right
there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RODE-And here’s my house. Everything from there over was under water. Water was
running in this direction over into this field, and I don’t know where it was going from there.
Maybe it was connecting with the brook further down. I don’t know what it was doing, but it
was very, I mean, the area in general is hydraulically overloaded, and I’ll talk about traffic
for a minute. Since Lowe’s went in, everybody that lives in the area knows, that’s a bypass.
A gentleman earlier had mentioned Potter Road or, not Potter, Gurney Lane being a bypass
road. Well Cronin Road has become a huge bypass road. I mean, everybody, leaving Lowe’s
going towards Hudson Falls, goes that way, because they don’t want to encounter, you know,
deal with the lights in that area. Garbage. Somebody loves McDonalds, I’ll tell you. Burger
King, right in the yard, and I guess one of the things I wanted to mention, you know,
wetlands. What do we do with wetlands to enhance them. Part of this original plan, I’m
going back five years from the other PUD development, was they’re going to enhance the
wetland. So how do you do that? Do they do it like they did in New Orleans where they
replace it with man made structures that obviously failed miserably, now they’re actually re-
thinking, well, gee, maybe we ought to restore our wetlands, because that’s what used to
protect our coast. So much of the wetlands in general have been degrade. Haviland Road,
you know, everything is, you know, I look at all the building that’s gone on on Meadowbrook
since I moved in. I’m just floored by it. Somebody that hasn’t been through there in five
years won’t believe it, and all of that runoff has to go somewhere. It all goes to Halfway
Brook at some point, and that’s all open fields that used to absorb water. Now it’s basically
runoff, and how much involvement has DEC has in this delineating of the wetlands,
recommendations as to how to handle the wetlands or improve the wetlands. Is that part of
this plan?
MR. VOLLARO-We have to get our sites delineated by knowing where the wetlands are and
not build in those wetlands, but the question or whether or not there’s any impact on it is
something else.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. RODE-Okay. I hear my time is up, and I know everybody has had a long night, after
that last group. Basically noise, lighting, and mainly hydraulic overloading of the area are
my main concerns, and, you know, it’s something that really has to be looked long and hard
at. I mean, that area is just, it’s an A-2 flood zone that I live in. I have flood insurance,
luckily. I thought I was going to need it the other night, but I just think any development
where fill is brought in without real careful consideration, I understand it’s vacant land, and
God forbid we leave it vacant land and actually enhance it somehow to handle stormwater,
but I think it has to be looked at long and hard, and whether or not it a wetland permit
should be granted, or they should just move it, where it’s a little higher and drier. That’s all I
have to say.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else?
KATHY SONNABEND
MS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, Cedar Court. I’ve been driving up and down
Meadowbrook Road almost every day for at least eight years when my daughter was going to
St. Mary’s. It was an easy way for me to get from Cedar Court down there and avoid the Bay
Road traffic, and I remember noticing an increasing amount of water, especially around the
Halfway Brook area, that concerned me. So as I’ve been watching all this development, I’ve
been getting more and more concerned about what’s going on and how we’re handling this
floodplain. I talked with someone a few months ago who’s lived here his whole life and knows
a lot about this stuff, and I believe he told me that the Bay Meadows Golf Course used to be a
full 18 hole golf course, but over time, as apparently the water table’s raised or the floodplain
is more draining into that area, the whole back nine isn’t usable anymore. So from what he
was telling me, this has been a change that’s been happening gradually over the years and has
been getting worse and worse, and I know the storm we had recently was un unusual storm,
but it seems all over the world we’re having more and more unusual storms. So I hate to see
people building and buying homes where we’re going to have a lot of flooding problems, and I
don’t know how much that adds to the cost to the Town, but it certainly makes it less livable,
and when roads are closed, it makes it inconvenient for the rest of us, too. So, it’s not just this
project, but in general the area I wish we’d be a little more concerned about what we’re doing
when we keep filling in, maybe creating retention basins, but it’s really, this is a big flood
plain that many of us live on.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that’s been show at Homer and Everts, too, just recently. I
waded around there.
MR. RODE-Can I come up just one more time, please?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. RODE-Something I forgot. I understand there’s a certain parcel of land that’s going to
be given for recreational use, and I know at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting, I was there,
and Mr. Turner had noted, I mean, he lives local that, you know, if any roadway was put in
there, it would be a hazard, not to mention it would be another underwater area. I would
propose, for wildlife’s sake and for buffer sake, that that area that was going to be donated as
recreational space be increased, maybe doubled, tripled, to where it’s actually something that
could possibly be developed and usable by the Town residents. That’s my other concern that
I left out.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anybody else? John Salvador.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. I would
like the applicant’s engineer to confirm that a dwelling, building that has a characteristic
known as slab on grade, that the slab is not the foundation of the dwelling. You had an
applicant here before, I couldn’t really understand the gist of the conversation, but I think
you were prohibiting her from founding a building, a dwelling, on a foundation below the
seasonal high water table. If I understood the exchange of comments, you had established
the mottling level of the soil in that area, and you were not going to allow her to construct
below that. Did I get that?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, John.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not a basement. You can’t construct a basement below the mottling
level.
MR. SALVADOR-You can’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-What are these people going to do? They’re going to bring in fill, I heard
seven feet of fill.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what somebody said. I don’t know that that’s true. We haven’t
figured that out yet.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, is fill involved? You’re filling in the floodplain. You’re either filling
it in with fill or you’re filling it in with a building. That’s, you’re taking the floodplain the
area of the floodplain away. Now just because it’s not wetlands doesn’t mean it’s not in the
floodplain. If you look at Lowe’s, go to Lowe’s and look over the back side there, my God
there must be six, seven feet of fill in there. That’s filling in the floodplain, and that’s why we
have these water problems you read about in the newspaper. That woman’s cellar didn’t fill
up in a matter of hours because of the water. It filled up because of a foundation failure.
That’s what’s happening, and what we’re doing here in these wet areas is we’re building on
saturated soils. I don’t think these lands are buildable. You’re not allowed to do that. You
can pile the foundation if you want to, but you can’t build on saturated soils. That’s not a
stable structure. Now, I, somehow, some way, we have got to back up in this Town, when it
comes to water, it’s water, water everywhere.
MR. VOLLARO-You know what, John, we tried to do a backup, a year ago, if you
remember, we proposed a short term moratorium to look at a lot of this.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s still a good argument.
MR. VOLLARO-So what happened was, in lieu of that and I think that there was an
alternate, and I think it’s a positive alternate, Chris being the Chairman of that PORC
Committee, are going to try to look into those things. Those are the kinds of things that we
really have to look at.
MR. SALVADOR-But in the meantime we have got to stop the race, and get everybody up
to the same starting gate. Now, I think this is a classic. This is a wetland, a lowland area in
any case. It’s marginal. You’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and it isn’t going
to work.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a couple of them in Town, too, John, I understand where you’re
going.
MR. SALVADOR-The land is not buildable, period, okay. You do a serious environmental
impact statement on this property, and you’re not going to make it, when you address all the
issues, and as the folks have stated, it’s hydraulic, okay, and it’s the whole area. It’s that
whole area downtown there. The other thing that has been mentioned, and it’s a good point,
is the traffic. It’s horrendous coming out of Cronin Road. You can’t make it. You just can’t
make it. It’s dangerous. Most people turn north and go up and turn around to come south.
You can’t get across there. It’s very narrow. Cronin Road is very narrow to begin with.
Turning is difficult. I don’t know why a traffic light hasn’t been put in there a long time ago.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s interesting. We’ll talk about that in a little bit. There’s been a warrant
issued for that corner, but it never went through, and I have a DOT letter that says that,
their letter dated August 19, 2005, and there was an Earth Tech study done in April of 2004
which will address that problem.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. While that’s pending, while that hasn’t gone through, we shouldn’t
allow development.
MR. VOLLARO-That was the whole idea of the moratorium, John. I’m sorry.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. SALVADOR-I agree with you 100%. This is bizarre what’s going on here. This land is
not developable for what is being proposed, period. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, John. Yes, ma’am.
LEIGH BEEMAN
MS. BEEMAN-My name is Leigh Beeman. I live on Overlook Drive, off Haviland Road.
The development up there has not finished. There are several lots that are going to be fully
developed, and it’s just downhill, all the way down Meadowbrook Road. This situation is not
the way it’s going to be. It’s going to get worse when Schermerhorn is finished with his work
up there, and there’s also another lot above Waverly Place.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about his new development on the corner there of
Meadowbrook?
MS. BEEMAN-Yes, above The Glen. It just spreads way out there, and then there’s the
other side of the road to the west. That hasn’t been built yet, and it’s just all going downhill.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, again, that was one of the same comments I made to Mr. Salvador. At
one time, we here on the Planning Board unanimously had sent up a proposal for a
moratorium, and it was only for a six month period, to look at these kind of things, but it got
shot down, to put it bluntly. We never got there.
MS. BEEMAN-There’s another question. What size are the building lots going to be in this
proposed development?
MR. VOLLARO-In the development we’re talking about here?
MS. BEEMAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess we could get the applicant to answer that question. Really this
whole thing as a project area is a PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the lot sizes, I
believe, in this are going to be the footprints of the building. Is that correct? So the lot sizes
are the building itself.
MS. BEEMAN-Okay. All right. I have an interest in this because my son is Richard Kroll,
and my daughter-in-law is Kim. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else? You might as well come back up.
MR. NACE-Halfway Brook is here, and the white house you talk about is right here. There
are two different issues, flood zones and floodway, two different meanings and two different
definitions and two different (lost word). Flood zone is the elevation, the area below the
elevation to which water will rise during a certain storm event, whether it be a 100 year or
500 year, and that floodway or flood zone, like I said, is just a simple fact that water would
get up to that elevation based upon a study that was done of the capacity of the stream and
the surrounding area (lost word) that sets the flood levels along the length of that stream. So
those flood zones are an elevation based number, okay, (lost words) the water gets that high.
Now within that flood zone, on either side of the stream, there is a flood way defined. The
flood way is the area which actually is effective in conveying the water downstream.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’ve said. I’m just trying to get it clear in my mind as
to when are these studies done to predict this kind, because this should be an ongoing.
MR. NACE-Well, they were done by FEMA, okay. The regulations that FEMA.
MR. FORD-When?
MR. NACE-The particular ones here, I can’t tell you what year they were done. I’d have to
go back with what study.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what I’m driving at is how current is the data?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. NACE-Well, (lost words) background. (Lost words) when they regulate the floodway,
okay, and flood zones, the regulations dealing with the floodway say that nobody can build
anything within that floodway that impedes the flow of water. So you can’t, if you put any
fill, put any building, or any house or anything in that floodway that impedes the flow of
water, you’ve got to submit to them a study which shows that whatever it is, if it’s impeding
water, will not cause an increase in the upstream flood elevation (lost words). So that whole
flood program is administered by the local municipality, okay. So they’re the ones that say,
okay, if you build within that floodway, okay, you’ve got to prove, go back through the
correct channels to prove that you’re not impeding the flow of water and not creating an
upstream flood hazard. Okay. So in effect, what that will (lost words) it’s a very onerous
process to go through. Very few people ever go through it. Okay. They stay out of the flood
zone. This line here is the actual floodway boundary on our property. It’s defined by FEMA.
The studies themselves weren’t done by FEMA. They were done by consultants working for
FEMA. (Lost words) you need to get their data in order to analyze the floodway to see if you
are (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-Sure, and I guess when you get that data, depending on how current it is, is
how valid some of this stuff that you design becomes.
MR. NACE-Well, one thing is that it’s generally (lost words) because their study defines that
floodway and the ability of water to go downstream.
MR. FORD-May I ask a question please. Can and does a floodway ever change?
MR. NACE-Well, that’s what I’m getting at. Because people either stay out of them or go
through a very onerous process to develop anything in the floodway, it shouldn’t change,
okay. So whenever that study was done (lost words).
MR. FORD-But they do change.
MR. NACE-I can’t say that they don’t, okay. My experience would suggest that they change
(lost word) drastically, okay. The change are fairly minor.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Which drawing is that you’re looking at?
MR. NACE-SP-4, the Flood Mitigation Plan. My point is that the actual work that we’re
doing on the site is very far removed from the actual floodway where the water is being
conveyed down the stream.
MR. LAPPER-He’s saying that he’s in the floodway. We’re not, but he is.
MR. KROLL-I have the map right here.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re in the floodway?
MR. LAPPER-We’re not at odds. They’re saying that they are in the floodway, and the
construction here is not in the floodway.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s not what they’re saying.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll address that.
MR. NACE-My point is that we are well out of the floodway with any building or any work
that we’re doing, so that there’s really no way possible that we are interfering with the
passage of water down the stream which could result in any increase in elevations upstream.
MR. MILLER-Most of that floodway is actually lands are being given to the Town. So the
Town will actually own most of that floodway.
MR. NACE-If you look, here’s the floodway boundary, and here’s the land that we’re giving
to the Town. Everything between the stream and that line.
MR. VOLLARO-So that becomes the Town’s problem.
MR. NACE-Well, not a problem. It becomes the Town’s to protect and to preserve.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. LAPPER-The Town is taking it because of the access to the stream. If you want to fish,
you have to own land next to the stream.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that’s what we had talked about at the prior project, that it
would be area for passive recreation where you could go fishing and whatever.
MR. NACE-Right. There’s really no intent or attempt to construct any vehicular access for
that parcel because of the location the bridge and the curve of the road. My other issue is
stormwater on site. Right now the soils on the site are fairly permeable. They’re silty. Under
laid by silty clays. So the rainfall that falls there now eventually works it’s way down, there
are flat spots on the site, low pockets where it sort of generally very gradually gets it way on
to the stream, and our design of stormwater is simply trying to emulate that. Okay. We’re
not increasing the amount of rainfall that hits the surface when it rains. We’re simply having
some impermeable surfaces where we’re blocking water from those and getting them into
these, I think we’ve got 16 little pockets, depressions, where we’re collecting and retaining
that water, so that it meters it back out very slowly the way the existing site does now.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re shallow retention ponds.
MR. NACE-They’re very shallow, most of them are a foot or a foot and a half deep, okay.
They’re depressions within a stone check dam type of a outlet that will restrict the flow.
There will be some water retained for a short time actually in the basin itself, probably for a
day or so after a rain, but they’re scattered all around the site in our attempt to try to
emulate what happens there now and be as natural as what the process is going on now for
stormwater control. The fact that we’re not doing anything even remotely close to that
floodway boundary and that we’re dealing with our stormwater on site in a way that will
actually, according to the calculations, provide less outlet or less peak flow coming out now,
coming out after it’s developed than actually comes out now. So I think we really have
addressed the issues of making sure we don’t impact the upstream flood elevations and that
we take what stormwater comes off our site and not add to the downstream stormwater
problems.
MR. GOETZ-How can you assure us that this isn’t going to affect these people who are in
front of us? How can you assure us this plan’s going to work?
MR. NACE-I can only say, from my engineering judgment, from the calculations I’ve done,
the calculations that are being reviewed by your own engineer, that’s our job is to design
stormwater.
MR. GOETZ-And I’m obviously not an engineer, but I’ve been out there. I’ve been out there
two or three times since the project was introduced. Every time I’ve been there, there’s been
lots of water in those pockets that you were talking about. I can remember as a kid golfing
the back nine, and because of the clay base, it was closed half the time.
MR. NACE-The back nine is actually down, you see the flags here? A lot of this is the back
nine. This is unusable. That’s why we didn’t build down here. The area where we’re building
is up where the driving range is now, and I’ve been out there after some significant storms,
and, yes, there are puddles, but it’s not inundated by any means.
MR. GOETZ-See, just as a layperson, I just can’t imagine, whatever you do, that water isn’t
going to overwhelm Halfway Brook sooner or later.
MR. LAPPER-The issue there is that Tom’s done a stormwater plan, and DEC has already
looked at the application for the wetlands, and the Town engineer is looking at all the data for
the stormwater plan.
MR. GOETZ-Has DEC been to the location?
MR. NACE-DEC mapped the wetlands originally, with the previous application, several
years ago. As to whether they’ve been to the site, I know the previous wetlands guy at DEC
has been to the site, and I’ve been there with him, but that’s been several years ago.
MR. GOETZ-So in the last several years.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. LAPPER-No, Deb Roberts handled the applications with DEC. It just wasn’t anyone
at the table that handled it. So we don’t know if he was at the site, but that was something
that Deb took care of, because we have the permit.
JOHN MICHAELS
MR. MICHAELS-That permit process took place this fall. So it’s not something from a
couple of years ago.
MR. GOETZ-Yes, but I understand that very rarely does DEC actually go to the location.
They take the information that you send them.
MR. LAPPER-Well, again, we’re listening to anecdotal evidence from the neighbors, and
obviously I was on Meadowbrook when we had this situation this week where we had frost in
the ground and we had the Spring thaw, if you will, in the middle of January, and an inch
and a quarter of rain and all the snow melted, and that is all property that is in the
floodplain, which isn’t the situation here with this project. That’s Meadowbrook. I mean, I
called Rick Missita on my cell phone and said you better close Meadowbrook Road because
it’s flowing over the road, but that was the wetland that’s up closer to where we are now, and
it has nothing to do with this project.
MR. FORD-Did you try walking across the project land?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I think you were starting to explain a few minutes ago
is the difference between the floodway boundary and the floodplain boundary, and when you
look at this map, SP-4, almost in the dead center of your site plan, there’s a label, 100 year
floodplain boundary, base flood elevation, 306 to 305 feet.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you can kind of follow the contours of that, and it almost, it almost
emulates the Army Corps wetland areas, but not quite, but I think what we’re hearing from
the neighbors and some of the other Board members is, you know, the floodway may not be
impeded by the project, but if you put something into the floodplain, you’re going to displace
that water somewhere. I’m talking about the floodplain.
MR. NACE-It’s not a matter of displacing water. It’s a matter of whether or not you impede
the ability of water to carry on down a channel.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. I understand that about the floodway, but you’re not touching
the floodway. I think what you’re hearing is a concern that if you are, if you have activities
in the floodplain, which is further west of the floodway.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-That you’re going to displace water that may otherwise go into that area
of the floodplain.
MR. NACE-That’s not the way it works, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-Because, again, the water, it’s not a static situation where if you put your hand
in the water, put your foot in the water over here and displace a cubic foot, it turns up over
here. It’s a moving situation where the water is following a channel or a trough down
through here that when you put your foot in that, and it backs up water behind your foot,
okay. It’s not like a static bath tub where if you put your foot in the tub, the level rises
around the whole edge of the tub.
MR. FORD-May I ask the question a little bit differently?
MR. NACE-Sure.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. FORD-Is the water table impacted by fill, foundations, or increase in runoff?
MR. NACE-Is the water table in the ground, you mean?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. NACE-Impacted by the fill. No. Or what were the other things?
MR. FORD-A foundation?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. FORD-Or an increase in surface runoff?
MR. NACE-No, it would not be. Again, the groundwater in the soil is more of a static
condition, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then why do you have seasonal fluctuations in groundwater tables?
MR. NACE-Because of the precipitation is seasonally fluctuating. It’s not runoff. It’s the
amount of water that’s actually absorbed into the ground.
MR. LAPPER-Rather than surface water.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, would you do me a favor, on SP-4, just go to building three, on
building three southeast corner, there’s a little deck out there or something in the back.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a little deck out there. Now what is the distance between that and
the DEC wetland line? I’m getting somewhere in the area of 20 feet there, between that
building and the wetland line, the DEC wetland line.
MR. NACE-From the building to the wetland line?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Twenty feet would look about right. It’s a 50 scale, and it’s not quite a half an
inch.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the DEC regulations is to be 100 foot away.
MR. NACE-Okay, but our permit with DEC is for the specific purpose of disturbing within
that wetland adjacent area, that 100 foot buffer that you’re talking about, in this area all
along here between building two and three, where we are either excavating for the stormwater
basin or filling for the building or putting the building itself. That’s what the DEC permit is
for.
MR. FORD-In essence, does that constitute a variance, then?
MR. NACE-It’s a permit to do those activities. Okay.
MR. MILLER-Anything within the 100 foot requires a permit. So they’ve issued us a permit
to do what’s on the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s this new permit they just issued?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask a question, on the C.T. Male letter, Number Ten, where it’s
talking about the floodplain, they talk about the floodway and the floodplain. The last
sentence they say the Town’s floodplain development administrator will be required to issue a
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
floodplain development permit for this activity. Who exactly is the Town’s floodplain
development administrator?
MR. LAPPER-That’s Dave Hatin.
MR. SEGULJIC-That would be the building? Okay. Any acknowledgement from him at all?
Any contact with him about this?
MR. LAPPER-That happens when you submit for the building permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that would happen.
MR. LAPPER-When we submit for the building permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-And so he will grant the permit to do the development in the floodplain,
then?
MR. NACE-Correct, and part of that permit is the fact, he has to verify the fact that your
elevation of your floors in the building are above that flood elevation. That’s part of the flood
insurance program.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s why it looks like, as Chris has pointed out, the 100 year flood is at
306 feet, and you’re bringing up all the elevations to 309, or whatever it might be, 310 in some
places.
MR. NACE-Correct. Yes.
MR. LAPPER-The simplest thing, certainly at this hour, is C.T. Male has all the revised
plans, and let’s let them get back to us with their answer.
MR. MICHAELS-We want your engineer to review all this. We want to be confident it’s
going to work, too. So I think until we have that, we probably won’t get to some of the
bottom line answers on some of these questions. We hopefully can get anything else sifted out
here so we can, you know, some other issues.
MR. VOLLARO-We will get a copy of that updated DEC permit. Is that a nationwide
permit that they’ve given this here?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-DEC is not nationwide.
MR. NACE-It’s site specific, project specific permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Site specific. So they looked at this data and they gave you the permit. I
guess what we’ve got to do is wait to get the rest of this data back, take a look at it, and get
your stormwater management plan. He has seen the updated stormwater management plan?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male has?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And for the record we addressed the traffic issue that was raised by agreeing
to that mitigation.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to ask a question on that. That DOT letter that was dated August
19, 2005, that was an Earth Tech study done in April 2004. Now what it said in there, and I
won’t go to the study, I’ve already written it down, this information reflects current
conditions and was not meant to be used in place of an individual traffic analysis for any new
or future development. Now, did this study, at the time that those words were written, did
this study consider the build out of this PUD?
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. LAPPER-Well, it would have had to, because it was already approved with the senior
project.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I need to know, because it was a very specific statement, and I don’t
want to read the whole thing.
MR. LAPPER-You mean DPW, right?
MR. VOLLARO-No. We have a letter from the Department of Transportation, and I’ll dig it
out in a minute.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was DPW.
MR. VOLLARO-Maybe it is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Warren County Department of Public Works.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says Warren County Department of Public Works.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, any project that adds to this traffic to the intersection should re-
evaluate the need for a traffic signal. That’s what they were saying, but it says, please note
that this information reflects current conditions, and it was not meant to be used in place of
an individual traffic analysis for any new or future development. That’s what it says. All it
says here is Bay Road and Cronin Road intersection. That’s all it says. That’s the subject of
their letter, and it doesn’t go on to talk about this particular PUD.
MR. MICHAELS-Bob, one thing on this, we had, between the original project and this
project, even though it’s less units, Staff identified that there’d be nine additional cars during
peak hours, even though we’re going from 97 units to 39, just because of the use, there would
be nine additional cars during that period. That’s what we thought, we came forward today
and we looked at the situation. We found out we had enough room, that the best thing for
the Town would be to put the money in a turning lane, versus us, I’m sure we could generate
a traffic study that says we’re going to have no impact, and spend a lot of money on that. So
we would like to put the money in the ground.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re into my favorite subject. Every study that’s done on traffic in this
Town says there’s no impact.
MR. MICHAELS-That’s why I said maybe take this opportunity, instead of spending money
on the consultants, let’s spend it on a right turn lane.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen one study that’s come before this Board where the traffic
engineer said, you know what, you can’t do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You say that every time, Bob, I challenge you every time. The traffic
study’s, and the one that I would point to very specifically is that one was done for The Great
Escape. They said, if we don’t make these improvements, there will be a negative impact on
the traffic, but if we make these improvements, then traffic will be better. That’s what they
said. They don’t say there’s no impact. They say there’s going to be an impact and we can
mitigate it, but I had the same concerns as Bob, and the two phrases that I kind of zeroed in
on, there was a phrase in the actual fax memo from the woman at the Department of Public
Works, and the term that she used was any large growth, and my comment is how is that
defined, and then on the actual letter, the term that she used was the intersection
improvements could alleviate the delay to accommodate current traffic volumes and a small
amount of growth, and again, my question was, how was that defined. Is nine trips an hour,
is that still considered a small amount of growth, I’m sorry, two hours. I mean, at the last
meeting I had asked.
MR. NACE-I can’t speak for whoever wrote the letter, but in general I would think,
somebody speaks of large traffic increase, I’m thinking 100, 200, 300 cars an hour.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, at the last meeting I had asked for some of the background
information, and then I think it was in the minutes saying that we would have that.
MR. MICHAELS-I guess we’ve tried to be a little more proactive. When we looked at those
concerns, we just said, listen, the best thing is to put in a turning lane.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not looking for a full study. All I had asked for was, in order to
determine whether or not, you know, nine trips an hour is a big volume or a small volume.
MR. MICHAELS-I understand. I thought they were going to be rationalizing something to
do nothing. That’s why I thought we would.
MR. HUNSINGER-All I was asking for some background information, you know, and I
think Tony’s comment was, nine cars in two hours is no big deal unless you’re the ninth car.
I mean, that’s what it said in the minutes.
MR. LAPPER-How about if we get a follow-up letter from DPW, agreeing to us putting in
the improvement.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t even expect that. All I wanted was someone to say, you know,
based on the current traffic counts, that’s readily information, the background traffic is, you
know, 200 trips an hour in the peak hour.
MR. VOLLARO-I think if the applicant is willing to do that, though, it’s a good idea.
MR. HUNSINGER-If nine trips is significant or not significant.
MR. LAPPER-We need a work permit anyway from the County, so it’s no big deal.
MR. VOLLARO-See, a lot of things in this letter. Please find the information you requested
on the traffic signal warrant analysis, for Bay Road and Cronin Road from the Bay Road
Bikeway and Traffic Improvement Study prepared by. It doesn’t mention this at all. It
leaves me hanging as to, did somebody down there at Warren County DPW say, listen, let’s
take a look at what’s going on in terms of traffic analysis for this particular PUD at issue, and
this letter doesn’t do it for me at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-I was wondering, Mr. Lapper, when was the SEQRA done on this?
MR. LAPPER-It was done originally for the other project, and then the Town Board ratified
it when they changed the PUD in the Fall.
MRS. STEFFAN-Last Fall?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I asked that is obviously they had to look at these traffic
concerns when they revisited SEQRA. So they had to consider those things.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean our Town Board had to consider those things.
MR. LAPPER-And at that point we weren’t asked to put in the right turning lane. We
weren’t until Susan had it in her letter, but we’re saying given everything, as John said,
rather than spending a lot of money on consultants, he’ll spend the money putting it into the
ground, and put in the turn lane, and that alleviates the issue that was raised, because the
County already put in the other land on Bay Road last year.
MRS. STEFFAN-So unless there’s a lot of new information, from my point of view, the Town
Board has identified that the package that was presented is sufficient to not have any adverse
impacts. That’s my point of view, you know, if we’re talking about these things. So I wanted
to bring that up.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Somebody had to sit down, when they did the SEQRA, and make that
analysis, that there’s no traffic impact.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-And they were looking at the same information that we were, if they did it
in the Fall, because those letters are dated August of 2005.
MR. VOLLARO-The letter actually is dated that, 2005. The study was done in 2004.
MRS. STEFFAN-So unless there’s new information, there wouldn’t be any reason to do
another SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that may be true, but we’re just saying that if you read the study
itself, it doesn’t really talk to this particular project. It talks to the study for a signal, traffic
signal.
MR. LAPPER-They looked at the whole corridor. That study was when they were doing the
improvements on Bay Road, putting in the center median, the passing lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If we were to plunk this down during the time she did the study and
say, by the way, just a minute, before you continue, boom, I’m going to set this project down
for you. Now tell me what happens, is it nine cars or ten cars or twenty cars. We’re saying
it’s nine cars, but I don’t know if we know that.
MR. FORD-We need definition.
MR. HUNSINGER-We had a full traffic study that we reviewed back in August.
MR. LAPPER-It was a supplement that was done by Chazen Companies that was submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because it was Stu that made the comment that you could get us that
background information.
MR. LAPPER-Right. They looked at the difference between the approved project and the
proposed project.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see something other than, I don’t even know that that letter
that I’m looking at is really in any way, considering what this PUD is putting in there.
MR. LAPPER-A letter from DPW?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we need something there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got a couple of questions. What is the current status of the APA
townhouse project and the one professional office building? That’s still in the PUD?
MR. LAPPER-It’s not a townhouse project. It changed. It’s just an office/commercial. It
can’t be residential.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you go into, maybe I ought to start looking at that now, because I
have a question to go through the Meadows Planned Unit Development agreement.
MR. LAPPER-It changed in the last PUD agreement. The Town Board only wanted it to be
office or commercial, and that was agreed.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me take a look at the agreement itself. John, you had signed this
agreement on December 2, and you went to a Karen Bristol, which was the notary public,
nd
and had it signed. Now, there are a couple of things that I looked at in here. It talks about
single family townhouse dwellings, professional office, permitted principal uses.
MR. LAPPER-The single family townhouses are The Michaels Group project portion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. MILLER-The office is an entirely separate project, and that would have to come back
before this Board.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not John’s project. That’s Garth Allen. That’s the Bay Meadows
Group.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says density and build out of the PUD shall be limited to 39
dwelling units, that’s you. One professional office, somebody else.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And see Golf Course, Clubhouse and associated facilities. Somebody else.
MR. LAPPER-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the whole PUD.
MR. VOLLARO-And we’re just talking about, right now, a part of it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because they would have to come back, the Bay Meadows, if they got
somebody who wanted to build an office building, they would have to come back to you for
site plan review.
MR. MICHAELS-I think the Town Board added that clubhouse in case somebody ever
wanted to fix it up. They wanted to make sure that they could.
MR. VOLLARO-John, when you sign a document like that, you’re just one signature to this
thing, there would be others? In other words, you’re signing this just for your 39 units, is
that right?
MR. LAPPER-Garth Allen signed it and the Town signed it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I only have John’s signature on this.
MR. LAPPER-There is one now that is fully executed.
MR. VOLLARO-There is one, and we don’t have that one.
MR. LAPPER-The Town Attorney’s office would have it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got one here that doesn’t have all the signatures on it. That’s what I’m
talking about. Go to the back, it’s real quick to tell who’s got the signatures on there, Jon, is
that what you’re looking at?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that I should have a copy signed by everybody.
MR. FORD-May I ask another question? From your engineering background, this seems like
a unique undertaking with the water table and the floodplain and all the runoff. From your
experience, have you run into anything comparable to this kind of development, and can you
point me to it?
MR. NACE-Something around here that you can put your fingers on? It is, and has been, if
you go back over the years, development within the floodplain is not at all unusual, okay.
Filling and building buildings, as long as you raise the building elevation above the flood level
is not at all unusual. I’m trying to think of a place around here. Well, on the Hoffman
Carwash, some of the fill there, actually, that was one where we actually not only went into
the floodplain a little bit with some of the fill, and it was just in a small area, okay, but
actually touched on the floodway, and even though it was only a couple of feet, we had to go
through the process of doing a hydraulic analysis to prove that we didn’t impede the
upstream flood elevations. It’s something I don’t want to go through again unless I have to,
but it’s not unusual to build within the floodplain. Lowe’s, all of Lowe’s was in the
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
floodplain, or all of it, a lot of it. Applebee’s, I don’t remember exactly what the topography
in there was like, but I think probably Applebee’s, too.
MR. VOLLARO-I think they all become contributing factors to the problem that we’re
seeing. For example, I literally waded around Homer and Everts Sunday.
MR. NACE-I think the problem we saw last week was very unique. I have never seen
anything like it. It was like because of the ice that was on the ground before it started
raining, it was just as if somebody had taken a sheet of cellophane and covered the landscape
and poured a glass of water on top of it. Everything that hit the ground ran off.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the impressive thing to me was, I called up Tom Ross, does anybody
know Tom Ross? He runs that building there, CPA. I said, Tom, how long have you lived
there? How long have you worked in that building? And he said since 1981, and he said, I’ve
never seen it like this before, and he said I’ve been through a lot of rainstorms and hurricanes
and so on, never seen it like this before. The water, he tells me, I wasn’t there, I didn’t see
that because it had receded. His parking lot was complete overflowed. Now we approved the
building next door to that, if you remember. He sold that piece of property, and now Dan
Valente’s building a dentist’s office there, but when I stood in his back yard there, in his
parking lot, the Valente building seems pretty high up. Now I don’t know. I didn’t have a
transit, wasn’t able to shoot it or anything like that.
MR. NACE-I don’t think that was the contributing factor. It was the brook in behind that
was the issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that whole thing was loaded up, and people having water in their
basements and all, but he said he’d never seen this before. In 1981, we’re talking a lot of
years.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know people that have been in their house for 50, 60 years and had
water in their basements that never had before.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not because of overdevelopment. That’s because of the frozen ground.
MR. NACE-I can go to places up in Bolton where there is almost no development and show
you places that had a severe problem from last week, and it was really because of the fact that
so much rain, I mean, there were places that had over three inches of rain, and you put that
on top of a surface that doesn’t absorb anything, we figure a 50, 100 year rainstorm that’s
five inches of rain, but in normal conditions you absorb a good bit of that before it starts
running off. In this rainstorm, the first drop that hit the ground started running off and
everything that followed ran off. It’s just unique in anything I’ve seen.
MR. LAPPER-I have the signature with Garth Allen. I don’t have the one signed by Dan
Stec in this file, but it was signed by everybody, the Town Attorney has a copy. Not
necessarily with him, but the Town Attorney’s office.
MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that’s correct, but I don’t have anything with me.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess when all the signatures are on there, that does define the
entire PUD, the one that’s all signed?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that was much negotiated.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. You’re going to be coming back I think we’re
going to have to table this to another date. Yes? There’s a couple of people who’d like to
talk.
MR. RODE-I just wanted to clarify that, yes, what happened last week was unique in a lot of
areas, but it just made what normally happens in that area worse. At very many times
throughout the year when we have rain events, summer, winter, any time of the year, it does
the exact same thing that I talked about. It goes into my back yard. It goes across the field,
into that other property, and I feel that the floodplain has been significantly impacted and he
mentioned that it may gradually change, but if you do significant ground disturbance and
development on the surrounding areas where the permeability is affected to where rainwater
will not permeate the ground any longer, now it’s going into some stormwater retention and
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
eventually into the brook. I think all the development that’s gone on in the last five years on
Meadowbrook has significantly impacted what that floodplain would look like today. I think
that line would be expanded significantly.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why I asked the question on what was the validity of this data.
MR. RODE-It’s got to be old data, and with Lowe’s it’s probably long before Lowe’s, long
before any other development that’s gone on in that area, the large development, the
Schermerhorn, Northbrook, all that, out through Meadowbrook, that all runs into the brook
at some point, and hydraulically it’s got to back it up. I mean, you know, if you try to fill a
funnel too fast, it’s going to overflow. The more water you add to the funnel, the faster it’s
going to overflow. I mean, that’s just, hydraulically impaired, and it can only get worse with
more, taking away that permeability at that soil and putting in blacktop and anything else
you put in there.
MRS. STEFFAN-My comment on that is that is the difficulty for us as a Planning Board is
that we have to use, you know, we’re using science, and you know we have to let our
engineers, who are the professionals, I’m not a professional, and so I rely on C.T. Male’s
evaluation, because they are professional engineers, and they have staff who can evaluate the
science, and that’s, you know, as far as, it’s difficult for me.
MR. RODE-I agree with you in that aspect, but they’re basing their base data on erred data
to this date of what is actually currently, I mean, they’re doing a hydraulic study on
information that has probably significantly changed, and that’s what they’re basing all their
calculations on is what that floodplain data was back in whatever, 1984 or whenever that
study was done. If they ran the same analysis, with the corrected data, as far as what the
floodplain currently is, I think they’d see a lot different numbers, I do.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I’d like to add to that. I think also what, this is something you should
ask C.T. Male, what they’re evaluating is the ability of that site to drain stormwater away
from it, and not it’s impacts upon the surrounding area. I think that’s a subtle difference
there.
MR. RODE-That’s a very good point, because it just overflows the whole area, and the whole
area just becomes saturated.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is a discussion that we’ve had for the two years I’ve been here. We’ve
had this discussion over and over again about development in the area, and the science
doesn’t support it, and so that’s a frustration for us, you know, because we’re hearing your
comments and there’s really nothing we can do because the science supports it. It’s nothing
we can do, but the data tells us different.
MR. RODE-I think the science should be re-visited based on current conditions, as with the
traffic study. I believe that a traffic study now will show less of an impact on this
development than it would have five years ago. It’s like shutting the barn door after the
horse has already gotten out. Because with all the traffic, with all the development that’s
gone on that four way intersection we talked about, it’s crazy. I walk to my mailbox and I’ve
got to look both ways and run, because the people fly through that stop sign. So I really
believe a traffic study is a moot point at this point, as far as what the impact of this project is
going to have. I think, you know, based on what the current conditions are there, that’s a
significant change.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying if you’ve got 1,000 cars and you add five, you can’t see it, is
that what you’re telling me?
MR. RODE-Right. If you only have 40 cars and you add 10, you’re significantly increasing
it, but like I said, 400 and you add 20, it’s not the same.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, John, one more comment, and then I’m going to close up shop. I want
to pick a date here for them to come back.
MR. SALVADOR-Just briefly, the engineering school that a mouse peeing in the ocean
makes a difference, and we should start paying attention to this. Also, as a result of the
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
business I’ve been in for a number of years, I’ve sort of become the student of climate change,
and everywhere you go, no matter what happens, no one’s ever seen it like that before. I
don’t care if it’s the number of hurricanes, the number of floods, it’s a snowstorm, it’s a
rainstorm, nobody’s ever seen it like it before. Well we better start getting used to it, because
it’s occurring over and over again, and each time it gets worse. That’s why they’ve never seen
anything like that before. With regard to the floodplain and the floodway and everything, we
haven’t talked about the drainage area, or the drainage basin. That reaches out beyond the
floodway, and the floodplain, and that drainage basin, that drainage area, is where we’ve got
all this other development going on, and that does impact the speed at which the water gets
to that brook and the elevation of the water once it gets there. That has to be addressed.
That’s cumulative impacts, and what we do, each project, we take a little myopic look at that
project, okay, and we never figure, how do they work together? This is, water flow is a
system. It’s a system, and it’s got to be addressed as a system. You talk about the flood
insurance and all of that. Notice how careful they are. They say above the floor, okay, which
floor? The first floor. The presumption is there’s no cellar, but the foundation has got to be
founded on stable soil, or it’s got to be piled. You don’t fill on unstable soil and build a
building on top of it. I don’t know how they get a building permit for that. I don’t know
how Mr. Hatin can issue that, from my understanding of the function and the mechanics of
soils. Now the first question I asked when I came to this microphone, was I asked the
applicant to confirm my understanding that a building that has the characteristic of being a
slab on grade, that that slab is not the foundation of that building, and that’s what we’re all
thinking about here. We get the foundation up above the floodplain, whatever it is, the
wetland, that we’ve got a stable structure. We don’t. This land is not developable for that
reason, and we’re turning a blind eye to the requirements. We’re turning a blind eye.
MR. VOLLARO-John, all we can do here as a Board is go, and I think Mrs. Steffan told you
exactly what we’re doing. We’re relying on a set of data. My only question was how accurate
is the data that the engineers are relying on.
MR. SALVADOR-Bob, it’s the three blind men feeling the elephant, and if I may, your
committee, you should undertake an Environmental Impact Statement of these questions
you have, have some expert consultant prepare the report, do the study, give you advice.
You can do that. Commission someone to do that, your committee. Don’t guess, don’t take
somebody’s word. Get an expert.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, one of the questions that I was going to ask Staff is a while
ago, and it may be when you first started working for the Town, Susan, and were preparing
Staff notes for the Planning Board. For a couple of meetings in a row, we were provided with
the soil map information on the project sites, but it was not only just the, it was the soil
definitions with the buildable status from the definitions, and I’m not using the right
terminology, but I think you understand what I’m referring to, and it goes right to your
comments, John. Certain soils are classified as being marginally buildable or highly buildable
or whatever the terminology is, and I suspect that that’s exactly what we’re dealing with
here. I mean, we know we’re dealing with marginal soils. They wouldn’t be wet if they
weren’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-C.T. Male’s comments are specific about fill placement and compaction
before things can be built upon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly. So I think, you know, maybe that would be helpful,
particularly in this case, and I don’t know if it’s something that we should ask of the
applicant or if Staff could put that together.
MR. SALVADOR-You don’t compact saturated soils. You don’t compact it. Once you
surcharge the saturated soils, what you get is a consolidation of those soils, because the water
in the soils is forced out by the increased pressure, okay. This is what happened.
MR. LAPPER-Let C.T. Male tell you what the engineering.
MR. SALVADOR-C.T. Male is addressing your Code. They’re comparing the design to your
Code. It’s all they’re doing, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I think they’ve got to do other things than that, John.
MR. SALVADOR-You haven’t asked C.T. Male for the science, okay, that’s all.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I shouldn’t have to ask them for the science. They’re an engineering
company. I come from that community, and so do you. When you’re on a study, you don’t
have somebody else tell you what the science is. You’ve got to know, you’ve got to know the
science, and I assume that they do.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think, I disagree with you. The applicant has prepared a design in
accordance with the Code, right, and you’re asking C.T. Male to confirm that he’s met the
requirements of the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-But I could do that.
MR. SALVADOR-Save us some money, then.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not in this business. I’m not a Civil Engineer. I’m an electrical guy. I
was at one time, but I assume that any good Civil Engineer, even though he’s taking a look at
the Code, has to know how to analyze what’s being done, based on the science, but if he’s
using data that’s been generated 10 years ago, based on what’s going on here today, his
information is going to be wrong. When he’s all done with his study, he’s using the wrong
data, just using the wrong stuff, and I know what you’re driving at, but there’s nobody here
on this Board that can do what you’re asking, except that you’re saying get another study. I
think one of the problems we’ve got to take a good look at is how much more building can we
do? I mean, there’s some simple answers to these questions, and we make them very complex
all the time.
MR. SALVADOR-And my point is, it all adds up to the fact that when you look at all of
these problems, this site is not developable.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to have to table this application.
MR. LAPPER-We just need two seconds to respond to that. There’s a big difference between
the floodway and a floodplain, and the neighbor’s property is in the floodway, which is a
really bad place to be. We’re not impacting the floodway in any respect, but if you’re in the
floodway, and there’s a flood, that’s New Orleans. That’s where you don’t want to be, and
that’s what happened, and that’s why their houses are inundated, and I don’t know if there’s
a fix, if they can raise their finished floor, because that’s beyond the scope of our project, but
there’s certainly a problem. You drive up Meadowbrook, there’s the grey house that you see
right by the Girl Scout camp that floods all the time. I mean, those people.
MR. MILLER-The other thing, if you look at the floodway, the floodway, on our side of the
property, is about 200 feet from this stream. Our nearest structure is 500 feet. So if you
doubled the width of that, we’re still 100 feet beyond it, and one of the other things with the
floodway that one of the main restrictions are bridges. If you look at Meadowbrook where
Halfway Brook goes underneath there, the restrictions in the bridges along the stream
channel are the major contribution to the flooding. As a matter of fact, we worked on a
project one time that had a bridge, and we had an extensive study we had to show what the
impact was going to be on the flooding upstream. So that’s the major thing. It’s not
construction 500 feet from the stream. It’s things that are very, very close to it. One of the
other comments, we were talking about the soils, and you’re right, Chris, and one of the
things we look at is the soils or the Soil Conservation Service, but the one thing you’ve got to
look at their definitions. They classify those soils as slight moderate and severe impacts to
construction.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MILLER-But even severe doesn’t mean that you can’t build there.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. MILLER-What severe may mean is you have a soil condition where you have to have a
special footing design, a special spread footing. They’re basically saying that conventional
construction may be a problem. So when a building permit is pulled for these buildings, Dave
Hatin is looking at these things. He’s looking at the footings designed and the permit’s being
issued specifically for a building, and if there is a problem it’s got to be addressed.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-See, I knew you would know exactly what it was that I was talking
about.
MR. MILLER-Yes. We used that for years.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. It’s a great planning tool is what it is.
MR. MILLER-We always look at that and, of course, follow it up with fieldwork.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-DPW letter, C.T. Male letter.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of stuff you have to deliver, okay, and I’m looking at 2/15
would probably be your application deadline date, would be 2/15, and that means you go on a
3/21 or 3/28 meeting, How about 3/28, we’d table this until March 28? Let’s make it 28,
th
because I know what 21 is beginning to look like. We’re getting loaded up with 21.
MR. LAPPER-Jim’s not available on the 28. Are you full on the 21?
thst
MR. VOLLARO-It’s getting pretty full on the 21, and there’s some big ones in there.
st
MR. LAPPER-You mean stuff we wouldn’t want to be behind? I think I’d like to have Jim
there, though.
MR. VOLLARO-The 21 looks okay?
st
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. She says 3/21.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Last time I looked, that was getting a little crowded, but that’s okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, with regards to C.T. Male, I think that they would just see if
the stormwater plan for the site works, but for myself what I really want to know is the
increase in impervious area, what impact is that going to have on the surrounding area. I
think we have to ask them that question specifically, because they’re just going to evaluate,
does the stormwater plan work for the site, and I think that can be engineered definitely.
Where does this water go?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, we can engineer anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, if a guy tells me, I’m sure that a good Civil Engineer, the guy says I
want you to engineer me a house on that lake, and the guy, you’ve got it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I know a guy who built a house on the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-The only problem you’ve got is money. You give him enough money, he’ll
find a way to do it. So the problem is, if marginal land should be developed. In any event,
I’m going to adjourn the meeting and table the application to the 21 of March, and you’re
st
going to have almost a new data set here, pretty close to a new data package it looks like to
me.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll have a signoff from C.T. Male, we anticipate, and we’ll have a letter
from.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ll have a new stormwater plan.
MR. LAPPER-No, that’s been submitted.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but we’ll get it, that’s what I’m saying.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/06)
MR. LAPPER-Right, and we submitted the DEC permit already to Susan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO.
26-2005 MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Until March 21, 2006.
Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. HUNSINGER-Now can we make a motion to adjourn?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
71